Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Admiral Yi]

you're being unfair. the US doesn't need to occupy foreign soil for it to exploit a nation.

great powers do not have legal rights codified in international agreements to exploit neighboring countries within their sphere, yes. you are correct. no one is arguing that, because that would be a foolish thing to suggest. if you took what i said to mean that, then i'd advise rereading what i said. if you're confused, point out the confusion and i'll elaborate

Sure, tell me how the US "exploits" its neighbors in any way approaching what Russia is doing to the Ukraine and has done to Georgia.  Or any other great power.

[LaCroix]

Sure, tell me how the US "exploits" its neighbors in any way approaching what Russia is doing to the Ukraine and has done to Georgia.  Or any other great power.

bananas

[Admiral Yi]

bananas

Please elaborate.

[LaCroix]

Please elaborate.

united fruit company. exploiting central american countries for the benefit of american interests. if you'd like recent examples, just be alert from now on and note instances where the US threatens a weaker country to get what it wants. the threat doesn't have to be militarily

we're talking about great powers exploiting other nations within its zone. this happens all the time, and has throughout history. the second boer war drove Empire's reputation through sludge, yet no nation intervened militarily to protect the boers. people sat back and watched as they were annihilated. was it unfair? sure. oh well.

[Admiral Yi]

united fruit company. exploiting central american countries for the benefit of american interests. if you'd like recent examples, just be alert from now on and note instances where the US threatens a weaker country to get what it wants. the threat doesn't have to be militarily

we're talking about great powers exploiting other nations within its zone. this happens all the time, and has throughout history. the second boer war drove Empire's reputation through sludge, yet no nation intervened militarily to protect the boers. people sat back and watched as they were annihilated. was it unfair? sure. oh well.

The US threatens other countries all the time.  In fact, even as we're engaged in this exchange, the US is threatening Russia with repercussions.

Do you really want to draw a moral equivalence between occupying a sovereign country that has committed no wrong act with threatening sanctions and the like for occupying a sovereign country that has done no wrong?

[Viking]

Guardian:

There are many mentions of the Charge of the Light Brigade which took place in 1854 during the Crimean War. Less well remembered is the Thin Red Line, when the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders dispersed a Russian cavalry charge at Balaclava. You can read about both in George McDonald Fraser's Flash at the Charge

Good book, BUT ITS FICTION!!!!!!11111onweonewoeneoneoene WTF?????++++++plusplusplus

[LaCroix]

The US threatens other countries all the time.  In fact, even as we're engaged in this exchange, the US is threatening Russia with repercussions.

Do you really want to draw a moral equivalence between occupying a sovereign country that has committed no wrong act with threatening sanctions and the like for occupying a sovereign country that has done no wrong?

but yi. i didn't say "threatens other countries" .. i said

where the US threatens a weaker country to get what it wants.

as an aside, i think a problem some people are having with this incident is they're incorrectly using hitler's germany as an analogy to russia's foreign policy. russia is acting as a recently emerging great power and nothing more. hitler, however, was looking for war. russia isn't looking for war. it's making a very smart political move, taking a risk by seizing an opportunity. hitler created crises out of no where, whereas russia is merely reacting to crises

[Admiral Yi]

but yi. i didn't say "threatens other countries" .. i said

where the US threatens a weaker country to get what it wants.

What difference does it make?  The US has threatened: Iran over nukes, North Korea over missiles, Pakistan over harboring terrorists, Venezuela over granting safe haven to FARC, the list goes on and on.  Either these "exploitations" are morally equivalent to occupying the airports and TV stations in Crimea or they're not.

[OttoVonBismarck]

My understanding is that the Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, but rather a gentleman's agreement between the US, UK, and Russia.  Most importantly, the Senate never ratified anything associated with the memorandum.  Plus, there is an argument to be made that the UK and Russia already violated the memorandum months ago during the EU-Russia assistance pact battle

It's a treaty as far as I know. What you're probably confused on is whether it's a requirement that we protect Ukraine--it isn't. Instead it's just basically us (United States) saying "we will respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity" and Russia saying the same for itself. It was not a security agreement or an alliance so in and of itself it wouldn't be binding on the U.S.--and I never said it was, although it would violate international norms for us to say, invade Ukraine. Which is what Putin is doing.

But like I said, we have a treaty in replace in which we made a promise to "respect" Ukraine's territorial integrity, that along with an official request from Kiev for aid would give us more than enough internationalist cover.

[LaCroix]

What difference does it make?  The US has threatened: Iran over nukes, North Korea over missiles, Pakistan over harboring terrorists, Venezuela over granting safe haven to FARC, the list goes on and on.  Either these "exploitations" are morally equivalent to occupying the airports and TV stations in Crimea or they're not.

they're of a different nature, yi, it doesn't matter that a threat is involved. your scenarios contain a nation far off in the world threatening the US or US interests by developing nuclear weapons or harboring terrorists that attack the US, and the US responding to that threat with their own threat. what i'm talking about is the US threatening to fuck with a lesser power's economy by revoking financial aid packages (or whatever) if they don't sign a trade treaty, or some similar scenario. there is a difference

[Viking]

What difference does it make?  The US has threatened: Iran over nukes, North Korea over missiles, Pakistan over harboring terrorists, Venezuela over granting safe haven to FARC, the list goes on and on.  Either these "exploitations" are morally equivalent to occupying the airports and TV stations in Crimea or they're not.

they're of a different nature, yi, it doesn't matter that a threat is involved. your scenarios contain a nation far off in the world threatening the US or US interests by developing nuclear weapons or harboring terrorists that attack the US, and the US responding to that threat with their own threat. what i'm talking about is the US threatening to fuck with a lesser power's economy by revoking financial aid packages (or whatever) if they don't sign a trade treaty, or some similar scenario. there is a difference

Yes, what the threat relates to is really really important. It is, along with the action threatened, the only relevant fact when it comes to deciding if it is moral or not moral.

When you are being threatened with arrest it really really matters if what you are being warned not to do is illegal or not.

[LaCroix]

But like I said, we have a treaty in replace in which we made a promise to "respect" Ukraine's territorial integrity, that along with an official request from Kiev for aid would give us more than enough internationalist cover.

budapest memorandum, right?

1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

there's nothing here that compels the US to defend ukraine's territorial integrity. not even close. it's a promise that the US will not violate ukraine's independence and sovereignty, not that they promise to uphold it. that would be an insane treaty for the US to sign. only the most desperate party seeking foreign assistance would legitimately try to interpret that to mean the US is obliged to defend ukraine. well, that and laymen 

[Admiral Yi]

they're of a different nature, yi, it doesn't matter that a threat is involved. your scenarios contain a nation far off in the world threatening the US or US interests by developing nuclear weapons or harboring terrorists that attack the US, and the US responding to that threat with their own threat. what i'm talking about is the US threatening to fuck with a lesser power's economy by revoking financial aid packages (or whatever) if they don't sign a trade treaty, or some similar scenario. there is a difference

I don't feel like we're making any progress.  You insist on seeing things like threatening foreign aid (never heard of a threat to cut aid to sign a trade deal) as equivalent to occupying a country with troops against their will, and I see them as not at all equivalent.

[LaCroix]

I don't feel like we're making any progress.  You insist on seeing things like threatening foreign aid (never heard of a threat to cut aid to sign a trade deal) as equivalent to occupying a country with troops against their will, and I see them as not at all equivalent.

i'm saying that general exploitation occurs, and people are getting too emotionally involved over countries that have little to do with the US. we tried to invade cuba after their government fell and the new government was realigned with the opposition. in a sense, same with vietnam. same with grenada. etc. etc. this is russia's grenada or whatever other analogy you want to make

[Sheilbh]

Good book, BUT ITS FICTION!!!!!!11111onweonewoeneoneoene WTF?????++++++plusplusplus

Guardian livebloggers have a sense of humour