When people read the DOI they often overlook the part where it says that governments long established should not be overturned for "light and transient reasons" but only under extreme circumstances when all other options have been exhausted and when oppression has become unbearable. If that were the case in Crimea I think the pro-Russian party would have won more than 3/100 seats in the Crimean Parliament.
How about Transylvania? Should Hungary be able to annex it from Romania as it is historically part of Hungary?
What about the western coast of Turkey and Istanbul? "Historically" Greek, yeah? Or for that matter all of Anatolia which the Greeks ruled for far longer than the Turks have.
You can see why revising borders based on historical claims is a very nasty slippery slope given the history of Europe.
And, despite these numbers. the pro-Russian annexationist party in the Crimean Parliament had exactly 3 seats out of 100 in the Crimean Parliament pre-invasion. Support inside Crimea for Russian annexation was a fringe, kook element, analogous to something like the Alaska Independence Party or Vermont secessionists in the USA.
That is nothing like the overwhelming support inside Kosovo for independence after the attempted genocide by the Milosevic government.
That's nice, but there was a genocide being perpetrated against Albanians in Kosovo. There is no ongoing genocide of ethnic Russians in Crimea. Not even RT would say something that outrageous.
I can actually see the comparison working (in actions, not persons, mind you) if we limit ourselves to the Sudetenland Crisis. The annexing of a strip of foreign territory on trumped up charges of ethnic repression is indeed very similar.
However, it's best to avoid dropping the H bomb even when two actions really are similar given the, um, unique nature of Hitler's worldview. Just staying within Germany a much less inflammatory example would be Prussia's annexation of Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark in the 1860s.
I can't really speak to Sudan or Iraq, but I have quite a good knowledge of the Balkan conflicts and the comparison with Yugoslavia is face and ignorant at best.
There were huge, indegenous majorites in Bosnia and Kosovo that desired independence from Serbia, to say nothing of Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia.
No such majorities exist in the Crimea. The pro-Russian annexationist party had a grand total of three seats in the Crimea Parliament out of 100 before Russian intervention. Putin, of course, promptly installed this party as the new ruling party of Crimea after Russian troops invaded. Also, there was an ongoing genocide being perpetrated in Bosnia and Kosovo by the Milosevic government, there was no such ongoing genocide of Russians in Crimea. The only shots fired there so far have been into the air. To compare the Yugoslav conflicts to Crimea is laughable.
I can say a lot about US foreign policy but in the Balkan conflicts the US was in the right.
I can't really speak to Sudan or Iraq, but I have quite a good knowledge of the Balkan conflicts and the comparison with Yugoslavia is really facile and ignorant at best.
There were overwhelming indigenous majorities in Bosnia and Kosovo that desired independence from Serbia, to say nothing of Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia.
No such majorities exist in the Crimea. The pro-Russian annexationist party had a grand total of three seats in the Crimea Parliament out of 100 before Russian intervention. Putin, of course, promptly installed this party as the new ruling party of Crimea after Russian troops invaded. Also, there was an ongoing genocide being perpetrated in Bosnia and Kosovo by the Milosevic government, there was no such ongoing genocide of Russians in Crimea. The only shots fired there so far have been into the air. To compare the Yugoslav conflicts to Crimea is laughable.
First, and most importantly, there is no alternative global ideology being promoted by Putin here. He's just your old Great Russian chauvinist reincarnated. Crass, autocratic nationalism fueled by petro-dollars is not exactly Marxism-Leninism. Sure, he wants Russian dominance in the "near-aborad" (whether he will get it or not is another question) but you're not going to see Russia start attempting to install puppet governments in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America any time soon.
Second, the Russian Federation does not have the global reach the USSR did. It is not a Superpower either economically or militarily. It is, at best, a medium-sized regional power. It will conflict with the US where it rubs up against it in places like Syria and the Ukraine but Russia is nowhere near the peer of the United States in world power. The only country coming even close to that right now is the People's Republic of China, and even there its a stretch.
When people read the DOI they often overlook the part where it says that governments long established should not be overturned for "light and transient reasons" but only under extreme circumstances when all other options have been exhausted and when oppression has become unbearable. If that were the case in Crimea I think the pro-Russian party would have won more than 3/100 seats in the Crimean Parliament.
