Skip to comments.John Baird compares Russia's actions in Ukraine to Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia
Posted on 03/04/2014 11:52:34 AM PST by Dave346
Russian troop presence in Crimea compared to what Germans did in Sudetenland in 1938
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has compared Russia's troop presence in Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula to Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland, a part of the former Czechoslovakia, in 1938.
Baird, speaking to host Evan Solomon on CBC News Network's Power & Politics, accused Russia of invading and occupying Crimea, a part of Ukraine. "If it's not war, it's akin to war," he said.
At first, Baird said the situation was "right out of the Cold War." When Solomon pointed out Putin claims he is protecting Russian rights in Crimea, which has a majority of Russian-speaking citizens, Baird said, "The Sudetenland had a majority of Germans. That gave Germany no right to do this in the late 1930s."
Asked by Solomon if he was making a comparison to the Nazis, Baird replied, "When you have one country invading one of its neighbours, and using this type of outrageous and ludicrous rhetoric, it's hard not to."
Baird noted that no Russian in Crimea has been killed during the protests in Ukraine.
In 1938, Hitler sent in troops to occupy Sudetenland, a region on Germany's border populated largely by Sudeten Germans. The takeover was one of the precursors of the Second World War.
Government monitors Ukraine crisis
Baird's comments came after a series of events that show the Canadian government is actively monitoring the crisis in Ukraine, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaking to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the interim prime minister of Ukraine, this morning.
The Prime Minister's Office released a statement about Harper's phone conversation. "He expressed to Prime Minister Yatsenyuk that Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected and that the Ukrainian people must be free to determine their own future."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
I’m still wondering why this is America’s problem.
Iran is most definitely a threat. Islamonazis with nuclear weapons doesn’t strike me as a swell idea. So yes, Iran is a massive threat to the US and our allies.
I don’t think the Ukraine’s problems are our problems. They are not an ally. We have enough problems, like an out of control federal government that is spying on us, defenseless borders, a military being hollowed out, and before anyone forgets, there’s also the little problem with 90 trillion in unpaid liabilities....
Remember this argument of yours when Mexico uses it to justify retaking California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Texas, and....wait for it...Georgia and Florida where recent evidence indicates that the Maya settled parts of Georgia and Florida long before the Spanish showed up.
The enemy of your enemy may simply be another enemy.
Almost everyone here is missing the larger issue. At our and Russia’s insistence, the Ukraine sent to Russia for destruction (supposedly) 5000(!) nuclear munitions, in return for our assurance of protection (which was reaffirmed multiple times, most recently in 2009.)
Now, for Russia to backstab the Ukraine is expected: Just read a little history. For us, not only is it a moral issue, every “capable” country not now in the nuclear club, many because we have cajoled them to refrain, “we will protect you”, is watching.
We do not at this point need to attack Russia: There are many other effective things we can do. But if Russia’s move is not rolled back, the consequences, even if Russia does no more, are dire indeed.
We are wrong in most cases you mention where we are involved. I might make some exceptions in the immediate post-WW2 period: Winners do get to get their way sometimes.
And I would submit another law. Rock and firebomb throwing crowds should never get to assert authority over people who disagree, simply because they happen to fall within the nation state area the crowd has seized.
I assume that your position would be unchanged if the Ukrainian protesters had had real military type weapons, and had been able to organize into military type units or militias. By extension, then, G. Washington & Co. should have had no authority over Tories and Tory sympathizers in the U.S. after the U.S. won its independence. Righto...
Ok. That makes sense. Been watching the idiots on cable all week, and no one hammered it down.
Because it appears that a lot of neo-cons have invested heavily into the Ukraine. That is why their main squeeze, Obama, is being given the green light to attack Russia.
“Because it appears that a lot of neo-cons have invested heavily into the Ukraine.”
By “neo-Cons”, you mean the NGO’s under the Soros-financed Open Society Institute, right?
Because the same groups that destabilized Ukraine, also destabilized Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria, largely with clandestine US help.
Good point! Under Democrat leadership to open our borders, those jurisdictions may eventually themselves vote for succession and withdraw from the USA! Given that Democrats have disordered minds and cannot connect the dots, that is a likely outcome. Is this not happening already in Southern California?
As to the Ukraine, there seems to be no win-win solution. The EU is made up of mostly corrupt, socialist, and atheist countries. Who would want to join them? The Ukraine needs to settle its own internal affairs without any "outside" help.
You have to acknowledge that the Russians have a vested interest in the Crimean Peninsula port at Sevastopol. I know not the solution.
It so sad when a Foreign Affairs Minister ignores history. Send him back to school.
Worth more readings, thanks,
It's frustrating as h### that these "pundits" are so clueless, but, that's why one should not depend on them too much. I'm no expert, but when the protests started making the news, I got curious, partially because of an old Ukranian friend of our family, back in my teen years. (He was a rather memorable character!) Anyway, I started doing some research, trying to keep an unbiased mind, and it was so facinating that it drew me in, and I spent many evenings looking further.
I'd recommend to anyone interested enough to post a comment that they at least get the basic historical background, if they don't already know it. It takes a few hours to study, but it's well worth it. I'll collect a few links and post them here, shortly.
BTW, reviewing comments after I posted my original reply to you, I would add that even many FReepers are still dwelling on issues virtually irrelevant to what actually counts, now. Aaggghhh....
Below are a few links (all sources likely have biases and errors, but overall one can get a good sense of things).
Ukraine basic info. & history:
For a taste of Ukraine’s politics:
This article is rather long. (Again, there may be some bias there - one can check the “talk” page regarding this, but the point is not whether or not Tymoshenko is a “hero” — she may well be corrupt [I suspect virtually all major Ukranian pols are, to some degree]. The point is to get an idea of the nature of Ukrainian politics, and more background.) Most interestingly, at least in the past, Putin has said he found Tymoshenko “comfortable” to work with (despite her generally pro-West inclinations?)
Ukraine in WW2 (truly horrific, but a must, to understand this country.)
Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament & Security Assurances from the U.S., Russia, etc.:
None of the above actually addresses the issue of what happens if every country capable of joining the nuclear club discovers it is now on its own.
I can agree with that. I am focused more on the bigger picture, but it is true that the Ukraine has fantastic potential. Unfortunately, presently there are only tough solutions vs. the really bad alternatives. I think that perhaps the country has been so battered (just go to the link I posted above about the WW2 history, and then consider the history after that) that they cannot conjur up the sort of Reaganesque confidence needed to go their own way, even as an act of leadership.* The rampant corruption is another factor: They MUST defeat that.
*I was just watching a vid of Yulia Tymoshenko on CNN Online, and when she is asked about the Ukraine's mobilization, she says (among other things) "we cannot fight Russia on our own" (paraphrasal), and pressed on this at the end ("will you fight?") she has this resigned look & body language and says "our men will die."
Wrong message, girl! Putin doesn't care, too many of the Euro's are weenies (not all, though), and those men of yours need hope / leadership. Americans will support an underdog, but only IF they show some spunk. I know she's been in prison and possibly mistreated there, but as a leader she has to evercome that, at least on camera. (That's another thing that would rally American public support.)
As long as you're making suggestions on what to read it might be helpful to take a moment to read the official 1994 Budepest Memorandum in its entirety, the 2004 & 2010 Ukrainian Constitutions paying special attention to the clauses on elective process and impeachment, and then spend some time researching the status of forces agreement Russia has with Ukraine, and compare it to SOFAs the United States has entered into with many other countries around the world.