Situation in Ukraine

[steveaki13]

It is beginning to seem to me, that Russia has been sending in the guys who are taking hold of TV stations and public buildings.

I mean when you see those guys. They are fully kitted out with uniforms, guns and stuff which normal rebels don't have. Now after these guys taking hold of area's in Crimea, Russia have there Army waiting at the border.

It looks to me folks like Russia has infiltrated Crimea with the idea of taking it back with a full blown invasion.

I know its hard to believe these days that these things could happen, but looking at the situation its looking bad.

Just shows you never know what is going to happen tomorrow.

A week ago, I would not think there was a risk of Russia returning to its old ways, but it appears to be a planned operation.

In todays world where everything seems so settled and sure, we now have a very worrying situation. Not helped by the treaty that the US, UK & others have signed in the past stating they will take action should Russia get involved anywhere.

Might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but when something like this happens its more worrying. I know it probably wont come to it. But if it ever got to War point, no one can risk fighting Russia these days.

What do you guys think?

[Starter]

Putin has wet dreams about returning Russia to the glories of the USSR. I fully expect an across the border excursion soon. If nothing else they will occupy Crimea in order to secure access to the Mediterranean.

The US, under Obama and to be fair just about anyone else too, will bluster and talk about sanctions and such but will do noting what so ever to prevent it. The rest of Europe will do nothing either without America taking the lead (read that as spending all the money and sending most of the troops).

The end result will be an emboldened Putin and bad news for the countries formerly part of the USSR, perhaps soon to be part of it again like it or not. Perhaps bad news also for their close European neighbors.

[Franky]

I know its hard to believe these days that these things could happen, but looking at the situation its looking bad.


Few months ago read a book called 'The New Nobility' which is about the new rise of the Russian intelligence forces. Based on that book I can say that "these days" have been back for several years already. Take the Georgian-Russian conflict. You never know when the bear gets hungry.

[Malbec]

Putin has wet dreams about returning Russia to the glories of the USSR. I fully expect an across the border excursion soon. If nothing else they will occupy Crimea in order to secure access to the Mediterranean.

Keeping access to a permanently unfrozen port has been a core part of Russian policy for 200+ years. They've been to war with Britain and France over the Crimea over Sevastopol, with Japan over Port Arthur and attempted to secure Afghanistan and later Iran bringing them into conflict with Britain again to get access to the Indian ocean right up to 1945. The Crimea is Russia's last permanently unfrozen port that also gives them a lot of leverage in the Middle East as they can supply Syria directly by sea through there without foreign interference. I can see exactly why any Russian leader, not just Putin, would find it unacceptable to see a weakening of their grip over the ports there. I think the EU/USA would have been naive if they had imagined that Putin wouldn't interfere, but then again the Russian's can't expect to take over parts of Ukraine with impunity, its not tiny like Georgia or Chechnya and the latter is still causing Moscow big headaches.

[Franky]

The Crimea is Russia's last permanently unfrozen port that also gives them a lot of leverage in the Middle East as they can supply Syria directly by sea through there without foreign interference.

Russia's main Black Sea port is Novorossiysk, not far from Krasnodar. So I can't see any reason why they can't do what you said since the collapse of Soviet Union.

[Mintexmemory]

No wonder Yanukovych didn't want the possibility of EU membership gaining momentum, clearly knew what the Russians would do in the event of the Ukrainian Nationalists gaining power. Clearly we now have 2 fairly entrenched parties in opposition, the Russians defending the ethnic Russians in the Crimea, and the disturbingly right wing nationalists in Kiev. Don't think Russia can afford to escalate on a long term basis but expect that the shutting down of pipelines will be the next move.

[Jag_Warrior]

Ah... The Budapest Memorandum. :dozey: Good grief!

The second dumbest thing that Billy Clinton signed, with NAFTA being the first. Now I'm remembering why I didn't like that guy when he was in office. Eight years of Goofball Bush and one tends to forget.

To hold up our end of the bargain, couldn't we just carpet bomb Brighton Beach, NY and call it even?

[Franky]

It's escalating quickly now. Ukraine has started mobilization and Crimea is controlled by Russian forces.

[airshifter]

As is usual, watch how the rest of the world does nothing but talk about it, threaten sanctions, and point fingers. I really don't know why the UN exists any more. All the evidence in the world doesn't get them to act. The end result is usually one that makes more people suffer, and provides no long term solution.

[Franky]

UN is just like it's predecessor the League of Nations.

[donKey jote]

Where are the weapons of mass destruction :dozey:

[jens]

As an Estonian I can say that this situation has made me concerned about the future safety more than ever before and today I was thinking about an "evacuation plan" in case it's needed, because if a war arrives, it is too late to start to think, what to do. It is needed to act immediately and even in a preventive way. Because for a simple person any kind of war brings nothing but suffering - life quality lowers, and there is a real danger of actually getting seriously hurt.

Georgia in 2008, now Ukraine in 2014. What unites them and, say, Baltic countries is that we border with Russia and have a Russian minority in them. This means careful politics, because with issues situations can get critical. Obviously Ukraine's economy isn't particularly strong at the moment, which combined with unconfident politics can make people angry and divide them into opposing groups, which is what has happened there.

UN and NATO help? Let's be serious, no-one really wants to risk with a huge armed conflict against Russia. This would bring way too much suffering to any of the countries to consider it worth practicing. The "best" they may consider are some economical measures, but I guess we'll find out about it next week. However, gas and other stuff from Russia is important for Europe, so the latter is at odds about burning bridges.

[Starter]

UN and NATO help? Let's be serious, no-one really wants to risk with a huge armed conflict against Russia. This would bring way too much suffering to any of the countries to consider it worth practicing. The "best" they may consider are some economical measures, but I guess we'll find out about it next week. However, gas and other stuff from Russia is important for Europe, so the latter is at odds about burning bridges.
War does bring suffering, mostly to non combatants, however is the short term suffering of a war worst than the long term suffering of living under a dictatorship? People will have different answers to that question.

I don't think Russia has an appetite for a real war at the moment. Though if Putin keeps winning mostly bloodless wars that attitude could change quickly. Not that the US or anyone else could effectively wage a war at the moment. Putin knows this, he is not a dumb person. There are other reasonably effective ways to take action and Obama has consistently failed to take any of them when it was necessary. Our Secretary of State, Chamberlain....oops sorry, Kerry, was all over the Sunday morning news shows explaining why this isn't really a dispute with Russia and how strongly worded statements would save the day.

I don't advocate going to war as the only possible path in this. It should be remembered though that you do not achieve a comfortable peace by letting bullies push you around.

[jens]

War does bring suffering, mostly to non combatants, however is the short term suffering of a war worst than the long term suffering of living under a dictatorship? People will have different answers to that question.

I don't think Russia has an appetite for a real war at the moment. Though if Putin keeps winning mostly bloodless wars that attitude could change quickly. Not that the US or anyone else could effectively wage a war at the moment. Putin knows this, he is not a dumb person. There are other reasonably effective ways to take action and Obama has consistently failed to take any of them when it was necessary. Our Secretary of State, Chamberlain....oops sorry, Kerry, was all over the Sunday morning news shows explaining why this isn't really a dispute with Russia and how strongly worded statements would save the day.

I don't advocate going to war as the only possible path in this. It should be remembered though that you do not achieve a comfortable peace by letting bullies push you around.

I don't think Russia really wants a war either, certainly not one against the big powers of the world. However, Putin likes to play a bit of a high-stakes poker and tries to anticipate the moments, where he can capitalize on opportunities without the West really and truly reacting. He did it with Georgia's South-Ossetia, now doing with Crimea. Putin likes to 'defend' or 'protect' his compatriots in foreign countries, and if said country is in a political upheaval, he has a stronger argument in getting involved.

I remember back in Estonia here was a revolt in 2007 mostly by Russians, who were unhappy about a war statue getting removed. However, the situation was brought relatively quickly under control and Russia didn't have a good opportunity to get involved.

In terms of suffering v war. I think it is about every person's unique situation and feeling. If the economical situation is bad and people suffer from poverty. Or they are in pain due to big violation of human rights, they are more prone to "war mentality", especially if they see an alternative, because they are suffering already and war doesn't make a big difference to them - but they have hope the solution may be an improvement.

Most people however do not want war, because they have something to lose in life already (be it family, home, finances) and there is a big danger a war would force them to lose it.

I agree about the need to keep the "bullies" in check, and the only thing to do it is with effective and strong measures. But Russia's case is a bit unique, because unfortunately for major powers they are bit too big to really keep in check without taking big risks in their own livelihood. USA can go to Iraq, Afghanistan and have a successful (?) war there without having to fear about their own country collapsing. But they can't afford it with Russia.

And this is what everybody knows and has to deal with - the inevitability of the life on this planet. Big countries (incl also China and others) won't really go in war against each other, it would be a suicide. So for them the answer is "diplomacy" and "making sacrifices to reach a solution". If sacrifice or should I say "crisis solution" means that someone (say, Russia) gets a piece of land somewhere, and USA gets some economical benefits (something for everyone), then that's it. And small countries like Estonia have to deal with it. The inevitability of the world and history.

[jens]

In todays world where everything seems so settled and sure, we now have a very worrying situation. Not helped by the treaty that the US, UK & others have signed in the past stating they will take action should Russia get involved anywhere.


I have also felt that "history" seems to be sort of over or at least "settled", and certainly it felt like that for many people after the collapse of the Soviet block around 1989-1991.

However, I think what we are seeing is that "history" never comes to an end. And any kind of stability is temporary, because situations in the world constantly evolve and change.

Things may be better or at least look good now, but you never know, what might happen. What about energy crisis in the future? What about the population pyramids of mostly European countries getting older, which means they need to import more and more non-European workforce? Not to mention post-2009 economic crisis to which there is still no good solution? All these are the issues, which affect politics as well. And depending on how critical these issues get, will make political situations just as critical too.

As you mention political treaties - basically they are all based on political and economical reality. Treaties last only as long as they are "useful". By this I mean you can have a treaty, but if you do not have measures to implement it, the treaty goes down the toilet in a critical condition. For instance you may sign a treaty to ensure peace of the world, but if implementing this means a nuclear war, which destroys everything, you are not going to pursue fulfilling the criterias of said treaty.

[jens]

UN is just like it's predecessor the League of Nations.

If I am not mistaken, Russia has actually the right of a veto at United Nations, so they can ban any action against themselves. :p

Basically something like UN can be used only in doing something about the conflicts of smaller countries. This is where they have sent their 'peace forces'. However, when big countries with veto rights get involved, there is nothing to do. This is where the big boys have to reach a resolution by themselves.

[Rollo]

Where are the weapons of mass destruction :dozey:

Not in Ukraine. They were dismantled in 1994 under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum.

[BleAivano]

New York, 2 March 2014 - Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on Ukraine

Following the Security Council's consultations and given the developments on the ground in Ukraine,
the Secretary-General is dispatching Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson to the country this evening.

While in Ukraine, the Deputy Secretary-General will be personally apprised of the facts on the ground and
will subsequently brief the Secretary-General on the next steps the United Nations could take to support
the de-escalation of the situation

http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=7494

[Rollo]

Can I apologise in advance on behalf of the nation in which I live, for being America's yappy little spineless lapdog.
Australia in 2014 is both on the UN Security Council and heads the G20, which means that you'll be hearing a lot from our PM Tony Abbott... spruiking whatever Washington tells him to.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The Crimea is Russia's last permanently unfrozen port that also gives them a lot of leverage in the Middle East as they can supply Syria directly by sea through there without foreign interference.

Russia's main Black Sea port is Novorossiysk, not far from Krasnodar. So I can't see any reason why they can't do what you said since the collapse of Soviet Union.

From what I heard, Novorossiysk is way less convenient that Sevastopol. You also need to factor in the huge costs of relocating the navy from one port to another. That said, I still think that even getting full control over an important port does not yet justify risking a war. Russia might be making a big mistake.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Keeping access to a permanently unfrozen port has been a core part of Russian policy for 200+ years. They've been to war with Britain and France over the Crimea over Sevastopol, with Japan over Port Arthur and attempted to secure Afghanistan and later Iran bringing them into conflict with Britain again to get access to the Indian ocean right up to 1945.

This is a pretty good summary of how Russians see the international politics. The problem is, while they are firmly stuck in realpolitik 19th century style, it's 2014 and what had been reasonable back then is not necessarily a good idea now.


I think the EU/USA would have been naive if they had imagined that Putin wouldn't interfere Russian are stuck in 19th century, but EU/USA are stuck in early 1990s when they pretty much ruled the world and things were going their way. Not anymore, they might be in for a few surprises, too.

[Mark]

As is usual, watch how the rest of the world does nothing but talk about it, threaten sanctions, and point fingers. I really don't know why the UN exists any more. All the evidence in the world doesn't get them to act. The end result is usually one that makes more people suffer, and provides no long term solution.

What would you have them do? This isn't just some tinpot dictator flexing his muscles, this is Russia, it may not be a super power any more, but it's not far off it. Is it world World War 3?

[henners88]

Indeed. I think talking about it and negotiating hard is better than the US complicating things and using it as a platform for flexing their own muscles. The outcome of this could be catastrophic for everybody, especially the countries in Europe who neighbour and could be dragged into a war. I really hope we don't get too involved.

[zako85]

As an Estonian I can say that this situation has made me concerned about the future safety more than ever before and today I was thinking about an "evacuation plan" in case it's needed, because if a war arrives, it is too late to start to think, what to do. It is needed to act immediately and even in a preventive way. Because for a simple person any kind of war brings nothing but suffering - life quality lowers, and there is a real danger of actually getting seriously hurt.


Nah. You have nothing to fear because Russia already "lost" Estonia, since Estonia is already member of EU and NATO. Estonia just shouldn't do things that irritate Russia too much, such as placing NATO nukes or anti-missile defense on its territory. Russia does not want the same to happen to Georgia and Ukraine, that's why it's been so aggressive there. I have a theory that Putin does not even want a formal annexation of Crimea, which is effectively a Russian occupied territory anyways, because then Ukraine would definitely turn to the West. Instead, Russia will maintain Crimea as a hostage. Any time Ukraine leaders take a wrong turn, Russia will stir up some trouble in Crimea and in fact in all of east Ukraine (same goes for South Ossetia in Georgia).

[Franky]

Nah. You have nothing to fear because Russia already "lost" Estonia, since Estonia is already member of EU and NATO.

Being a member doesn't really guarantee anything. Estonia is a very small player and those organizations are more talk-talk. Pretty sure they'd sell Estonia out to guarantee their own safety, when things get hot.

Also NATO is in a bit complicated situation in the long term. Majority of the European NATO members population is aging and the birth rate isn't high enough to have more young people than oldies. Also The European members have been downscaling their armed forces for years. I think in Latvia and Lithuania there's only a small unit for military operations. So European NATO members won't do anything unless Uncle Sam comes to help. Also in the end they might ask themselves, why should I help them. They've lost their importance on the world scale and are becoming one big retirement home.

