Russia Today Anchor: What Russia Did in Ukraine Was Wrong

going to crimeaRTAbby Martin, an American anchor at the Russian government-sponsored cable network Russia Today, slammed Russia’s military intervention in the Ukrainian region of Crimea at the end of her show last night. “What Russia did is wrong,” she told her viewers, admitting she didn’t know as much as she should about the history and cultural dynamics of the region, but that nevertheless she did know that “military intervention is never the answer.”

In pointing out that American journalists and political commentators who were some of the biggest cheerleaders for U.S. intervention are now the loudest voices against Russian intervention, Glenn Greenwald notes that Martin’s “unapologetic denunciation” of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on an “unquestionably” pro-Russian network doesn’t quite have a parallel in the U.S. Writing at the Intercept, Greenwald asks:  “was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead-up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” If Pat Buchanan had a show in 2003, the answer is yes. Nevertheless, Pat Buchanan is not representative of American media culture or politics.

Russia Today responded to Martin’s segment, and the hoopla surrounding it, by insisting it “doesn’t beat its journalists into submission” and that they’re free to express their opinions, in private and on-air. In its response, the network announced it would be sending Martin to Crimea to “give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicentre of the story.”

Watch Martin’s segment below:

Disclosure: I’ve been on RT several times and have no complaints about those appearances. If I only appeared on media outlets I agree with 100 percent, or even just most of the time, I probably wouldn’t appear anywhere.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mike M.||

    “What Russia did is wrong. Military intervention is never the answer.”

    Thanks, professor. I'm not sure what we would do without your indispensable wisdom.

  • ||

    Thanks, WAR BONER. I'm not sure what we would do without your indispensable neo-con hackery.

  • ||

    He's just providing us with an underrepresented viewpoint.

  • ||

    He's picking up Tulpa's slack now that he's been outed.

  • RBS||

    Never gets old.

  • ||

    He does sound awfully Tulpical. I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.

  • Mike M.||

    Show me where I ever advocated that we should declare war on Russia or intervene militarily, you cartoon and soap opera addicted zombie.

    Nobody other than perhaps complete whackos like John McCain are advocating that. The real question for serious people who is: should we and the west do absolutely nothing at all, or should we respond to try to isolate and punish Russia in non-military ways.

  • ||

    "Serious people"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The armchair warrior-statesman who is posting from mommy's basement is of course the serious person because he contemplates isolation and punishment of Russia while eating his Cheetos and drinking his Sobe Adrenaline Rush, including mocking someone who actually put her ass on the line to state that what Russia did is wrong.

    Thanks for your opinion, moron. I'll take it as seriously as I take all your other neo-con retard and KULTUR WAR pronouncements. You truly are a serious person. Seriously fucking idiotic.

  • Mike M.||

    This is rich coming from the guy who spends around eight hours a day watching cartoons. I bet you haven't even cracked open a book in about ten years.

  • anon||

    I bet you haven't even cracked open a book in about ten years.

    Congrats, you've officially proven yourself an idiot incapable of arguing a point without diving directly into logical fallacies. Say hi to everyone's filter for me!

  • ||

    What the fuck are you talking about, retard? I know you have an entire fantasy world in your head--the best is that shriek is Weigel, that's a fucking classic--but seriously, I'm curious: what the fuck are you talking about? How delusional are you? Please, enlighten all of us here. Explain your statements. I'm abjectly curious.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The funny part is watching Epi do what he accuses Mike M of doing. So quick to point out lack of awareness in others.

  • RBS||

    I hate to jump in like this but the shriek = Weigel thing is pretty funny and actually makes sense.

  • ||

    HA! Stunningly, hilariously, completely wrongly weak. Do me next! Do me do me!

  • wareagle||

    Do me do me!

    you are a whore, arent' you. But you're violating the local expectations where the thought is Warty is the doer, not the do-ee.

    SF's book is going to need an edit.

  • ||

    I bet you haven't even cracked open a book in about ten years.

    He gave me a review on Hydrogen Sonata and that came out only like 2 years ago.

  • ||

    This is rich coming from the guy who spends around eight hours a day watching cartoons.

    Actually...

    What the fuck is wrong with that?!?!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Why is intervention in our national interests?

    Oh, yeah, we are our brother's keepers..

    FUCK YEAH!

  • anon||

    Because ... Because ... COMMON GOOD!!!11

    /republican

  • sarcasmic||

    Whenever I see "serious people" in an argument, I know that whatever follows will be some form of "if you agree with me then you're serious, otherwise you're a wacko." Question-begging at its finest.

  • ||

    You can't be taken seriously unless you're a serious person, sarcasmic. Tautologies are all the rage.

  • sarcasmic||

    Kinda like how if you don't support same sex marriage then you hate gays, and the only way to prove you don't hate gays is to support same sex marriage.

    You're right. Tautologies are all the rage.

  • ||

    Well, you hate yourself, and you're gay...that's a tautology, right? I failed Tautology 101.

  • Lord Humungus||

    wait, who's gay?

  • ||

    Also kind of like how if you vocally hate on gays, you can convince yourself and those around you that you aren't a closeted homosexual. Wait, that isn't a tautology, that's denial and delusion.

    Just admit it to yourself. You'll be so much happier.

  • ||

    Who else do we know who likes to tell us how serious he is? Let's all put on our thinking caps and brainstorm.

  • RBS||

    John?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Tulpa?

