Antonio Munoz Molina wrote in 2012, “When barbarity triumphs, this doesn’t happen because the barbarians are so strong but, rather, because the civilized people give up so easily.”
Barbarity Triumphs
Opinions, art, debate
Opinions, art, debate
Antonio Munoz Molina wrote in 2012, “When barbarity triumphs, this doesn’t happen because the barbarians are so strong but, rather, because the civilized people give up so easily.”
Clarissa's Blog 
On the torture and murder of Reshat Ametov.
http://jpohl.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-first-pogrom-victim.html
LikeLike
Luckily, I have enough barbarian nature in myself to see what is going on and interpret it most of the time. Those without any barbarian nature themselves are usually blindsided.
LikeLike
I guess I’m being blindsided. I read every story about Ukraine and Crimea in this morning’s Washington Post, including an analysis of the emotions and history involved by a former colleague of mine at the Baltimore Sun. I don’t give any credence to cable news speculation.
Forgive me, but I have read no credible evidence that this is anything but a civil war of WORDS involving Russia, Ukraine and Crimea. In fact, if it is a civil war, I’d put the emphasis on the word “civil.” There’s much hand-wringing about a Russian “invasion” of Crimea. Really? Has a single shot been fired? The Russian and Ukraine soldiers in fact seem quite chummy.
The main issues seem to be emotional grievances regarding the official language in Ukraine (reminds me of Quebec’s grievances against English-speaking Canada), “sovereignty,” and which paper money to use. I suspect the “crisis” might blow over if the U.S. would butt out and Ukraine simply decided to recognize both Russian and Ukrainian as official languages.
I do not understand what makes the U.S. and European countries so self-righteous that they must declare economic war on Russia. Yes, I see one blog report that one person has been tortured and killed. There are anecdotes about “volatile protests,” outside agitators and thugs beating up people. As a journalist, know the difficulty of confirming such anecdotes.
In the U.S. most of this would be called street crime, police brutality, or “the right to gather in public and express grievances,” protected under the Bill or Rights. How many confirmed casualties in Ukraine or Crimea? I’m serious. There are 500 murders a year in Chicago. Multiple murders every weekend in Washington and Baltimore. Is it more dangerous right this moment to be in Kiev or in Chicago?
The U.S. government “said the vote was rigged and discounted it as illegal.” How does the U.S. know that? I’ve studied politics my whole life, and I have no trouble at all believing that a large majority of people in Crimea would vote allegiance to Russia, and did so on Sunday. Where is the evidence to the contrary? (Yes, 97% seems an obvious exaggeration. So what?) I cannot even verify the election results in my own state, Maryland, where we use a computerized voting system with no way to audit the results. If the computers have not already been hacked, they will be some day soon.
It seems to me that the U.S. and Great Britain foment wars and economic hardship by meddling in internal affairs of other countries. Sorry, I know I sound naive, and maybe I am. I have a healthy skepticism about what is true or false or propaganda or posturing.
LikeLike
“The main issues seem to be emotional grievances regarding the official language in Ukraine (reminds me of Quebec’s grievances against English-speaking Canada), “sovereignty,” and which paper money to use.”
– These are definitely not the central issues for anybody in Ukraine or Russia. Honestly, this is the first time I hear about paper money in this context at all. I get my news from Russian and Ukrainian media and people I know who live in these countries.
“In the U.S. most of this would be called street crime, police brutality, or “the right to gather in public and express grievances,” protected under the Bill or Rights.”
– If the Russian troops crossed the US border, would this still be called street crime and police brutality?
“I suspect the “crisis” might blow over if the U.S. would butt out and Ukraine simply decided to recognize both Russian and Ukrainian as official languages.”
– In 1994, Ukraine, Russia and the US signed the Budapest accords in which the US promised not to butt out in case Russia violates the territorial wholeness of Ukraine in its 1994 borders. Out of these 3 countries, Ukraine is the only one that fulfilled its part of the agreement by handing over its entire nuclear arsenal to Russia, the country that has invaded right now. If the US didn’t want to have anything to do with what is happening in that area, it shouldn’t have signed the agreements. Wouldn’t you agree that you can’t enter into a contract, get everything you wanted from the other party, and then refuse to fulfill your part of the obligations you freely undertook?
” Is it more dangerous right this moment to be in Kiev or in Chicago?”
– If you look at the map, you will see that Kiev lies pretty far from the Russian border, there are no Russian troops there. Yet. The invasion is taking place in the Lugansk, Kharkov, Mariupol’, Kherson and the Crimea areas. Tragically, these are, indeed, highly criminalized areas. 😦 However, now on top of the street crime and the mafia, there are foreign troops there.
“It seems to me that the U.S. and Great Britain foment wars and economic hardship by meddling in internal affairs of other countries.”
– Russia has been invading Ukraine long before the US even existed. This is not about the US and definitely not about the UK, which has been selling itself to the bandits from Russia for years.
“Sorry, I know I sound naive, and maybe I am.”
– I’m very grateful to you for trying to understand.
LikeLike
“- If the Russian troops crossed the US border, would this still be called street crime and police brutality?”
AND
“- Russia has been invading Ukraine long before the US even existed. This is not about the U.S. and definitely not about the UK.”
Both good points! And you can see the absurdity when you place the above two statements side-by-side in historical and geopolitical context.
I’m not an expert at this, so I hesitate to make the following analogy, and I welcome more knowledgeable observers to correct me: Doesn’t it seem that Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea have a long history of almost interfamilial marriages of convenience and breakups? Tumultuous relationships, to be sure, trial separations, and maybe divorce, friendly or otherwise. But they are geographically intertwined; they HAVE to live near each other over the long run, and so they do. As you point out, this love-hate affair has been going on since LONG BEFORE the U.S. existed. I agree, it’s NOT about the U.S. or the UK, so what gives the U.S. and UK the right to declare economic world war?
