More Propaganda from the NY Times.

[boneyard bill]

Only speaking for myself, but I’ve generally ignored threads like this after the first couple threads some months ago on the old board. I see lots of quibbling over agreements/memorandums, lots of broad brushes strokes, even while little truth can be really known as to what is happening. And I don’t agree with much of boneyard bill’s opening post either. Yet, I still see the saga playing out as all too typical geopolitics, with both sides maneuvering to improve their leverage and power. My short take:

*Both Russian and US propaganda requires waders. The Russian BS is probably somewhat deeper regarding the Ukraine. And the western mainstream media covers it poorly, like most things.

Agreed. But one thing just won't leave my mind... Russia tried to kill Viktor Yushchenko. So while both sides have agendas, Russia has a much higher bar to reach as we typically only try to do away with leaders in third world nations, not first world.

I wouldn't classify Ukraine as a first world country, but the claim Russia tried to kill Yushchenko is really a matter of speculation.

 

[boneyard bill]

Only speaking for myself, but I’ve generally ignored threads like this after the first couple threads some months ago on the old board. I see lots of quibbling over agreements/memorandums, lots of broad brushes strokes, even while little truth can be really known as to what is happening. And I don’t agree with much of boneyard bill’s opening post either. Yet, I still see the saga playing out as all too typical geopolitics, with both sides maneuvering to improve their leverage and power. My short take:

*Both Russian and US propaganda requires waders. The Russian BS is probably somewhat deeper regarding the Ukraine. And the western mainstream media covers it poorly, like most things.

Agreed. But one thing just won't leave my mind... Russia tried to kill Viktor Yushchenko. So while both sides have agendas, Russia has a much higher bar to reach as we typically only try to do away with leaders in third world nations, not first world.

Meh...not that I want to quibble buuuuuut I will. Have you seen the Ukrainian GDP per capita? Iran has a higher GDP per capita.

Ouch! Of course, this is one of Ukraine's problems... they be broke.

Or maybe I should ask what makes the Ukraine first world...

Because I didn't know Ukraine's GDP.

You don't think we'd try to assassinate/kill an Iranian prime minister (or the Islamic head dick), if we thought we could get away with it, or that it would help our ME checkers game?

Iran isn't third world, though... they have oil.

Regardless, Russia tried to kill him. Then they tried to fix the election. To the best of my knowledge, we have not fixed any Afghan or Iraqi elections.

Russia did not try to fix any Ukrainian elections. What are you talking about? If anything, WE were the one trying to rig things. But so what? The real issue about who the "good guys" are. This is all about realpolitik. The problem is that we are being really, really, stupid. The years from now the Russians and the Chinese will be ruling the world because we've been making one dumb mistake after another, and they are slowly plotting to defeat us without firing a shot.

We are like the inexperienced chess player who comes out like gangbusters with a big attack. The experienced chess player simply sits back an plays defense and then picks up the pieces when the novice has destroyed himself.

As Sun-Tzu recommended. Don't start the battle until it is already won.

 

[barbos]

Wow! If that was the plan it was so remarkably run and successfully executed, I'm having a hard time thinking someone in Intelligence and the Federal Government could have pulled it off. Tom Clancy wouldn't have been able to put that in a book, being too unbelievable and all.

Well, US does work on Anti-ballistic Missile defense in Europe and lies about it. US says it's against Iran but simple look at the globe shows it's against Russia. Obama pretty much admitted that it was/is against Russia when he decided to move it further south, cause Poland is in no way in the path of mythical Iranian nukes.

 

[dystopian]

Only speaking for myself, but I’ve generally ignored threads like this after the first couple threads some months ago on the old board. I see lots of quibbling over agreements/memorandums, lots of broad brushes strokes, even while little truth can be really known as to what is happening. And I don’t agree with much of boneyard bill’s opening post either. Yet, I still see the saga playing out as all too typical geopolitics, with both sides maneuvering to improve their leverage and power.

While it may be true that both sides are maneuvering according to geopolitical interests; it's painfully obvious who the bad guys are. The EU sought political and economic ties with Ukraine and did this through negotiation; Russia meanwhile, sought to annex parts of Ukraine and did so through black-ops and use of force. That leaves little room for confusion.

*Both Russian and US propaganda requires waders. The Russian BS is probably somewhat deeper regarding the Ukraine. And the western mainstream media covers it poorly, like most things.

Honestly? It is inconceivable to me that someone knowledgeable of the differences could take this position. The Russian propaganda is "probably" "somewhat" deeper? Is that a joke? Russia ranks 148th out of 180 on the Reporters Without Borders' freedom of press index. And while the US scores pretty horrible by western standards, it's still ranked at 46th. Meanwhile, with the exception of New Zealand (9th), the top 10 is filled out by European countries. The Russian government owns the majority of Russian media outlets; and frequently cracks down on voices skeptical of government policy. Neither the US government, nor EU governments have the power or even ability to manipulate the media narrative the way the Russian government does.

*Ukraine was a corrupt mess before this springs collapse/revolution. It probably will remain a corrupt mess, even if Russia isn’t (or if it would refrain from) interfering.

Maidan happened specifically because the people wanted an end to the corruption; they believe that Ukraine moving closer to the EU will have a positive effect on reducing corruption.

*Yeah the Crimean independence vote was fraudulent. However, the Crimeans don’t seem too bothered by it, nor was it done with excessive violence. And they are kissing cousins of Russia.

How do you know the Crimeans don't seem too bothered by it? The Tartars are certainly upset. And the regular Crimean is probably just keeping his head down.

And what do you define as 'excessive violence'? Sure, they didn't start shelling cities, but they blocked ports, occupied airfields, laid siege to military bases, stormed government buildings, and laid fucking *minefields*. That's certainly excessive force used when we're supposed to believe it was just a peaceful referendum supported by the crimeans themselves. With all that, is it really any wonder that the average Crimean isn't in open rebellion? The region has ample experience with what happens to those who resist Russian imperialism.

The US has kept a military base on Cuba, even though their Govt. has repeatedly requested that the US leave, for over half a century now. Some respect for sovereignty… The US ignored the Algiers Accord it made with Iran within just one year, aiding Iraq in its war with Iran.

While I agree that the US should vacate the base; they do in fact have a legal case for it despite Cuba's opposition. There is a 1903 treaty that leases the base to the US for as long as it needs it, in exchange for annual payment. If post-revolution Cuba doesn't accept these payments, that's their business, but it doesn't change the legality of the treaty as such. It would be the honorable thing to leave, but that's a different matter.

As for the Algiers Accords, yes; the US appears to have broken those quite egregiously. I don't see how the US doing so entitles Russia to behave like this in Ukraine however. Two wrongs don't make a right.

*Eastern Ukraine is a mess, and I have no idea how much Russia is egging on rebellions. But Russia probably is providing at least a modest amount of aid even if it is just logistics.