  • anon||

    anonbot?

  • Almanian!||

    A Serious Man?

  • SugarFree||

    A Serious Man?

    It is right there in the name.

  • Almanian!||

    yep - that's the joke

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Let me explain the game to you two neophytes...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Military intervention is never the answer" is... quite dogmatic and silly in the same way that the always-everwhere invade crowd is. Unfortunately, the coordinates of foreign policy do not align to neat axioms at all points.

  • wareagle||

    exactly. Absolutes are always wrong, aren't they?

    /checks for missing irony gene

    Still, it's kinda silly to say it's never the answer.

  • XM||

    "Military intervention is never the answer"

    What about WW2, Civil War and the Korean War? And the revolutionary war, in which the French "intervened".

    It seems like the right thing to say, except she admits that she doesn't know anything about the cultural dynamics or anything relevant about the region.

    There's only two ways to remove Russia from Ukraine - A military intervention (gasp) or super effective sanctions. But military intervention is NEVER the answer, so that that option is gone. Congress will take a month to decide on sanctions that doesn't hurt our interest (as well as allies close to Russia) while Putin can get approval for anything from his government in a day.

    If Russia doesn't go on horrific killing spree, we will forget about this by April Fool's day. Cinco de Mayo at the latest. The half of Ukraine that detest Russia will accept their fate and move on. Russia may have to deal with violent separatists here and there. The west can take pride in saying that "Russia is wrong, but military intervention to stop them is also wrong" and do nothing.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Abby seems like a nice anchor. I hope she has all her affairs in order.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I knew an Abby once. Abby. . .Abby Normal.

  • VicRattlehead||

    you had me put an abnormal brain into an 8 foot tall monster!!!!!!

  • JEP||

    "the network announced it would be sending Martin to Crimea to “give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicentre of the story.”"

    Gee, it'd be a shame if something awful happened to her while she was there...

  • Raven Nation||

    Yeah; like the old Soviet jokes that sports teams were not punished for failing to win, they were just given new employment opportunities in Siberia.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Off to the Russian front.

  • Paul.||

    Damn, you beat me to it. They're literally sending her to the Russian front.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    In post Soviet Russia, news watches you.

  • anon||

    Damn, that meme applies to the United States too, in this case.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    In post Constitutional Amerika, internet watches you.

  • anon||

    , but that nevertheless she did know that “military intervention is never the answer.”

    Such a simple statement from a simple person.

    Generally I disagree with any kind of military intervention myself, but come on: NEVER the answer? That's a bit excessive.

  • JEP||

    Short term, yes. For example, I don't see there being a diplomatic solution to Hitler.

    However, even our favorite economist Keynes warned that(because of the economic sanctions on Germany) the treaty of Versailles would create an environment just perfect for the rise of a dictator...

  • GILMORE||

    ergo ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ARE NEVER THE ANSWER...either?

    Is the "answer" therefore, "A" all the time? It will make the test go much faster if I know this in advance.

  • JEP||

    For the record, I'm a "if goods don't cross borders, then troops will" type of guy.

    I think Keynes' point about Versailles was that if you want to punish Germany for losing the war, don't make the punishment so harsh that it destroys Germany's currency/economy to the point where it creates social unrest.

  • GILMORE||

    I understood what 'Keynes' point' was.

    What I didn't understand was where in the chain of logic this thing was supposed to end =

    its clear that if military intervention is 'never the answer', and 'economic intervention is never the answer', then we're kind of quickly boiling things down to the default= there IS NO ANSWER, STOP PLAYING IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS ENTIRELY which I keep pointing out.

    there seems to be a pretend game here that there is some "answer" that remains unstated. Unless I missed something?

  • anon||

    You're kinda right: The only way to win this game is to not play.

  • JEP||

    You're right. I'd prefer it if we minded our own business.

    I guess I'd change Martin's statement to "Military intervention SHOULD never be the solution." That is, if every country's foreign policy wasn't "Be a dick to everyone" and politicians had the foresight to avoid potential conflict.

    In a perfect world...

  • Ed||

  • anon||

    Funny enough, that's pretty much my logic here.

  • Voros McCracken||

    There's a contextual thing missing. In the video before that, she specifically mentions "state intervention in a sovereign nation's affairs" so I'm assuming she means the above in those circumstances.

  • anon||

    Ok, well, if that is the case, then I would agree.

  • LibertyMark||

    So you have an opinion on the gulag, no? Well, then, we will send you there so you can have another opportunity to make up your mind.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    In its response, the network announced it would be sending Martin to Crimea to “give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicentre of the story.”

    At least she didn't get transferred to a Siberian outpost to make up her own mind find correct thinking.

  • ||

    “give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicentre of the story.”

    EPICENTER DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS CENTER

  • GILMORE||

    yeah but it sounds fancier. so, 'irregardless'...

  • Invisible Finger||

    Why be clear when bad metaphor can be used?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Wasn't it originally a technical term associated with earthquakes?

  • ||

    Yes, and it still is. Stupid fucking Russians and their stupid fake alphabet.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's really just a bad Greek alphabet. If they were really cool, they'd use the runes from their Rus forebears.

  • ||

    In Soviet Russia, alphabet fakes you! Or something. FUCK YOU YAKOV SMIRNOFF

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's amazing how long he has lived in our memories. Really, I hear him referenced more than, say, Sam Kinison.