And the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the U.S., Britain, and Russia reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, and Ukraine agreed to return its nuclear weapons to Russia. Well. (deep breath) The salient point here is the nuclear weapons. Thank God! You could keep an international courtroom full of lawyers busy for a century, arguing what the wording of the Budapest Memorandum (contract?) means. Would the world be a better place if Ukraine had those nuclear weapons at this moment? A few Ukrainian NATIONALISTS would say “Yes,” but they would be crazy; and everyone else, especially Russia, Crimea, U.S. and UK, understands, in retrospect, the wisdom of the nuclear weapons accord made at Budapest. After the past century of European and Russian history, can’t we all agree that emotional NATIONALISM is not sufficient reason to start a shooting war?
And thank God the U.S. and UK commitment to the territorial “sovereignty” of Ukraine is definitely not a “mutual defense treaty” requiring the U.S. and UK to defend militarily the sanctity of the region’s artificial boundary lines. What exactly does the word “sovereignty” imply in this case? Can anyone untangle the history and mythology behind these lines on a map? Let Russian, Ukraine, and Crimea work this out in divorce court.
LikeLike
“Both good points! And you can see the absurdity when you place the above two statements side-by-side in historical and geopolitical context.”
– I’m really not sure what you are saying. Could you clarify? Where is the absurdity?
” Doesn’t it seem that Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea have a long history of almost interfamilial marriages of convenience and breakups? Tumultuous relationships, to be sure, trial separations, and maybe divorce, friendly or otherwise. But they are geographically intertwined; they HAVE to live near each other over the long run, and so they do. As you point out, this love-hate affair has been going on since LONG BEFORE the U.S. existed.”
– Most countries have a neighbor or several. But Ukraine has a history of being invaded, pillaged, robbed and persecuted by its neighbor. There has been no “marriage.” Only a horrifying enslavement.
” so what gives the U.S. and UK the right to declare economic world war”
– The Budapest accords.
“After the past century of European and Russian history, can’t we all agree that emotional NATIONALISM is not sufficient reason to start a shooting war”
– I agree. But the Russians don’t. Herein lies the entire problem.
“And thank God the U.S. and UK commitment to the territorial “sovereignty” of Ukraine is definitely not a “mutual defense treaty” requiring the U.S. and UK to defend militarily the sanctity of the region’s artificial boundary lines.”
– I can only repeat that nobody asked the US for any military assistance to Ukraine. Nobody wants it, nobody expects it. However, I don’t understand why it’s proving so hard for the US and the EU to deport the Russian bandits and prevent them and their families from entering civilized countries. Surely, that’s not too much to ask?
“Let Russian, Ukraine, and Crimea work this out in divorce court.”
– I’m not sure what stands for “divorce court” in your metaphor. The UN?
“What exactly does the word “sovereignty” imply in this case?”
– This was a question to ask back in 1994. You don’t sign an agreement, get what you wanted, and then 20 years later say that the terms of the agreement you signed of your own free will are not very clear to you.
“The salient point here is the nuclear weapons. Thank God! You could keep an international courtroom full of lawyers busy for a century, arguing what the wording of the Budapest Memorandum (contract?) means. Would the world be a better place if Ukraine had those nuclear weapons at this moment?”
– I really don’t understand what you are saying. That international treaties are meaningless and nobody should fulfill the obligations they undertake in such treaties? That would be the end of international law. Is that what you are advocating? Should countries unilaterally decide when to stop fulfilling the agreements they undertook?
LikeLike
I must apologize for saying “absurdity.” Don’t know what I was thinking. I botched that part of the comment completely. I was only trying to reinforce the point that the U.S. has no part in this matter, and that, as you say, the Russian-Ukrainian problem has a long and not very pretty history.
Yep. “Marriage and divorce” was not a good analogy. As you say, it’s been an exploitative relationship, or worse.
Your point that most countries have bordering neighbors is a good one. Further, border disagreements and even incursions are common. Many times in history, border conflicts have lead to general war with much death and destruction. But just as often, cooler heads prevail, even in the most dangerous situations. For instance, the border dispute between India and Pakistan is chronic and scary, but again and again, it stops short of war. Hopefully we’ll have the same result in Ukraine. The U.S. and UK should not assume the worst outcome and respond with belligerent accusations and economic punishment. That only tends to inflame matters. Just my opinion.
Regarding the final point about treaties and international law. The sad fact is that nations observe treaty obligations only so long as it serves their interest. Both the U.S. and Russia, to name only two nations, have broken many treaties. The most shameful history may be the repeated U.S. disregard for treaties with American Indian tribes.
In my opinion, interpretations of the Budapest Memorandum are subject to interpretation, and also in my opinion, “international law” is an oxymoron.
The important result of the Budapest Memorandum is that Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons. With no weapons of mass destruction in play, the internal politics of Ukraine, and Russia’s clear intent to take advantage of the situation, are issues which can be settled peacefully by Russia and Ukraine.
If nuclear weapons were available, this regional flareup would put the world on the brink of World War III.
Clarissa, many of the points I’ve made reveal my high tolerance for ambiguity. The situation in Ukraine and Crimea seems to me to be fluid, and yes, ambiguous.
I probably should not have tried to make sense of a situation that I know so little about.
My position can be shortened to “Give Peace A Chance.”
I’ll make this my last comment on the subject, at least for a while, but I’ll continue to read your daily posts with interest.
LikeLike