And even if a war broke out the European nations wouldn't be ready for it due to the smaller and smaller armed forces

[zako85]

This is already happening:

http://jalopnik.com/swiss-air-force-clo ... 1525789830 (http://jalopnik.com/swiss-air-force-closes-at-night-wont-open-to-intercep-1525789830)

[MccarthyL]

I'm sick of people that scream the word "War" (the most excited ones even use "World War 3") as if it was something really exciting. Anyways, I don't think there is going to be a real war there. It looks like Putin is trying to show who is the boss by sending the troops in Ukraine. He won't switch to the real actions though

[Mark]

Being a member doesn't really guarantee anything.

But it is supposed to. It's been stated that if Ukraine were a NATO member, then by treaty obligation NATO would have been obliged to act to expel the invaders.

[BleAivano]

This is an exempt from article from 2008:


Ukraine is investigating claims that Russia has been distributing passports in the
port of Sevastopol, raising fears that the Kremlin could be stoking separatist sentiment in the Crimea
as a prelude to possible military intervention.

The allegation has prompted accusations that Russia is using the same tactics employed in the
Georgian breakaway regions of Abhkazia and South Ossetia in order to create a pretext for a war.

Russia handed out passports to the residents of the two provinces, which have long looked to Moscow f
or support, five years ago. The Kremlin has justified its invasion of Georgia in terms of defending its
citizens in Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgian "aggression".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rimea.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2575421/Russia-distributing-passports-in-the-Crimea.html)

So Putin uses the same rhetoric and excuses now as when he invaded Georgia.

[Starter]

Indeed. I think talking about it and negotiating hard is better than the US complicating things and using it as a platform for flexing their own muscles. The outcome of this could be catastrophic for everybody, especially the countries in Europe who neighbour and could be dragged into a war. I really hope we don't get too involved.
I agree. We should have minded our own business in 1941 too.

[Starter]

But it is supposed to. It's been stated that if Ukraine were a NATO member, then by treaty obligation NATO would have been obliged to act to expel the invaders.
I've highlited the operative words here.

[Starter]

I'm sick of people that scream the word "War" (the most excited ones even use "World War 3") as if it was something really exciting. Anyways, I don't think there is going to be a real war there. It looks like Putin is trying to show who is the boss by sending the troops in Ukraine. He won't switch to the real actions though
There won't be a "real war" so long as everyone rolls over for him (Putin), so you're safe there. Come back in 10 years and tell me how that worked out for you.

[Garry Walker]

But how could this happen? Didn't dunnell once (or rather, on many occasions) say that the Russian military is very weak :laugh:

I had expected strikes from Russian for a while now, this was obviously the time. People are still forgetting what kind of a country Russia is and who leads it. Anyone thinking the bear is a friendly one and not dangerous anymore, is stupid. The bear has just been waiting for the right time.

But can we really blame Russia? When the biggest countries in the world have such impotent and stupid leaders as Oblongo and Hollande, it is no wonder Putin knows he can get away with pretty much everything.
The first thing the biggest countries in the world should have done in response to this should have been the freezing of all assets of russia and its companies abroad and expelling most of their diplomats. Diplomacy and talk will not get you anywhere with russia or russians - the only thing they understand is brute force.

By now the situation is such that backing down is impossible for Putin - he would show weakness in the eyes of the world and even worse, in the eyes of russians. So that won't happen.


the Russians defending the ethnic Russians in the Crimea, and the disturbingly right wing nationalists in Kiev. .
:rolleyes:

However, gas and other stuff from Russia is important for Europe, so the latter is at odds about burning bridges.
Just as the money from Europe is very important to Russia.



What about the population pyramids of mostly European countries getting older, which means they need to import more and more non-European workforce?
There is plenty of workforce in Europe, the main problem is that due to generous benefits, far too many people choose being lazy and useless over working.
For your average european, some jobs are not accpetable, whereas the reality should be - you don't work, you get no benefits.


But it is supposed to. It's been stated that if Ukraine were a NATO member, then by treaty obligation NATO would have been obliged to act to expel the invaders.

And who exactly would act? Europeans? Who? There is no strenght in Europe, it has slowly been eaten away.
China? They are in alliance with Russia.
That leaves only America. But with a leader like Oblongo, it has about as much power in the eyes of russians as Malta, Bhutan and other such military powerhouses.

[steveaki13]

Wow. Garry long time no read. :eek: :) :sailor:

[Garry Walker]

Indeed. I have had very little interest in the joke that is F1 for a while now, but the current political situation is worrying. So that made me look up the link of this forum after probably about half a year at the very least.

[Mark]

Your analysis is broadly correct and Putin knows that too.

[Malbec]

Russia's main Black Sea port is Novorossiysk, not far from Krasnodar. So I can't see any reason why they can't do what you said since the collapse of Soviet Union.

Correction, Novorossiysk is Russia's main Black Sea commercial port. The Russian Black Sea fleet is still based in the Crimea. I know there are moves to shift the base to Russian territory but as of now that hasn't happened.

[Malbec]

And this is what everybody knows and has to deal with - the inevitability of the life on this planet. Big countries (incl also China and others) won't really go in war against each other, it would be a suicide.

Unfortunately I think history has proven this not to be the case.

Both WW1 and WW2 were fought between the biggest economies and trading partners in the world. You could argue that WW2 was necessary to stop two or three overtly aggressive and expansionist country bent on starting a war but WW1 was avoidable yet it happened.

Even today the world's top, second and third biggest economies came close to fighting a war with each other over some uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. And as we can see in Crimea the two largest component countries of the former USSR are inches from war. While I completely agree that its easier for a big country to go to war with a small one and logic should dictate that large powers not go to war with each other in reality it still happens...

[Garry Walker]

This is a nice picture
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ztlCwMimCBk/UxN1gH30B2I/AAAAAAAAmWQ/o1fP8rANWC8/s1600/Meme+77.jpg

[Garry Walker]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/28/john- ... ama-video/ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/28/john-mccain-on-ukraine-invasion-putin-does-not-have-a-great-deal-of-respect-for-president-obama-video/)

McCain understands the situation as well.

[Starter]

This is a nice picture
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ztlCwMimCBk/UxN1gH30B2I/AAAAAAAAmWQ/o1fP8rANWC8/s1600/Meme+77.jpg
It's not what you think it is. Obama would say he is receiving a "trust me, all's OK" sign.

[henners88]

Indeed. I think talking about it and negotiating hard is better than the US complicating things and using it as a platform for flexing their own muscles. The outcome of this could be catastrophic for everybody, especially the countries in Europe who neighbour and could be dragged into a war. I really hope we don't get too involved.
I agree. We should have minded our own business in 1941 too.
What a stupid thing to say.
We are ever grateful for your help just like I would hope you are grateful for ours. This has nothing to do with 73 years ago though and I'm sure people are sick of the we won the war crap by now. It's just that sort of mentality that backs up shallow stereotypes and I don't want that for my American friends that I respect immensely.

[Rollo]

I agree. We should have minded our own business in 1941 too.
What a stupid thing to say.
We are ever grateful for your help just like I would hope you are grateful for ours. This has nothing to do with 73 years ago though and I'm sure people are sick of the we won the war crap by now. It's just that sort of mentality that backs up shallow stereotypes and I don't want that for my American friends that I respect immensely.

I don't know if it is that stupid. America did pretty well for itself by staying out of WW2 as long as it did; just as it did staying out of WW1 as long as it did.
Going to war it perhaps the ultimate demonstration of the broken window fallacy. Sure you increase production and it does act as a major stimulus to an economy but the opportunity cost of war is also massive.
In fact, it might have made sense for Britain to avoid WW1 for precisely the same reason.

I'm pretty sure that most nations in this current crisis don't want to go to war either. The problem is though that as it stands, Russia is demanding the surrender of Ukraine forces in Crimea. That implies that Russia already has gone to war even without a single shot being fired.

[Starter]

Indeed. I think talking about it and negotiating hard is better than the US complicating things and using it as a platform for flexing their own muscles. The outcome of this could be catastrophic for everybody, especially the countries in Europe who neighbour and could be dragged into a war. I really hope we don't get too involved.
I agree. We should have minded our own business in 1941 too.
What a stupid thing to say.
We are ever grateful for your help just like I would hope you are grateful for ours. This has nothing to do with 73 years ago though and I'm sure people are sick of the we won the war crap by now. It's just that sort of mentality that backs up shallow stereotypes and I don't want that for my American friends that I respect immensely.
Not a stupid thing to say at all. Just a way to point out that sometimes you have to step up and do the right thing. The US did the correct thing in getting involved in WWII and no regrets here. History might have been different though if England and France had drawn a line in the sand a bit earlier. Allowing Hitler his early successes was a major error; one that all should reflect on when dealing with situations like the current one.

[Roamy]

I have no idea what all the hoopla is about. This is a EURO deal and Obama bless his heart is not going to raise a hand. You guys are sucking on the gas pipe so you will do nothing. So the Ukraine returns to russia. Maybe that is a good deal. I don't much care for Obama but he is doing very well so far on this deal. Fcuking John McCain's head may blow off over this deal ha ha. You guys have to figure out where to draw the line not us. We will help you screw over the ruble if you want to but I doubt that because you have no gas without Putin. So just give it up and turn on the heater. I will take one of the women if that will help :)

[donKey jote]

So the Ukraine returns to russia. Maybe that is a good deal.

I guess it may be, at least for about the third of it's "Russian" population, who are more afraid of the Swoboda than of Putin...

[henners88]

I agree. We should have minded our own business in 1941 too.
What a stupid thing to say.
We are ever grateful for your help just like I would hope you are grateful for ours. This has nothing to do with 73 years ago though and I'm sure people are sick of the we won the war crap by now. It's just that sort of mentality that backs up shallow stereotypes and I don't want that for my American friends that I respect immensely.
Not a stupid thing to say at all. Just a way to point out that sometimes you have to step up and do the right thing. The US did the correct thing in getting involved in WWII and no regrets here. History might have been different though if England and France had drawn a line in the sand a bit earlier. Allowing Hitler his early successes was a major error; one that all should reflect on when dealing with situations like the current one.
A lot has changed in 73 years though. WW2 was a situation where we couldn't have won it without American help and you couldn't have won it without us, but that is the thing, it was won. That is very different to modern history to which I think demonstrates the shortfalls of jumping in. There is a lot of debate about whether Vietnam was in fact a success, however both the recent conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan) have most people believing it was a complete waste of time and money. I can't imagine what the families of lost troops feel. We achieved very little in the grand scheme.

Anyway back on topic, I don't feel Russia want a war any more than we do. We seem to have this perception that Russians are war mongers, when in reality they are totally the opposite. I just hope a peaceful resolution can be found in this latest flashpoint.

[Mintexmemory]

So the Ukraine returns to russia. Maybe that is a good deal.

I guess it may be, at least for about the third of it's "Russian" population, who are more afraid of the Swoboda than of Putin...

I got rolling eyes from a rabid right winger when I suggested that the current Ukraine situation had no side with which the EU should ally.
Your point about the Swoboda is spot on, viz the first line of the Wiki entry on the organisation. 'The party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine' .
Whichever way you place 'national' and 'social' in a phrase it still equals the same thing! As Dr Johnson said 'there is no determining the precedence between a louse and a flea.
Having a fascist-run state on your doorstep is still a pretty emotive issue for Russians.

[Mark]

You think government ministers would have learned by now that you don't walk into No.10 with uncovered documents as the press outside *will* be able to read them*. Anyway it turns out that the UK position is that we aren't prepared to do anything, even sanctions.

*It's also a sure fire way to deliberately leak information without making any official statement.

[Rollo]

I have no idea what all the hoopla is about. This is a EURO deal and Obama bless his heart is not going to raise a hand. You guys are sucking on the gas pipe so you will do nothing.

As weird as this sounds:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/modest-pr ... 25357.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/modest-proposal-oppose-russian-move-141025357.html)
Verleger argues that the millions of barrels of oil in SPR are far beyond any needed reserve, given the rapid increase in U.S. production. And selling the oil at around $100 a barrel would add about $10 billion to U.S. revenues in fiscal year 2015.

The Russians, of course, could counter with higher prices for natural gas shipped to Western Europe or by threatening to cut off natural gas shipments altogether. Western Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas supplies -- most of which flow through pipelines in Ukraine -- has visibly muted the eurozone's response to Russia's military move into the Crimea. But cutting back on or cutting off natural gas supplies to Europe only makes Russia's revenue problems worse.
Without energy revenues, the country's finances would be in a shambles. The ruble has already touched a five-year low against the dollar, making Russia's financial difficulties that much worse.

At the rate of around 200 million barrels a year, the United States could continue to pump crude into global markets for more than three years. The Russian economy could not stand the pain, which may bring it to the bargaining table, or it may cause Putin to behave like a cornered wolf. Flooding the crude market is not risk-free, but it probably deserves a thorough examination and public debate.
- via Yahoo Finance, 4th Mar 2013

Briliant!

Flood the market with cheap oil and gas - Russia finds that the money it doesn't get from oil and gas reserves cripples its economy - America wins by drawing down some of its debt or at very least, helping the budget deficit - cheaper pump prices.

This is the ultimate four-way play. Not even Eric Bruntlett of the Phillies could pull off that one. :D

[Malbec]

We seem to have this perception that Russians are war mongers, when in reality they are totally the opposite. I just hope a peaceful resolution can be found in this latest flashpoint.

You might want to reconsider this statement after looking at which countries the Russians have intervened in militarily since the breakdown of the USSR, and the longer list of countries that they've threatened to intervene in. It should be noted that Russian military intervention has often received fairly broad backing from the Russian populace.

[henners88]

I've reconsidered my viewpoint but haven't changed my mind.

[Franky]

Heard that in the Russian Federation access to websites about Ukrainian protests are blocked.

[Garry Walker]

I guess it may be, at least for about the third of it's "Russian" population, who are more afraid of the Swoboda than of Putin...
The benefits of immigration and "assimilation" shown once again.




I got rolling eyes from a rabid right winger when I suggested that the current Ukraine situation had no side with which the EU should ally.
Your point about the Swoboda is spot on, viz the first line of the Wiki entry on the organisation. 'The party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine' .
Whichever way you place 'national' and 'social' in a phrase it still equals the same thing! As Dr Johnson said 'there is no determining the precedence between a louse and a flea.

Everyone knows the people on the political left are a bunch idiots, but then there is the creme de la creme. Those are the ones who keep on going about fascism and seeing every right wing party as being fascist. The most overused word in the arsenal of the left-wingers.

As for Svoboda, they are very much anti-communist and have the right ideas in most aspects. If it was between Svoboda and Russia, then the choice for Europe should be more than obvious.


Having a fascist-run state on your doorstep is still a pretty emotive issue for Russians. :laugh:
You want fascist? Look no further than Russia itself with its brainwashed people.


You think government ministers would have learned by now that you don't walk into No.10 with uncovered documents as the press outside *will* be able to read them*. Anyway it turns out that the UK position is that we aren't prepared to do anything, even sanctions.

How very sad, but then again, UK has been a pathetic shadow of a real country for a while now.

[anfield5]

It is a simple thing really. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Russia have sent troops into Ukraine and ordered Ukraine's military to surrender. This is purely and simply an act of war, there is no glossing over it by saying that some of the Crimea residents are of Russian origin. Russia are in the wrong.

It would be akin to New Zealand invading Sydney and demanding Australia lay down their arms, simply because we don't like the way ex-pat Kiwis are being treated by the Austtralian government.

