Re: Try seeing it from the Kremlin's point of view
"Which Ukraine had not threatened."
Yet. Again, try to see it from Russia's viewpoint. It probably made more sense to Putin to act quickly to secure it rather than wait for it to descend into chaos. Also, how bad would it look domestically if it looked like he was abandoning ethnic Russians to the vagaries of a lawless state?
"Also Russia has a Black Sea coast on the Caucasus side...I'm sure there's a bay on that coast somewhere that would do if needs must."
Yesss... building a major naval base from scratch in an undeveloped coastal inlet can be done for peanuts and completed in a few months. Of course. How silly to think otherwise.
"How did that suddenly turn into a 97% referendum vote the other way?"
Maybe they felt threatened by the violence and realised they were an ethnic minority in Ukraine as a whole?
"The internationally-recognised Ukrainian government, corrupt or not, has been ousted in an armed uprising."
"Bollocks!"
That's only your opinion. Again, look at it from the Kremlin's point of view. They saw instability in a neighbouring country, realised that it could have an impact on an important strategic asset and moved quickly to secure that asset.
"Iraq was legal."
I must have missed something. Very sorry indeed. Please could you quote me the UN resolution that explicitly authorised the use of force against Saddam and which was passed before the invasion took place?
"Arguably so admittedly, but there is a legitimate legal argument to say that it was legal"
There's a moral argument, certainly. Not a legal one. And if, as you assert, international law is "semi-fictional", then you need to explain how you can make a legal argument in the absence of a legal code without resorting to morals.
"the UN did approve the occupation."
It's called a fait accompli. What else could they do?
"There was also no annexation"
Quite right - an armed occupation is something else entirely.
"and troops were withdrawn after a government was set up."
Indeed they were withdrawn. Eventually. Leaving a lot of dead bodies and an unstable mess plagued with sectarian violence. Or is that what's meant by collateral damage?
"Notice any difference of the Russian invasion of Crimea?"
Loads. A lot less bloodshed, a lot more legitimate interest, far less posturing and no lies to all and sundry about weapons of mass destruction, state-sponsored terrorism and support for al-Quaeda.
"There is not even an arguable case for Russia's annexation to be called legal."
Depends where you're coming from. A tap-room lawyer would certainly say that. Again, in the face of "semi-fictional" international law, it's possible to make a reasonable case.
"Aha. So now the faux moral arguments and the everyone-esle-is-as-bad-too whattaboutery go by the wayside."
No, they don't. They still stand. They just have to be balanced against realpolitik because that's what it comes down to in the end.
"Russia is a serial violator of international law and a threat to world peace."
Maybe they've learned a lot from the actions of the US, the UK and Israel over the years.
"invading their neighbours. What with destroying Chechenya and massacreing thousands"
Chechnya wasn't a separate sovereign state. Bit of a difference there. I'm not excusing what Putin did in Chechnya but he didn't launch an unprovoked invasion, unlike what Bush and Blair did in Iraq.
"So rather than the childish crap about how we need to look to the beam in our own eye before addressing the mote in Putin's we need to look at the reality facing us."
Indeed we do. As far as armed aggression goes, the West, particularly the US, has a track record that doesn't put us in a particularly favourable light.
"The question is can we work out Putin's motivation - and is he acting rationally?"
It seems to me to be far more rational to secure an essential asset without bloodshed than to launch an unprovoked attack on a country on the other side of the world.
"Merkel (up to now Germany has been pretty close to Russia diplomatically) said, after speaking to Putin on the phone last week, that he was "divorced from reality"."
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But there is still the point that Putin has not directly threatened either NATO or the EU. If he'd tried it on with Finland or the Baltic states, it would be different matter. If the EU takes a tough line with Putin, there will be some pain on both sides. Why act the hard man when the EU hasn't been threatened? Massive sanctions would hit the EU harder than the US.
"Note that at no time did Putin attempt to negotiate."
His attitude - again, remember how the Kremlin would have seen it - was, and is, that you don't negotiate with terrorists or insurgents. You crush them. Again, the West also has plenty of form in that area. It took a long time to get to the Good Friday agreement. How are the negotiations with ETA going? Or the Taliban?
And no, I'm not a Putin apologist. Or a supporter of armed aggression. I'm just an ordinary bod who's prepared to make the effort to see both sides of the argument and not automatically assume that the West is always right.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