We know Russia has been egging this on for years. There were already reports five years back of Russia handing out Russian passports and formenting unrest. Ukraine already predicted almost this exact scenario happening back then; and it was ignored for being 'unrealistic'. When you dig around, you'll find that it seems as if Russia has been planning for this quite some time.

*The US hypocrisy about the problems annoy me because our Govt. has no problem helping arm the crazy ME terrorists that greatly escalated the Syrian civil war, which they evidently started doing in 2011. Far more people have been killed, butchered, and displaced in Syria than we have seen in the Ukraine so far. Yet, almost no one calls to boycott or blacklist the US or Saudi Arabia…

While the things you point to are indeed problematic issues that need to be addressed; they are completely irrelevant here. First of all, the main geopolitical issue here isn't how many people have been killed, but the fact that one country is forcibly annexing parts of another country, which isn't something that's been tolerated by the international community for a long time now. Secondly, once again, two wrongs don't make a right: it doesn't matter that the US has done heinous shit when it comes to condemning another country for the heinous shit that *it* has done.

Even if you try taking the flawing position that the hypocrisy of the US cancels out the shit Russia's doing; that still leaves us with the fact that this is NOT a matter of the US versus Russia; but rather Russia versus Ukraine with the EU (which most certainly isn't anywhere near as hypocritical as the US on the global stage) sitting on the sidelines and the US sitting in the backrow.

*Syria’s Assad is not a nice guy. However, until this civil war spun out of control, it was one of the lesser fucked up ME nations IMPOV. The US doesn’t mind despots, they only mind despots that aren’t in their pocket. And the US especially doesn’t like despots that are aligned with Russia or Iran.

Not relevant to this issue.

*Sure the US wasn’t going for an annexation of part of Syria. And I’m sure all the dead Syrians and their families really appreciate the fact that we don’t want to annex their country.

Also, not relevant to this issue. Again; two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Togo]

I do not know what the terms of the agreement between Russia and Ukraine were so I can hardly claim that they violated it. But characterizing the assistance that Russian troops gave to the government of Crimea as an invasion is definitely an overstatement which leaves an entirely incorrect impression.

Oh, this is disingenuous. A few pages ago you were castigating people for relying on mainstream media sources and getting them to do their own research. But whenever anyone talks about events in Crimea you start shying away from knowing the truth. Is it really so hard to work out that renting naval bases in the Crimea doesn't give you the right to surround military bases with APCs or seize media stations at gunpoint and force them to take stations you don't like off the air?

Is it really so hard to work out that a Crimean regional assembly doesn't have a mandate, electoral or otherwise, to call in foreign troops to kick around it's own citizens and the Ukrainian army?

Cherry picking facts to support your chosen narrative is what the main-stream media sources you were criticising do. Disagreeing with them doesn't make you an independent voice, you actually have to abandon their methods too.

-That it doesn't matter whether the referendum conducted at gunpoint was fair or not, because the result was probably what people wanted

I didn't say it didn't matter. We simply can't know how representative the vote was, but it is likely that a majority of Crimeans wanted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia due to the events in Kiev.

Which matters why? Do or do you not acknowledge that the 'referendum' in Crimea was held at gunpoint? And if a presumption of majority support makes it ok in Crimea, why does the same not apply in Kiev?

-That it does matter that the president was ousted without all the legal forms being observed, even thought the result was probably what people wanted

There's no reason whatsoever to assume that the people wanted the ouster of Yanukovych.

Apart from the comprehensive defeat of his supporters in the elections just over two months ago, in favour of a veteran of the Maidan protests, and one of the largest mandates in Ukrainian history in favour of policies Yanukoych opposed.

At any rate the situation broke down and armed protestors took control of the Maidan forcing Yanukovych and his allies to flee, and lo and behold Yatsenyuk becomes the new premier voted in by the rump parliament just and our Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland had called for a month earlier. Meanwhile, those armed protestors STILL control the Maidan. So even this rump parliament is acting under the gun of neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Ukrainians.

Except that we've had national elections, the people have chosen a new president, and the NeoNazis got less of the vote in the Ukraine than they did in the European elections. The rump Parliament is being replaced with fresh elections later on this year.

 

[dystopian]

Nonsense. Yanukovych was not voted out by parliament. Another completely misleading news report by the Western media. Yanukovych's party held a majority in parliament, but they fled for the lives the same as Yanukovych did.

Which simply isn't true. In fact, members of HIS OWN PARTY called upon him to return, and when he did not and called the government nazi's, THEY were the ones who went to the opposition and told them to call the vote. 36 out of the 38 members of his party present for the vote, voted him OUT of office; while the remaining two abstained. Even if some of them ran, it does not change the validity of the parliamentary vote; and if you think it does then you don't understand how the system works. In any parliamentary democracy, what matters is the outcome of the total votes cast in any given vote... it does NOT matter whether or not *all* of the members of parliament voted. In fact, this almost never happens in any parliament. The fact is that he was legally voted out 328 to 0. Which means that even had *all* other members of parliament been present to vote no, he'd STILL have been ousted from office.

Meanwhile, even that rump parliament was surrounded by armed neo-Nazi street thugs who STILL occupy the Maidan. It was a farce bearing no legal value at all and certainly nothing approximating a democratic procedure.

Yet you expect us to accept the Crimean referendum was a proper democratic procedure, with armed *russian* guards standing outside the polling stations while other *russian* guards lay minefields in farmfields and occupy government buildings.

<edit>

Again nonsense, this government is not a "successor" government to the Yanukovych government. It has usurped power, it did not succeed to it legally.

It doesn't matter what *you* think. What matters is the international understanding of the term. In international law and politics, a 'successor state' is not determined by the means it got to power, but rather its historical tie to the previous state. For example, if the Tea Party were to overthrow the US government by force and declared the Theocratic Republic of the United States of America; it would be considered the successor state to the United States of America. What this means is that all of the previous agreements with other countries transfer over to the successor state. Or are you so naive as to think that a violent coup could absolve a nation of its debt and obligations to other countries?

I read your previous point, I was correcting Bardos who said, or at least implied that US had ratified the agreement. But that does not matter. The agreement has no bearing on the present situation.

It does, regardless of whether or not you accept that the new Ukrainian government is it's legal and constitution. The memorandum either applies since the new government is the legitimate government of Ukraine, or else it applies under the successor state principle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow! If that was the plan it was so remarkably run and successfully executed, I'm having a hard time thinking someone in Intelligence and the Federal Government could have pulled it off. Tom Clancy wouldn't have been able to put that in a book, being too unbelievable and all.

Well, US does work on Anti-ballistic Missile defense in Europe and lies about it. US says it's against Iran but simple look at the globe shows it's against Russia. Obama pretty much admitted that it was/is against Russia when he decided to move it further south, cause Poland is in no way in the path of mythical Iranian nukes.

I'm more than willing to believe that. What I'm not willing to believe is that the US conspired with Ukraine to lose Crimea to Russia. There is no way that the CIA could come up with such a plan and actually execute it successfully.