  • Fluffy||

    That's because his epitome can be re-used in vastly more situations with only slight alteration.

    Also, referencing Kinison requires lots of shouting.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think about him every time I eat at an Ethiopian restaurant.

    I miss Sam.

  • ||

    The real shame is how little Steven Wright gets referenced.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That, too. I love him. I actually saw him and Seinfeld live at "Gator Growl" (UF's homecoming pep rally) in Gainesville (this is before Seinfeld. Both were good, but Wright was awesome.

  • anon||

    It's actually only a technical term associated with earthquakes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, I don't think that's really true. If you look up the definition of epicenter, an accepted secondary definition does appear to be "focal point." It's certainly in broad use.

  • anon||

    It's certainly in broad use.

    So's "irregardless."

  • Pro Libertate||

    Which does not typically get treated by dictionaries as standard usage, so it remains wrong.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    irregardless

    adjective, adverb
    adjective: irregardless; adverb: irregardless

    1. regardless.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't know what kind of fucked up dictionary you're using, but you err.

  • GILMORE||

    YOU "ERR" WHAT? STOP STUTTERING MAN

  • Pro Libertate||

    I read your comment in irresolute irregard.

  • OneOut||

    Irregardless, you are still reading his comments.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Adding "epi" to anything just naturally makes it worse.

  • ||

    I'm emailing you pics of my epianus.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    My spam hypofilter will catch it before it hits my inbox. [fingers crossed]

  • RBS||

    Hahahahahahahahaha, there isn't a spam filter in the known universe that could stop Warty's epianus.

  • ||

    You take that back!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm close to picking up the work that Olli can no longer do.

  • Zeb||

    It's right up there with people using "penultimate" when they really just want to say "ultimate" (in a figurative sense) or "really good".

  • VicRattlehead||

    no but is it a term for the center of an explosion, like the kind dropped from the sky

  • GILMORE||

    For clarity's sake =

    "In pointing out that American journalists and political commentators who were some of the biggest cheerleaders for U.S. intervention ..."

    "Intervention" is here understood to mean "military action", right?

    And not, like, an extremely wide range of other possible policies that aim to influence a desired outcome?

  • anon||

    "Intervention" is here understood to mean "military action", right?

    Yes, "intervention" is THE TEAM'S newest and latest term for "kinetic military action," as far as I can tell.

  • GILMORE||

    Just checking for future reference, when the term 'intervention' is also going to be used to refer to any US/EU backed loans to the Ukrainian government.

  • anon||

    when the term 'intervention' is also going to be used to refer to any US/EU backed loans to the Ukrainian government.

    I'll give 5:1 that those "loans" are used to purchase military equipment from the US.

  • GILMORE||

    What does it matter what it is used for if the default position here is that almost ANY foreign policy position intended to exert influence to achieve a desired end is considered 'undesirable intervention'?

    The point here is = Everything is Intervention. Intervention is bad. Ergo, libertarians HAVE NO 'FOREIGN POLICY' prescription other than to 'not have a foreign policy at all'.

    The problem is getting people to admit the last part. It gets there, its just ugly along the way.

  • anon||

    The point here is = Everything is Intervention. Intervention is bad. Ergo, libertarians HAVE NO 'FOREIGN POLICY' prescription other than to 'not have a foreign policy at all'.

    You say that as if it's a bad thing.

  • GILMORE||

    We can get to the 'bad thing' part when people finally admit that this is in fact the libertoid status quo.

    If you think "DOING NOTHING IS ALWAYS BEST" is an easily defensible position to take, by all means, run with that.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Is it okay if I sit with that? I didn't finish my morning coffee yet.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That would include no foreign trade, which libertarians usually find desirable. That is a problem. You cannot have free trade with foreign nations without having a foreign policy.

  • GILMORE||

    yep.

    its usually then we go to step 2, which is, "How well do you understand what the war of 1812 was about"? Then no one wants to talk with me anymore.

    This pattern keeps repeating itself.

  • VicRattlehead||

    The foreign policy is "Mind your business"
    and free trade.
    it is possible to utilize the free market to supply both sides of every conflict the means to destroy each other whilst staying out of it. that is not intervention, it is capitalism.
    If anyone tried to invade the US living in Libertarian Ideals they would be forced to fight an asymmetrical war on our home turf, isolated by 2 oceans.
    Freedom isn't for everyone's culture and we need to stop pretending it is

  • Invisible Finger||

    The people taking over in Kiev seem like a combination of Quebeckers with an unhealthy language fetish and Stalin. Even the newly-appointed Naval chief defected to Crimea.

    So what we're getting is an American TeeVee Idiot finger-wagging at Russia because Obama did. Since Obama has never been right about anything, I'm inclined to believe Russia actually did the right thing this time.

  • Fluffy||

    Even the newly-appointed Naval chief defected to Crimea.

    That's likely a function of the fact that he was appointed by (and is therefore almost certainly a crony of) the deposed President.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Not quite. He was appointed on Saturday.

    http://www.kyivpost.com/conten.....38039.html

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So what we're getting is an American TeeVee Idiot finger-wagging at Russia because Obama did.

    Martin is no fan of Obama. In actuality, She's one of those 9/11 Troofers who believes the world is controlled by a cabal of Freemason Illuminati Zionist Lizard People.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm inclined to believe Russia actually did the right thing this time.

    Yay imperialism!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The people taking over in Kiev seem like a combination of Quebeckers with an unhealthy language fetish and Stalin.


