Monday, September 8, 2014
Russia / Ukraine
This is certainly a major world event which has led to sanctions by the U.S. and involvement by NATO.
Who is NATO? Why would they get involved?
What prompted Russia to invade the Ukraine (shortly after the olympics)? What are their motives? Are they justified in your opinion
Is it any other nation's business to get involved, or are those matters which only involve Russia and the Ukr
aine only?
Photo: http://www.businessinsider.com/map-russian-invasion-ukraine-2014-4
This is my weekly post
ReplyDeleteWhen Russia first invaded the Ukraine, everyone reacted differently. Russia gave no warning to U.S. officials, they just went in. Some even went as far as saying it will be the next war. That statement is obviously an overreaction but British Prime Minister David Cameron is not taking any chances, he does not want an appeasement just like in World War two with Hitler. Cameron has warned other European leaders not to let it happen again. This is just a precaution because it has only gone as far as the Ukraine but the idea is still there. Marcin Zaborowski, director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs claims that with Russia failing to get NATO’s message, Russia will continue to find new targets in Europe. “NATO’s failure to send a clear signal to Russia by supporting Ukraine represents in itself a grave threat to the alliance’s Central East European members—who may be next on the list of potential Russian targets”. According to the National Post, Russia has pulled over two thirds of its troops out of the Ukraine. With Russia’s troops leaving, America does not need to get involved, it’s not their fight. The only thing that America would be worth getting involved in would be to do like they did in Vietnam, train the Ukraine so they can defend against Russia. With the withdrawal of some of Russia’s troops does this mean it’s over? I don’t think so, but we may be getting closer to peace, or is it ending already and it hasn’t been revealed to the world yet?
Sources
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/10/russian-has-pulled-more-than-two-thirds-of-its-troops-from-ukraine-ukrainian-president-says/
http://www.news.com.au/world/david-cameron-urges-european-leaders-not-to-make-the-same-mistake-with-vladimir-putin-as-with-adolf-hitler/story-fndir2ev-1227047043224
http://cofda.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/russia-invades-ukraine/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/opinion/ukraine-nato-zaborowski/index.html
By Jack Nichol
Should anyone send troops is interesting. The original purpose of NATO was to defend its members from conflict. As I am sure you know neither Ukraine nor Russia are members of NATO (source 1). This alone should say that NATO stay out of the situation. However a written part of NATO commitments states that “…that an armed attack against one or more of the [allies] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…” and that “…each of them…will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.." (Source 2). So is this any business of NATO?
Deletehttp://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm
http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-March-2014/institutions-matter-that-trite-phrase-has-come-back-into-its-own-in-the-continuing-crisis-over-crimea-the-roles-that-the-european-union-played-wittingly-or-not-in-the-run-up-to-the-actions-taken-by-russian-presid.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an international alliance of 28 member states throughout North America and Europe. Their purpose when forming in 1949 is simply to defend its member states from conflict. Though Ukraine is not a member state of NATO, the organization announced early into the conflict arising in Ukraine that it disapproved of Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. It's involvement in the defence of the Ukraine can be contributed to the worry in the Baltic states, closely neighbouring Russia and the Ukraine that could potentially be invaded. NATO helping to end the conflict early may prevent their direct involvement being required if the conflict escalated and NATO members in the Baltic states were invaded. Russia invaded the Ukraine early this year to support the pro-Russian separatist protestors in Crimea. From potentially annexing Crimea, they would not only add more land to their already extensive country, but also gain more direct access to a major Russian naval base in the Black Sea Peninsula, which houses around 15,000 Russian military. Why did this invasion begin just shortly after the Olympics? Perhaps Russian government worried that an invasion during the Olympics would cause NATO countries to pull their athletes or even for worldwide sponsors to cut funding. In any case, their involvement was not justified. The conflict that arose in the Ukraine was only escalated by Russia's involvement and has led to national discord that is currently in the country. Russia should have allowed the conflict in Ukraine to be solved politically within itself without involving militia and violence. The only reason for other countries to become involved in the conflict is to act as peacekeepers in the situation until it can be resolved.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/nato-poised-help-ukraine-defend-itself-president-obama-says-n194456
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/mobile/opinion/article/top-5-myths-about-russias-invasion-of-crimea/495918.html
Your ideology about Russia's 'timing' to invade the Ukraine was extremely interesting to read. I never would have hypothesized that Russia may have waited until after the Olympics to involve themselves in the Ukrainian Crisis. Do you believe that it is justified for a country to involve itself in another countries conflicts? How does Russia's involvement in the Ukraine compare to America's involvement in Afghanistan? I feel they were both invasive to the conflicting nations, whether the intentions were good or bad.
ReplyDeleteI think you have brought up some interesting questions regarding the justification of a country involving itself with other countries conflicts. This can be a hard thing to determine. Even with our own country. Although most people would think Canada is doing the right thing by sending in Peace Keepers to other countries are we not just sticking our noses in others business? Or is it ok because we are helping? Just like NATO is thinking about doing. The other issue is that our world has reach the point that we are all very connected in many ways. So conflict between countries will affect us in more ways then before. Deeming this to be true, is it then justifiable to send troops and get involved?
