Former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych fled Ukraine over the weekend after his power was officially taken away by the Ukrainian parliament. He fled his home (
which has become a physical symbol of the corruption and excess he claimed he was fighting) which has been handed over by the police to the armed protesters. His whereabouts are still unknown, but for this post I want you to focus on the
reaction of Russia and the
difficulty many of these former Soviet republics have had in implementing democracy. Read the four highlighted articles above and answer the following questions.
1. Do you agree with the mass murder charges against Yanukovych? Should he be held responsible for the deaths of the protesters?
2. What are some reasons why the eastern part of Russia is still expressing support for closer ties with Russia? Is it purely geographical, historical, religious, ethnic, etc.? Explain your reasoning.
3. What role do you think Russia should play in this new revolution? Should they be involved at all? Why or why not?
Any other questions, comments, or sources are welcome.
1) I think it is important to keep in mind that Yanukovych was perfectly capable of ordering the police/military to open fire on the protesters and do anything to disperse them. The fact that he instead chose to use riot police should definitely be taken into account when assessing his role in the deaths.
ReplyDelete2) The monolithic history of the area, where Russia in some form has, for a long time, controlled the region, definitely helps explain the reluctance of many to part with Russia. And the Russian money certainly helps.
3) It certainly is in Russia's interest to attempt to curb the European influence in its former satellite states, though for the sake of freedom it is clear that the less Russian involvement, the better.
1.) I believe that Yanukovych should be held responsible for these deaths. Though it is unclear who opened fire first in the protests, the fact that he ordered the police to use lethal force is a clear indicator of the violent overbearing of the executive. In an age where nonlethal riot control methods are so widely proliferated, the use of lethal force is a clear indication that a regime is turning closer to authoritarian tendencies, and the Ukranian constitution established them as a democracy. As always, the victor writes history, so it is probable that most of what we will learn will support the idea of convicting him of mass murder
ReplyDelete2.) The discontent in eastern Ukraine is a mixture of a few factors, primarily the close border they share. Historically, the Soviet Union encouraged the notion of Pan- Slavism, and this plays a role, especially when many on the border would be immigrants from Russia and the culture over there would be more closely associated with Russian culture (wonderfully demonstrated in the closing ceremonies btw). These tendencies cause the border areas to feel more close to Russia than the distant European Union.
ReplyDeleteI agree with with William's point that the geographical connection between eastern Russia and Russia has encouraged a desire for closer ties. When I first saw this question the first thing I thought was, duh, Pan-Slavism. Which means that culrually and geographically it make sense for these two ares to mesh more together. However, in regards to history, Russia has always played the big brother for the surrounding Slavic states. For example, defending eastern Europe during the Crimean War and defending the Armenians following the genocide by the Turks. I don't the reason desiring close ties is purely one factor because when examined all of those factors are interwoven.
Delete3.) From a internationalists standpoint, Russia should remain neutral to the events in Ukraine, allowing events in the country to evolve independently of Russian interference. However, it is likely that Russia will continue to exert pressure on the Ukraine for a more friendly government, as that is in their immideate interests.
ReplyDeleteI agree with William, I think that Russia should not play abig role in the 'new revolution' of Ukaine. Yes, Russia as had a reach on the Ukraine since their time as the USSR, but I see that as a problem. Ukraine needs to make decisions without Moscow breathing down their back and influencing their policy decisions. Russia needs to stay in Moscow to avooid any more corruption or misunderstanding thats could be seen as underhandedness. However, will Russia stay out of it? Not likely.
Delete1) I believe Yanukovich should not be charged for the deaths of the protestors because as the former leader of Ukraine as he had some responsibility to keep the peace. It was the result of escalating tensions that led to more and more violence. The same violence could have happened in America and it did to a smaller extent during the occupy movements. It is only after we judge his character that we start to Extend these accusations. Objectively, he should not be charged for trying to maintain peace.
ReplyDelete1. I do think Yanukovych should be charged with the murders of the protesters because he sent in the police force to violently suppress the citizens and in the end, it was the citizens that died and not the police force. Yanukovych's credibility is also severely impaired since he also claimed he lived in modesty but his estate definitely suggests otherwise.
ReplyDelete1) I believe that those deaths were a bad accident, those protesters did choose to go ahead and put themselves in that situation. Yanukovych did not explicitly order the death of this citizens therefore the deaths should not be held against him.