    Even if this were true (and such does not appear to be the case), it is not much different from those who cited Saddam Hussein's known atrocities as an argument for US invasion -- which makes this statement strange from the POV of a libertarian:

    I'm inclined to believe Russia actually did the right thing this time.


    Exactly how did the Ukraine's internal politics (even if they are atrocious) aggress against Russia?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Russia already had a naval fleet in Sevastopol and the new regime in Kiev wanted to kick them out but the people who actually LIVE in the Crimea don't seem to support the new regime and are quite comfortable (as a sovereign entity of their own) with Russia's fleet there.

  • Calidissident||

    "Russia already had a naval fleet in Sevastopol and the new regime in Kiev wanted to kick them out"

    Russia fears getting kicked out, maybe justifiably so, but I have not read anywhere that the new government made any sort of threats or moves to do so.

    "but the people who actually LIVE in the Crimea don't seem to support the new regime and are quite comfortable (as a sovereign entity of their own) with Russia's fleet there."

    As long as Crimea is a part of Ukraine that isn't their call. Russia jumped the gun here, plain and simple.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    So, pretty much what happened when we acquired the Panama Canal and split off Panama from Colombia?

    I mean, you realize that this scenario was not exactly an uncommon way for western imperialist powers to acquire territory, right?

  • Calidissident||

    Was that in reply to me? I wasn't saying it was at all unusual or making any comparison to the US

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    No, it was a reply to IF. I agree 100% with what you said.

  • Calidissident||

    Ok, the threading here gets confusing at times so I just wanted to clarify.

  • Overt||

    There is no evidence that the people in power wanted to kick out the Russian bases in Crimea.

    The fact is that the people in Ukraine were not happy with the Russian-aligned government. They threw enough of a hissy fit to get that government to collapse and to install a government that Russia couldn't control as a puppet. And they did this with egging-on from the west.

    Russia has trumped up charges of persecution of ethnic Russians as a fake pretext for their actions. Their real purpose is to force the Non-Russian-Aligned government back to the table, and show them that they better play ball.

    The empire of corrupt oligarchs rising to power in that area is a sad, evil place. The West should be commended for encouraging Ukranians who resisted it. BUT, that's really all that the West can and should do.

  • Bretzky||

    "...military intervention is never the answer..."

    Well, that really depends on what the question is.

  • T||

    Who wants cake?

    See, military intervention makes no sense!

  • Agammamon||

    They all do, *sob*, they ALL do.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Maybe Russia is just trying to bring better internet access to Crimea.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec.....frica.html

  • Bubba Jones||

  • Bubba Jones||

  • Agammamon||

    . . . the network announced it would be sending Martin to Crimea . . .

    Crimea? No, no - you must have misheard. We said we're sending you to *Siberia*. Pack warm.

  • ||

    I heard a little blip this morning, something I did not know before and I think the key to this whole debacle.

    Ukraine had voted to stop renting part of the crimea to Russia so that Russia was about to lose it's one and only warm water port. I once had a professor tell me that the history of Russia is the history of it's desire for warm water ports. Without that they are frozen in and stranded in Asia, isolated.

    If Ukraine resolved to toss Russia out of it's only warm water base they essentially declared war on Russia. Putin will never let that happen. I had no idea that had happened, but you can bet your ass President 'Back Nine' did and should have known every bit of this was going to happen. God, what a hack he is.

  • anon||

    Interesting take: I'm curious as to who, specifically, pushed for such a resolution and made it happen. Would probably add a whole lot of details to the story that are conveniently missing.

  • ||

    I just heard a blip this morning and haven't had a chance to look it up. I believe the newscaster was giving background history on the current situation and barely mentioned that the Ukrainian legislature voted to end the renting of the crimea, which had been given to them by Brehznev.

    I spit toothpaste all over the bathroom mirror yelling "What?! What the fuck did they just say?!". My wife wasn't paying attention so she couldn't tell me, and I haven't had a chance to look it up yet.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I spit toothpaste all over the bathroom mirror yelling "What?!

    Such are the perils of accurate hearing when brushing teeth. You heard wrong. There was no such vote.

  • ||

    My guess is that he and Lurch did not know, and still don't.

    I saw Lurch on TV this morning claiming that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house ( something she never said).

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Tina Fey said that.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Progressives can't distinguish Tina Fey from Palin.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Funny enough most cant distinguish blacks either, funny enough the biggest obamaphile of my acquaintances mistook Holder for O when we had been watching TV in the work lounge
    i bet he cant tell the difference between Colin Powell and Shelly Obama, admittedly that is a harder one to discern

  • Mike M.||

    There is a lot of truth to the idea that Ukraine did more than enough to give Putin the causus belli to go in there.

    The good news is he seems to have backed off somewhat from his aggressive posture, at least for now. IF he is satisfied with simply holding onto Crimea, it is quite possible that doing nothing at all is the best response.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    There is a lot of truth to the idea that Ukraine did more than enough to give Putin the causus belli to go in there.


    Like what?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's quite simple, really. Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union.

    Also, what happened to the "the?" Putin wants to give it back.

  • ||

    see my comment above. Taking Russia's only warm water port from them is the equivalent of cutting off their air.

