[mpyne]

I don't doubt that there are people in Ukraine actually supportive of, and legitimately participating in, that separatist movement.

But that is not, by itself, justification for Russia to intervene, especially unilaterally. It's not, never will be.

Think of the logic: If there were a group of 5,000 Americans living in Russia (who had been forced to move there 50 years earlier during a period of American rule in Russia), and they rebelled against Moscow (after lengthy exhortations and propaganda from D.C.), would you really be OK with America sending military forces to intervene on behalf of those separatists? Would you be OK with America providing very advanced weaponry, passports, military support, intelligence support, international top cover and more, all to support this separatist movement?

Or would you say that it was an internal matter for Russians to resolve amongst themselves, and that other states should stay out of the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation? I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war.

See, this isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement (however many legitimate aspects it might contain), with Ukraine's bordering neighbor deliberately intervening to tilt the scales as they wish.

[pipy]

> I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war.

So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side? I beg to disagree.

In fact, Kiev has been Washington’s military proxy against Russia and its “compatriots” in eastern Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by “senior US defense officials,” American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department official informed a Senate committee that the department’s “advisers” are now “embedded” in the Ukrainian defense ministry. [1]

> This isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement.

This is one way to see it. Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.

[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-riski...

[mpyne]

> So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side?

All outside parties have the right to be supportive of whichever side they wish.

The ways in which that support is expressed are not all allowable under international law, however. For instance, Obama supports the "moderate Syrian opposition", yet the U.S. has not invaded parts of Syria and annexed it, and then sent further military forces into the remainder of Syria to fight against Assad.

> Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.

You didn't need to remind me that there are alternate POVs. I'm sure that Russia has interests in Ukraine that are much different that the E.U., or the U.S., or NATO, or even Ukraine itself.

But having interests is no right to do whatever you wish. I've already expressed Obama's interest in the situation in Syria, yet you don't see him breaking down in a teary-eyed fit in international media about how Assad simply won't listen to him.

Obama is doing what he thinks he can and the situation will either resolve itself in the U.S.'s favor or it won't. But even if it doesn't go the U.S.'s way, he still won't invade. We used to be able to say the same of Putin, until Crimea (something he did finally admit to lying about, after the fact).

"Covert" action is one thing. Sending weapons and money is one thing. These are all things that are generally understood to be allowable ways for outside parties to aid (or not) belligerents. But even the things that are allowed come at the price of responsibility, which is why Obama won't give all the Super Ray Guns to Syrian moderates.

Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation. Russia supported the rest of the world in stopping the last time a tinpot dictator tried that exercise, in Kuwait. But now Russia is the aggressor itself...

[pipy]

> But now Russia is the aggressor itself...

Another way to view it, is that the West is waging a proxy war against Russia.

One might say that confrontation started with the West instigating a coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine and installing a pro-Western, pro-NATO regime. Another might say that it started when the West has methodically sabotaged all Russian actions to find peaceful solutions to the crisis in Eastern Ukraine and instead pushed for military options [1]. But these are technicalities.

There are two steps left before the possible direct military confrontation between the West and Russia. One step is the West officially sending troops to Ukraine, and another is Russia officially sending troops to Ukraine. Most probably, neither of them would be taken, but the situation is already dangerous enough.

Many say, that after we have left our military bases in Eastern Germany in exchange of the failed promise of NATO non-expansion, after many other actions of good will by USSR and then Russia, the West has been methodically showing us that it doesn't accept Russia as a peaceful partner.

By sanctioning Russia, by turning the blind eye on atrocities carried out by Kiev government, the West is waging the war against Russians, not only against Putin.

I do not know, how this crisis would end, but it is for sure going to set back our relations with the West for decades to come. And this is not all Putin's fault.

> Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation.

Before the Russian actions in Crimea, there was a popular uprising against coup government.

The main powerhouse of the uprising was the city of Sevastopol, which was home for Russian military bases for hundreds of years. The residents of the city have in 20+ years never been allowed to have democratic elections of the mayor, because all Ukrainian governments felt that they would elect pro-Russian mayor. Instead, for 20+ years, they got mayors appointed from Kiev, some anti-Russian.

Crimea has de facto not been under the coup government control even before the Russian actions and was lost by Ukraine before it was gained by Russia, just after the coup government has started to pass one of it's first laws, the one that revoked the rights of the Russian-speaking regions to use Russian as second official language.

Personally, I don't like how Russia used it's military in Crimea and think that people of Crimea should have been allowed to fight for the independence themselves, possibly with some help. This was important technical issue and Russia has most probably got it wrong.

The situation is complicated by the fact that in reality there are different parts of Ukraine with completely different mindsets, preferences and interests.

But it is the Western Ukraine that has invaded Eastern Ukraine (with the help of US), not the other way around. This is the core point. This is why the people of Eastern Ukraine have the moral high ground in their fight. This is why Russia is not an aggressor.

P.S.

The coup government has also been waging war against the population of Crimea [2], "it's own population". And it also doesn't allow for every citizen from Crimea to freely enter Ukraine, some of them are sent back home [3] [4].

[1] Great article by Stephen Cohen (professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University), which more or less summarizes not only my personal POW, but POW of many Russians and Ukrainians as well: http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw...

[2] http://en.itar-tass.com/world/729666

[3] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-17/ukraine-bars-entry-...

[4] http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/3351043-ukrayna-ot...

[PerfectDlite]

Wow, you've really earned your 30 roubles today.

So, let's start debunking your li... er, myths.

> West instigating a coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine and installing a pro-Western, pro-NATO regime

You're ly... wrong. There was no 'west instigation' and government was elected by Ukrainian people, not by 'West'.

>West has methodically sabotaged all Russian actions to find peaceful solutions to the crisis in Eastern Ukraine

Tell me about these actions? Sending mercenaries and military equipment to Ukraine? Shelling Ukrainian forces across the border? Spreading lies about Ukraine on state TV?

What other 'peaceful solutions' did I forgot? Oh, violating WTO principles by initiating a little trade war with Ukraine? More peaceful, than sending tanks to Ukraine, I must agree with that.

> after we have left our military bases in Eastern Germany in exchange of the failed promise of NATO non-expansion

You're wrong. There was no such promise, and there was no 'exchange'.

> The main powerhouse of the uprising was the city of Sevastopol, which was home for Russian military bases for hundreds of years.

Do you understand how silly it sounds? Cuba was Spanish military base for hundred of years, do you think they mad enough to take it back on a such false premise?

>The residents of the city have in 20+ years never been allowed to have democratic elections of the mayor, because all Ukrainian governments felt that they would elect pro-Russian mayor. Instead, for 20+ years, they got mayors appointed from Kiev, some anti-Russian.

So, in your beloved Russia, governors was not elected for 10 years, so you will blame Putin?

> Crimea has de facto not been under the coup government control even before the Russian actions and was lost by Ukraine before it was gained by Russia.

You're wrong again. Using Latin will not bring more credibility to this statement.

> But it is the Western Ukraine that has invaded Eastern Ukraine (with the help of US), not the other way around.

This is so good fantasy, you can try to sell it as a movie script. I'm not even sure that I need to debunk this particular myth.

> This is the core point. This is why the people of Eastern Ukraine have the moral high ground in their fight. This is why Russia is not an aggressor.

So you're trying to tell us, that if false statements are propagated in the russian media, then you could hide the facts of Russian mercenaries fighting against Ukrainian forces, Russian tanks and APCs flow across border and FSB/KGB crooks in Ukraine in charge of terrorists?

Do you honestly believe this could be hidden just because it was not shown on kremlin TV?

> The coup government has also been waging war against the population of Crimea [2], "it's own population".

Really? This is considered a 'war' right now?

Ok, in this case Russia is waging war against Ukraine right now, by cutting it's gas supply.

> And it also doesn't allow for every citizen from Crimea to freely enter Ukraine, some of them are sent back home

Yes. It's called 'customs', are you aware what this means?