ReplyDelete2) Geologically those Ukrainians are Slavs and I think that the Slavs historically stock together for ex. WW1 when Russia came to help Serbia. I think that cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine still remain.
3)I honestly cannot comment on this question without being overtly bias, but I think Russia should stay out and not be noisy on Ukraine affairs but however I believe that Russia will intervene
. maybe not in a overt way but in a more subvert one.
2. The Eastern side is still rallying for support with Russia because of ethnic and and cultural reasons. Throughout history, they were the russian speaking people and they were closer in in culture with the russians, unlike the west, who always felt more ethnically associated with the west. The western side of ukraine was always more nationalist and democratic. Plus, Russia provides benefits and subsidies to those that are with them and also wreak havoc on those that aren't.
ReplyDelete1. I do not think there is enough information to determine if the mass murder charges are true of not. If as the FM of Ukraine says (http://rt.com/news/ukraine-kozhara-violence-protest-781/), the government was only acting in self defense to violence initiated by protesters, then it should not be considered murder. On the other hand, if the government killed protesters unprovoked, there should be murder charges held against them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Baijun that Yanukovych's guilt cannot be evaluated to reveal the complete truth. From what I have read, there is a lot of 'here-say' accusations. Yes, Yanukovych did sent police to stop the protesters and that does make him responsible to the incident (the death of protesters), but not in the capacity of mass murder if his order was one of self defense. However, if his orders were to silence the protesters then he should be charged for mass murder because he had the intent to kill the protesters from the very beginning making the incident more calculated and less circumstantial.
Delete2. I think that the reasons are purely geographical. For example, geographically the eastern part of Ukraine in a position to be more strongly affected by Russia than the EU because they do not interact with westerners much. This can also be seen in countries such as Latvia and Estonia.
ReplyDelete3. I don't think Russia should get involved at all because of polarized opinions in Ukraine towards them. If Russia gets involved, it will cause a deeper separation between the people in Ukraine.
ReplyDelete1. Although there is no direct evidence of Yanukovych ordering the murder of the protesters, I think that the rapid escalation from a peaceful protest to a suddenly violent one, and the lopsided numbers of those murdered (pretty much all protesters, no police forces) lead to the conclusion that a leader ordered violent action. Also, with the news of his not-so-modest house, I think that Yanukovych's credibility is damaged, so it would be hard to really believe anything that he said contrary to the accusations.
ReplyDelete3. Russia should definitely be taking measures to mollify the situation and helo things go over more smoothly because it was Putin that started the conflict by offering the subsidies. Ukraine was afraid of Putin's retaliation if they didn't join with them and now Putin refuses to help with the aftermath of what he did.
ReplyDelete1) Yunukovich should be arrested for mass murder, because as the leader of the Ukraine he is held responsible for what his police officers do, even if he did not kill anyone himself. Arguing that he shouldn't be convicted would be like arguing that hitler shouldn't be blamed for the holocaust since he didn't kill anyone himself.
ReplyDelete2) I believe Eastern Europe still has ties with Russia because they are so tied down historically. They both have a tradition of reluctance to change and I think that since they are following the same transition towards democracy and modernization that they feel it would be easier if they did it together rather than becoming completely immersed into western society. For most, mainly the older generation, the Soviet Union is all they know so that's how they want to progress.
ReplyDelete1) It seems to be unknown about who fired first. The protestors blame Yanukovych for ordering the military to fire, but the military says otherwise (such as, they only fired because they felt threatened and needed to protect their unarmed forces). I feel like until we truly find out who attacked first, mass murder charges should not be placed.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the Eastern side of Ukraine is siding with Russia because of the cultural and ethnic similarities that result from their close proximity. Just like how the Baltic states are westernized democracies due to their proximity to Europe, Eastern Ukraine is likely to hold similar beliefs as Russia because of how close they are.
ReplyDelete2) I think the reasons are more historical and geographical. Russia still considers itself to have influence in its former satellite states, so they constantly try to intervene. Geography is also a big factor, because the states closer to the West will have more success with democracy and other ideals of the West. The last article states that the Baltic States have successfully implemented free elections and etc., but only because they border the West and have had contact with them for centuries.
ReplyDelete3) Russia should stay out of Ukraine. They already know that they're not welcome there. Even if Ukraine's citizens are divided between Russia and the EU's trade deals, according to the last article, the latter has obviously been a lot more outspoken about it.
ReplyDelete3) I do not think the Russia should be involved because they have their own problems to sort out. I think Ukraine needs to lean towards a western shoulder because that is how the revolution is progressing. Russian intervention is exactly what they revolted against. Russia already has enough land and people. The western world would be helping out in their transition to democracy.
ReplyDelete1. I don't think that Yanukovych is directly responsible for the mass murder of protestors, but we all can recognize that his actions spurred the violence in Independence Square.
ReplyDelete2. The eastern part of the previous Soviet Union is probably leaning towards Russia duet to a common history and ethnic ties. After decades of living under the Soviet Union's control, and even before that living in unity, many eastern states are probably comfortable with staying that way. Anti-western beliefs may also be influencing the decision to avoid the European Union.
3. I think, as Dmitri Trenin said in his NPR interview, that Moscow needs to observe rather than act (For now). However, at some point, Putin will be responsible for reaching out to the Eastern states and publishing his intent in integrating them into Russia's economy.
1. I don't think it's fair to blame/charge Yanukovych with mass murder, on the basis that he did not incite the protesters to protest. I think that obviously, his actions did play a role in the protestors' desire for justice. But he did not force people to act; in fact, he did not even force police forces to violence. In my opinion, similar to the Gestapo in Hitler's regime, or those in concentration camps, the aggressors had a choice in the decisions they chose to carry out, obviously as figurehead, people could blame Yanukovych as a leader who failed to uphold his responsibilities, but I think that "mass murderer" is an inaccurate term to lace Yanukovych with.
ReplyDelete3. Ideally, I think that Russia should stay out of Ukraine. If Russia gets involved, I think there is a high chance for a civil war and potential division of the country. Unfortunately though, I think that Russia is going to want to play a role in the reformation of the government in its old satellite state, especially because of the proximity.
ReplyDelete2. I think that physical proximity, and cultural ties probably influences the East's interest in Russia. Similar to the divisions in countries like Italy, or even in the United States where tradition plays a large role in that region's future decisions/ideals, I think that cultural ties probably play the same role here.
ReplyDelete3. I think that Russia should listen to the wishes of the new provisional government. I know that self-determination is a Western ideal, but I think that it could hold true in Russian politics as well. I think thus that Russia should respect Ukraine's desire for independence, help it financially, along with the United States (as a middle ground), and let the people of Ukraine figure out how to govern their people - unless they ask for help.
ReplyDeleteI agree that mass murder charges should be brought against Yanukovych. Although he may not have directly ordered the killing of protestors, his complacency in the use of brutal force should entails that he should be held responsible. As a leader, his complacency and lack of any attempt to curtail the violent police opposition against relatively nonviolent protestors is an indication of his support of the brutality. However, it is important to consider throughout the trial that emotions and passionate fervor of the protestor can unfairly sway the proceedings.
ReplyDelete1. The mass murder charges are an attempt to attribute all of the blame to a single, symbolic figurehead. Since he is the head of government and state, with coercive powers, he is simply exercising the powers vested in him. Although he is simply exercising his power as a leader, he still should be held responsible, as the leader of the country, for any deaths that are a direct result of governmental actions.
ReplyDelete2. The eastern part of Russia is still expressing support because of historical and ethnic ties. Furthermore, since the two parts are geographically and historically connected- the ties are still actively supported.
ReplyDelete3. Russia should play an active role in protecting its interests as any country should and does. If its people and its government believes that taking a stance in Ukraine, then it should pursue its interests and goals.
ReplyDelete1) I think Yanukovych should be held responsible for the deaths of the protestors. He was the main man in charge of the police that were sent out to protestors. He could have ordered much more death and destruction than he did, but on the other hand he could have also prevented any death at all by ordering the police to use strictly non-lethal force.
ReplyDelete2) Since the Cold War, Russia has had some sort of control over this area of the world. They have not had a tight grip necessarily, but they have sent some money, which would allow Russia to make suggestions to the leadership in the Ukraine about what they want them to do.
ReplyDelete3) I think that Russia should keep out of the area. The people obviously do not want to have a Russian presence, as shown by the fact that they started to protest in the first place. If the people do not want the Russian presence, then they should get what they want and not be subjected to the Russians.
ReplyDelete1. I actually don't think the the mass murder charges against Yanukovych is fair or that he should be held responsible for the death of the protestors. I feel like it is within these protests that these kinds of things happen. Obviously the 25 reported deaths and the violence is a reflection of the discontent of the Ukrainian people with Yanukovych but I don't think that the deaths were 100% his fault but I can see why it can be and is attributed to him...if that makes sense. Nevertheless, I don't think that my argument is any justification to his corruption...that would be a different blog post.
ReplyDelete2. I think the fact that the eastern part of Ukraine has had a long and strong tradition and relations with Russia is why they are showing signs for a closer tie with them today. It is because of this that I think it is more of an ethnic and historical tie with Russia. I think that even though they are supposedly a separate democracy from Russia, their history and similarities with Russia provokes them to side with mother Russia.
ReplyDelete3. I think Russia should not intervene at all even if the eastern part of Ukraine is showing signs and asking support and aid. I agree with one of the articles saying that Russia has their own problems of right now and I think intervening in the Ukraine will just make it more chaotic for Russia (Russia should not be redrawing map lines now).
ReplyDelete1. I think he should be held accountable for the deaths that were a result of police violence. Whether through complacency, or through active involvement in the government response to the protesters, as a government official, he needs to be held accountable. The situation in Kiev was brutal, and citizens were victimized by the very person they trusted to protect them.
ReplyDelete2. I think it’s a combination of all the factors listed. Geographic proximity often lends itself to ethnic ties, which lends itself to religious similarities. Russian minorities make up a sizable amount of the Ukrainian population, with many situated closer to the Russian Federation. Soviet Russia was extremely influential during the Cold War is Eastern Europe and the influence remains in Ukraine.
ReplyDelete3. Russia needs to stay out of it. I think revolutions are internal things, and that outside force and involvement are wrong take away from self-determinism.
ReplyDelete1) When events like the violent protesting that occurred in the Ukraine take place it is inescapable for people not to blame somebody. Yanukovych of course had strong affiliations with why the violence occurred, but the actual responsibility for the deaths of the protesters should not be faulted towards Yanukovych. However, the fact that he is currently missing is somewhat of a premature action on his part because it inclines that he does indeed feel guilty.
ReplyDelete2) The geography of the region is definitely an influence and this ties in with the historical aspect because the physical size of Russia deems it to be a great power in the Eastern Europe region. The general closeness of the two countries Russia and Ukraine makes it necessary for the Ukraine to be involved with Russia (ex. EU)
3) Russia should get involved with the revolution simply to show that their interests are focused on the ideal that they plan to aid the Ukraine when troublesome situations like this arise in the country. However, the intrusion of Russian interests should be gradual and not all of sudden interfere with the relations in the Ukraine.
1. yes he should be held responsible because he gave the order to surpress the protesters. he is the evil corrupt leader who wanted to silence the desires of most of his citizens so he can stay in power and get the benefits of leader.
ReplyDelete2. I think it is most historical and ethnic. the eastern countires are more Slavic than anything else and connect more with Russia than the west. they have also been held and ruled by Russia for a long time and have gotten accustomed to their protection in times of good. they have trouble adjusting because the Slavic countries have been historically autocratic and they deny any help to find a leader who is compitent
ReplyDelete3. they should be involved if the countries want their help. if they want to do it themselves then Russia is infringing on their soveriengty and if they do want help then they are being nice neighbors. Russia also needs to decide if that is worth getting into other countries affairs. if it benefits them then they should be more insistent but if not then they can step back until the countries NEED help
ReplyDelete1) Yes, he has control over telling them what to do and because he gave the orders to use lethal means to try to qualm the protests, he should be held partially, though i'm not sure if fully, responsible for the deaths. I mean, he is hiding out, so I'm thinking "guilty conscience much?"
ReplyDelete2) Well Russia has had it's hand in this pot for awhile, like, for pretty much ever. It is going to remain that way because of the close ties Ukraine has with Russia not only geographically, but also the ethnic, religious, and overall cultural similarities.
3) Do I think Russia should be involved? No. Will Russia remain involved? Yes. It's in the nature of Russia to remain involved because of the area and the previously mentioned ties with the country. Not to mention the fact that the more Russia gets involved, the more it will have the ability to retain control over Ukraine.
1.) Personally, I don't see him as being directly responsible for the deaths of the protesters. He's not a murderer, but he is a corrupt leader in the extreme.
ReplyDelete2.) Ethnic and cultural aspects are heavily responsible for eastern Ukraine's support of Russia. The people are Russian speaking, which creates a sense of reverence for Russia as familial and strong.
3.) While Ukraine's current struggle is difficult and I advocate any sort of end to it as quickly as possible, I don't think Russia should be involved. Any foreign intervention in this highly domestic affair only encourages more foreign intervention from other opposing countries and creates even greater disorder. While Russia's concerns are justified by geographical proximity, the line for their political involvement needs to end somewhere, and that line should be the border with Ukraine.
Side note: The section on Yanukovych's extreme lack of regards for the socioeconomic gap reminds me of some recently released statistics I was discussing with my dad a few days ago. 85 of the richest families in the world own as much wealth as the poorer HALF of the world's population. The extreme gap between rich and poor is not just a phenomenon occurring in Ukraine, but all around the world. In this sense, I predict we will only see more uprisings in the near future.
I feel that the primary reason for Eastern Europe's ties with Russia was the stability created by the Communist regime. Sure, one can argue that there was not a lot of stability, but compared to the current situation, it is probably attractive. The political and economic benefits that Russia can currently offer is vastly better than Ukraine's current status.
ReplyDelete3) If I were Putin I would take advantage of this to gain greater influence in Eastern Europe. Russia should not stage an outright annexation, due to possible European and American reactions, which has the risk of starting a second Cold War. Rather, Russia should pressure Ukraine to hold a referendum to see if the people themselves would wish to join Russia. I am sure that some parts of Eastern Ukraine would gladly vote to defect to Russia. Doing it this way would give legitimacy to any potential land gains on Russia's part.
ReplyDelete1) If this were simply a case of protesters putting themselves in danger and all the president did was make a bad political decision, then no, he shouldn't be cherged for murder.
ReplyDeleteBut, he directly authorized lethal force. The minute you start shooting your own citizens, your legitimacy as a democratically elected president is over, and you are a murderer.
2) Of course the answer is not "purely" anything, it never is. To be but, it is a combination of all those factors. Geographical proximity has shown itself to be a key factor in determining political influence, as shown by the success of democracy in the Baltic states (technically within the Soviet bloc, but geographically close to West Europe). In the same way that political power weakens the farther you go from the capital, Russian influence weakens as you go West, and Western influence weakens as you go East.
ReplyDelete3) What I believe will happen and what will happen are two very different things. Myself being supportive of the pro-Western movement would like to see Russia stay completely out of the Ukraine, but to think that that would happen is completely naive. The entire revolution came as a result of the deal made with Putin for money and gas prices, so Russia is not going to simply give up on the Ukraine, especially not with regions such as Crimea in existence. It seems almost at this point Ukraine might do better as two countries, one tied to the West and the other tied to Russia, because both factions are large enough to ensure that entire geographical regions will never be happy with the same political results, especially with the 50/50 split on joining the EU.
ReplyDelete1) I think he should receive some punishment because he used violence to suppress protesters. You can't be a representative of people when you start killing them.
ReplyDelete2) I think that after such a long history entangled with Russian influences, it will be extremely hard for Ukraine to separate itself from Russia. I mean it was part of the USSR and proximity to Russia I think is definitely a factor. You are inherently influenced by your neighbors as a nation because it's physically impossible not to be. Ukraine could also possibly have economic motives to pursue with Russia.
ReplyDelete3) I believe that Russia should help Ukraine essentially re-build itself. The economic and political problems Ukraine is facing could get worse (well...political not so much, I guess it's reached a low, but economically things could still fall) and having a helping hand in re-establishing things would be better than watching Ukraine slowly fall deeper into turmoil.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it may also be dangerous for Russia to aide Ukraine. Russia may manipulate Ukraine's vulnerable and fragile state and use it as an opportunity to start spreading its influence (more than it currently is) all over the place.
Knowing the nature of Russia and predicting a more than likely influence on their part on Ukraine, I hope the U.S. doesn't just ignore the matter now then complain later when something goes bad (just my 2 cents).
1. I believe Yanukovych was certainly capable of commiting such mass murders, especially due to the fact that Ukraine is basically a police state, so the officers of their police wouldnt go and do this on their own. But even if he didnt, he should be held responsible because he should have been handling those matters instead of relaxing in his zoo house.
ReplyDelete2. Due to their geographical and ethnic ties to the country of Russia, I believe these Eastern Ukrainians believe they are actually a part of Russia. They basically are the same people in their practices. Also it wasnt very long ago that the USSR was split up, so its reasonable for them to still feel an attachment.
ReplyDelete3. Speaking from a totally biased view, i believe they should not get involved, as i believe it may provoke conflicts around the world. However, especially in a time when they are holding the Winter Olympics, bad press is usually not a good idea. Although Russia is infringing on their sovereignty, they have done it in the past with Poland, so i don't see the principle of freedom from stopping them.
ReplyDelete1. I think Yanukovych should be held responsible for the deaths of protesters. But that is not the bigger issue at hand and there are other sides. Yanukovych was probably just trying to hold the Ukraine together and violent suppression of protesters is how they do it post-soviet. It was awful and brutal so justice must prevail. But I think arresting Yanukovych will do more to unite the people against a common enemy than actually aid in reforming their government. To arrest him is a matter of principle, to give justice to the families of lost loved ones.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, it must be geographical and ethic. Russia is closer so the Eastern Ukrainians see them as the most likely candidate for support. They also speak Russian and soviet rule is not far in their memory; they are used to Russian intervention.
3. No, Russian should maintain political and economic distance unless it is in the form of the economic world forum the Ukraine is hoping to hold. Then Russian will have a voice, like it wants but it will be smaller and among others, Ukraine will have more of a diverse choice as to who it accepts support from. Ukraine is a sovereign country and needs to make it's own choices. Mother Russian needs to back off lest risking civil war in Ukraine and this could be the Berlin airlift all over again.
1. A may not totally grasp the gist of the articles; however, i do not believe that he should be responsible for the murders of the protesters. He is solely responsible for the corruption and use of Ukraine's money too freely though. He himself did not singlehandedly kill them.
ReplyDelete2. The eastern part of Russia feels the closer ties with Russia because of all of the reasons. Some have cultural similarities and regional ties. Therefore, it is expected that they still feel the dependence or need for ties with Russia.
ReplyDelete3. I think that Russia should not play a pivotal role in the revolution. By doing so it allows Eastern Russia to develop on its own without the dependence on Russia.
ReplyDelete1. 2. Factors behind why Eastern European countries such as portions of Ukraine are inclined toward establishing closer ties with Russia include a combination of multiple reasons – the primary of which I think is ethnic. Of course, geography and history also play a role. The proximity between the Eastern European countries as well as the ever-present expansionist aims of the Russians have led Russian leaders to constantly attempt to exert their influence on these countries. This desire on the part of the Russians to expand into the East and integrate those lands is most clearly exemplified in the time of the Crimean War in which Russia was defeated, though their interest in the region existed from even further back in history and also continued throughout the era of the tsars and onward into the Soviet regime. Colonial competition with western nations and subsequently cold war rivalry further stimulated this interest. However, what is striking is that while other countries and former colonial possessions or satellite states have moved on, there still seems to be a lingering presence of this connection with Russia in Eastern Europe. I think one of the driving forces behind this is the common ethnicity. Pan-Slavism and a shared ethnic background unite Russia and portions of Eastern Europe in a unique manner prompting both Russia and Eastern Europe to believe in common ideals and also feel certain natural relationship.
ReplyDelete3. I believe that Russia should avoid playing a role in the new revolution as the situation does not threaten them in any way. Instead Ukraine should be permitted to chart its own course for the future free of the historical influence of Russia on its decision-making. However, it is important to note that this is me speaking from the Western point of view. Of course from my perspective Russia should not play a role because I know that most probably, given that the revolution was stimulated by the citizens’ desire to promote Westernization, Ukraine will select a path that is favorable to Western ideals and interests. However, from Russia’s perspective, playing a limited role may be important in order to prevent Ukraine from completely rejecting its historical ties with Russia and moving forward toward a path guided by Western values.
ReplyDelete1.I do not agree with the mass murder charges against the Ukrainian President. He has a responsibility to uphold his elected government, and the deaths of the protesters were because they escalated the conflict, causing government forces to have to respond to do their duty. He used riot police first as a way to control the crowds first, and lethal force was only used after traditional methods failed. He had a right to defend his government from dissenters.
ReplyDelete2.I would say the reason the East sides with Russia is both historical and geographical. It has been historically tied to Russia, and being a closer proximity with them makes the East more likely to side with Russia to maintain the status quo instead of causing friction by siding with the West.
ReplyDelete3.Russia needs to stay out of the conflict. This is soon to be a civil war/disturbance, and any intervention could cause more turmoil or an unresolved conflict causing future woes, similar to US involvement in Vietnam and Korea.
ReplyDelete