    Russia will never let that happen.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have a cunning plan. The EU should admit Turkey, then close the Dardanelles.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    OK, but why should a libertarian care about that? The US leases plenty of bases and ports around the world; we've also had many of same revoked by a variety of countries. While I can understand the realpolitik desire for Russia to keep a warm water port in the Black Sea, the Ukraine's revocation of leasing rights (which I still haven't seen confirmed) doesn't rise to the level of "aggression" that is generally required for libertarian approval of intervention. (Besides which, Kaliningrad Oblast is a warm water port in Europe, albeit not in the Black Sea.)

    I will also note that if Russia can't find someone to host what is no doubt a lucrative port for one of the world's largest navies, because they pissed away their good relations with their neighbors? That seems to be their fault moreso than the Ukraine's.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's certainly not worth going to war or even getting things all heated up over. Not for the U.S., anyway. After all, the status quo is that Russia has a naval base in Crimea.

    For Ukraine, I can see why they fear Russia. As they should. And I'd say the rational course for them is to move towards Europe and away from Russia, but they have to be careful, because Russia is, well, Russia.

  • Invisible Finger||

    For Ukraine, I can see why they fear Russia.

    The Western half may fear Russia, the eastern half fears the new regime. Russia is claiming there's a lot of people fleeing. Not sure the truthiness, but it seems as if Crimea is happier with Russia than with the new regime in Kiev.

  • ||

    I think he's just saying that we should be aware that Russia will never allow Ukraine to be a truly independent country.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's definitely true for the Crimean peninsula, and it's mostly true for Ukraine as a whole.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    We shouldn't invade, but that does not necessitate sympathy for Russia's position.

    Indeed, if all that libertarians say about foreign policy is to be held consistent then the Ukraine seems more like the victim in all of this than Russia.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, I don't think there's any question that Russia is in the wrong. I don't really care if they crave a warm-water port.

  • Mike M.||

    Additionally, it's probably debatable as to whether the coup that ousted Yanukovych is truly legitimate or not.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    ...which gives Russia a casus belli why? Yes, the Ukraine has been a naughty, naughty girl -- but how is what you guys offer as compelling evidence for a legitimate Russian intervention any different from any number of US interventions decried by libertarians? Let's go down the checklist, shall we?

    *Threats to revoke basing/leasing rights, or let them expire against the US: Turkey, France, Iceland, Panama, and many others
    *Human rights abuses: Iraq, Haiti, Bosnia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, N Korea, etc
    *Potentially illegitimate coup: ...I don't really have to provide examples for this one, do I?

    These seem like thin gruel on which to premise an invasion and occupation -- even thinner than the rationale for OIF.

  • anon||

    What I was getting at is it's most likely that the US or EU had a lot more to do with Russia getting kicked out of Crimea than we're being led to believe.

  • Zeb||

    The only thing a coup needs to be legitimate is for it to be successful. The only legitimacy any government has is its ability to control the territory it claims to control.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    There is no "legitimacy" required for a coup. You win or lose.

    What, are we going to go back in history and remove the legitimacy of the countless coups which removed one buffoon for another ?

  • Calidissident||

    I know Russia fears this, but is there any actual evidence (beyond speculation) that the new government was trying to do this? Furthermore, Ukraine kicking Russia out of their own country isn't an act of War,and Russia has a large coastline along the Black Sea which they can use to build another port.

  • Invisible Finger||

  • ||

    Hey buddy, you going to tell us more of your global international armchair diplomatic analysis? Tell us about cartoons. I'm fascinated.

  • ||

    He read it in a book. You know, those things you don't read. ZING

  • OneOut||

    It's Ba Zinga !

  • Mike M.||

    I'm responding to an adult; go back to the TV and waste a few more of your brain cells, you fucking dipshit.

  • ||

    Oh, the "adult" canard. Come on, "adult", tell us about the cartoons and the soap operas in your head. Tell us. Why won't you tell us? You keep talking about them. Did you read about them in a book?

  • anon||

    The correct term is "Graphic Novel."

  • Pro Libertate||

    You mean Classic Comics?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Ukraine had voted to stop renting part of the crimea to Russia so that Russia was about to lose it's one and only warm water port.

    Apparently the internet doesn't know this happened either because I can't find any trace of this "vote"

  • ||

    From Stars and Stripes - "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia began leasing part of the port from Ukraine. That deal, scheduled to end in 2017, was extended to 2042. The move was heavily criticized by the opposition forces now in power in Kiev."

    From CNN - "Sixty years ago, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev "gave" the Crimean Peninsula -- for the previous 300 years part of the Russian empire and the U.S.S.R. -- to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic because they were all part of the Soviet Union and it was meant as a symbolic gesture.
    After the Soviet collapse, Crimea suddenly became part of an independent Ukraine to Moscow's shock. Moscow and Kiev worked out a deal to divide the Soviet Black Sea Fleet between Russia and Ukraine. In 2010, Ukraine extended the Russian lease until 2042.
    When Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted last week and fled to Russia, the Kremlin worried it might lose its lease and have to withdraw its fleet from this strategic area."

  • ||

    Shit. That is all the time I have to look.

    I will look into this more later.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia began leasing part of the port from Ukraine. That deal, scheduled to end in 2017, was extended to 2042. The move was heavily criticized by the opposition forces now in power in Kiev.


    Isn't it the Ukrainian government's right to negotiate treaties regarding other countries' use of their sovereign territory? I fail to see a casus belli, here.

