Vympel Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:08 am
The notion that anyone is seriously contesting the fact that Russia sent arms and men to Ukraine blows my mind. The photographic evidence is incontrovertible - the T-72B3 tanks we've seen in what is definitely Ukraine - with rebels - proves it beyond all reasonable doubt.
This insistence that its not true - with no real counterargument beyond "OSCE!" or "social media!" is unbecoming to say the least. TR1 is right, and those opposing him are wrong. Period.
That said, Russia is not wholly to blame for this crisis. It is a fact - and this is something many serious Western foreign policy commentators agree on - not just Russians - that the West aided, abetted, and legitimised an anti-democratic coup, against Russian interests, in Ukraine in February. That's just incontrovertible. In the process, they disenfranchised a significant segment of Ukraine's population.
Yanukovych was deposed after he signed a reasonable agreement on February 21 that would've seen him give up powers and provide for early elections, which would've seen the legitimate political interests of all of Ukraine into account, when tempers had cooled. Instead, the opposition took advantage of his withdrawing police to take over buildings, intimidate unpersuaded Rada members, and oust Yanukovych and his closest supporters.
Yanukovych didn't just abandon his post, and those asserting he did are just stupid, or worse, propagandists. What, he didn't want to be President anymore?
So we have the West acting against Russia's interests, once again, and this time right on Russia's border. Of course they were going to respond to secure those interests and destabilise Ukraine's illegitimate government. This doesn't justify those acts, but it does explain them.
Even so, do I have a particular moral objection to the annexation of Crimea? No. Its historically Russian territory full of Russians that should never have been joined to Crimea, and ample polls - not just the flawed referndum - bear out that theyd' rather be with Russia than Ukraine. The annexation was bloodless. So in the annals of aggression, its not terribly serious.
Then you've got the situation in Donetsk and Lugansk (and associated incidents, like Odessa). Disenfranchised Russophone Ukrainians object to getting a government they didn't vote for and do what the Maidan did - take over government buildings. What happens? The coup-imposed government in Kiev unleashes the army on them, and the West cheers them on, the flagrant hypocrites.
On that basis, am I particularly unhappy that Russia came to their defence with men and equipment*? Not really, no. But the slaughter of civilians that accompanied this whole fiasco should never have happened in the first place, and for that, everyone shares some blame.
That's especially true when you consider that now, after all this bloodshed, Russia has gotten what it wanted in relation to the EU association agreement after all, Ukraine is moving to give special status to the regions (as is right and proper) and Russia will have a year to play the game of thrones in Ukraine.
*Of course, Ukraine's lies about Russian involvement can't go unstated. At every stage, Ukraine has exaggerated Russia's role beyond what the evidence shows and told absurd lies like "Russians bomb Donetsk to make us look bad". Russia wasn't providing T-72B3s etc at the start, but only quite recently.
Now can we get back to discusising Borei?
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
. 
. 
Firebird