Only speaking for myself, but I’ve generally ignored threads like this after the first couple threads some months ago on the old board. I see lots of quibbling over agreements/memorandums, lots of broad brushes strokes, even while little truth can be really known as to what is happening. And I don’t agree with much of boneyard bill’s opening post either. Yet, I still see the saga playing out as all too typical geopolitics, with both sides maneuvering to improve their leverage and power. My short take:

*Both Russian and US propaganda requires waders. The Russian BS is probably somewhat deeper regarding the Ukraine. And the western mainstream media covers it poorly, like most things.

Agreed. But one thing just won't leave my mind... Russia tried to kill Viktor Yushchenko. So while both sides have agendas, Russia has a much higher bar to reach as we typically only try to do away with leaders in third world nations, not first world.

I wouldn't classify Ukraine as a first world country, but the claim Russia tried to kill Yushchenko is really a matter of speculation.

Wow. You are really lovin' Russia.

 

[funinspace]

While it may be true that both sides are maneuvering according to geopolitical interests; it's painfully obvious who the bad guys are. The EU sought political and economic ties with Ukraine and did this through negotiation; Russia meanwhile, sought to annex parts of Ukraine and did so through black-ops and use of force. That leaves little room for confusion.

I never said I approved of the Russian annexation or of their hand in eastern Ukraine.

*Both Russian and US propaganda requires waders. The Russian BS is probably somewhat deeper regarding the Ukraine. And the western mainstream media covers it poorly, like most things.

Honestly? It is inconceivable to me that someone knowledgeable of the differences could take this position. The Russian propaganda is "probably" "somewhat" deeper? Is that a joke? Russia ranks 148th out of 180 on the Reporters Without Borders' freedom of press index. And while the US scores pretty horrible by western standards, it's still ranked at 46th.

Yeah, nix the “probably” and “somewhat”…that was a poor choice of words on my part.

*Yeah the Crimean independence vote was fraudulent. However, the Crimeans don’t seem too bothered by it, nor was it done with excessive violence. And they are kissing cousins of Russia.

How do you know the Crimeans don't seem too bothered by it? The Tartars are certainly upset. And the regular Crimean is probably just keeping his head down.

And what do you define as 'excessive violence'? Sure, they didn't start shelling cities, but they blocked ports, occupied airfields, laid siege to military bases, stormed government buildings, and laid fucking *minefields*. That's certainly excessive force used when we're supposed to believe it was just a peaceful referendum supported by the crimeans themselves. With all that, is it really any wonder that the average Crimean isn't in open rebellion? The region has ample experience with what happens to those who resist Russian imperialism.

I never said there was a “peaceful referendum“. Well the Russians certainly didn’t do what the US helped create in Syria for starters…

The US has kept a military base on Cuba, even though their Govt. has repeatedly requested that the US leave, for over half a century now. Some respect for sovereignty… The US ignored the Algiers Accord it made with Iran within just one year, aiding Iraq in its war with Iran.

While I agree that the US should vacate the base; they do in fact have a legal case for it despite Cuba's opposition. There is a 1903 treaty that leases the base to the US for as long as it needs it, in exchange for annual payment. If post-revolution Cuba doesn't accept these payments, that's their business, but it doesn't change the legality of the treaty as such. It would be the honorable thing to leave, but that's a different matter.

I’m sure the elections leading up to the Cuban’s volunterily surrendering their sovereignty was at least a legitimate, peaceful, and supported by the Cubans themselves, as the recent Crimean vote to leave the Ukraine.

As for the Algiers Accords, yes; the US appears to have broken those quite egregiously. I don't see how the US doing so entitles Russia to behave like this in Ukraine however. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Of course two wrongs don’t make a right, but it does make a point about hypocrisy, propaganda, and the value of accords and memorandums to powerful nations.

*The US hypocrisy about the problems annoy me because our Govt. has no problem helping arm the crazy ME terrorists that greatly escalated the Syrian civil war, which they evidently started doing in 2011. Far more people have been killed, butchered, and displaced in Syria than we have seen in the Ukraine so far. Yet, almost no one calls to boycott or blacklist the US or Saudi Arabia…

While the things you point to are indeed problematic issues that need to be addressed; they are completely irrelevant here. First of all, the main geopolitical issue here isn't how many people have been killed, but the fact that one country is forcibly annexing parts of another country, which isn't something that's been tolerated by the international community for a long time now. Secondly, once again, two wrongs don't make a right: it doesn't matter that the US has done heinous shit when it comes to condemning another country for the heinous shit that *it* has done.

Even if you try taking the flawing position that the hypocrisy of the US cancels out the shit Russia's doing; that still leaves us with the fact that this is NOT a matter of the US versus Russia; but rather Russia versus Ukraine with the EU (which most certainly isn't anywhere near as hypocritical as the US on the global stage) sitting on the sidelines and the US sitting in the backrow.

I didn’t know you had special rights on defining relevence…and again I haven’t said what Russia is doing, is in any way right. Personally, I consider abject poverty and mass death to be a higher concern than an international border or the “international community”. So which is worse, the sidelines or is it the back row (just trying to get what you are saying better)?

Maybe the western world could do to Russia, what they have done to Israel over the West Bank occupation….

*Syria’s Assad is not a nice guy. However, until this civil war spun out of control, it was one of the lesser fucked up ME nations IMPOV. The US doesn’t mind despots, they only mind despots that aren’t in their pocket. And the US especially doesn’t like despots that are aligned with Russia or Iran.

Not relevant to this issue.

*Sure the US wasn’t going for an annexation of part of Syria. And I’m sure all the dead Syrians and their families really appreciate the fact that we don’t want to annex their country.

Also, not relevant to this issue. Again; two wrongs don't make a right.

I now realize why you see the US-Syria saga as irrelevant, as you seem to see this as contained to an international border issue. I find the border issue less important than other things like abject poverty and mass death, so I find it relevant, especially when considering geopolitical machinations.

 

[dystopian]

I never said I approved of the Russian annexation or of their hand in eastern Ukraine.

Well, then I don't understand why you responded to my post the way you did. You responded specifically to the statement where I told the pro-russians that in my estimation the majority of the people here are not on their side of the fence. Responding to that part of the post the way you did suggested to me that you found some sort of redeeming quality in the act because of the way the US has behaved elsewhere. Chalk it up to an error in communication, I suppose.

I never said there was a “peaceful referendum“. Well the Russians certainly didn’t do what the US helped create in Syria for starters…

You said no excessive force; in my opinion, laying down minefields *is* excessive force.

I’m sure the elections leading up to the Cuban’s volunterily surrendering their sovereignty was at least a legitimate, peaceful, and supported by the Cubans themselves, as the recent Crimean vote to leave the Ukraine.

Huh? Are you suggesting that the US manipulated the Cuban elections prior to the signing of the 1903 treaty that allowed the US to keep a base there? Because that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense; after all, the US took Cuba from Spain in the US-Spanish war, and then granted it independence in 1902. If what you're implying is true, it'd have made far more sense for them to simply *not* sign the Teller Amendement into law forcing them to grant Cuba independence.

Of course two wrongs don’t make a right, but it does make a point about hypocrisy, propaganda, and the value of accords and memorandums to powerful nations.

No, not quite. First of all, one powerful nation breaking its agreements does not tell other nations that such agreements have no value, and does not justify breaking their own agreements. It simply cautions them against signing such agreements with that nation in the future. Secondly, on secondary inspections of the Algiers Accords, it is *not* in fact all that clear they've been broken. The text of the accord says the US shall not intervene 'politically' or 'militarily'; which it hasn't: espionage activities do not really fall under either definition.

I do agree that the US has been behaving dishonorably towards Iran (though Iran is hardly playing nice itself); and a lot of its foreign policy in the region is severely problematic; but I'm not sure it has actually broken its agreements with Iran, looking at the letter of the agreements.

I didn’t know you had special rights on defining relevence…

I don't, but it's a matter of simple fact. When you're say, discussing a particular comedy movie, you *could* decide to bring up a completely unrelated war movie for some reason. But it's of course entirely irrelevant to the subject of that particular comedy movie. Similarly, when we're discussing a crisis in Ukraine that only tangentially involves the US, you *could* bring up stuff that the US has done in completely different parts of the world in situations that have no relation to Ukraine whatsoever, but it is *not* relevant.

and again I haven’t said what Russia is doing, is in any way right. Personally, I consider abject poverty and mass death to be a higher concern than an international border or the “international community”. So which is worse, the sidelines or is it the back row (just trying to get what you are saying better)?

I'm not sure I understand why that second sentence follows the first; my portrayal of the US as being in the backrow wasn't even near to being a comment on whether illegal annexation or mass deaths is worse. It was a comment on the actual involvement/blame/responsibility in the Ukraine crisis, in which the US has just not been involved as much as the other parties.

Maybe the western world could do to Russia, what they have done to Israel over the West Bank occupation….

Again, there's no relevance there. You won't find any argument from me that there should be more consequences to Israel's behavior; but it has fuck-all to do with what's happening in Ukraine. You want to start another thread on Israel's shit and the US' obstructionist tendency on the matter, go ahead. But this thread is specifically regarding propaganda surrounding Ukraine.

I now realize why you see the US-Syria saga as irrelevant, as you seem to see this as contained to an international border issue. I find the border issue less important than other things like abject poverty and mass death, so I find it relevant, especially when considering geopolitical machinations.

Poverty and mass death are actually normally irrelevant to *geopolitics*. This isn't me (or anyone for that matter) being cold and heartless; it's simply the *definition* of the word. Geopolitics is either the study of the effects of *geography* on international politics and relations; OR a foreign policy based on the relation between geography and politics. The only time when the things you mentioned become relevant to geopolitics is when they are influenced/caused by geographical politics; such as can be the case with certain types of ethnic cleansing. Annexation of territory however, is always of the utmost concern to geopolitical concerns, since it literally redraws the map.

You should've said global politics, instead of geopolitics.

Incidentally, I take issue with you putting interpretations in my mouth. I did not portray the US-Syria disagreement is irrelevant to global politics, as you seem to be implying. I said it's irrelevant *to what's happening in Ukraine*; and since this thread is about Ukraine, and not Syria, it is irrelevant *to this thread*.

 

[funinspace]

Well, then I don't understand why you responded to my post the way you did. You responded specifically to the statement where I told the pro-russians that in my estimation the majority of the people here are not on their side of the fence. Responding to that part of the post the way you did suggested to me that you found some sort of redeeming quality in the act because of the way the US has behaved elsewhere. Chalk it up to an error in communication, I suppose.

I don’t see this within a 2 camp world, where the Russians are the evil bad guys and the west as the White Knights of the Round Table. I’m neither pro-Russian nor pro-US. I’m not advocating a militaristic response to Russia over Crimea. If the EU wants to lead on economic sanctions, it wouldn’t bother me.

I never said there was a “peaceful referendum“. Well the Russians certainly didn’t do what the US helped create in Syria for starters…

You said no excessive force; in my opinion, laying down minefields *is* excessive force.

Oky doky. On the scale of things related to occupations, war, invasions et.al…I don’t.

I’m sure the elections leading up to the Cuban’s volunterily surrendering their sovereignty was at least a legitimate, peaceful, and supported by the Cubans themselves, as the recent Crimean vote to leave the Ukraine.

Huh? Are you suggesting that the US manipulated the Cuban elections prior to the signing of the 1903 treaty that allowed the US to keep a base there? Because that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense; after all, the US took Cuba from Spain in the US-Spanish war, and then granted it independence in 1902. If what you're implying is true, it'd have made far more sense for them to simply *not* sign the Teller Amendement into law forcing them to grant Cuba independence.

The US had no more right to Cuba, than Spain did when they surrendered the “title” to the US. By 1898, the Spanish colonial government barely controlled a few cities. The US invasion of Cuba came into ports that the rebels controlled. If the rebels had known the US intentions, I doubt American aid would have been accepted, as Spain was already losing its grip on Cuba. All the US needed to do, was to sign their peace treaty with Spain, and let Cuba be. The Cubans were only allowed to be observers at the 1898 Treaty of Paris between Spain and the US. The US dictated the terms of the Cuban elections as we wound down the occupation. The US demanded the recognition of the Platt Amendment as the price of partial sovereignty, which also granted the US control of Cuban foreign relations, finances, oh and the right to fuck them over if the US feels like it. Cubans rebelled again, within a few years, because of the unjust US control. I don’t see how this treaty with Cuba could be considered valid in any modern sense of treaties. A modern parallel example might be Iraq. Iraq refused to grant the US special legal protection for US soldiers to remain in Iraq as part of a SOFA. Therefore, the US withdrew all its soldiers, and let the nation of Iraq choose its own course.

and again I haven’t said what Russia is doing, is in any way right. Personally, I consider abject poverty and mass death to be a higher concern than an international border or the “international community”. So which is worse, the sidelines or is it the back row (just trying to get what you are saying better)?

I'm not sure I understand why that second sentence follows the first; my portrayal of the US as being in the backrow wasn't even near to being a comment on whether illegal annexation or mass deaths is worse. It was a comment on the actual involvement/blame/responsibility in the Ukraine crisis, in which the US has just not been involved as much as the other parties.

I was curious as to what your intent was, in using the words “backrow” and “sidelines” regarding US and EU actions (or lack thereof). Is one party or the other being a less responsible member of the international community? Or are the 2 words you used interchangeable?

You should've said global politics, instead of geopolitics.

Thanks for the correction, I had conflated the term at some point I guess...

Incidentally, I take issue with you putting interpretations in my mouth. I did not portray the US-Syria disagreement is irrelevant to global politics, as you seem to be implying. I said it's irrelevant *to what's happening in Ukraine*; and since this thread is about Ukraine, and not Syria, it is irrelevant *to this thread*.

Well, I assume at some point that people posting about the Ukrainian saga have views related to actions they think should be taken by the west. My point is that if one wants economic actions taken against Russia, we might as well pile on similar actions against the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. But if this thread doesn’t cover arguments over actions against Russia over the Ukraine, then I guess it is irrelevant…

 

[dystopian]

I don’t see this within a 2 camp world, where the Russians are the evil bad guys and the west as the White Knights of the Round Table. I’m neither pro-Russian nor pro-US. I’m not advocating a militaristic response to Russia over Crimea. If the EU wants to lead on economic sanctions, it wouldn’t bother me.

I didn't describe it as a two camp world though; by telling the pro-russians that I don't think most people here fall into their camp, I am NOT saying that they must therefore fall into some other camp. It simply means that that they don't agree with the pro-russians.

Oky doky. On the scale of things related to occupations, war, invasions et.al…I don’t.

Which doesn't make any sense since those things aren't related to the referendum. When we talk about say, the police using excessive force to subdue a criminal, the 'excessive' part comes from the assessment that the level of force was way more than was necessary to subdue the criminal; if the criminal would have surrendered without a fight, and the cop takes out his baton and starts beating the shit out of him; that's excessive. And it doesn't fucking matter if cops in other parts of the world routinely go even further than that.

You were talking about excessive force in relation to the referendum and subsequent result. There is absolutely no doubt that the force used was excessive, since it was most certainly far more than was necessary to call and conduct a referendum.

The US had no more right to Cuba, than Spain did when they surrendered the “title” to the US. By 1898, the Spanish colonial government barely controlled a few cities. The US invasion of Cuba came into ports that the rebels controlled. If the rebels had known the US intentions, I doubt American aid would have been accepted, as Spain was already losing its grip on Cuba. All the US needed to do, was to sign their peace treaty with Spain, and let Cuba be. The Cubans were only allowed to be observers at the 1898 Treaty of Paris between Spain and the US. The US dictated the terms of the Cuban elections as we wound down the occupation. The US demanded the recognition of the Platt Amendment as the price of partial sovereignty, which also granted the US control of Cuban foreign relations, finances, oh and the right to fuck them over if the US feels like it. Cubans rebelled again, within a few years, because of the unjust US control. I don’t see how this treaty with Cuba could be considered valid in any modern sense of treaties.

the 1903 treaty however was adjusted in 1934 to take away those threats to Cuban sovereignty. The only way the treaty could be deemed invalid is by applying the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but this is actually not possible since it can not retroactively be made to apply to treaties made prior to the convention itself.

I was curious as to what your intent was, in using the words “backrow” and “sidelines” regarding US and EU actions (or lack thereof). Is one party or the other being a less responsible member of the international community? Or are the 2 words you used interchangeable?

It also has nothing to do with being a 'responsible member of the international community' (a highly subjective term, unfortunately). Backrow and sidelines just refers to the relative levels of involvement. Ukraine and the EU were trying to organize mutual trade and political deals; the breaking of which on the part of Yanukovych directly led to the revolution, and the consideration to begin with of which panicked Russia. The US involvement was decidedly more peripheral; hence, the backrow versus the sidelines for the EU.

Well, I assume at some point that people posting about the Ukrainian saga have views related to actions they think should be taken by the west. My point is that if one wants economic actions taken against Russia, we might as well pile on similar actions against the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. But if this thread doesn’t cover arguments over actions against Russia over the Ukraine, then I guess it is irrelevant…

I don't particularly disagree with the sentiment, although you're surely aware that we can't ever expect global politics to be consistent and fair across the board. That said, we can't *quite* consider what Russia's been doing as equivalent to what those other countries are doing (except on some level Israel except in scale, but since the recognition of palestine isn't all that universal, it's a questionable analogy under international law); certainly not when it comes to international law. You may personally think that those other countries' actions are worse than the illegal annexation of territory, but it should be obvious that the international community of nationstates is going to be a lot more concerned with a big regional power gobbling up territory as if the last 70 years hadn't happened. Some country murdering its own people is terrible, sure, but it doesn't particularly affect the global balance of power and status quo.

 

[funinspace]

I didn't describe it as a two camp world though; by telling the pro-russians that I don't think most people here fall into their camp, I am NOT saying that they must therefore fall into some other camp. It simply means that that they don't agree with the pro-russians.

But I do agree with boneyard bill that the US media spreads propaganda, and helps spin the US govt. global political machinations. I just don’t agree to the same degree that his initiating post (and some following ones) suggests. Maybe the US and NATO have only been friendly and noble players relative to the Ukraine over the last year. But, as the US doesn't play nice quite often, I don't really have high confidence about what the US govt. says about the events. And it wouldn't surprise me if the US had been working to manipulate the protests et.al. to western advantage.

Oky doky. On the scale of things related to occupations, war, invasions et.al…I don’t.

Which doesn't make any sense since those things aren't related to the referendum. When we talk about say, the police using excessive force to subdue a criminal, the 'excessive' part comes from the assessment that the level of force was way more than was necessary to subdue the criminal; if the criminal would have surrendered without a fight, and the cop takes out his baton and starts beating the shit out of him; that's excessive. And it doesn't fucking matter if cops in other parts of the world routinely go even further than that.

You were talking about excessive force in relation to the referendum and subsequent result. There is absolutely no doubt that the force used was excessive, since it was most certainly far more than was necessary to call and conduct a referendum.

No, I was talking about the Russian taking of Crimea in general when I spoke of it lacking in excessive violence. The referendum was just one component of that taking. To be more specific, regarding my train of thought, is that I don’t consider their regional political and/or military actions all that excessive considering the machinations of powerful country against other peoples/countries.

The US had no more right to Cuba, than Spain did when they surrendered the “title” to the US. By 1898, the Spanish colonial government barely controlled a few cities. The US invasion of Cuba came into ports that the rebels controlled. If the rebels had known the US intentions, I doubt American aid would have been accepted, as Spain was already losing its grip on Cuba. All the US needed to do, was to sign their peace treaty with Spain, and let Cuba be. The Cubans were only allowed to be observers at the 1898 Treaty of Paris between Spain and the US. The US dictated the terms of the Cuban elections as we wound down the occupation. The US demanded the recognition of the Platt Amendment as the price of partial sovereignty, which also granted the US control of Cuban foreign relations, finances, oh and the right to fuck them over if the US feels like it. Cubans rebelled again, within a few years, because of the unjust US control. I don’t see how this treaty with Cuba could be considered valid in any modern sense of treaties.

the 1903 treaty however was adjusted in 1934 to take away those threats to Cuban sovereignty. The only way the treaty could be deemed invalid is by applying the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but this is actually not possible since it can not retroactively be made to apply to treaties made prior to the convention itself.