    More importantly, all that I see here is innuendo -- as far as I can tell, the parliament has not acted to change the treaty yet. Two qs:

    1) Has the Ukrainian parliament in fact abrogated this treaty?

    2) Can a treaty created by what is largely seen by outside observers as a quasi-dictatorship be considered binding on the nation?

  • John||

    What Trouser said. All the Stars and Stripes article says is the Russians invaded because they feared the Ukraine might not renew the lease. Well, it belongs to the Ukraine.

  • Gadianton||

    The Ukrainian government absolutely has the right to negotiate treaties. Assuming for the sake of argument that the vote took place, and that the new government is poised to cancel the lease, it would be similar to the Cubans revoking our lease on Guantanamo Bay.

    Remember, however, that much of Russian imperialism over history has been the search for a warm water port. All of their other access to international waters freezes solid during the winter. This gives them no way to get their commercial shipping or their Navy in and out of port for a significant portion of the year. They see this as a cassus belli because they see it as their winter lifeline being cut.

    Without the port in the Crimean Peninsula, they are dependent on the good graces of the West or worse (from their point of view) Asia to get their goods to market, and keep their Navy at sea.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    All of their other access to international waters freezes solid during the winter.

    If you don't include the coastline of greater Sochi.

  • Gadianton||

    How good are the port facilities in Sochi?
    Will the roads support the increased usage?
    Can the port be upgraded to handle the Black Sea Fleet?
    How long will it take?

    I don't know the answers, but these are things to keep in mind, because Putin and his advisers certainly are.

  • Sevo||

    "I don't know the answers, but these are things to keep in mind, because Putin and his advisers certainly are."

    I don't either, but those questions are the impetus for Russia to up their game in the "look like a civilized country" competition.

  • GILMORE||

    It was pointed out earlier on a different thread that this whole "Russia Takes Crimea"* scenario has been a known-issue for the last 5 years and more. Some detail on this was in those Wikileaks cables that came out a few years back. I sincerely doubt anyone in the West wasn't already aware of what was going to take place, and that there had already been discussions between the Russians and other states prior to military movement.

    The fact that the EU waited to 'recognize' any interim government in the Ukraine until AFTER the Russians had occupied crimea is telling.

    (*why do I think of a Muppets movie?)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Glenn Greenwald notes that Martin’s “unapologetic denunciation” of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on an “unquestionably” pro-Russian network doesn’t quite have a parallel in the U.S.


    That's a silly comparison, as Russia Today's English channel is not watched by native Russian speakers or intended for the consumption of the Russian population. A better comparison would be with something like Radio Free Europe (some of who's hosts were in fact very vocally in opposition to OIF) or any of the foreign language versions of US channels (I distinctly recall CNN en Español's hosts having a different view from their Anglo equivalents).

  • Raston Bot||

    I tried to watch her show after Alyona's departure, she was too unpolished at the time. Has she improved?

  • Loki||

    the network announced it would be sending Martin to Crimea to “give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicentre of the story.”

    I'm sure in the old days they sent reporters who questioned Siberian gulags to the gulags in order to "give them an opportunity to make up their own mind from the epicentre of the story," right?

  • ||

    I don't think we've mentioned how cute she is. And she seems to love hallucinogenics.

  • ||

    I thought that was a given.

  • Raston Bot||

    Can an 18-year old sue her parents to support her financially?

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/sto.....id=9453510

    Rachel Canning wants the court not to emancipate her because under the law a parent has an obligation support their children if they can't stand on their own financially.

  • anon||

    Can an 18-year old sue her parents to support her financially?

    I'm sure Obama's Justice Dept. will weigh in soon.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Absurd. And no way she gets anywhere, unless she's substantially mentally or physically impaired.

  • ||

    I think filing this suit is pretty conclusive proof of the former. Prima facie retardari.

  • Raston Bot||

    Her best friend's dad filed the suit. What a spineless sap.

  • John||

    Have you seen the pictures of her? She is smoking hot. No way will someone as hot as she is not always have some dumb guy willing to take care of her. That fact alone makes this suit insulting.

  • anon||

    Wow, she is hot. I hesitated to look fearing some kind of orca, but she's legit.

  • John||

    A fat girl would never develop that large of a sense of entitlement. As soon as I heard this story, I figured she was some princess.

  • RBS||

    She looks like she might murder you in your sleep.

  • John||

    No sexy is like crazy sexy. You know that RBS.

  • wareagle||

    of course, she can sue. And the judge can laugh his ass off and tell her to stop wasting the taxpayers' time.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You can sue for anything. Case in point, Tyler v. Carter. Here's an excerpt from the background from the opinion:

    Plaintiff Teri Smith Tyler, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in December 1992 alleging a bizarre conspiracy involving the defendants to enslave and oppress certain segments of our society. Plaintiff contends she is a cyborg, and that she received most of the information which forms the basis for her complaint, through "proteus", which I read to be some silent, telepathic form of communication. See complaint, at 1, and Affidavit accompanying November 1993 Order to Show Cause, at P g. She asserts that the defendants are involved in the "Iron Mountain Plan", which provides for the reinstitutionalization of slavery and "bloodsports" (which she identifies as death-hunting [n1] and witch-hunting), and the oppression of political dissidents, herself included. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a number of personal indignities visited upon her by defendants: "strafing of my dormitory room by planes and helicopters, the electronic bugging of my student rooms and apartments, deliberate noise harassment, blasting of loud rock music with lyrics designed for witch-hunts (music about social pariahs) . . . students following me around to prevent me from studying, whispering campaigns and social ostrification. . . ."
  • ||

    [n1] Death-hunting is described by plaintiff as follows: "In death-hunting, teams of pimps and harriers (women working for pimps) follow a black woman they want to force into sexual slavery and snuff rackets, try to wreck her employment prospects, isolate her socially, break her up with friends and family, often they try to force her onto welfare because it often circumscribes her choice of places to live. Sometimes members of a woman's family or her mate will be cooperative or part of death-hunting teams because participants get paid." Complaint, at 4.