DeleteComparing Russia and America's involvement with other countries, I don't think can be done, there reasonings are two completely different scales. Though I do like the way you phrased it. How else would America have gotten Osama if they didn't go to Afghanistan? Though I don't support the Russians, there is a possibility that this invasion Is just to look tough, but who knows, I think only Russia and the Ukraine can answer that one.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn agreement, comparing America and Russia's reasoning is next to impossible as they are entirely different, but that is the point of a comparison, regardless on a larger more worldly scale, only 11 countries at this time are 'conflict free'. As 'The Independent' newspaper states, since 2007 world peace has been significantly decreasing. I believe that countries need to stay out of other nations internal conflicts to a certain extent, yet again, when a government (for example the Taliban) is supporting a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda, or when groups such as ISIS exist, where do you draw the line, what militia forces from outside nations are acceptable and unacceptable? An off topic example being Obama's decision to Air Raid ISIS which was publicly announced Wednesday September 10th 2014.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, and it's hard to tell who to go after when you're a world power. The argument can be made to stay out of other countries internal affairs. However in a way for example the US believes that they are the world police. Obama sending over 400 troops to ISIS contolled land is exactly how the war in Vietnam started. With Russia, I believe that they wanted to flex their muscles and "prove who's boss" but they clearly havent gone about it the right way.
DeleteThis is my weekly blog post.
ReplyDeleteNATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a country-communion “to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means” (1), also doubling as a “collective defence” (1), a link for transatlantic trade, and a council to discuss events of world-changing magnitude. It is often stated that NATO was formed in response to a militarization of the Soviet Union, but this is not true (2). NATO is stated to have been started for the purposes of:
“deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.” (2)
That is what makes this issue to intriguing – the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 25th,, 1991 separated Russia from other parts of Europe which had up until then been under firm Soviet control, including Ukraine. Even though NATO was founded for the purpose of anti-Soviet expansion, when the Soviet Union crumbled and Boris Yeltsin became the first Russian President (4), NATO became involved with the Russian state in an establishment of the NATO-Russia council. This pact technically made Russia a 29th member of the NATO agreement. Ukraine has never been, and is not currently, a part of the NATO council by elected choice.
Currently, Vladimir Putin – the Russian president who took power after Yeltsin – denies all allegations of Russian invasion into the Ukraine, as well as accusations placed against Russia involving the arming and support of Russia-Ukraine rebels. In an interview, Putin stated:
“Russia has the right to defend its ethnic kin beyond its borders, though Moscow denies arming the rebels and helped broker the current ceasefire with Kiev” (5).
Despite his protests, there have currently been fifteen reported cases of Russian soldiers being killed in Ukraine, though none have currently been tied back to separatist rebels. There are also “rising suspicions” in Russia involving soldiers being killed in “unknown conflicts” and returned to their families. It has been stated by many newspapers, only outside of Russia, that “Russian authorities have worked to systematically silence rights workers' complaints over soldiers’ deaths, intimidating those who question the Kremlin's denials that its soldiers are in Ukraine. (6)”. Though no protests have begun, a recent article said that “The idea of an outright invasion of eastern Ukraine by Russian troops is highly unpopular in Russia. A survey by pro-Kremlin pollster Fund of Social Opinions said 57 percent of Russians support the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, but only 5 percent support an invasion of Ukrainian territory. (6)”.
(Marked post continues in reply - sorry for the length, didn't realize I was going so long)...
Moving away from factual research and into my own opinion of events (which, I will freely admit, I know very little of in a socio-militaristic sense) – I would say that NATO is justified in supporting the Ukraine. There has been very little Ukrainian hostility toward Russia before the proposed invasion, and reports of Russian support of the rebels. Ukraine does not have the military force to pose a real threat to Russia, but an anti-Ukraine build-up in Russia would pose a serious threat to the smaller country. Ukraine has a GDP (Gross Domestic Product - “the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year.”) of 177.4 billion. This might sound like a lot, but compared to Russia's 2.097 trillion (also twelve times that of Ukraine), it's nothing. Though NATO is justified in backing the Ukraine, they have as-of-yet taken a neutral standpoint on the conflict. In a recent NATO meeting, there seemed to be more support for the Ukraine than the previously NATO-incorporated Russia. Personally, I would say that we stay out of the conflict, but watch carefully. Since I personally would never enter a conflict in another country where there is a high possibility of death, I feel unjustified in saying that any NATO-allied soldiers should be asked to do the same.
DeleteSources:
“2.1 - A Political and Military Alliance”. Nato.
"A Short History of NATO”. Nato.
"What is Russia's status – is it a partner country?” Nato.
"Boris Yeltsin." Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2014. Web. 15 Sep. 2014.
"Ukraine PM Slams Putin, Ceasefire Again Under Strain in East Ukraine". Moscow Times. TheMoscowTimes, 2014. Web. 14 Sep. 2014.
Grove, Thomas; Tsetkova, Maria. “Special Report: Moscow stifles dissent as soldiers return in coffins”
Reuters. Moscow, 2014. Web. 12 Sep. 2014.