How about Transylvania? Should Hungary be able to annex it from Romania as it is historically part of Hungary?
What about the western coast of Turkey and Istanbul? "Historically" Greek, yeah? Or for that matter all of Anatolia which the Greeks ruled for far longer than the Turks have.
You can see why revising borders based on historical claims is a very nasty slippery slope given the history of Europe.
"Almost 75% of Crimeans are ethnic Russians."
And, despite these numbers. the pro-Russian annexationist party in the Crimean Parliament had exactly 3 seats out of 100 in the Crimean Parliament pre-invasion. Support inside Crimea for Russian annexation was a fringe, kook element, analogous to something like the Alaska Independence Party or Vermont secessionists in the USA.
That is nothing like the overwhelming support inside Kosovo for independence after the attempted genocide by the Milosevic government.
That's nice, but there was a genocide being perpetrated against Albanians in Kosovo. There is no ongoing genocide of ethnic Russians in Crimea. Not even RT would say something that outrageous.
And there are large chunks of Russia that used to belong to Poland. "Kalingrad" is historically the German city of Konigsbrug.
Do we really want to start litigating borders in Eastern Europe again? That generally doesn't end well.
Tens of thousands have been killed in the Ukraine over this? I think I'll need to see a source for that.
I can actually see the comparison working (in actions, not persons, mind you) if we limit ourselves to the Sudetenland Crisis. The annexing of a strip of foreign territory on trumped up charges of ethnic repression is indeed very similar.
However, it's best to avoid dropping the H bomb even when two actions really are similar given the, um, unique nature of Hitler's worldview. Just staying within Germany a much less inflammatory example would be Prussia's annexation of Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark in the 1860s.
I can't really speak to Sudan or Iraq, but I have quite a good knowledge of the Balkan conflicts and the comparison with Yugoslavia is face and ignorant at best.
There were huge, indegenous majorites in Bosnia and Kosovo that desired independence from Serbia, to say nothing of Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia.
No such majorities exist in the Crimea. The pro-Russian annexationist party had a grand total of three seats in the Crimea Parliament out of 100 before Russian intervention. Putin, of course, promptly installed this party as the new ruling party of Crimea after Russian troops invaded. Also, there was an ongoing genocide being perpetrated in Bosnia and Kosovo by the Milosevic government, there was no such ongoing genocide of Russians in Crimea. The only shots fired there so far have been into the air. To compare the Yugoslav conflicts to Crimea is laughable.
I can say a lot about US foreign policy but in the Balkan conflicts the US was in the right.
I can't really speak to Sudan or Iraq, but I have quite a good knowledge of the Balkan conflicts and the comparison with Yugoslavia is really facile and ignorant at best.
There were overwhelming indigenous majorities in Bosnia and Kosovo that desired independence from Serbia, to say nothing of Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia.
No such majorities exist in the Crimea. The pro-Russian annexationist party had a grand total of three seats in the Crimea Parliament out of 100 before Russian intervention. Putin, of course, promptly installed this party as the new ruling party of Crimea after Russian troops invaded. Also, there was an ongoing genocide being perpetrated in Bosnia and Kosovo by the Milosevic government, there was no such ongoing genocide of Russians in Crimea. The only shots fired there so far have been into the air. To compare the Yugoslav conflicts to Crimea is laughable.
This "New Cold War" meme is utterly ridiculous.
First, and most importantly, there is no alternative global ideology being promoted by Putin here. He's just your old Great Russian chauvinist reincarnated. Crass, autocratic nationalism fueled by petro-dollars is not exactly Marxism-Leninism. Sure, he wants Russian dominance in the "near-aborad" (whether he will get it or not is another question) but you're not going to see Russia start attempting to install puppet governments in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America any time soon.
Second, the Russian Federation does not have the global reach the USSR did. It is not a Superpower either economically or militarily. It is, at best, a medium-sized regional power. It will conflict with the US where it rubs up against it in places like Syria and the Ukraine but Russia is nowhere near the peer of the United States in world power. The only country coming even close to that right now is the People's Republic of China, and even there its a stretch.