    THAT SOUNDS AWESOME

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's my favorite case ever, and running across it totally justified law school.

  • RBS||

    Former President Jimmy Carter was the secret head of the Ku Klux Klan; Bill Clinton is the biological son of Jimmy Carter; President Clinton and Ross Perot have made fortunes in the death-hunting industry, and are responsible for the murder of at least 10 million black women in concentration camps, their bodies sold for meat and their skin turned into leather products. The defendants are also responsible for breeding farms, which turn out 2,000 black girls a year, who are then sold for recreational murder or as human pets. Additionally, the defendants utilize weather control and earthquake technology to threaten other countries that object to the Iron Mountain plan.

    Sounds like the next X-Files movie.

  • RBS||

    Plaintiff asks the Court to grant her the following relief:

    1. $ 5.6 billion in compensatory and punitive damages;

    2. A physical accounting of all black women born since 1940, including their present whereabouts, and for those who have died, an investigation into how they died;

    3. The purchase of land in Africa for the emigration of abused black women;

    4. The bringing to justice of those responsible for the American holocaust;

    5. An investigation into the foster care system, and a physical accounting of all black children placed into foster care;

    6. An end to slavery in the United States;

    7. The end of the cyborg program run by NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, American Cyanimid and IBM;

    8. An end to the organ-donor program.
  • Pro Libertate||

    You know, why isn't this a movie? In the movie version, of course, every single allegation is totally true.

  • ||

    OBEY, Pro Glib. OBEY.

  • Pro Libertate||

    [Sends comment to Warty via proteus.]

  • gaoxiaen||

    I hate ostrification. But so far, it's only affected my feet and neck.

  • Almanian!||

    Teri Smith Tyler is a freak in bed, isn't she?

  • John||

    It should be constantly pointed out that the country's intelligence and foreign policy establishment all swore that there was no possibility that Russia would ever invade any part of the Ukraine. They were saying this right up to the day it happened.

    When first Palin and then Romney questioned this orthodoxy, they were immediately derided by the establishment and the court media as idiots. The point here is not that Palin and Romney were right. It is how wrong the establishment was and how anyone with any common sense and even a basic understanding of this situation should have foreseen this possibility just like Romney and Palin did.

    Our entire foreign policy and intelligence establishment consists of a bunch of idiots who stand around smelling their own farts living in a bubble of utter nonsense. We have got to do something to fix this.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't smell your own farts?

  • John||

    Sure, I just don't bottle it for posterity the way those people do.

  • sarcasmic||

    Does that work? I mean, being lactose intolerant I frequently have weapon-grade flatulence. It would be nice to bottle it up and do some chemical warfare.

  • John||

    I have no idea. You should ask someone at the State Department. They seem to have developed a technique for it.

  • Zeb||

    Or run your car off of it.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Yes, you need to use a large mouth mason jar and a bath tub
    fill jar with water
    press against ass
    tip upside down and let her rip
    the bubbles will force the water out and you will be left with just the gas
    yes it keeps over periods of time just do not leave much water in the jar or it will absorb the scent particles and dissipate them

  • Voros McCracken||

    I think you're being more specific here than you need to be: I think this is generally true about most folks: everyone thinks they know more about stuff than they actually do. The problem is that when you give those people government power, their ignorance of their ignorance can become a lot more damaging.

    I don't know jack about Crimea other than what little Tennyson I can remember.

  • John||

    You miss my point. The problem is not that people like you and I don't know anything about Crimea. The problem is the people who are paid to know about Crimea are utter fools who believe idiotic things that anyone with any common sense would not believe.

    Sure you and I don't know much about it. Neither did Palin or Romney. But despite this, they could see this was a danger. Yet, the people who are supposed to know about it, couldn't. And that is a big problem.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Exactly, anyone who knew about what happened in 2008 with the Georgians and the BSF could have seen this coming from a mile away... also the resolution of 2008 means crimea is not the only russian warm water port since the georgian navy was dissolved, its just the easiest one they can use.

  • GILMORE||

    Has no one yet made the quip,

    "Oh, just crimea river why don't you?"

    because if not, FIRST

  • John||

    I am really disappointed no one has made any Light Brigade jokes about this situation.

  • sarcasmic||

    I keep posting this. Not exactly a joke, but it is a reference to the Light Brigade.

  • GILMORE||

    You shouldn't make light of the situation in Crimea.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Ukraine keep all your stupid puns to yourself.

  • John||

    The Ukraine is weak. I crush the Ukraine.

  • Almanian!||

    Ukraine see Russia from Sarah Palin's house!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Kiev you believe this guy. I'm Kherson my bad luck right now, showing up on the day Reason has a pun thread.

  • Almanian!||

    Yalta come back now, hear?

  • Almanian!||

    “military intervention is never the answer”

    I dunno. It was the answer to WWII.