Starting on page 19 in the below linked PDF, by Professor Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Human rights expert, law professor and United Nations official. I’m sure there are lawyers who would argue the opposing view, but I found his opinion germane.
http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/events/2003/november/GUANTANA.pdf

In his 1947 course at the Hague Academy, Serge Krylov, Judge at the International Court of Justice, expressed the view that unequal treaties and those establishing capitulary
regimes “by which an imperialist power imposes its will upon a weaker state” are invalid. The same view is expressed by Professor F. I. Kozhevnikov in his textbook on
International Law, in which is stated “The principle that international treaties must be observed does not extend to treaties which are imposed by force, and which are unequal
in character… Equal treaties are treaties concluded on the basis of the equality of the parties… unequal treaties are not legally binding… Treaties must be based upon the
sovereign equality of the contracting parties.”

Applying this principle to Guantánamo Bay, an objective observer will consider that Cuba was anything but a sovereign State in 1902, when it emerged from four years of
United States military occupation, handicapped by the imposition of the Platt Amendment, which granted to the United States the right to interfere in its internal affairs. As a consequence, the unequal treaty is voidable in terms of modern international law.
<skipping 4 other points to conclude below>

In conclusion: On the basis of the five rationales developed in the fourth option, there can be no doubt that in international law the lease agreement is voidable ex nunc. A reasonable period for the termination of the lease, however, should be allowed.

I was curious as to what your intent was, in using the words “backrow” and “sidelines” regarding US and EU actions (or lack thereof). Is one party or the other being a less responsible member of the international community? Or are the 2 words you used interchangeable?

It also has nothing to do with being a 'responsible member of the international community' (a highly subjective term, unfortunately). Backrow and sidelines just refers to the relative levels of involvement. Ukraine and the EU were trying to organize mutual trade and political deals; the breaking of which on the part of Yanukovych directly led to the revolution, and the consideration to begin with of which panicked Russia. The US involvement was decidedly more peripheral; hence, the backrow versus the sidelines for the EU.

Thanks for the clarification, as I bolded the answer I was seeking. That was what I was struggling to ask about coherently.

Well, I assume at some point that people posting about the Ukrainian saga have views related to actions they think should be taken by the west. My point is that if one wants economic actions taken against Russia, we might as well pile on similar actions against the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. But if this thread doesn’t cover arguments over actions against Russia over the Ukraine, then I guess it is irrelevant…

I don't particularly disagree with the sentiment, although you're surely aware that we can't ever expect global politics to be consistent and fair across the board.

As word leaked out about US planning, logistical, and transportation support of other ME nations funneling at least hundreds of millions of dollars into providing arms to just about anyone willing to travel to Syria (or within Syria) to inflame the emergent civil war there, I found it odd how little it seemed to even get much attention/disdain on this (freeratio.org then) board last year.

Western media certainly didn’t care, but was willing to let US officials blather on about just how nice we are, as the US is providing the largest amount of humanitarian aid to the refugees. This fits with the type of US media hypocrisy that boneyard bill was speaking of in starting this thread. Of course the EU is not going to go and have a public hissy fit about the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and probably others supporting terrorism in Syria, let alone threaten sanctions…that kind of just goes with the territory.

 

[dystopian]

But I do agree with boneyard bill that the US media spreads propaganda, and helps spin the US govt. global political machinations. I just don’t agree to the same degree that his initiating post (and some following ones) suggests. Maybe the US and NATO have only been friendly and noble players relative to the Ukraine over the last year. But, as the US doesn't play nice quite often, I don't really have high confidence about what the US govt. says about the events. And it wouldn't surprise me if the US had been working to manipulate the protests et.al. to western advantage.

I really doubt (most) US media outlets are taking orders from the white house or anything like that; or are even manipulated by them. Sure, the government over there isn't as transparent as it could be, but it's nowhere near what Russia's media is like. In the US, the media isn't government owned like most of the Russian media is. In the US, you don't have the government trying to force people to register with them if they have more than 1500 followers on twitter and say political stuff. The western media isn't just copy-pasting what the white house puts out on Ukraine; there's plenty of skeptical media reports put out, and a LOT of independent verification going on from what I've seen, having looked at many different sources.

No, I was talking about the Russian taking of Crimea in general when I spoke of it lacking in excessive violence. The referendum was just one component of that taking. To be more specific, regarding my train of thought, is that I don’t consider their regional political and/or military actions all that excessive considering the machinations of powerful country against other peoples/countries.

Illegal annexation is by definition excessive. It doesn't matter what one tries to compare it to or how one might justify it. The west tried to make political and economic deals; and somehow that justifies Russia rolling in with tanks and forcing an obviously rigged referendum to give them cassus belli to annex, and somehow that's not excessive? Wut?

Starting on page 19 in the below linked PDF, by Professor Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Human rights expert, law professor and United Nations official. I’m sure there are lawyers who would argue the opposing view, but I found his opinion germane.

I note that he makes the mistake of arguing that the treaty is invalid by appealing to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; however, as I already pointed out, this is a non-argument since the Convention also states that it can not be made to retroactively apply to treaties established before itself. Mind you, I don't particularly disagree with the general sentiment you or he are expressing; however, legally speaking the treaty remains in effect.

In his 1947 course at the Hague Academy, Serge Krylov, Judge at the International Court of Justice, expressed the view that unequal treaties and those establishing capitulary
regimes “by which an imperialist power imposes its will upon a weaker state” are invalid. The same view is expressed by Professor F. I. Kozhevnikov in his textbook on
International Law, in which is stated “The principle that international treaties must be observed does not extend to treaties which are imposed by force, and which are unequal
in character… Equal treaties are treaties concluded on the basis of the equality of the parties… unequal treaties are not legally binding… Treaties must be based upon the
sovereign equality of the contracting parties.”

While this is the correct moral sentiment; it is not in fact enshrined in any internationally agreed upon law to my knowledge. A person can certainly say that a treaty does not need to be followed if its imposed because it is 'invalid', and be morally correct in saying so. But this is absolutely no different from a person saying that they don't have to follow a particular law of the country they reside in for the same reason; it doesn't change the fact that the expressed opinion is not particularly relevant in regards to the enduring validity of said law/treaty and its enforcement.

As word leaked out about US planning, logistical, and transportation support of other ME nations funneling at least hundreds of millions of dollars into providing arms to just about anyone willing to travel to Syria (or within Syria) to inflame the emergent civil war there, I found it odd how little it seemed to even get much attention/disdain on this (freeratio.org then) board last year.

Western media certainly didn’t care, but was willing to let US officials blather on about just how nice we are, as the US is providing the largest amount of humanitarian aid to the refugees. This fits with the type of US media hypocrisy that boneyard bill was speaking of in starting this thread. Of course the EU is not going to go and have a public hissy fit about the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and probably others supporting terrorism in Syria, let alone threaten sanctions…that kind of just goes with the territory.

I'm not really understanding what you're trying to say here. Would you prefer US media write up a positive story about a government that uses nerve gas against its people? I'm also not sure why you think the western media didn't care; it did. There was plenty of reporting on Syria, and no it wasn't all pro-US either, far from it. I honestly don't see how you can say there was some sort of 'western media' hypocrisy there. Maybe some specific outlets were hypocritical about it? I don't know, I just know that the picture you're describing is not at all recognizable to me. Then again, the US ranks 46th on the press freedom index while the Netherlands ranks 2th; so maybe it's true that American media are less concerned with balanced reporting; however, if that is the case you should be talking about *US* media specifically, and not 'western' media.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By dystopian :I'm also not sure why you think the western media didn't care; it did. There was plenty of reporting on Syria, and no it wasn't all pro-US either, far from it. I honestly don't see how you can say there was some sort of 'western media' hypocrisy there. Maybe some specific outlets were hypocritical about it? I don't know, I just know that the picture you're describing is not at all recognizable to me. Then again, the US ranks 46th on the press freedom index while the Netherlands ranks 2th; so maybe it's true that American media are less concerned with balanced reporting; however, if that is the case you should be talking about *US* media specifically, and not 'western' media.

Further I am not sure how Americans who are monolingual would be motivated to check reports/commentaries issued by non anglophone Western nations media.

For example, this analysis,

http://video.lefigaro.fr/figaro/vid...qui-attendent-petro-porochenko/3611541500001/


regarding the challenges Porochenko will have to deal with.

I can equally link to several commentaries from the French media attempting to analyze the events in Ukraine where one would be hard pressed to claim that such media is parroting Washington/White House stances.

IMO some Americans cultivate the mistaken image of Europe as a whole being a puppet of US Foreign Policies. Therefor also including as a whole how the European media presents the events in Ukraine.

And speaking of any politicized media spreading misinformation, Ukrainian members of a school of journalism have themselves undertaken to fact check and expose such misinformation :

http://www.stopfake.org/en/about-us/

Since their publications are also in English, there should be no issue for monolingual Americans to view them. Such as their current/updated page exposing several fakes :

http://www.stopfake.org/en/news

 

[funinspace]

As word leaked out about US planning, logistical, and transportation support of other ME nations funneling at least hundreds of millions of dollars into providing arms to just about anyone willing to travel to Syria (or within Syria) to inflame the emergent civil war there, I found it odd how little it seemed to even get much attention/disdain on this (freeratio.org then) board last year.

Western media certainly didn’t care, but was willing to let US officials blather on about just how nice we are, as the US is providing the largest amount of humanitarian aid to the refugees. This fits with the type of US media hypocrisy that boneyard bill was speaking of in starting this thread. Of course the EU is not going to go and have a public hissy fit about the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and probably others supporting terrorism in Syria, let alone threaten sanctions…that kind of just goes with the territory.

I'm not really understanding what you're trying to say here.

I was making 2 points. The first one was that even on this board, there was very little concern expressed about the US abuse of power in its support of terrorism against Syria as it became public 1-2 years after it started. Meanwhile, there has been lots of concern/hostility expressed towards Russia in its political/militaristic machinations within the Ukraine. Though there was a lot of chat here about the use of chemical weapons within Syria and what the west should do about it. I found this difference odd and commented on it, that’s all.

Would you prefer US media write up a positive story about a government that uses nerve gas against its people? I'm also not sure why you think the western media didn't care; it did. There was plenty of reporting on Syria, and no it wasn't all pro-US either, far from it. I honestly don't see how you can say there was some sort of 'western media' hypocrisy there. Maybe some specific outlets were hypocritical about it? I don't know, I just know that the picture you're describing is not at all recognizable to me. Then again, the US ranks 46th on the press freedom index while the Netherlands ranks 2th; so maybe it's true that American media are less concerned with balanced reporting; however, if that is the case you should be talking about *US* media specifically, and not 'western' media.

Maybe European media outlets had lots of criticism of US actions in Syria as US involvement leaked out, but if so it is news to me. Was French, German, or Italian TV or print media arguing that the US should be sanctioned last year? Were EU prime ministers publically haranguing Obama for his support of terrorism in Syria last year? I do read the BBC news sometimes as part of reading many sources around the world, but that isn’t often enough to judge their output. Either way, I’ll just redact my comments to only the US media then as I am more familiar with its output. I wasn’t talking about the chemical weapons used in Syria, though that was horrible thing. And of course I wouldn’t want positive US media stories about anyone’s use of chemical weapons, or about any country who knowingly supports another country while doing that country is using chemical weapons. When I speak of US media hypocrisy or lack of coverage of US actions, I’m not assuming that the government is giving the media orders. I know the US media is generally free to do what they want, and I understand that Russian media is not free. I have sometimes even made the sarcastic comment that the Kremlin-Russia is the world’s largest mafia.

The second point was in how gently the atypical US media outlet treated the emergent news that the US was actually a significant player along with at least the Saudis and Turkey in supporting arming of foreign and domestic terrorists in Syria. The big US corporate media chooses to be very nice IMPOV concerning US support of violence and terrorism. There was some interview late last year, in which a high ranking official (probably from the State Dept.) was being interviewed about the situation in Syria on something like CNN or ABC/NBC/CBS. The talk was generally about the terrible situation with refugees within and those that have fled Syria. The official went on bragging about how the US has been the biggest donor of humanitarian aid. Not one peep was made about the US support over the previous couple years in ratcheting up the violence within Syria. This is typical of what I have seen in the year or so from US media, since US involvement leaked out. I saw very little about US involvement in Syria’s civil war from mainstream media. I typically found it from blog sites (like emptywheel.net), and then had to dig around to check the veracity of the information.

I don’t expect much out of US mass media, and haven’t for years. We are on a chat board, and I was commenting on what I see as US media hypocrisy. I don’t expect our discussion here will change US policy or how the US mass media operates.

 

[barbos]

It's other way around, White House does not give orders to US media, owners do, they give orders to journalists and to the White House.

 

[fromderinside]

Further I am not sure how Americans who are monolingual would be motivated to check reports/commentaries issued by non anglophone Western nations media.

Get up to speed girl. The new way is to inflict our language on everybody else. If you want a good English language analysis just look to, say, stuff from Lebanon, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Japan...... get the picture. My bride takes her afternoon naps listening to her native Italian and refuses to go back to live with me in Venosa near her brothers and other relatives even though I'm all in favor of that.

Its nice that typical Europeans are fluent in from three to five or six languages and all, but, really isn't it a bit of a bother.

We real 'mericans understand this as we march to a world with one language an no goverments at all.

 

[fromderinside]

It's other way around, White House does not give orders to US media, owners do, they give orders to journalists and to the White House.

That would be incorrect. If anyone gives orders to journalists it's advertisers. Owners are those guys who want another trophy to show off at parties. Journalists aren't really interested in money yano.

 

[boneyard bill]

dystopian writes:

Which simply isn't true. In fact, members of HIS OWN PARTY called upon him to return, and when he did not and called the government nazi's, THEY were the ones who went to the opposition and told them to call the vote. 36 out of the 38 members of his party present for the vote, voted him OUT of office; while the remaining two abstained. Even if some of them ran, it does not change the validity of the parliamentary vote; and if you think it does then you don't understand how the system works. In any parliamentary democracy, what matters is the outcome of the total votes cast in any given vote... it does NOT matter whether or not *all* of the members of parliament voted. In fact, this almost never happens in any parliament. The fact is that he was legally voted out 328 to 0. Which means that even had *all* other members of parliament been present to vote no, he'd STILL have been ousted from office.

At a minimum, the parliament did not have a quorum so they could not conduct business. I do not know the constitutional procedures for ousting a Ukrainian president but it almost surely calls for something more than a majority vote of the parliament. That's how you oust a premier, not a president.

Meanwhile, even that rump parliament was surrounded by armed neo-Nazi street thugs who STILL occupy the Maidan. It was a farce bearing no legal value at all and certainly nothing approximating a democratic procedure.

Yet you expect us to accept the Crimean referendum was a proper democratic procedure, with armed *russian* guards standing outside the polling stations while other *russian* guards lay minefields in farmfields and occupy government buildings.

<edit>.

Your statement here is a malicious slander and totally uncalled for. It also untrue. I never said that the Crimean referendum was a proper democratic procedure. I said it was impossible to judge that. I only said that such a referendum would likely have passed in a democratic procedure.

Again nonsense, this government is not a "successor" government to the Yanukovych government. It has usurped power, it did not succeed to it legally.

It doesn't matter what *you* think. What matters is the international understanding of the term. In international law and politics, a 'successor state' is not determined by the means it got to power, but rather its historical tie to the previous state. For example, if the Tea Party were to overthrow the US government by force and declared the Theocratic Republic of the United States of America; it would be considered the successor state to the United States of America. What this means is that all of the previous agreements with other countries transfer over to the successor state. Or are you so naive as to think that a violent coup could absolve a nation of its debt and obligations to other countries?

Even given what you claim, the Kiev regime is not a successor state since it does not control its own people. It does not control Crimea, and it does not control the eastern provinces. It controls the capital city and does not, apparently, face resistance in the west but its status is still very much up in the air.

One of the conditions for it to be a successor state is that it be recognized by the international community and that includes Russia. But Russia hasn't done so and neither has China or India which are backing Russia in this matter. That's close to half the world's population right there. The US did not recognize the Beijing government as a successor state until the 1970's even though the Communists came to power there in 1949.

I read your previous point, I was correcting Bardos who said, or at least implied that US had ratified the agreement. But that does not matter. The agreement has no bearing on the present situation.

It does, regardless of whether or not you accept that the new Ukrainian government is it's legal and constitution. The memorandum either applies since the new government is the legitimate government of Ukraine, or else it applies under the successor state principle.

As I have said, those issues are still very much up in the air.

 

[dystopian]

I was making 2 points. The first one was that even on this board, there was very little concern expressed about the US abuse of power in its support of terrorism against Syria as it became public 1-2 years after it started.

First off hang on, supporting terrorism? You can say that funelling resources to insurgents against another government isn't a nice thing to do, and it isn't. But that's not the same as supporting terrorism. The US supported insurgents following the start of the civil war; and while the syrian government claimed that it was just acting in response to terrorist acts, the evidence doesn't show that out. Certainly, acts of terror (from *both* sides*) occurred later on in the conflict, which is also; perhaps not coincidentally; when the US stopped supporting the insurgency.

However, even ignoring all that; if this board wasn't as concerned with that as it was with Syria, perhaps you should take that as an indication that people don't consider supporting an insurgency to be as big an abuse of power as annexing parts of one's neighbours?

Meanwhile, there has been lots of concern/hostility expressed towards Russia in its political/militaristic machinations within the Ukraine. Though there was a lot of chat here about the use of chemical weapons within Syria and what the west should do about it. I found this difference odd and commented on it, that’s all.

Why is that difference at all odd to you? It makes perfect sense to me: Syria is a civil war situation, with US involvement pretty damn limited compared to what Russia has done with Ukraine. Do you really not see any difference at all between the US imposing sanctions on a regime that's used sarin gas on people while supporting the opposition against said regime; and Russia coming in with their actual military assets after they've fostered separatist sentiments for years and then forcing a rigged referendum that lets them annex whole swaths of a sovereign country?

Of course there's going to be a difference in the way people respond!

Maybe European media outlets had lots of criticism of US actions in Syria as US involvement leaked out, but if so it is news to me.

So? I don't expect you to be aware of the way the media reports on things here; maybe you should consider that your (understandable) ignorance of the way European media frames things means that you can't really talk about 'western' media in the monolithic tones you've done so far.

Was French, German, or Italian TV or print media arguing that the US should be sanctioned last year?

Are you kidding? European media have been arguing that since G.W Bush.

Were EU prime ministers publically haranguing Obama for his support of terrorism in Syria last year?

No, why would they? A), they're diplomats and aren't going to piss off an important ally. And B), there actually isn't any solid evidence that the US supported *terrorism*; EU leaders aren't as eager to act on rumor and assertion as their American counterparts are.

When I speak of US media hypocrisy or lack of coverage of US actions, I’m not assuming that the government is giving the media orders. I know the US media is generally free to do what they want, and I understand that Russian media is not free. I have sometimes even made the sarcastic comment that the Kremlin-Russia is the world’s largest mafia.

You might want to emphasize that point more, since when you respond to issues like this by complaining about 'western' (or even just US) *hypocrisy*; what people actually *hear* is "the two are on exactly the same footing."

The second point was in how gently the atypical US media outlet treated the emergent news that the US was actually a significant player along with at least the Saudis and Turkey in supporting arming of foreign and domestic terrorists in Syria. The big US corporate media chooses to be very nice IMPOV concerning US support of violence and terrorism.

But again; there's no actual evidence that they knowingly supported *terrorism*; not afaik. Do not mistake the funding of insurgents (which has its own problems but is somewhat defensible given the actions of the Syrian government) with the knowing and pointed funding and support of terrorists. And keep in mind that when both sides started engaging in some heinous shit, the US *stopped* its support. I don't doubt that US media has painted an overly simplistic and pro-US narrative, but it doesn't help your case to treat unverified accusations as fact; and it certainly isn't as simple as 'the media/government say x, therefore it must be y instead'.

There was some interview late last year, in which a high ranking official (probably from the State Dept.) was being interviewed about the situation in Syria on something like CNN or ABC/NBC/CBS. The talk was generally about the terrible situation with refugees within and those that have fled Syria. The official went on bragging about how the US has been the biggest donor of humanitarian aid. Not one peep was made about the US support over the previous couple years in ratcheting up the violence within Syria.

So? Did you really expect a *government official* to say anything else? Would you rather your media don't interview government officials?