I believe this post: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2047603 by Mike_L deals with the issue extensively and I do not have much to add.

There is no question, in my mind, that the EU and the US are "partners in crime" in this case. The shit hit the fan (on Maidan) when Yanukovych decided not to pursue the road to the EU indeed. Still, how to measure blame I would have hard time to determine so I can only repeat what I said. The lack of unified EU foreign and military policy is the factor making the difference. The EU does not have military bases around the world for example.

tuco wrote:There is no question, in my mind, that the EU and the US are "partners in crime" in this case.

Based on what evidence? To me it seems an unnecessary multiplication of the entities.

Would it make any difference if I took "partners in crime" out and replaced it something like "had influence over"? Because the evidence is in this and related threads.

tuco wrote:Would it make any difference if I took "partners in crime" out and replaced it something like "had influence over"? Because the evidence is in this and related threads.

It would make the claim even vaguer, which might be a good thing for the claim I suppose.

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:

tuco wrote:The only region in Eastern Europe destabilized at the moment is Ukraine as far as I know. The EU, unlike the US, does not have unified foreign policy on many issues if ever. Same goes for NATO. If we are able to define how does such blame measure we could get some answer, until then it seems to me that if the EU is to blame for something is lack of ability to act like one.

What I mean is that the troubles in Ukraine started from a free trade and political association deal with the EU. It was Ukraine leaning Europe-ward, not US-ward, which kicked off the trouble.

That and the ethnic-majority Russian are of Crimea being gifted to Ukraine under the USSR when the people of Crimea always saw themselves as part of Russia. This also had nothing to do with the West and a lot more to do with Kruschev's whim.

tuco wrote:I believe this post: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2047603 by Mike_L deals with the issue extensively and I do not have much to add.

There is no question, in my mind, that the EU and the US are "partners in crime" in this case. The shit hit the fan (on Maidan) when Yanukovych decided not to pursue the road to the EU indeed. Still, how to measure blame I would have hard time to determine so I can only repeat what I said. The lack of unified EU foreign and military policy is the factor making the difference. The EU does not have military bases around the world for example.

I think there's some weird leaps of logic here, to put it mildly. Every country in Europe is just as "threatened" by the positioning of US bases around the world as Russia is. The belligerent attitude of Putin's administration towards the USA is no more necessary a response than France's would be.

If the UK invaded Ireland tomorrow, would anyone accept the presence of US bases in the region as a legitimate justification? Of course not, because it's a total non sequitur.

Russia's belligerent stance towards the West is no more assured than any of the other former soviet block state's attitude. They choose not to work with the West, then use that choice as an excuse to tyrannise their own people - be those homosexuals or tatars and their neighbours, be they Ukranian, Checnyan or Georgian.

Now, none of this lets the West off the hook for their many mistakes, Bush and Blair are scum of the highest order for lying to their respective publics and possibly getting a hell of a lot of people killed (although the majority of casualties were not caused by them and quite a lot of people were already being murdered in Iraq - something the ludicrous 1.5million murdered claim in one of Mike's more Whacko links neglected to consider), the British "lines in the sand" division of the middle East continues to haunt us and the West and Russia alike are due criticism for the over 100 years of constant foreign interference in and destabilization of Afghanistan.

Thommo wrote:

tuco wrote:I believe this post: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2047603 by Mike_L deals with the issue extensively and I do not have much to add.

There is no question, in my mind, that the EU and the US are "partners in crime" in this case. The shit hit the fan (on Maidan) when Yanukovych decided not to pursue the road to the EU indeed. Still, how to measure blame I would have hard time to determine so I can only repeat what I said. The lack of unified EU foreign and military policy is the factor making the difference. The EU does not have military bases around the world for example.

I think there's some weird leaps of logic here, to put it mildly. Every country in Europe is just as "threatened" by the positioning of US bases around the world as Russia is. The belligerent attitude of Putin's administration towards the USA is no more necessary a response than France's would be.

If the UK invaded Ireland tomorrow, would anyone accept the presence of US bases in the region as a legitimate justification? Of course not, because it's a total non sequitur.

Russia's belligerent stance towards the West is no more assured than any of the other former soviet block state's attitude. They choose not to work with the West, then use that choice as an excuse to tyrannise their own people - be those homosexuals or tatars and their neighbours, be they Ukranian, Checnyan or Georgian.

Now, none of this lets the West off the hook for their many mistakes, Bush and Blair are scum of the highest order for lying to their respective publics and possibly getting a hell of a lot of people killed (although the majority of casualties were not caused by them and quite a lot of people were already being murdered in Iraq - something the ludicrous 1.5million murdered claim in one of Mike's more Whacko links neglected to consider), the British "lines in the sand" division of the middle East continues to haunt us and the West and Russia alike are due criticism for the over 100 years of constant foreign interference in and destabilization of Afghanistan.

France is part of NATO while Russia is not. If you said Finland, for example, it would make more sense to me. Still, taking historical, geopolitical, economical and other context into consideration I find the notion you presented absurd. At the same time I do not think I can prove it is in fact absurd.

tuco wrote:France is part of NATO while Russia is not. If you said Finland, for example, it would make more sense to me. Still, taking historical, geopolitical, economical and other context into consideration I find the notion you presented absurd. At the same time I do not think I can prove it is in fact absurd.

And other former soviet countries have somehow moved so far as to join NATO, that was even cited as one excuse for Russia's tyrannical behaviour in posts you were lauding!

Finland is no more threatened by the US than Estonia is, this kind of spurious distinction is simply drawing attention away from very real and very harmful actions. The USA did not invade or attempt to annex the Ukraine, whatever they are guilty of it is not on par with Russian actions.

ETA: Lest someone misapprehend again, this comment and all others are related to the specific and ongoing conflicts, I make no attempt to make some "in all of history" tally or scoresheet.

I have never said, as far as I know, that actions of Russian administration in what is called Ukrainian crisis were fine or even lets say justified. However, I believe that The Kingdom of Tonga had less influence over it than the US or the EU. Specifics of such influence were, in more or less biased way, presented. How to measure blame I do not know. To hypothetical questions I know only hypothetical answers. I do admit that I try to understand what is happening and why. The Kingdom of Tonga does not enter such thoughts. Its neat to debate but I am quite not sure what is required, if anything, from me to agree with.

Might I then advise you don't link to posts which seek to justify Russian action with the comment "I believe this post deals with the issue extensively and I do not have much to add"?

I do apologise for reading this as endorsement, but I think it's understandable how I reached that conclusion.

Sure, thanks for clearing it up. I suspect that such misunderstanding comes from my perception of the post in question and its author. I try to mine data there, not interpretations. Then again, its probably naive for me to believe I in fact do ;)

Well, thanks for explaining anyway. Again, sorry that I misunderstood.

IIRC you were on leave for the most part of The Ukraine thread where I hinted my stance but also and more importantly you know how my English is so I am glad we are not talking through each other where there is no only truth to be found.