  • John||

    And sometimes it is an answer that your enemies provide for you.

    I am pretty sure Mexico could invade and take control of the Southwest and Reason would be counsel peace and explaining how the war is a quagmire and must be ended.

    That doesn't mean that they are wrong about this situation. It just means that their answer is one given out of reflex and is right or wrong due to luck not because any thought given the issue on Reason's part.

  • Almanian!||

    But trolling is NEVER the answer. Truly.

    Well, unless you're tulip. Or Mary Stack.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah John, that's totally what Reason would say. Not to mention that sentence was a quote from Martin.

  • John||

    It doesn't matter. Show me a case where Reason ever supports the use of military force? They don't. It is just reflex with them. For that reason even when I agree with them, which I do regarding what is going on in Ukraine, I still don't take them seriously on the issue.

  • Calidissident||

    "It doesn't matter. Show me a case where Reason ever supports the use of military force? They don't."

    Show me a case of the US getting invaded and Reason saying they shouldn't fight back and I'll take your argument seriously.

  • John||

    Reason objected to Afghanistan pretty much from day one. And even the staff who didn't, turned on it very quickly.

  • Calidissident||

    I went through the archives. I couldn't find any articles saying we shouldn't respond militarily to Afghanistan. I found others from 2002 criticizing the way the War on Terror was being conducted, but again, that doesn't mean Reason objected to all use of military force. One hardly needs to be a libertarian, pacifist, or non-interventionist to think that the US has stayed in Afghanistan far too long.

  • John||

    You focus on my hyperbole and miss the point. Reason objected to Afghanistan and even the staff that didn't sniped about it from the start and quickly turned on it.

    The point is that sometimes military force is the right answer even when it doesn't involve invasion of the US. But Reason would never support any foreign military intervention no matter what. For that reason, they just are not serious. Their answer is always the same and never the product of anything other than lazy reflex.

  • Zeb||

    It's not really a terrible default position to take in my view. Besides WWII, what foreign military interventions has the US been involved in that actually improved national security in any clear way? There may be a few that are debatable, but for the most part there has been a lot of life and money lost for relatively little gain.

  • ||

    I would have supported Afghanistan a lot more if it had been a sensible punitive expedition. Occupying and attempting to civilize the place was just insane.

  • Zeb||

    That's a very silly example. If Mexico invaded, fighting back militarily wouldn't be an intervention. You can't intervene in something that you are a direct party to. That's called defense, i.e. the supposed purpose of having a military.

  • John||

    Sure it is. But that doesn't mean Reason wouldn't find a way to argue for surrender, especially after it got hard.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Ukraine girls really knock me out, they leave the West behind...

  • Almanian!||

    I'm turning Ukrainese
    I think I'm turning Ukrainese
    I really think so.

    I'm turning Ukrainese
    Odessa'm turning Ukrainese
    I really think so...

  • Slammer||

  • GILMORE||

    Ed says =

    " If I only appeared on media outlets I agree with 100 percent, or even just most of the time, I probably wouldn’t appear anywhere."

    Doesn't Ed appear *here* most of the time?

    (mentally computing a paradox)

    GET THE HERETIC!

  • Mickey Rat||

    "...most Russians feel strong emotional links to Ukraine as the cradle of their civilisation. Even the most open minded feel its loss like an amputated limb."

    So what? Does it matter what the Russians feel if the Ukrainians do not feel like a limb of Russia and will vigorously oppose an attempt by Russia to reattach them?

  • VicRattlehead||

    My penis had this problem, we came to an agreement after I promised him no more fat chicks

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    We are going to be in Kiev’s position soon. Not due to an outside
    invading force—from within. Our own federal government is now the enemy. We are going to collapse. We have to. We have a 17 trillion dollar debt and a Congress and President whose only answer is to continue spending.

    So imagine a collapse. Last time we had a micro collapse was due to a
    hurricane in New Orleans. And riots broke out. And the immediate action was to disarm the law abiding instead of saying to use those weapons to defend against the criminal. Now imagine a nationwide collapse. With no monies left for relief. I did imagine it in my fiction. It was based on history. And history shows a very poor outcome for the people involved in such a collapse. It ends in one of two ways. 1) Tyranny 2) Civil War.

    So Obama lecturing Putin? Please. He wishes for the same control.
    He wishes for the same Marxist dictatorship that Putin once served. So
    Barry may wish to take a few notes. As he may very well be facing a
    similar situation here before his term is over.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

  • GILMORE||

    "Wanderer, gypsy and observer of the human condition, explore the mind of Charles Hurst."

    no.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Charles Hurst- general of the tin hat brigade

  • Jayburd||

    The Russians should just use machetes and then our government would ignore them.

  • Zak Tomlinson||

    Yeah, what Russia did war wrong. That's true. But with time I start to think that it was a provocation. Why Russia would invade Crimea? Why the hell they would need this tiny-tiny piece of land? And USA had it's fleet ready to enter the Black Sea... I'm pretty sure that USA wasn't acting according to UN.

    The scenario somehow remind me of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on... There are obvious troubles in the country, Russia steps up and USA reigns the democracy upon the country

  • VicRattlehead||

    IMO American intervention would have more to do with the US needing a port in Eastern Europe to export LNG which is becoming increasingly cost efficient to produce, than for democracy or whatever "freedom" crap the tyrant in chief is peddling

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement