[Jinto]

Originally Posted by yononaka

You know, Jinto, instead of acting as though I haven't said anything useful and have simply been baiting you, you might want to better explain the logic of how even after the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent fomenting of (and, for all intents and purposes, active participation in) an armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine by Russia you can still claim equivalency with the actions of the US or the EU and any of its member states in terms of irresponsibility and putting civilian lives at risk. The US and the EU really don't have to be "heroes" (as you claim they're being treated) to come out looking pretty good compared to Russia at this point. In this particular conflict, at least.

Well, for Russia Crimea is a vital strategic interest. They were just waiting for a chance to annex it. I mean the blue print for such incidents was established with the separation of the Kosovo from Serbia at the end of the Yugoslavian civil war. What makes Kosovo so special is, that the people living in a UN recognized state can actually decide to declare independence from the state under certain circumstances (e.g. racial or political tensions).
Russia which backing Serbia here, always defended the sovereignity of the UN recognized state Serbia + Kosovo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...tion_of_Kosovo

Lets just say, Russia learned something in the process... (something that leads to most of their irresponsible actions)

Now, lets go back in time when the iron curtain fell. The then USSR accepted the ending of the warsaw pact under the condition that there would be no expansion of NATO into the east. Did they have any means to enforce these conditions? Not at the time.

Hence, the NATO members were more then willing to accept many new NATO members in the east. Its not a big secret, that those nations wished to join the NATO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

notice the 4th, 5th and 6th enlargement. What is important to point out here, is that after 2004 NATO enlargement was basically stopped into the east. After 2008 (Kosovo's declaration of independance from Serbia) NATO enlargement took only place in countries that were basically encircled by NATO already.

A subsequent effort which was spearheaded by the US to extend NATO by including Georgia... failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO-Georgia_relations

Now, the date 2008 (Kosovo's declaration of independance from Serbia) marks the starting of unrests in Georgia. I mean this is no coincidence, especially if you know what Medvedev stated:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

On 21 November 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev while addressing soldiers in Vladikavkaz near the Georgian border stated that the 2008 invasion had prevented any further NATO enlargement into the former Soviet sphere.

From this point on, it should have been clear to anyone, that Russia wont allow anymore NATO enlargement into the former Soviet sphere.

Lets jump forward in time to the events in the Ukraine, when Yanukovich the pro-russia President and his cronies took over office. At the time the EU was brokering a treaty with the Ukraine, the relationships with Russia always were on shaky grounds, so the deal could have had a realistic chance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine...tion_Agreement

It contained a backdoor though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_...Defence_Policy

This could have been used as a softener to prepare a NATO membership with Ukraine. Now Russia was also aware of this and hence offert a treaty themselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs...tan_and_Russia

To further increase the pressure on the Ukraine Russia's customs simply stopped ukrainian goods into Russia.

Additionally the EU made one thing clear, Ukraine cannot sign both treaties. And that is the most irresponsible move of the EU in all this in my oppinion. Because this is basically like Russia and the EU each pointing with a gun towards Ukraine. This created a situation, were every decission the Ukraine takes, would cause severe internal tensions. The tensions (Maidan):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

..led to the complete destabilization of the Ukraine. At this point however, the EU/Germany tried to "fix" things (but in my oppinion this act was much too late, many people had died - and for the German foreign policies the whole Euromaidan was opportunistically met with a stance of let things happen - the irresponsible act that I would credit to Germany).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...tion-bloodshed

Still the late fix could have worked... with US support. But this move for de-escalation was too soft according to the US (its like they smelled a chance to f*ck it up and used it - that would be the US' most irresponsible act in this)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg

Now, I honestly do not care who looks less bad in all this. Because all those who were involved had a chance, not only to forsee what Russia is going to do (after lessons learned from Georgia) but also could have prevented the current Ukrainian conflict. But neither side had the morale to actually act responsibly. All sides were guided by their own interests, which makes them basically equally responsible from a morale point of view. And yes, this assessment based on morale is my personal opinion which is not up to debate.

Originally Posted by yononaka

As for your other baiting complaint, it's just that even though you say you leave Ukraine (and other Eastern European states before it) their own choice in with whom to hang out, if that choice happens to lean towards the West, it suddenly becomes about the US or the EU shaking things up and upsetting Russia's rightful claims in the area and what these countries themselves want suddenly ceases to matter. This may not be what you actually think, but it's certainly the impression I've gotten from you - and if you noticed, this was the main sticking point that prompted me to enter this discussion in the first place. Especially if you're well versed in Eastern Europe (I take that from you pointing out that some others are not), I just don't see how you'd arrive at a conclusion that the US/NATO/EU are at fault every time some country tries to distance themselves from Russia.

Choice should not always be provided with a sledge-hammer. This is simply unneccessary. Russia is a nuclear power, nobody will mess with them on a military level, especially not that close in their backyard.
So it was obvious that the only party at serious risk in all this was Ukraine. And yet that did not stop any party from letting things escalate. The "independent" Ukraine existed under russian influence for over two decades.
Which leads to a another irresponsibilty of the western powers - they virtually helped Russia annex Crimea and divide Ukraine.