It is time the UN inserted themselves between the Russians and the Ukranian forces, rather than standing on the sidelines. ... Yes I know the UN is a toothless entity, but at least it would show that the civilised world will not put up with bullying

[Rollo]

It would be akin to New Zealand invading Sydney and demanding Australia lay down their arms, simply because we don't like the way ex-pat Kiwis are being treated by the Australian government.

Isn't that just called Bondi Beach bro'? Bondi is choice and sweet as. You know I can't grab your ghost chips.

[anfield5]

It would be akin to New Zealand invading Sydney and demanding Australia lay down their arms, simply because we don't like the way ex-pat Kiwis are being treated by the Australian government.

Isn't that just called Bondi Beach bro'? Bondi is choice and sweet as. You know I can't grab your ghost chips.


Wow Rollo, didn't realise youz knew Kiwiistic langage, I am seriously impressed. As for the ghost chips add, it makes my skin crawl. :)

[BleAivano]

(1.) It would be akin to New Zealand invading Sydney and demanding Australia lay down their arms, simply because we don't like the way ex-pat Kiwis are being treated by the Austtralian government.

(2.) It is time the UN inserted themselves between the Russians and the Ukranian forces, rather than standing on the sidelines. ... Yes I know the UN is a toothless entity, but at least it would show that the civilised world will not put up with bullying

1. or Sweden invading Åland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_Islands) or Nyland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uusimaa) and Österbotten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrobothnia_%28region%29) too protect the Swedish speaking majority in
those regions if we would feel that they are being threatened by violent Finnish speaking minorities
also living there. Although that almost happened about 100 years ago which is known as the Åland crisis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis

So Finnish people We Want those regions back!!!! Give it to us or else we'll deport Carl Bildt, Beatrice Ask
and Annie Lööf to Finland and be aware they are very good at creating a mess out of a country,

2. Jumping the gun and just sending allot of armed forces to Ukraine is not a good idea at the moment.
It could be seen as a provocation and as an excuse/proof for Putin that he was right and that the
Russians in Ukraine actually are in danger. It's better to call Putin's bluff and imo
the Ukraine government and Ukraine military are handling the situation just fine.
They are keeping their heads cool but still hold their ground without doing anything provocative.

Also the UN have sent a delegation under the "command" of deputy UN chief Jan Eliasson to Ukraine.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... raine&Cr1= (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47257&Cr=Ukraine&Cr1=)
So UN is acting just not going in guns blazing before they can see for themselves what the situation is like,

Then the Swedish and Danish ministers of foreign affairs are also going to Ukraine to assess the situation.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... 1677ed2d64 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/ukraine-crisis-shots-fired-crimea-airbase#block-53160e98e4b0da1677ed2d64)

[anfield5]

I'm not neccessarily suggesting the UN send in a peacekeeping army to engage the Russians, just a presence to show them what (most) of the UN nationsa and the world think.

[BleAivano]

Yeah I understand what you mean but moving in foreign forces is imo not a good idea at
the moment although eventually it might become necessary. But at the moment sit still in the
boat and let Mr Eliasson do his job.

Reuters are reporting that many Russian in eastern Ukraine and Donetsk are now
out in the streets protesting against Putin saying that they don't need protection.


But in the four days since, the tide of opinion in eastern cities appears to be turning back towards Kiev.

Bearing placards with slogans such as: "I am Russian. I don't need protection," the protesters
marched near the occupied regional government building, staying far enough away to avoid clashing
with the pro-Russian youths still inside.

"My parents are from Russia. I was born in Ukraine, but I am Russian. My children and grandchildren
were born here. We are for Ukraine," said Natalia Sytnik, who turned out to protest against the prospect
of a Russian invasion.

"We did not ask for help. I don't want him, Putin, to bring tanks here. I don't want them to shoot
at my kids. Let him hear us: 'Do not defend me from anyone. No one is attacking me'."

---

Kiev says the protests - which erupted simultaneously in Kharkiv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk and
several other cities hours before Russia's parliament voted to grant Putin authority for armed force -
were organized by Moscow as a pretext to invade. It says most of the pro-Russian demonstrators were
Russians brought across the border in busloads.

It is certainly clear that many of Gubarev's followers are not from Donetsk, where locals speak Russian
with an easily recognizable accent. One, who said he was a miner from a nearby village, was unable to
name either the village or a single mine in a region known across the ex-Soviet Union for its coal.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 1L20140304 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-ukraine-crisis-east-idUSBREA2321L20140304)

[Rollo]

This is now a siege:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26445666
11:37: The head of Russia's top natural gas producer, Gazprom, says Ukraine has informed the company it cannot pay for February gas deliveries in full, Reuters reports. Alexei Miller says Ukraine's total debt to Gazprom for gas deliveries is nearing $2bn.

11:46: Russia halts nuclear fuel supplies to Ukrainian power plants due to "instability". Their stocks will last until end of April, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitriy Rogozin says - BBC Monitoring (via Interfax).
- via the BBC, 5th Mar 2014.

That's playing fair isn't it. Don't like a country? Just unilaterally cut off energy supplies and let them all freeze to death.

[bluuford]

Well.. in addition to the guys in Ukraine, I am the most sorry for my Russian friends. I have some good friends in research community and they are the least said.. little angry to their president. Their currency is falling, most of the loans are in Euro or Dollars, payments are increasing rapidly (they get paid in rubles), interests are increasing, stocks are falling like stones.. no additional money for science.. so basically they feel very, very dissapointed. Speaking in the manner of N.O.T. their president is living in some kind of parallel universe...

[A FONDO]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5dc_1393953567

[Mark]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26465962 so it looks like Crimea are going to have a referendum as to becoming part of Russia.

If the population votes Yes, which they surely will, then I'm not sure there is any legitimate reason to stop them?

[Rudy Tamasz]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26465962 so it looks like Crimea are going to have a referendum as to becoming part of Russia.

If the population votes Yes, which they surely will, then I'm not sure there is any legitimate reason to stop them?

Nothing will stop them from declaring what they want, but it's unlikely anybody in the world will recognize their new status.

[airshifter]

The fact that you have armed military type forces wearing no countries identification involved might surely sway the vote, and also bring it into question. Technically such forces would fall under the category of terrorists per most laws of war.

[BleAivano]

The fact that you have armed military type forces wearing no countries identification involved might surely sway the vote, and also bring it into question. Technically such forces would fall under the category of terrorists per most laws of war.

I think the US definition is illegal combatants, they are not proper military, not civilians but some sort
of para military militia, pretty much like Blackwater (although the latter have changed their name now).

[Mark]

The fact that you have armed military type forces wearing no countries identification.

Otherwise known as Russians.

[Gregor-y]

I think the US definition is illegal combatants, they are not proper military, not civilians but some sort
of para military militia, pretty much like Blackwater (although the latter have changed their name now).
Blackwater was under contract; with these guys who knows (officially) where their orders come from?

[Roamy]

Yeah Crimenia says they want to be part of Russia. Great News - Lets all pack up and STFU !! Peaceful ending!!! Obama knows when to keep his mouth shut.

[airshifter]

According to this article, there are payoffs for defecting, and/or promises of equal status in the Russian military. Some things will never change.

[url]/http://time.com/17356/ukraine-troops-in-crimea-face-dilemma-to-defect-flee-or-fight/[url]

In the end, allowing this to take place will likely end up with ethnic cleansing in Crimea, and display once more that in most cases the world will do nothing unless it's motivated by money.

[zako85]

In the end, allowing this to take place will likely end up with ethnic cleansing in Crimea

This claim is just utter FUD and fear mongering. What ethnic cleansing you speak of? There are millions of ethnic Ukrainians living in Russian Federation and doing just fine, as well as millions of citizens from other former USSR republics. The Muslim Tatars of Russia have an autonomous republic called Tatarstan.

[zako85]

The fact that you have armed military type forces wearing no countries identification involved might surely sway the vote, and also bring it into question.

Why does this matter at all? Does anyone doubt that the majority of Crimea population are Russians? Moreover, Russia's goal is not formal recognition or a demonstration of the most legal and democratic way of parting a chunk of land from the other country. They don't care about those niceties. Russia wants to show to the world that they can do what they want, and frankly they have already won. The United States has no real levers to influence Russia as there is insignificant amount of trade with them, while Europe depends on the Russian energy and Russian oligarchs stash their stolen billions in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Also, Russia probably wants to create another frozen conflict at their borders (just another in a line of many others like Transnistria, Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc). Once they have a frozen conflict, it will be a lever to use against the countries that get out of the line. This maybe also a warning to Ukraine. I don't exclude the possibility that later Russia could take a bolder move and try to split the eastern provinces from mainland Ukraine as well. All ingredients for that are already in place.

[airshifter]

In the end, allowing this to take place will likely end up with ethnic cleansing in Crimea

This claim is just utter FUD and fear mongering. What ethnic cleansing you speak of? There are millions of ethnic Ukrainians living in Russian Federation and doing just fine, as well as millions of citizens from other former USSR republics. The Muslim Tatars of Russia have an autonomous republic called Tatarstan.

You're free to disagree all you want but if given a choice to defect, flee, or fight is certainly drawing lines in the sand. Combined with obvious illegal military actions, bribery, and intimidation it's hardly promoting an open environment.

[Starter]

Why does this matter at all? Does anyone doubt that the majority of Crimea population are Russians? Moreover, Russia's goal is not formal recognition or a demonstration of the most legal and democratic way of parting a chunk of land from the other country. They don't care about those niceties. Russia wants to show to the world that they can do what they want, and frankly they have already won. The United States has no real levers to influence Russia as there is insignificant amount of trade with them, while Europe depends on the Russian energy and Russian oligarchs stash their stolen billions in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Also, Russia probably wants to create another frozen conflict at their borders (just another in a line of many others like Transnistria, Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc). Once they have a frozen conflict, it will be a lever to use against the countries that get out of the line. This maybe also a warning to Ukraine. I don't exclude the possibility that later Russia could take a bolder move and try to split the eastern provinces from mainland Ukraine as well. All ingredients for that are already in place.
Your first line has little to do with it. I'm ethnic German, but in no way is that an indication that I want to align myself with Germany. I'd guess that many, if not an actual majority, of ethnic Russians want to stay with Ukraine. The bottom line is still that Putin has invaded Crimea against all international law. His only goal is to expand Russian influence and he couldn't give a crap less about the ethnic Russians living there.

[zako85]

The bottom line is still that Putin has invaded Crimea against all international law.


That's hardly hardly a universal truth. Law? What law? Who is the judge? And besides, the international law is on the sides of those with power. Examples: Kosovo, Iraq War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

People who demanded independence in places like East Timor, South Sudan, Erithrea, etc. had to wait and live in misery for decades before they were finally independent according to the "international law".




His only goal is to expand Russian influence and he couldn't give a crap less about the ethnic Russians living there.

What do you know about what Putin and the rest of Russians feel about their ethnic keens in Crimea as well as the importance of Crimea to Russian history? To Russians, the situation of Russians in the Crimea was the main national cause celebre for the last two decades. The Black Sea Fleet was stationed there for as long as the black sea fleet existed (two centuries?). The majority of Crimea population are Russian and a huge part of their economy is tied to Russia's Black Sea Fleet. In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.

You can also argue that occupying Crimea is not an expansion of Russian influence (Crimea was always filled with Russian military and many people had Russian passports even in the past, so that's nothing new). By occupying Crimea, Russia lost its influence over the much of mainland Ukraine, so I wouldn't classify that as a definitive expansion.

[zako85]

In the end, allowing this to take place will likely end up with ethnic cleansing in Crimea

This claim is just utter FUD and fear mongering. What ethnic cleansing you speak of? There are millions of ethnic Ukrainians living in Russian Federation and doing just fine, as well as millions of citizens from other former USSR republics. The Muslim Tatars of Russia have an autonomous republic called Tatarstan.

You're free to disagree all you want but if given a choice to defect, flee, or fight is certainly drawing lines in the sand.

Lines in the sand or not, the claims of an upcoming "ethnic cleansing" in Crimea is utter BS, FUD, fear mongering, and you know it. The guys in Ukraine's military stationed in Crimea will indeed have to decide if they want to quit Ukrainian military or go back to mainland. Tough luck. Were British allowed to maintain their forts in the USA after the American Revolution?

[airshifter]

As I've said, you can disagree all you'd like, but I don't think it's FUD at all.

This is not a declared conflict by Russia, as Putin claims not to know who the armed Russian soldiers are. Yet it seems that identified uniform wearing Russian military people were quick to show up and offer bribes, help with defections, and safety to those being threatened by armed thugs of "unknown" origin.

The Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter all clearly define that a declaration of war must take place, and other rules to protect humanitarian rights and primarily civilians. You gave several examples were such international law allows outside intervention in the event such basic laws are not followed, the difference being that those conflicts were much more violent before the international community got involved in a direct action way.

What we have now is unidentified Russian thugs, demanding surrender of bases, weapons, etc, all while not following the most basic provisions of law regarding armed conflict. Any referendum that takes place under such conditions is obviously being influenced with the threat of further control and violence. Have you ever voted at the end of a gun barrel?


As for the British US comparison, complete apples to oranges comparison. The war was open, and the British never sent in commandos after the fact claiming they knew nothing about it.


If the people of Crimea wish to rejoin Russia I would have no problem with it, and though it might not be simple I'm sure there is a legitimate legal process to allow it. But Putin is doing what the USSR was once well known for, allowing "freedom" at the end of a gun barrel.

[jens]

And this is what everybody knows and has to deal with - the inevitability of the life on this planet. Big countries (incl also China and others) won't really go in war against each other, it would be a suicide.

Unfortunately I think history has proven this not to be the case.

Both WW1 and WW2 were fought between the biggest economies and trading partners in the world. You could argue that WW2 was necessary to stop two or three overtly aggressive and expansionist country bent on starting a war but WW1 was avoidable yet it happened.

Even today the world's top, second and third biggest economies came close to fighting a war with each other over some uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. And as we can see in Crimea the two largest component countries of the former USSR are inches from war. While I completely agree that its easier for a big country to go to war with a small one and logic should dictate that large powers not go to war with each other in reality it still happens...

I think the WW2 experience was so harsh that big countries somewhat learnt a lesson from it, also from WW2 onwards we have had countries with weapons of mass destruction.

Of course big countries have been fighting against each other in a third country on a smaller scale (either by sending their weapons there or even some army), but big countries avoid going directly against each other. The danger of a nuclear war exactly prevented USA and USSR from going straight against each other, and I think it applies to battling with the likes of China and maybe someone else as well.

Could Ukraine be that third party of arena, where big countries can compete against each other on a smaller scale and without nuclear weapons, like in Korea, Vietnam, other Asian countries? Have some doubts, because Ukraine is a bit too close for Russia, a bit too close to EU powers and hence a bit too close for everyone's comfort.

This is evidenced by actions. USA and EU are attempting to do something about Russia with sanctions. It remains to be seen, how far are they willing to go, but as we see, they are not prepared to go into war in Crimea. At the moment they are discussing "possible economic sanctions". However, if we had a similar situation between smallish Asian or African countries, pretty likely UN and/or USA/NATO would have decided they need to send some troops there.

[Starter]

That's hardly hardly a universal truth. Law? What law? Who is the judge? And besides, the international law is on the sides of those with power. Examples: Kosovo, Iraq War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
That would be international law as practiced by all civilized countries in the world. Are you suggesting that every country should just make it up as they go along? Kosovo was UN sanctioned. Vietnam was the result of a treaty obligation between South Vietnam and the US. Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of an attack on the United States. (Though, IMO, Iraq was a major error on our part.)


People who demanded independence in places like East Timor, South Sudan, Erithrea, etc. had to wait and live in misery for decades before they were finally independent according to the "international law".
And the people of Crimea have been living in misery for decades?



What do you know about what Putin and the rest of Russians feel about their ethnic keens in Crimea as well as the importance of Crimea to Russian history? To Russians, the situation of Russians in the Crimea was the main national cause celebre for the last two decades. The Black Sea Fleet was stationed there for as long as the black sea fleet existed (two centuries?). The majority of Crimea population are Russian and a huge part of their economy is tied to Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
The economy of places like parts of Germany, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, to name a few, are tied to American military bases. So they should be part of America too, right?

In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
The point here is that Russia gave it away. Talking about taking Crimea back is one thing. A military invasion is quite another.

[donKey jote]

The Soviet Leader Krushchev, of Ukrainian origin, gave it away to the Ukranian SR.
Crimea (and East Ukraine) has been Russian since they took it from the Ottomans a couple of hundred years ago (and cleansed the Tatars).

[zako85]

That's hardly hardly a universal truth. Law? What law? Who is the judge? And besides, the international law is on the sides of those with power. Examples: Kosovo, Iraq War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
That would be international law as practiced by all civilized countries in the world. Are you suggesting that every country should just make it up as they go along? Kosovo was UN sanctioned. Vietnam was the result of a treaty obligation between South Vietnam and the US. Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of an attack on the United States. (Though, IMO, Iraq was a major error on our part.)


People who demanded independence in places like East Timor, South Sudan, Erithrea, etc. had to wait and live in misery for decades before they were finally independent according to the "international law".
And the people of Crimea have been living in misery for decades?


Of course not. What's I am saying if the legal means, peaceful protests, etc are used to raise the issue of Crimea transfer to Russia, this will take decades, while the locals are being possibly harassed, persecuted, and subjugated by Kiev. Why should Crimeans have to go through this in the name of "International Law" which has failed so many other separatists?

And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.





[quote:ryj0h1ic]What do you know about what Putin and the rest of Russians feel about their ethnic keens in Crimea as well as the importance of Crimea to Russian history? To Russians, the situation of Russians in the Crimea was the main national cause celebre for the last two decades. The Black Sea Fleet was stationed there for as long as the black sea fleet existed (two centuries?). The majority of Crimea population are Russian and a huge part of their economy is tied to Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
The economy of places like parts of Germany, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, to name a few, are tied to American military bases. So they should be part of America too, right?[/quote:ryj0h1ic]

Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.




[quote:ryj0h1ic] In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
The point here is that Russia gave it away. Talking about taking Crimea back is one thing. A military invasion is quite another.[/quote:ryj0h1ic]

No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.

[zako85]

As I've said, you can disagree all you'd like, but I don't think it's FUD at all.


Do not stray away from the main point I meant, which was to call BS on the "ethnic cleansing" fear mongering. I don't want to engage in rhetoric regarding other things.

[Starter]

Of course not. What's I am saying if the legal means, peaceful protests, etc are used to raise the issue of Crimea transfer to Russia, this will take decades, while the locals are being possibly harassed, persecuted, and subjugated by Kiev. Why should Crimeans have to go through this in the name of "International Law" which has failed so many other separatists?
There is absolutely no credible evidence that the Russian population of Crimea was being "harassed, persecuted and subjugated" by Kiev. Though that's the smoke screen Putin has thrown up.


And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.
Couple of things here: First, yes the US has done some not so nice things over the years. That's still no excuse for anyone else to do them either. Second, your version of Vietnam is revisionist at best. Both Vietnam and the US were part of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) the east version of NATO and we were obliged by that treaty to come to the aid of SV. It was North Vietnam which sponsored the Viet Cong fighters in the south and later crossed the border into South Vietnam with it's own troops. That several US presidents were eager to honor the treaty doesn't change the fact that the treaty existed.


Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.
Please don't buy into the falsehood that all Americans are stupid and uneducated. I don't need to be an expert to know the basics of the situation.


In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
I've no issue with Russia talking about taking Crimea back. It's the armed invasion I have a problem with. Just like Georgia. Why not have a UN administered referendum and see what the citizens of Crimea want?


No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. The previous Russian leaders gave Crimea away, so with new leadership its OK to take it back? So anytime a country's leadership changes its alright to void treaties, invade neighbors and do what you will? I guess Mexico will be wanting Texas back; France will be wanting Canada back; Norway will want Iceland back; India will want Pakistan back; China will want large parts of central Asia and the middle east back; etc. etc. etc.

[Rollo]

No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.

Why?

Within the same paragraph you state that: No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did.

It was never Russian property to take back. Maybe you didn't read your own words but Russia as a separate thing didn't exist until after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russia did not give anything away; because they did not give anything away, they can not take back what was not theirs.

This is an invasion. Story. End of.

[zako85]

Of course not. What's I am saying if the legal means, peaceful protests, etc are used to raise the issue of Crimea transfer to Russia, this will take decades, while the locals are being possibly harassed, persecuted, and subjugated by Kiev. Why should Crimeans have to go through this in the name of "International Law" which has failed so many other separatists?
There is absolutely no credible evidence that the Russian population of Crimea was being "harassed, persecuted and subjugated" by Kiev. Though that's the smoke screen Putin has thrown up.

You don't seem to be reading what I was saying. The _future_ path to separating Crimea from Ukraine by legal means is indeed fraught with harassment and persecution for decades. Why should Russia or Crimea pay respect to the law which is never on the side of separatists? Saying why don't you secede by legal means is like asking people to condemn themselves to decades of struggle. What you observe right now is a nice clean break that's a lot better than wars and ugly sectarian mess observed elsewhere. The politicians in Kiev will thump their chests to score some political points at home, and the move on about doing other business. I'd be surprised to find that many in Ukraine are losing their sleep over "losing" Crimea.



[quote:two08iy1]And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.
Couple of things here: First, yes the US has done some not so nice things over the years. That's still no excuse for anyone else to do them either.[/quote:two08iy1]

That's not an excuse. I am just stating the fact that the "International Laws" that supposedly make Russian occupation of Crimea illegal are simply bent and twisted to serve the strong. They're meaningless. The strong follow the international law when it suits them, but make mockery of it when they want to do things their way. The USA has set plenty of ugly precedents already. If USA cared for International Laws and treaties, they wouldn't go to war unilaterally with Iraq. But they did? Why is that? They just could. International law always works and has force, except of course when it doesn't.



Second, your version of Vietnam is revisionist at best. Both Vietnam and the US were part of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) the east version of NATO and we were obliged by that treaty to come to the aid of SV. It was North Vietnam which sponsored the Viet Cong fighters in the south and later crossed the border into South Vietnam with it's own troops. That several US presidents were eager to honor the treaty doesn't change the fact that the treaty existed.


Really? Have you heard of bullcrap known as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which was the nice "legal" excuse used by America to start the Vietnam War? If Americans really wanted to respect the wishes of the people of Vietnam, instead of the puppet government in South Vietnam, they'd just let everyone hold a UN-led referendum on the unification of the country. Americans obviously did not want it as that would mean overwhelming victory of Communists. Instead they sign a bunch of treaties that "oblige" to defend the South, etc. Setting just another precedent of "legal by force of the strongest" proving my point.



[quote:two08iy1]Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.
Please don't buy into the falsehood that all Americans are stupid and uneducated. I don't need to be an expert to know the basics of the situation.[/quote:two08iy1]

You're drawing a flawed analogy between a US Military base in Phillipinens and BSF in Crimea. What do you expect me to think? Crimea was Russian territory for over two centuries and with a large Russian populatin. Which part of that hard to understand? It was _the_ base of Russian Black Sea Fleet since pretty much the time it was created. Russians fought for it in three wars.



[quote:two08iy1] In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
I've no issue with Russia talking about taking Crimea back. It's the armed invasion I have a problem with. Just like Georgia. Why not have a UN administered referendum and see what the citizens of Crimea want?[/quote:two08iy1]

Why not? Good question. Do you really believe it could ever happen with US having veto power on the security council?



[quote:two08iy1]No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. The previous Russian leaders gave Crimea away, so with new leadership its OK to take it back? So anytime a country's leadership changes its alright to void treaties, invade neighbors and do what you will? I guess Mexico will be wanting Texas back; France will be wanting Canada back; Norway will want Iceland back; India will want Pakistan back; China will want large parts of central Asia and the middle east back; etc. etc. etc.[/quote:two08iy1]

You don't understand my position correctly. Russian leadership DID NOT give anything away to Crimea, ever. It was the USSR leadership that did this, the previous overlord country of all 15 Soviet republics. Russia was technically one out of 15 subject republics of USSR in that day. Russians didn't care back then about this issue because nationalism was suppressed and the change was only nominal it was all one country anyways. Everyone thought along the lines "we're brothers and comrades" and the soviet internal borders are meaningless. Russia did not raise the question about status of Crimea until recently because they had the hope to create and maintain a cozy relationship with Ukraine. In terms of fairness and strategy, it's absolutely the best time for Russians to raise the question of Crimea at this time, when the government in Kiev is clearly anti-Russian.

[Starter]

You don't seem to be reading what I was saying. The _future_ path to separating Crimea from Ukraine by legal means is indeed fraught with harassment and persecution for decades. Why should Russia or Crimea pay respect to the law which is never on the side of separatists? Saying why don't you secede by legal means is like asking people to condemn themselves to decades of struggle. What you observe right now is a nice clean break that's a lot better than wars and ugly sectarian mess observed elsewhere. The politicians in Kiev will thump their chests to score some political points at home, and the move on about doing other business. I'd be surprised to find that many in Ukraine are losing their sleep over "losing" Crimea.
I've highlighted the inconsistent part of this. It looks like you're trying to tell me what will happen in the future. If you can see ahead that well I could use a few stock tips and some lottery numbers. And, to logically follow your reasoning here, Russia should immediately get out of Chechnya.

[/quote]Really? Have you heard of bullcrap known as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which was the nice "legal" excuse used by America to start the Vietnam War? If Americans really wanted to respect the wishes of the people of Vietnam, instead of the puppet government in South Vietnam, they'd just let everyone hold a UN-led referendum on the unification of the country. Americans obviously did not want it as that would mean overwhelming victory of Communists. Instead they sign a bunch of treaties that "oblige" to defend the South, etc. Setting just another precedent of "legal by force of the strongest" proving my point.[/quote]
Now you are the one with a fuzzy grasp of history. SEATO was establish somewhat after WWII (September 1954) more or less at the end of France's war with the communist insurgents in (then) Indochina. The partition into North & South Vietnam was the settlement at the end of that war. Supposedly elections were to be held to resolve the issue, but that never happened as both the USSR & America were using it as proxies in their Cold War struggle and couldn't agree on terms of the election. Your reference to a UN held election is interesting as USSR was the one who objected to that. And, while many Vietnamese were communists, also many wanted no part of communism. The US already was in Vietnam by the time of the Gulf of Tonkin with advisers, helicopter transport for SV troops and supplies.


You're drawing a flawed analogy between a US Military base in Phillipinens and BSF in Crimea. What do you expect me to think? Crimea was Russian territory for over two centuries and with a large Russian populatin. Which part of that hard to understand? It was _the_ base of Russian Black Sea Fleet since pretty much the time it was created. Russians fought for it in three wars.
And what is now the (eastern) United States was an English colony for almost as long as its been a country. So what?


Why not? Good question. Do you really believe it could ever happen with US having veto power on the security council?
Actually I do. Not happily, but yes. That election will never happen though because Russia also has veto power.


You don't understand my position correctly. Russian leadership DID NOT give anything away to Crimea, ever. It was the USSR leadership that did this, the previous overlord country of all 15 Soviet republics. Russia was technically one out of 15 subject republics of USSR in that day. Russians didn't care back then about this issue because nationalism was suppressed and the change was only nominal it was all one country anyways. Everyone thought along the lines "we're brothers and comrades" and the soviet internal borders are meaningless. Russia did not raise the question about status of Crimea until recently because they had the hope to create and maintain a cozy relationship with Ukraine. In terms of fairness and strategy, it's absolutely the best time for Russians to raise the question of Crimea at this time, when the government in Kiev is clearly anti-Russian.
I understand your position well. Once again, if Crimea wants to rejoin Russia, a UN conducted election would be the best way to accomplish this - NOT an armed invasion.

[Rollo]

In terms of fairness and strategy, it's absolutely the best time for Russians to raise the question of Crimea at this time, when the government in Kiev is clearly anti-Russian.

Do you care to explain how the invasion of an Autonomous Republic within the sovereign borders of another country, constitutes anything resembling "fairness"?

[airshifter]

Of course not. What's I am saying if the legal means, peaceful protests, etc are used to raise the issue of Crimea transfer to Russia, this will take decades, while the locals are being possibly harassed, persecuted, and subjugated by Kiev. Why should Crimeans have to go through this in the name of "International Law" which has failed so many other separatists?




And then this....






As I've said, you can disagree all you'd like, but I don't think it's FUD at all.


Do not stray away from the main point I meant, which was to call BS on the "ethnic cleansing" fear mongering. I don't want to engage in rhetoric regarding other things.


So if the same happens to the same group of people at the end of a shotgun barrel, this somehow avoids the issue? I'm sorry, but your argument contains double standards of gross proportion if it leads you to think that legal means subjects people to issues or human rights, while illegal means do not.

It seems in your eyes illegal invasion of a sovereign country is justified due to the possibility that Russians might not be treated fairly if legal means are used, yet you completely ignore that the same violations are already actually taking place against the Crimeans.

Good luck with that. You can go back in history much, much further than your given examples, and you won't find one in which the US or the majority of nations have done such a thing. Well other than the Nazi's, Saddam and other such fine people.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Okay, fine, Crimea is Russian etc. I don't really care as I have no stakes there. Would anybody bother to explain to me, though, how they are going to earn their income now? The only properly functioning segment of their economy is tourism. With their new status, which is nobody is going to recognize, tourists are not coming. The summer season is just two months away. What are they thinking?

[gadjo_dilo]

Okay, fine, Crimea is Russian etc. I don't really care as I have no stakes there. Would anybody bother to explain to me, though, how they are going to earn their income now? The only properly functioning segment of their economy is tourism. With their new status, which is nobody is going to recognize, tourists are not coming. The summer season is just two months away. What are they thinking?
Maybe they'll live like people of Transnistria.... ? ?? :confused:

[zako85]

[quote="Rudy Tamasz":320at5gk]Okay, fine, Crimea is Russian etc. I don't really care as I have no stakes there. Would anybody bother to explain to me, though, how they are going to earn their income now? The only properly functioning segment of their economy is tourism. With their new status, which is nobody is going to recognize, tourists are not coming. The summer season is just two months away. What are they thinking?
Maybe they'll live like people of Transnistria.... ? ?? :confused:[/quote:320at5gk]


I don't know if the 2014 season is going to be good enough, but in the long term Russians will vacation there for sure. Abkhazia, another site of a controversial conflict involving Russia and a neighbor country, relies a lot on Russian tourism. This surprises me as I am not sure if I'd want to have a vacation in a possible war zone, but the wikipedia claims they get 300,000 visitors a year. Abkhazia have very beautiful location, and so does Crimea. Unlike Abkhazia, which is formally not a Russian territory, if Crimea becomes a Russian province, it will receive quite a bit of financial investment, from the government and private investors (Russians of course). The Crimean administration already said that they will not seize any property regardless of who owns it, except for military installation.

[Rudy Tamasz]

[quote="Rudy Tamasz":3bi2k09p]Okay, fine, Crimea is Russian etc. I don't really care as I have no stakes there. Would anybody bother to explain to me, though, how they are going to earn their income now? The only properly functioning segment of their economy is tourism. With their new status, which is nobody is going to recognize, tourists are not coming. The summer season is just two months away. What are they thinking?
Maybe they'll live like people of Transnistria.... ? ?? :confused:[/quote:3bi2k09p]

Which is pretty miserable. Is it worth fighting for, then?

[Rudy Tamasz]

I don't know if the 2014 season is going to be good enough, but in the long term Russians will vacation there for sure. Abkhazia, another site of a controversial conflict involving Russia and a neighbor country, relies a lot on Russian tourism. This surprises me as I am not sure if I'd want to have a vacation in a possible war zone, but the wikipedia claims they get 300,000 visitors a year. Abkhazia have very beautiful location, and so does Crimea. Unlike Abkhazia, which is formally not a Russian territory, if Crimea becomes a Russian province, it will receive quite a bit of financial investment, from the government and private investors (Russians of course). The Crimean administration already said that they will not seize any property regardless of who owns it, except for military installation.

Russia's financial stand is getting worse in both public and private sector. I'm not sure it is realistic to expect Russia come and flood Crimea with money. Russia already has quite a number of depressed regions to support.

Then, we'll have yet to see whether Russian tourists will risk their safety traveling to an unrecognized region by air, as Russia has no land border with Crimea. If they really want to have vacation close to home, they might prefer that very Abkhazia or Sochi. Tourism market is a tough one and Crimeans should not take their niche on it for granted.

[zako85]

As I've said, you can disagree all you'd like, but I don't think it's FUD at all.


Do not stray away from the main point I meant, which was to call BS on the "ethnic cleansing" fear mongering. I don't want to engage in rhetoric regarding other things.


So if the same happens to the same group of people at the end of a shotgun barrel, this somehow avoids the issue? I'm sorry, but your argument contains double standards of gross proportion if it leads you to think that legal means subjects people to issues or human rights, while illegal means do not.


Airshifter, once again, please answer me what is the basis for your fear mongering claim of the upcoming ethnic cleansing in Crimea as you have not backed that claim in any of your posts. Yes, the people at the end of the shotgun barrel, as you say, are the Ukrainian military personnel, and the shotgun is there not because Russians want to cleanse the Crimea of Ukrainians but because Ukrainian military may oppose Russians. So there is a HUGE difference between this and a prelude for "ethnic cleansing". Ethnic cleansing is when a group of people goes out and kills or displaces ALL _locals_ that belong to a different group. Is this something I have to spell out for you? Do you also know that there are thousands of ethnic Ukrainians who are living in Crimea without shotguns pointing at them and also that among the ranks of Ukrainian military personnel there are many ethnic Russians, so Russian guns are pointing at them as well? The Ukrainians have also received offers to defect to the Russian military, which isn't consistent with your claims as normally in such cases you don't make the other side offers to become part of your army.

[zako85]

I don't know if the 2014 season is going to be good enough, but in the long term Russians will vacation there for sure. Abkhazia, another site of a controversial conflict involving Russia and a neighbor country, relies a lot on Russian tourism. This surprises me as I am not sure if I'd want to have a vacation in a possible war zone, but the wikipedia claims they get 300,000 visitors a year. Abkhazia have very beautiful location, and so does Crimea. Unlike Abkhazia, which is formally not a Russian territory, if Crimea becomes a Russian province, it will receive quite a bit of financial investment, from the government and private investors (Russians of course). The Crimean administration already said that they will not seize any property regardless of who owns it, except for military installation.

Russia's financial stand is getting worse in both public and private sector. I'm not sure it is realistic to expect Russia come and flood Crimea with money. Russia already has quite a number of depressed regions to support.


As evidenced by the puny investment in the 2014 Sochi Olympics.



Then, we'll have yet to see whether Russian tourists will risk their safety traveling to an unrecognized region by air, as Russia has no land border with Crimea. If they really want to have vacation close to home, they might prefer that very Abkhazia or Sochi. Tourism market is a tough one and Crimeans should not take their niche on it for granted.

What's wrong with air travel within the air space of the Russian federation? And besides, just yesterday I read that some Russians already proposed to build a bridge over the Kerch strait. My understanding is that there is also a rail car ferry, so you could just take train. Admittedly, I have no idea what's the tourism situation in Crimea right now, but being Putin's and Russian nationalists cause celebre, they will find money for the bridge and other infrastructure.

[zako85]

In terms of fairness and strategy, it's absolutely the best time for Russians to raise the question of Crimea at this time, when the government in Kiev is clearly anti-Russian.

Do you care to explain how the invasion of an Autonomous Republic within the sovereign borders of another country, constitutes anything resembling "fairness"?

Because, as already previously discussed, this has been Russian land for two centuries, populated by Russians, and home to Russian Black Sea military base? Why fair now? When you divorce with someone, then it's a good time to start splitting up the property. Ukraine just said to Russia, we don't want to have anything with you, so what did you expect Russians to do? Wait until Ukraine becomes NATO members and wait for decades until Crimea is transferred to Russia by "legal means", which of course then could never happen?

[Rudy Tamasz]

As evidenced by the puny investment in the 2014 Sochi Olympics.


What you've just mentioned is a part of the problem, not a solution. You spend $44 billion on the Olympics, you no longer have it. You can't have a cake and eat it at the same time. ;)

[Malbec]

Because, as already previously discussed, this has been Russian land for two centuries, populated by Russians, and home to Russian Black Sea military base? Why fair now? When you divorce with someone, then it's a good time to start splitting up the property. Ukraine just said to Russia, we don't want to have anything with you, so what did you expect Russians to do? Wait until Ukraine becomes NATO members and wait for decades until Crimea is transferred to Russia by "legal means", which of course then could never happen?

I completely agree with you zako, well put.

I for one have always thought that Hitler was long unfairly criticised for his moves to reintegrate the Sudetenland and Western Poland, areas with hundreds of years of German history, culture and heritage, back into Germany. Also I don't think there was any better time to ensure that the ethnic Germans living in Soviet territory would have their rights protected and be freed from Russian persecution than July 1941 when the USSR was weakest.

Armed invasion and annexation is indeed the only proper way to sort out injustices like this. International diplomacy and 'legal means' are indeed tools for the weak and to be looked down upon.

Likewise I'm sure you'll join me in fully supporting China re-absorbing Tibet by force with the long history of Chinese links to the country. Hopefully you'll also heartily endorse their subtle efforts to deal with those Tibetans who somehow fail to see the inherent wisdom in this occupation.

I'm not sure things will work out well for Russia in the future though. Not only will the general cost of doing business rise with increased interest rates, reduced access to foreign markets and capital and restricted travel for certain Russians, this move in Crimea will only reinforce the perception amongst its neighbours that rapid membership of NATO and closer ties with the EU are the only way to go. Russians only understand hard power, in this case I feel that soft power would have been more useful and would be less counterproductive.

[airshifter]

Airshifter, once again, please answer me what is the basis for your fear mongering claim of the upcoming ethnic cleansing in Crimea as you have not backed that claim in any of your posts. Yes, the people at the end of the shotgun barrel, as you say, are the Ukrainian military personnel, and the shotgun is there not because Russians want to cleanse the Crimea of Ukrainians but because Ukrainian military may oppose Russians. So there is a HUGE difference between this and a prelude for "ethnic cleansing". Ethnic cleansing is when a group of people goes out and kills or displaces ALL _locals_ that belong to a different group. Is this something I have to spell out for you? Do you also know that there are thousands of ethnic Ukrainians who are living in Crimea without shotguns pointing at them and also that among the ranks of Ukrainian military personnel there are many ethnic Russians, so Russian guns are pointing at them as well? The Ukrainians have also received offers to defect to the Russian military, which isn't consistent with your claims as normally in such cases you don't make the other side offers to become part of your army.

Firstly I'd suggest you look further into accepted definitions of ethnic cleansing, and at the same time adjust your attitude of superior intelligence. Per the UN basic definition, ethnic cleansing is ""rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group." It does not imply or require killing or removing all such people, it includes assimilating them into another cultural group.

In this case the military action is doing just this... essentially giving the Ukrainian military the option to become Russian military or go - assimilation or displacement. The referendum being forced is doing the same to the civilian population... become us under threat and intimidation already displayed. It seems quite similar to the elections allowed by Saddam, intended to allow only those casting a certain vote to do so without intimidation.

While it seems you are carrying an attitude that nobody else can possibly understand these things, you are in fact overlooking gross and obvious violations of human rights, international laws, and the freedoms of choice that should be given to the people in Crimea. And these things are actually already happening, and they are not based on the predictions of a crystal ball. The huge difference between the two is that one is reality, the other is speculation.

I have above given a clear example of the ethnic cleansing already taking place, and by what means. Your argument seems to be that such actions are warranted and that the legal process is what people should fear. I would suggest that the legal process is what Putin fears, and what the people deserve.

[Rollo]

Because, as already previously discussed, this has been Russian land for two centuries, populated by Russians, and home to Russian Black Sea military base? Why fair now? When you divorce with someone, then it's a good time to start splitting up the property.

And if you don't get what you like, then it's okay 22 years later to break into their house and steal?



Ukraine just said to Russia, we don't want to have anything with you, so what did you expect Russians to do? Wait until Ukraine becomes NATO members and wait for decades until Crimea is transferred to Russia by "legal means", which of course then could never happen?

What did we expect Russia to do? Um... not invade a another country?

[zako85]

Airshifter, once again, please answer me what is the basis for your fear mongering claim of the upcoming ethnic cleansing in Crimea as you have not backed that claim in any of your posts. Yes, the people at the end of the shotgun barrel, as you say, are the Ukrainian military personnel, and the shotgun is there not because Russians want to cleanse the Crimea of Ukrainians but because Ukrainian military may oppose Russians. So there is a HUGE difference between this and a prelude for "ethnic cleansing". Ethnic cleansing is when a group of people goes out and kills or displaces ALL _locals_ that belong to a different group. Is this something I have to spell out for you? Do you also know that there are thousands of ethnic Ukrainians who are living in Crimea without shotguns pointing at them and also that among the ranks of Ukrainian military personnel there are many ethnic Russians, so Russian guns are pointing at them as well? The Ukrainians have also received offers to defect to the Russian military, which isn't consistent with your claims as normally in such cases you don't make the other side offers to become part of your army.

Firstly I'd suggest you look further into accepted definitions of ethnic cleansing, and at the same time adjust your attitude of superior intelligence. Per the UN basic definition, ethnic cleansing is ""rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group." It does not imply or require killing or removing all such people, it includes assimilating them into another cultural group.


Wow, nice dodge and redefinition. Suddenly assimilation becomes ethnic cleansing. Is that what you meant? Good one! I think I have made my point by now, as you completely utterly failed to back your absurd claims. Please stop making people laugh. Let's just equate assimilation with Holocaust, shall we? After all, according to your flawed logic, assimilation is just one step away from Holocaust or the ethnic massacres in the Balkans in the 1990s. What a ridiculous analogy you're trying to make here to make the current events in Crimea to fit under "ethnic cleansing". Such great information warfare trick. Senator McCain would have made you a staff member in his office. And if you think assimilation is the same as "ethnic cleansing" why not just use the former word? Oh wait, it doesn't sound as "dramatic", I get it.

And where did you get the ideas that Russians have the intention of assimilating the minorities in Crimea? Since when switching sides in the militarizes is about assimilation? One again NO ONE IS FORCING THE MINORITIES OF CRIMEA TO ASSIMILATE. They can stay and live normally as usual. However, the military of Ukraine, which in view of Crimea's government, is soon to be a military of a foreign country is not welcome in Crimea. The Ukrainian military personnel, many of whom do not have even permanent homes in Crimea, can go back to Ukraine. The ones to live in Crimea can stay and go to their homes, but not in the capacity of Ukrainian Army or Navi. Please do not equate that with ethnic cleansing. This is just stupid.

And, have you heard that Crimean parliament has just made a move to guarantee broader rights to the Crimean Tatar minority of Crimea? Such broader rights will include teaching Tatar language in schools and reserving a number of seats to Tatars in the Crimean parliament. Is this consistent with assimilation of minorities to you? I don't know about the situation with the rights of the Ukrainian minority of Crimea, but it is the Tatars who were the most opposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. They were immediately provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation. This doesn't sound like an assimilation to me, or much less like "ethnic cleansing".



While it seems you are carrying an attitude that nobody else can possibly understand these things, you are in fact overlooking gross and obvious violations of human rights, international laws, and the freedoms of choice that should be given to the people in Crimea.

I am not overlooking those. Yes, those issues may exist. I posted my first reply to you about your claim of "ethnic cleansing", the claim you haven't backed.




I have above given a clear example of the ethnic cleansing already taking place, and by what means.

LOL. Just LOL.

[zako85]

Because, as already previously discussed, this has been Russian land for two centuries, populated by Russians, and home to Russian Black Sea military base? Why fair now? When you divorce with someone, then it's a good time to start splitting up the property. Ukraine just said to Russia, we don't want to have anything with you, so what did you expect Russians to do? Wait until Ukraine becomes NATO members and wait for decades until Crimea is transferred to Russia by "legal means", which of course then could never happen?

I completely agree with you zako, well put.

I for one have always thought that Hitler was long unfairly criticised for his moves to reintegrate the Sudetenland and Western Poland, areas with hundreds of years of German history, culture and heritage, back into Germany. Also I don't think there was any better time to ensure that the ethnic Germans living in Soviet territory would have their rights protected and be freed from Russian persecution than July 1941 when the USSR was weakest.

Armed invasion and annexation is indeed the only proper way to sort out injustices like this. International diplomacy and 'legal means' are indeed tools for the weak and to be looked down upon.


Sure, the Russian intervention in Crimea is controversial. But, I would like to wait and see before equating Putin with Hitler. After all, Hitler didn't stop with annexing the land populated by ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia, but also proceeded to attack and annex the rest of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and USSR, and then he proceeded to gas the Jews and other "undesirables". So the analogy equating Putin with Hitler so far is quite false.

And yes, oftentimes I am on the side of the separatist governments who have gained independence, if not de facto, then at least de jure. For example:

South Ossetia
Karabakh
Abkhazia
East Timor
Eritrea
South Sudan

A lot of these had genuine ethnic grievances against the government in the capitals, and yet most of them probably would never have gained even cultural autonomy, much less independence, without armed struggle even though armed resistance could have been against the law, local or international.

[Starter]

The Ukrainian military personnel, many of whom do not have even permanent homes in Crimea, can go back to Ukraine. The ones to live in Crimea can stay and go to their homes, but not in the capacity of Ukrainian Army or Navi. Please do not equate that with ethnic cleansing. This is just stupid.
That has to be one of the most foolish arguments in this thread. How many members of the military of ANY COUNTRY have permanent homes in the places where they are stationed?


And, have you heard that Crimean parliament has just made a move to guarantee broader rights to the Crimean Tatar minority of Crimea? Such broader rights will include teaching Tatar language in schools and reserving a number of seats to Tatars in the Crimean parliament. Is this consistent with assimilation of minorities to you? I don't know about the situation with the rights of the Ukrainian minority of Crimea, but it is the Tatars who were the most opposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. They were immediately provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation. This doesn't sound like an assimilation to me, or much less like "ethnic cleansing".
By your argument, even though Crimea has no land border with Russia, because a majority of the people there are ethnic Russian it was OK to invade. The Brighton Beach area of New York is loaded with ethnic Russians. Should we be expect Russia to invade soon? By the way, I fully expect Putin to fix the "no land border" issue shortly by invading eastern Ukraine.

This says it all: "the Tatars" ....."provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation." So the Tartars, who have lived there for centuries will be second class (at best) citizens of the new Russian province.

[Starter]

And yes, oftentimes I am on the side of the separatist governments who have gained independence, if not de facto, then at least de jure. For example:

South Ossetia
Karabakh
Abkhazia
East Timor
Eritrea
South Sudan

A lot of these had genuine ethnic grievances against the government in the capitals, and yet most of them probably would never have gained even cultural autonomy, much less independence, without armed struggle even though armed resistance could have been against the law, local or international.
I can't help but notice that you have carefully avoided the instances of Georgia and Chechnya which I had brought up earlier in this thread. Could you please explain how those fit into the arguments you are espousing?

[BleAivano]

I also would like to know if those, who support the idea of Crimea suddenly deciding to break away from Ukraine,
also would support a sudden declaration from let's say Kaliningrad to change belonging from Russia to Poland?
A province that historically have no connections with Russia pre-ww2.

[Malbec]

And yes, oftentimes I am on the side of the separatist governments who have gained independence, if not de facto, then at least de jure. For example:

South Ossetia
Karabakh
Abkhazia
East Timor
Eritrea
South Sudan

A lot of these had genuine ethnic grievances against the government in the capitals, and yet most of them probably would never have gained even cultural autonomy, much less independence, without armed struggle even though armed resistance could have been against the law, local or international.

The bottom three of your examples became independent. The first three did not become independent in anything beyond name but merely Russian protectorates. They are merely tools for Russian expansion and to apply pressure on Russia's neighbours.

It is also interesting to note that at least in Crimea there was no sign of an armed insurrection fighting against rule from Kiev indicating that whatever secessionist movement there was it wasn't particularly significant in either its intentions or ambitions, almost certainly because their sense of grievance wasn't great.

You seem to find it extremely difficult to understand that the principle you are using is extremely dangerous if applied everywhere. Few land borders cleanly divide populations along ethnic lines. If everyone used Putin's principle, ie annexing ajoining territory simply because there was a significant ethnic minority or even a majority of the same ethnic grouping as your own there would be war everywhere. I can think of several countries in Europe that could be sliced up by its neighbours and made to disappear based on your thinking.

BTW that Hitler went on to commit mass genocide while Putin probably won't is irrelevant. The arguments Hitler used for the annexation of the Sudetenland, western Poland, Alsace and also Anschluss were exactly the same as Putin is using in Crimea. At least have the honesty to acknowledge that.

[airshifter]

Wow, nice dodge and redefinition. Suddenly assimilation becomes ethnic cleansing. Is that what you meant? Good one! I think I have made my point by now, as you completely utterly failed to back your absurd claims. Please stop making people laugh. Let's just equate assimilation with Holocaust, shall we? After all, according to your flawed logic, assimilation is just one step away from Holocaust or the ethnic massacres in the Balkans in the 1990s. What a ridiculous analogy you're trying to make here to make the current events in Crimea to fit under "ethnic cleansing". Such great information warfare trick. Senator McCain would have made you a staff member in his office. And if you think assimilation is the same as "ethnic cleansing" why not just use the former word? Oh wait, it doesn't sound as "dramatic", I get it.

And where did you get the ideas that Russians have the intention of assimilating the minorities in Crimea? Since when switching sides in the militarizes is about assimilation? One again NO ONE IS FORCING THE MINORITIES OF CRIMEA TO ASSIMILATE. They can stay and live normally as usual. However, the military of Ukraine, which in view of Crimea's government, is soon to be a military of a foreign country is not welcome in Crimea. The Ukrainian military personnel, many of whom do not have even permanent homes in Crimea, can go back to Ukraine. The ones to live in Crimea can stay and go to their homes, but not in the capacity of Ukrainian Army or Navi. Please do not equate that with ethnic cleansing. This is just stupid.

And, have you heard that Crimean parliament has just made a move to guarantee broader rights to the Crimean Tatar minority of Crimea? Such broader rights will include teaching Tatar language in schools and reserving a number of seats to Tatars in the Crimean parliament. Is this consistent with assimilation of minorities to you? I don't know about the situation with the rights of the Ukrainian minority of Crimea, but it is the Tatars who were the most opposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. They were immediately provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation. This doesn't sound like an assimilation to me, or much less like "ethnic cleansing".




It's apparent that the definitions threaten your shielded view. Please continue with the ignorance or supporting actions that are entirely illegal and trying to prop them up by making an argument against things never stated.

But then you state those that don't have permanent homes can leave. One of the "freedoms" involved in not being Russian? :laugh:

As for making people laugh, you might want to look at all the views opposing your own. I doubt any of them are laughing, as they probably see it in a way similar to me... violation of basic international laws and human rights. Hope you here some good jokes if you ever end up in the Gulag.

[Roamy]

I still don't get it. This is a Euro deal. You guys need to stop this if it is wrong. fcuk the furnace if it is wrong it is wrong.
But I will support what the Euro's do. There should be no involvement by us.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I completely agree with you zako, well put.


It took me a while to figure out that post of yours was ironic. When I did understand it, I laughed. Brilliant stuff! :up:

[Malbec]

I doubt any of them are laughing, as they probably see it in a way similar to me... violation of basic international laws and human rights.

Yup

Its quite hard to believe that there are actually people who believe that invading and annexing part of a neighbouring country is acceptable and that this doesn't demonstrate warlike intentions. Some of this thread borders on the surreal.

[donKey jote]

Split it in two: Russia recovers East Ukraine and Crimea, and Poland recovers West Ukraine :dozey:

[Mark]

Well the result was never in doubt, looks like the situation is becoming more grave as we speak.

[janvanvurpa]

I doubt any of them are laughing, as they probably see it in a way similar to me... violation of basic international laws and human rights.

Yup

Its quite hard to believe that there are actually people who believe that invading and annexing part of a neighbouring country is acceptable and that this doesn't demonstrate warlike intentions. Some of this thread borders on the surreal.

Hear hear, HARUMPH!!!
That would be like Mexico taking the whole South-west of 'merikuh!
It's ours fair and square....(what possible claim could they have??? Harumph!)

They should do like "we" do and invade countries far away that they have little to no contact with...


So much easier when your citizens can't find it on the map..eh, wot, ol' chum?

[Malbec]

Split it in two: Russia recovers East Ukraine and Crimea, and Poland recovers West Ukraine :dozey:

And Germany recovers Western Poland, job done, everybody's happy!

[donKey jote]

jawohl, and Elsaß-Lothringen ! :andrea:

[Rudy Tamasz]

You guys don't get it. Your sarcasm is out of tune. How can you be not sympathetic to the great cause of Crimean independence. Never ever since 1991 have the Crimean people put up with the Ukrainian occupation. Millions of them, young and old equally, lived and breathed the dream of independence. Their powerful multi-million pro-independence rallies showed to the whole world their unbroken spirit. The head of their independence movement became a spiritual guru for all the progressive people on the planet. Too bad I forgot his name. Has none of you participated in protests near Ukrainian Embassies against the torture of Crimean activists, death camps and martial law? Now our brothers in Crimea are free and we all celebrate this.

[gadjo_dilo]

You guys don't get it. Your sarcasm is out of tune. How can you be not sympathetic to the great cause of Crimean independence. Never ever since 1991 have the Crimean people put up with the Ukrainian occupation. Millions of them, young and old equally, lived and breathed the dream of independence. Their powerful multi-million pro-independence rallies showed to the whole world their unbroken spirit. The head of their independence movement became a spiritual guru for all the progressive people on the planet. Too bad I forgot his name. Has none of you participated in protests near Ukrainian Embassies against the torture of Crimean activists, death camps and martial law? Now our brothers in Crimea are free and we all celebrate this.
And once again I remember the thread about Kosovo independence......

[steveaki13]

So with Putin signing Crimea into Russia, which country will be next for Putin to target. He says Crimea was and is rightly a part of Russia, but the point is this is not how a democracy (which they inform us they are :rolleyes: ) should or would go about this. Its not legal.

Now he states retaliation to any sanctions. Europe's power source is under threat then perhaps? So who would have thought it. Trusting Russia for fuel is a bad idea. :eek:

[steveaki13]

You guys don't get it. Your sarcasm is out of tune. How can you be not sympathetic to the great cause of Crimean independence. Never ever since 1991 have the Crimean people put up with the Ukrainian occupation. Millions of them, young and old equally, lived and breathed the dream of independence. Their powerful multi-million pro-independence rallies showed to the whole world their unbroken spirit. The head of their independence movement became a spiritual guru for all the progressive people on the planet. Too bad I forgot his name. Has none of you participated in protests near Ukrainian Embassies against the torture of Crimean activists, death camps and martial law? Now our brothers in Crimea are free and we all celebrate this.

Fair enough but it still doesn't make what Russia have done right.

[Starter]

Ukraine is currently a NATO partner. Perhaps immediately accept it into full NATO membership. That would oblige all of the other NATO members to come to it's defense should it's territory be invaded. I don't know if that would stop Putin as he has already determined Obama is a wuss and a push over, but might give him something to think about. Even that would be too late for Crimea, that's pretty much a done deal now.

[Mark]

http://loiter.co/v/watch-as-1000years-o ... rs-change/ (http://loiter.co/v/watch-as-1000years-of-european-boarders-change/) watching that video makes you realise the Europe's borders have always been rather fluid!

[BleAivano]

A uniformed Ukrainian officer have been killed, it does not say by who though.

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/445984386551267328
http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-soldiers- ... NlYwNzcg-- (http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-soldiers-allowed-arms-following-first-death-175641630.html;_ylt=Ao5qqswHedwBs1MsnY8..7PQtDMD;_ ylu=X3oDMTBsaGVqY3E0BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNzcg--)

[zako85]

I can't help but notice that you have carefully avoided the instances of Georgia and Chechnya which I had brought up earlier in this thread. Could you please explain how those fit into the arguments you are espousing?


I don't know what you mean by Georgia. Can you elaborate? Georgia is an independent state and no one is disputing that?

The Russian invasion of Chechnya during the First Chechen War probably wasn't necessary. I have read that the Russian president Yeltsin failed to exploit all possible means of a peaceful solution to that conflict. Supposedly, he already had a date lined up to meet the Chechen president Dudayev to discuss all pending issues some time in 1994. Dudayev was going for it. Yeltsin likely would have to give some concessions to Chechens in order have them agree to remain as a Russian subject. However, Russian generals convinced Yeltsin to simply draw Russian troops into the capital of Chechnya in 1994 in order to end the separatist conflict without giving any concessions. This of course was an incredibly stupid decision. The Russian tank column was incinerated within hours after entering Grozny. Chechens are one of the most war-like people on earth and they were well-armed. The original Russian conquest of the North Caucasus in the 19th century lasted for decades because of Chechens, even though earlier in 1812 Russia defeated Napoleon's massive army. Chechens were also helped by the rugged mountainous geography that's well suited for guerrilla warfare. Anyways, in 1994, Russians came in like a bunch of drunken sailors completely unprepared for any serious resistance, or like a bunch of boy scouts on a field trip. After a long and bloody conflict, Russia effectively was winning the first war, at a huge cost, but withdrew because Yeltsin decided to cut a deal with Chechens as soon as possible in order to end the war at all costs because his political situation was extremely precarious. He was so weak that he almost lost the second term re-election to Communists (even though most people were quite sick of 70 years of Communist rule). Most Russians now think of Yeltsin as an inept corrupt drunkard who was an incredibly weak leader at the time when Russia needed a good one the most. The rise of Putin and everything followed was a direct response to Yetsin's mediocre leadership. "Is this what the liberal western democracy and capitalism are about?" most people thought. Once Putin came to power, for the first time in like a 100 years, Russians suddenly saw a well motivated, strong, and a healthy man as their leader, and really liked him.

Anyways, Chechnya became sort of de-facto independent after the first Chechen War. However, I personally would make the argument here that independent Chechnya was a failed state that also attacked the Russian republic of Dagestan. Therefore, the Russian invasion of Chechnya during the Second Chechen War and the re-establishment of it as a subject of the Russian Federation was justified for security reasons. The problem was that fundamental Islamism rose in Chechnya after the first war, a courtesy of various Arab fighters that came to help during the first war. Originally, the Chechen separatism was all about nationalism, and they wanted to build a secular state since their practice of Islam was considered "moderate". The Islamist ideology spread rapidly. The Islamists decided in 1998-99 that it was the time to establish an Islamic Emirate in the entire North Caucasus, stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea, most of it on Russian territory, of course. They invaded the Russian republic of Dagestan in 98 or 99? Not even Chechen president could stop them. This gave more than enough excuses for Putin to invade Chechnya and re-establish Russian rule. And by the way, a lot of Russians are saying even now, "let's just get rid of Chechnya and other Muslim republics because we're sick of the constant conflict and terrorism coming from that region". I don't want to argue whether this is right or wrong, but this sort of thinking among at least some people in Russia does underscore that Chechnya has little significance to average Russians. If Chechnya became independent, Russians would forget about it in a couple of years, but Crimea is a lot different. Russians have been having this Crimean fever for the last two decades since losing it after the dissolution of USSR.

[zako85]

Ukraine is currently a NATO partner. Perhaps immediately accept it into full NATO membership. That would oblige all of the other NATO members to come to it's defense should it's territory be invaded. I don't know if that would stop Putin as he has already determined Obama is a wuss and a push over, but might give him something to think about. Even that would be too late for Crimea, that's pretty much a done deal now.

Admitting Ukraine into NATO is the best way to start a new Cold War. Not the "soft" Cold War, but a real Cold War that used to be. In fact, most of Russian interference in Ukrainian politics is because Russia does not want to Ukraine to be in NATO. If sometime in 2000, some kind of real solid guarantees could be given to Russia that NATO will never expand into Ukraine, I don't think that we'd see the dramas of the Ukrainian politics starting from the Orange Revolution in 2004. However, for the last decade or we've been hearing from various corners of American politics (including directly from the White House of George Bush): "Let's admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO".

Calling for Ukraine to join NATO is like calling for Canada or UK to join the Warsaw Pact (when it existed). If Western troops move into Ukraine or if there is a serious talk of Ukraine joining NATO, I have no doubt that Russia will simply invade with its full might as much of Ukraine as it can. To Russians of Russia, the idea of say the city of Kharkiv or Donetsk or Kiev as a NATO base sounds as absurd as Montreal or London being a Warsaw Pact base. And I am sure in a lot of places in Ukraine, troops with NATO insignias will be met with rotten tomatoes and eggs as there is a lot of Russians there, and they view NATO troops as clearly anti-Russian. The talk of admitting Ukraine into NATO also helped to divide Ukrainian politics. It encourages the west politicians to be bold, and the east politicians to be on the defensive. As a diverse multi-ethnic country, Ukraine needs to decide how to accommodate this diversity. Setting up a federation would be one way of doing things. Instead, we see east and west-side politicians trying to suppress the other half of country.

Here is an opinion piece by Henry Kissinger that talks about these issues:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

[zako85]

I am personally kind of sick of seeing the big stand-off surrounding Ukrainian politics. This has been going on for years. For more than a decade, Ukraine has been the side of a covert proxy war between NATO (on political/military side), EU (on political/economic side) and Russia. For example, the foreign funding and advising for the 2004 Orange Revolution are well documented, as well as the Russian influence through TV and by other means. It would be very hypocritical to say that Russia is right or wrong without admitting the complexity of the rest of this conflict. There are plenty of reasons to blame every side:

1) Ukraine: damn it, none of this would have happened if you could just get your house in order. Your politicians are just as inept and corrupt as Russians in the 90s (Russians are still corrupt today, but at least they get at least _something_ done). Your military is a joke. Your economy is a joke. You're in need of an immediate 15 billion bailout. You are Greece v2.0. Of course, under such conditions, the hawks are going to be circling over your half-dead body. Keep the tabs on your neo-Nazi groups. Practice the democratic rule, not the rule of Maidan mob. Also realize that your political system cannot adequately accommodate the diversity of your population. Let people elect their governors locally, and let people use Russian as the second official language in the regions where they want to. Set up your republic as a federation, and most of your internal political conflicts will go away.

2. West: Encouraging Ukraine to join NATO is reckless as Russia will never accept NATO in Kiev. Don't embolden politicians who are clearly anti-Russian. If you want to help Ukraine, then help and encourage those politicians who want to fight corruption and incompetence, instead of simply playing on the natural divisions within the Ukrainian society. Your puppet president Yuschenko was a demagogue and an inept politician, and that's why he lost his re-election.

3. Russia: Stop encouraging Ukraine's east for an open rebellion. Invading and annexing territory of a European country seems pretty radical in 21st century. I understand the feeling of injustice after seeing predominantly Russian Crimea assigned to Ukraine, but peaceful means could have been exploited first. After this act, the rest of the world will merely tolerate you because they still need to do business with you. And if you invade, then take the credit for it, instead of saying that "local people's militias" did it. And, your puppet president Yanukovich was a corrupt and inept son of a mother, and that's why he was overthrown. (At least Putin flies in fighter jets and looks good shirtless, but what has Yanukovich got?)

[Rollo]

1) Ukraine: damn it, none of this would have happened if you could just get your house in order. Your politicians are just as inept and corrupt as Russians in the 90s (Russians are still corrupt today, but at least they get at least _something_ done). Your military is a joke. Your economy is a joke. You're in need of an immediate 15 billion bailout. You are Greece v2.0. Of course, under such conditions, the hawks are going to be circling over your half-dead body. Keep the tabs on your neo-Nazi groups. Practice the democratic rule, not the rule of Maidan mob. Also realize that your political system cannot adequately accommodate the diversity of your population. Let people elect their governors locally, and let people use Russian as the second official language in the regions where they want to. Set up your republic as a federation, and most of your internal political conflicts will go away.


Question. To what degree was the current situation caused by the businessmen and oligarchs who inherited power as a result of the breakup of the USSR?

Take the issue of gas. People need it to keep their boilers running. The Ukrainian Government couldn't really make people pay a market price for it because wages were still incredibly depressed; as such, the government effectively subsidized peoples' gas bills to the tune of 17% of GDP.

Do you blame the for the decisions taken in either Moscow or Kiev? And to what degree, are the billionaires who actually control capital of Russia and the Ukraine from Londongrad SW3 to blame?

[Rollo]

.

2. West: Encouraging Ukraine to join NATO is reckless as Russia will never accept NATO in Kiev. Don't embolden politicians who are clearly anti-Russian. If you want to help Ukraine, then help and encourage those politicians who want to fight corruption and incompetence, instead of simply playing on the natural divisions within the Ukrainian society. Your puppet president Yuschenko was a demagogue and an inept politician, and that's why he lost his re-election.


Do you not believe in the sovereignty of a nation?

[Markadmin]

The annexing of Crimea will only hasten Kiev's desire to make alliances with the West. It's been shown that Russia is no friend of Ukraine.

[zako85]

Do you not believe in the sovereignty of a nation?

Considering that you post this as a reply to my remark about the relationship of Ukraine with NATO, I think you haven't read my reply to Starter about Ukraine's NATO prospects just one above. And yes, I believe in sovereignty of a nation, but not always when it's a half failed chaotic nation that's being pushed by very much stronger special interests from abroad. Without the 800 pound NATO gorilla trying to muscle in by shamelessly exploiting the ethnic divisions in the Ukrainian society, Ukraine's sovereignty would not have been in question. Here in America, they require that kids study about tolerance in high schools and colleges. But what do they do in Ukraine? Trying to incite a new Balkan style ethnic warfare? Sovereign nation or not, bringing a strong foreign backed alliance to its neighbors gates is a very hostile and reckless act and Russia will respond, and very strongly. I think what we see in Crimea is only a demonstration. The hawks and neocons in Washington and Brussels say they want to bring NATO to Ukraine because they want to defend a weak but "freedom-loving democracy" (see their videos below) in the face of Russian aggression. However, in reality, what they want is to bring the NATO air bases, nukes and, missile defense right to Russia's border. That's what it's all about. Russia will never accept this, not only because of security reasons, but also because of a perceived threat of the Western take over of the very land where the Russian civilization formed originally in the Kievan Rus in 10-12th centuries.

Moreover, bringing NATO into Ukraine is an unpopular and a divisive decision even within Ukraine. It's not even clear if a true democratic process would even allow this. South-Eastern Ukraine is populated by Russian-speaking Ukrainians or outright Russians most of whom see no threat from Russia. In fact, they are very idea of being a "NATO member" will be quite enraging to them. The day after a air base opens in Ukraine, there will be a mob of angry people outside the gates throwing rotten produce.

Here are some cool fresh youtube videos from the freedom loving Ukraine under the new pro-western government that strives to emulate the western liberal democratic values at home. Some of this stuff is both sad and hilarious. Why don't they run this on CNN?

A mob of protesters (almost certainly part of well organized radical militant youths who have filled Kiev) attack their own unarmed Ukrainian police on the streets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TNGxBfMg5k

Watching this makes me chuckle at the remarks of those who said that the popular protests in Ukraine that ousted the president were just a bunch of random peaceful guys being forced to defend against police. The extent the participation of far right wing and neo-fascist activists on the Maidan is becoming clear with each day.

A Ukrainian TV boss is beaten up in his office and forced to resign by Ukrainian MPs (!!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5GeBpZ5VHY

Later they tried to delete the video, while some Ukrainian bloggers suggest that rights and liberties may have to be suspected sometimes because the country is at war. One of the guys doing the beating belongs to some kind of "Freedom of Speech Committee". The punishment was for transmitting Putin's speech from Kremlin days ago.

Video: A notorious far right activist Muzychko attacks prosecutor's office in Rovno (oldie, but still a goodie)

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-radical-attacks-prosecutor-080/


The right wing militias who now rule on the streets of Ukraine:

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-right-sector-militants-210/

[Starter]

..... And yes, I believe in sovereignty of a nation, but not always when it's a half failed chaotic nation that's being pushed by very much stronger special interests from abroad. .....
Oh, I think I get it. You mean like Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, the two Congos, Syria and the Central African Republic just to name some of the first ones that come to mind. Not all are prime players as proxies for other countries but all most definitely qualify as "failed chaotic nations". So I should assume that all are ripe for picking by any neighbor who wishes to take over? All of those countries also have citizens of their neighbors living in them, so they are prime places to be "Putined".

[Roamy]

Do you not believe in the sovereignty of a nation?

do you not believe they are able to vote?? Plus they are a sovereign nation as a result of the vote

[zako85]

Oh, I think I get it. You mean like Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, the two Congos, Syria and the Central African Republic just to name some of the first ones that come to mind. Not all are prime players as proxies for other countries but all most definitely qualify as "failed chaotic nations". So I should assume that all are ripe for picking by any neighbor who wishes to take over? All of those countries also have citizens of their neighbors living in them, so they are prime places to be "Putined".

That's right. In that part of world, the weak will always be taken advantage of. It may be morally wrong, but it's part of human nature, or as some people would say, simple realpolitik. If Ukraine wants to move forward, its people and politicians coming from all sorts of ends of spectrum should say we are one people and we will work together towards a common goal. But instead, the center stage of politics is dominated by populist and highly divisive demagogues from extreme fringes of the politics and society, and most are just pawns in the hands of Ukrainian oligarch class. Here is another fresh video from Ukrainian Rada:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7-nwKa4DlY

and a 10 years old but still quite relevant commentary from the contributors of now dead English language exile.ru:

http://exiledonline.com/ukraine-the-gogolean-bordello/

[Mark]

Now that the annexation is complete. At what point do the maps get redrawn? Or do they ever?

[Starter]

Now that the annexation is complete. At what point do the maps get redrawn? Or do they ever?
These days all the maps are drawn in pencil.

[Mark]

These days all the maps are drawn in pencil.

Has it not ever been thus?

[Roamy]

Has it not ever been thus?

I am with the Euros on this deal - Who gives a sh!t - fire up my heater

[steveaki13]

So Russia have been excluded from G8 or should I say G7 now. so will this hold do you think?

Also what will Russia do if lots of countries stop buying from them?

Do you think Russia have plans for there next conquest?

All questions which are worrying.

[Starter]

So Russia have been excluded from G8 or should I say G7 now. so will this hold do you think?
Should have been done when the first Russian soldier set foot in Crimea.


Also what will Russia do if lots of countries stop buying from them?
Unlikely this will happen.


Do you think Russia have plans for there next conquest?
Yes. First eastern Ukraine then Moldavia.
i

All questions which are worrying.
Europe should stop worrying and start acting. Either that or start learning to speak Russian.

[gadjo_dilo]

Yes. First eastern Ukraine then Moldavia.
What?
Moldova is ROMANIAN territory.


Europe should stop worrying and start acting. Either that or start learning to speak Russian.
I'm ready. I've already studied it for about 4 years. Difficult language.....

[Gregor-y]

I suppose that depends if there are enough Russians in Transistria to cause trouble for Moldova. Not likely anytime soon since Russia would have to swallow Ukraine first and then would be in conflict with Romania, a NATO member.

[zako85]

Also what will Russia do if lots of countries stop buying from them?



Much of the Russian government budget is based on taxes from the exports of energy commodities: natural gas, oil, maybe some coal. There is of course some trade in manufactured goods (Russia imports electronics and manufactured goods and sells weapons) as well as agricultural commodities. If foreign countries stopped buying some of those key commodities, it would of course hit Russia hard. However, I don't see sanctions of this sort happening unless the West is prepared for an all out Cold War v2.0 with all the costs that implies. When you place trade sanctions on a country, you don't just hurt that country. You're hurting yourself. Once sanctions are in place, you have to buy the stuff elsewhere at a higher prices, if at all possible. So serious trade sanctions are not going to be possible at the moment.

One interesting possibility is to pull some kind of financial trick to make the Russian Ruble collapse. Russians depend on a strong ruble so they could afford to buy a whole lot of imported goods. Once a smartphone costs as much as a typical monthly salary, it could make things harder for Russians. However, Russia sits on a war chest known as the "Stabilization Fund" which receives a portion of commodity taxes when the price of oil is higher than some specific amount in dollars per barrel. Supposedly, as of March the fund has 440 billion in foreign currencies, so collapsing Russian Ruble is going to be very hard and very expensive.





Do you think Russia have plans for there next conquest?

All questions which are worrying.


I don't think Russia has an outright plan to attack its neighbors, but after Georgia and Crimea, I am sure certain "contingency plans" may exist. The most likely target could be Ukraine again. The country has a relatively weak military, and it is divided along linguistic lines. The Ukrainian South East speaks Russian and does not trust politicians who represent the west Ukraine. The three big cities in the east are already experiencing an open revolt, with people rallying demanding the ability to elect their governors, some are asking for Russia's help or demand the right for referendum, just like in Crimea. In some ways, the East mirrors the situation in Crimea, although the East is not as important to Russia strategically as Crimea. All in all, a Russian invasion of mainland Ukraine will look very bad and the West will have to revise its response against Russia. So I assume that Russian invasion is only possible under extreme circumstances (e.g. NATO accelerates Ukraine's admission or a real civil war in Ukraine)

Baltic countries: highly unlikely. Russia already lost and conceded there. They're all members of NATO and NATO is bound to defend them. They're also members of European Union, so a Russia invasion will result in serious sanctions.

Belarus and Kazakhstan: highly unlikely. These countries are in pro-Russian camp. They're members of Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russian version of NATO) and Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia.

Moldova: The main sticking point is the status of Transnistria and the rights of Russians and Ukrainians living there. If the current status quo is preserved or if the Transnistria conflict is resolved in a way that satisfies the local Slavic minority, I don't see any reason why Russia would want a broader conflict in that area. For one, it's a conflict that Russia could actually lose because of the logistics. Moldova does not share a land border with Russia. The only Russian troops that could take part in the conflict would have to be airlifted to Moldova or go through Ukrainian territory (almost unthinkable because of Ukrainian resistance). Romania, a NATO member, certainly will not like this.

Georgia: The Russo-Georgian war started after Georgian troops invaded Georgia's separatist region of South Ossetia and fired on South Ossetian and Russian peacekeeping troops stationed there. The Georgian objective was to reconquer South Ossetia by force in a surprise attack. To me this seemed like a totally insane crazy mission since day one. It's akin to poking a sleeping bear with sticks, but apparently the former Georgian president Saakashvili was crazy enough to do it. His party lost the power, and he is now living abroad. It's unlikely the same type of conflict could repeat unless another crazy comes to power in Georgia.

Azerbaijan: This country threads safely, without joining the Russian security organization or the customs union, but also without doing things that are openly anti-Russian. They do a lot of trade with Russia. However, there is the frozen conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Karabakh region, de jure part of Azerbaijan but de facto controlled by Armenians. I wouldn't be surprised if it could flare up again. Not right now, but one-two decades later, and then Russia will have to decide if it wants to choose sides. In many ways Russia has already chosen Armenia's side because Armenia is member of the security organization and the customs union, and there is a major Russian military base in Armenia.

[moto99]

Once a smartphone costs as much as a typical monthly salary, it could make things harder for Russians.
Yes, because smartphones are the basic thing everybody needs to live...
I live in Poland, EU country, and smartphones here costs a monthly salary. What crimes has Poland commited so it's punished so hard by other countries? (I don't remember anexing anybody in the last decade)
From what I know, smartphones are already expensive in Russia, they cost more than in the West.

[Roamy]

Yes, because smartphones are the basic thing everybody needs to live...
I live in Poland, EU country, and smartphones here costs a monthly salary. What crimes has Poland commited so it's punished so hard by other countries? (I don't remember anexing anybody in the last decade)
From what I know, smartphones are already expensive in Russia, they cost more than in the West.

yep I sold my old iPhone 5 for 450us to a russian.

[Gregor-y]

http://i.imgur.com/HFLMqVR.jpg

[Gregor-y]

The Israeli scythe is an interesting touch to an already farcical premise:
http://i.imgur.com/c7xpMhd.jpg

[zako85]

Oleksandr Muzychko, the scandalous activist of Ukraine's radical "Right Sector" group from some of the youtube videos above, got killed a few days under strange circumstances. He was killed in a cafe/restaurant shortly after a swat team showed up on the premisses. No one knows exactly what happened. Was this a hit or did he resist the arrest? The Interior Ministry does not deny that the cops were there to arrest Muzychko. Everyone knows that Muzychko always moved armed and possibly with bodyguards, so being killed when resisting an arrest seems plausible to me, but the leader of the Right Sector thinks it was a hit.

http://rt.com/news/yarosh-nationalist-resign-killing-157/

[Roamy]

Hey - What I want to know is how many countries are the Euros going to let Russia take?? Looking at the map they could have a hell of a payday coming. I am very glad we are on the sidelines for this one and hopefully we will stay there.

[steveaki13]

So instead of Russia packing up all of its military equipment after gaining Crimea, it still sits just over the border from Ukraine in waiting.

Now East Ukraine is being overtaken by more Pro Russian forces. I bet it will just happen that Russia try and liberate the east of Ukraine.

Only because they are Russian people who want to be part of the home country again of course.

They are saying on the News that Russia has said it has no plans to get involved. Not really much chance anyone will believe them after whats happened.

Russia are looking for more land by the looks of it.

[A FONDO]

Not really much chance anyone will believe them after whats happened.

What has happened?

[steveaki13]

What has happened?
If you don't know then I cant help you. ;)

[BleAivano]

So instead of Russia packing up all of its military equipment after gaining Crimea, it still sits just over the border from Ukraine in waiting.

Now East Ukraine is being overtaken by more Pro Russian forces. I bet it will just happen that Russia try and liberate the east of Ukraine.

Only because they are Russian people who want to be part of the home country again of course.

They are saying on the News that Russia has said it has no plans to get involved. Not really much chance anyone will believe them after whats happened.

Russia are looking for more land by the looks of it.

yeah and the "pro Russians" in Eastern Ukraine aren't even living there but it is shipped in fro Russia by Putin.
From hat I understand the majority of the people in Eastern Ukraine still want to be with Ukraine.

[steveaki13]

yeah and the "pro Russians" in Eastern Ukraine aren't even living there but it is shipped in fro Russia by Putin.
From hat I understand the majority of the people in Eastern Ukraine still want to be with Ukraine.

I cant speak from that angle as I don't know the facts, but I bet Russia will not worry about that fact.

I am sure they will see it as an opportunity for a bit of conquest

[Starter]

I'll put up a couple of pints that say Russian forces will be in eastern Ukraine by the end of the month.

[Spafranco]

I'll put up a couple of pints that say Russian forces will be in eastern Ukraine by the end of the month.
Seems from what the AP is saying is that this whole charade is organized and was done so well in advance of what we are seeing now.
Crimea was the excuse to actually invade.

[zako85]

yeah and the "pro Russians" in Eastern Ukraine aren't even living there but it is shipped in fro Russia by Putin.
From hat I understand the majority of the people in Eastern Ukraine still want to be with Ukraine.

It is almost certain that the rioters in the eastern Ukraine are being organized and funded by some kind of powerful force, Russia probably. The Russian state is probably using its propaganda machine and agents to skillfully create an anti-west Ukrainian hysteria in the eastern provinces. However, I would stop short of saying that those protesters are Russian citizens. On Russian news, the journalists a few times asked people in the crowd where they're from, and they showed Ukrainian passports. A lot of them said they were pissed off to be accused to be from abroad.

It's hard to see where is the truth. It could be that people in the crowd were given fake passports, though I doubt this theory right now. In east Ukraine, there are plenty of genuinely pro-Russian people, they may be the majority or large minority, and they have enough reasons to be pissed off because their president was ousted from power a few weeks ago by a bunch of unlawful protesters in Kiev, many of whom happened to be well-prepared, well-trained, and organized rioters with links to Ukraine's "Right Sector" organization as well as sponsors from abroad.

[zako85]

Now East Ukraine is being overtaken by more Pro Russian forces. I bet it will just happen that Russia try and liberate the east of Ukraine.

I suspect the Russia's plan is to force the government in Kiev to reform the constitution to change Ukraine's political organization into a federation. The troops at the border are probably to intimidate the government in Kiev, to prevent a violent crackdown on the protesters in the East, and to force Kiev to accept the idea of federalization. The Russian politicians are openly saying that they want Ukraine to become a federal state. I can see where this is going. Ukraine organized as a federation will forever remain weak and susceptible to Russian influence. This will also set the stage for the further partition of Ukraine in case of future upheavals.

This of course, is really terrible. In my opinion, the politicians in Kiev should get their act together instead of engaging in fist-fights right on the podium in their parliament. They should send a strong message that they wish to transfer more power into the regions, but without accepting the federalization. People in Ukraine's provinces need to be able to elect their leaders. I think this alone could defuse a lot of tensions.

[gadjo_dilo]

It is almost certain that the rioters in the eastern Ukraine are being organized and funded by some kind of powerful force, Russia probably. The Russian state is probably using its propaganda machine and agents to skillfully create an anti-west Ukrainian hysteria in the eastern provinces. However, I would stop short of saying that those protesters are Russian citizens. On Russian news, the journalists a few times asked people in the crowd where they're from, and they showed Ukrainian passports. A lot of them said they were pissed off to be accused to be from abroad.

It's hard to see where is the truth. It could be that people in the crowd were given fake passports, though I doubt this theory right now. In east Ukraine, there are plenty of genuinely pro-Russian people, they may be the majority or large minority, and they have enough reasons to be pissed off because their president was ousted from power a few weeks ago by a bunch of unlawful protesters in Kiev, many of whom happened to be well-prepared, well-trained, and organized rioters with links to Ukraine's "Right Sector" organization as well as sponsors from abroad.

Masses are easy to be manipulated. It's enough to infiltrate a few stirrers in the crowd. I lived such experiences in 1990 when the country was divided into two camps. Living in the central area I had to attend ( involuntarly of course ) a lot of meetings and riots and was amazed by how people could act. Before that I was sure such things can't happen in my city and to my people.

[Starter]

Masses are easy to be manipulated. It's enough to infiltrate a few stirrers in the crowd. I lived such experiences in 1990 when the country was divided into two camps. Living in the central area I had to attend ( involuntarly of course ) a lot of meetings and riots and was amazed by how people could act. Before that I was sure such things can't happen in my city and to my people.
Gadjo, if I were living in one of the former USSR client states, I would be very concerned. Should Putin take over eastern Ukraine (or all of it) there will be no real opposition from the West. He has large ambitions. Read your history books folks, those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

[Starter]

It is almost certain that the rioters in the eastern Ukraine are being organized and funded by some kind of powerful force, Russia probably. The Russian state is probably using its propaganda machine and agents to skillfully create an anti-west Ukrainian hysteria in the eastern provinces. However, I would stop short of saying that those protesters are Russian citizens. On Russian news, the journalists a few times asked people in the crowd where they're from, and they showed Ukrainian passports. A lot of them said they were pissed off to be accused to be from abroad.

It's hard to see where is the truth. It could be that people in the crowd were given fake passports, though I doubt this theory right now. In east Ukraine, there are plenty of genuinely pro-Russian people, they may be the majority or large minority, and they have enough reasons to be pissed off because their president was ousted from power a few weeks ago by a bunch of unlawful protesters in Kiev, many of whom happened to be well-prepared, well-trained, and organized rioters with links to Ukraine's "Right Sector" organization as well as sponsors from abroad.
There is almost never a 100% "black & white" situation. I'm sure many in Ukraine had had enough of the corrupt government. Enough to essentially dissolve the country though? Doubtful, but then I don't live there. It's also doubtful that this was orchestrated from within Ukraine and that's where the problem lies.

[gadjo_dilo]

Gadjo, if I were living in one of the former USSR client states, I would be very concerned. Should Putin take over eastern Ukraine (or all of it) there will be no real opposition from the West. He has large ambitions. Read your history books folks, those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Well, we weren't exactly a client.
Besides, now we are under NATO's umbrella.

[Gregor-y]

When you are worried about a corrupt government the country you naturally want to join is Russia. ;)

[Starter]

Well, we weren't exactly a client.
Besides, now we are under NATO's umbrella.
Given NATO's underwhelming response to Crimea and eastern Ukraine, I'm not sure I would count on being a member as protection from Russia.

[gadjo_dilo]

Given NATO's underwhelming response to Crimea and eastern Ukraine, I'm not sure I would count on being a member as protection from Russia.

Ukraine is not a member but we are. NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.:confused:

[Starter]

Ukraine is not a member but we are. NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.:confused:
I'm aware of what NATO is and what its supposed to do. However, what it says it will do and what the current reality could be (and probably is) are two different things.

Not to mention, what about an internal attack ala Crimea and now Ukraine.

[gadjo_dilo]

I'm aware of what NATO is and what its supposed to do. However, what it says it will do and what the current reality could be (and probably is) are two different things.

.
What? The Treaty is just a joke? :confused:
I knew it.......
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0swV1Goq31U

[BleAivano]

Russian military have now moved into eastern Ukraine.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/ukraine-on-the-brink-live-blog-16-april

[airshifter]

Russian military have now moved into eastern Ukraine.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/ukraine-on-the-brink-live-blog-16-april


Those can't possibly be Russians. They have no insignia on their uniforms.

/end Putin

[Starter]

Russian military have now moved into eastern Ukraine.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/ukraine-on-the-brink-live-blog-16-april
OK folks, you all owe me several pints of good craft beer!
:D ;)

[zako85]

OK folks, you all owe me several pints of good craft beer!
:D ;)

Hold your horses please. I follow news on CNN, BBC, lenta.ru, and Russian Channel 1. I haven't seen in those sources or from the link above any real evidence that Russian troops are involved in east Ukraine. All I see is Ukrainian armor on its march to the East being bogged down in Ukrainian villages and towns because primarily ordinary people, unarmed and dressed in civilian clothes are trying to stop the military columns, often simply by forming a human shield on the road.

[Starter]

Hold your horses please. I follow news on CNN, BBC, lenta.ru, and Russian Channel 1. I haven't seen in those sources or from the link above any real evidence that Russian troops are involved in east Ukraine. All I see is Ukrainian armor on its march to the East being bogged down in Ukrainian villages and towns because primarily ordinary people, unarmed and dressed in civilian clothes are trying to stop the military columns, often simply by forming a human shield on the road.
You'd deny me good beer?? You are cruel zako85, cruel!

[Roamy]

You'd deny me good beer?? You are cruel zako85, cruel!

Here is what I don't get No one gives a sh!t about the following but the uproar over Ukraine is on and on
We need to disband the UN


Hundreds of people were killed because of their ethnic group after South Sudan rebels seized the oil hub of Bentiu last week, the UN has said.

They were targeted at a mosque, a church and a hospital, the UN Mission in South Sudan said in a statement.

It added that hate speech was broadcast on local radio stations, saying certain groups should leave the town and urging men to rape women.

The Nuer community are seen as supporters of rebel leader Riek Machar.

[Starter]

Here is what I don't get No one gives a sh!t about the following but the uproar over Ukraine is on and on
We need to disband the UN


Hundreds of people were killed because of their ethnic group after South Sudan rebels seized the oil hub of Bentiu last week, the UN has said.

They were targeted at a mosque, a church and a hospital, the UN Mission in South Sudan said in a statement.

It added that hate speech was broadcast on local radio stations, saying certain groups should leave the town and urging men to rape women.

The Nuer community are seen as supporters of rebel leader Riek Machar.
No one who might have the ability to do anything about it has resources in place to change anything. Nor would they be willing were they able to. The US taxpayer is weary of being policeman to the world and no other nation will step up. Europe is busy with their own internal politics and economy; China has their own domestic fish to fry, nor do they really have an external capability; Putin is busy being an imperialist in Europe; and the African nations are either 1) corrupt, 2) ineffectual, 3) too poor, 4) already controlled by despots or some combination of those.

[Roamy]

My point exactly - no one gives a sh!t and thank god we are out of the equation for now. I will worry about Putin when he gets to Alaska.

[Starter]

My point exactly - no one gives a sh!t and thank god we are out of the equation for now. I will worry about Putin when he gets to Alaska.
That's not on his immediate agenda, but don't bet it's not an option in his 20 year plan.

[zako85]

There is more and more evidence that some "pro-Russian" green men with no insignias in east Ukraine are from the Russian military.

[Starter]

There is more and more evidence that some "pro-Russian" green men with no insignias in east Ukraine are from the Russian military.
There was ever any doubt?

[airshifter]

Months later....

... and we have more and more evidence that no ethnic cleansing will take place. Well expect for those religious groups being displaced, attacked, threatened, and altered.

Eveyone is treated equal, as long as you assimilate to an equal.

Peachy.

The talk of Holy War already exists among some in Crimea. I'm sure that's because they have been treated so well.

[Mark]

ISIS are nicely distracting the situation right now. By the time we've finished watching Iraq we won't notice Ukraine has disappeared.

[Mihai]

Shortly after the Winter Olympics in Sochi earlier this year, Russia unleashed the rebellion in Ukraine and occupied Crimea. I'm all glad that nothing significant happened after the Russian Grand Prix in Sochi. :D

[Roamy]

Maybe it is a good time to get a Ukraine wife !!

[Rudy Tamasz]

My co-worker is back from his Turkish vacation. He said Turkish resorts are full of freewheeling Russian women. He modestly described them as "very positive". ;) Might be your option, uncle.

[Zeakiwi]

Shortly after the Winter Olympics in Sochi earlier this year, Russia unleashed the rebellion in Ukraine and occupied Crimea. I'm all glad that nothing significant happened after the Russian Grand Prix in Sochi. :D

I would like to know why De Margerie was travelling without a PA and the usual entourage that chiefs usually travel with.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29722498 (De Margerie - Total boss - Moscow plane crash)

[airshifter]

It should be about time to bump this to the top again......

It appears once again the world is willing to talk, but not much else.

[gadjo_dilo]

Nice try, Air! But I"m afraid this time there will be no debate like in the good old times.

"Mais où sont les neiges d'antan? " :s

[airshifter]

Nice try, Air! But I"m afraid this time there will be no debate like in the good old times.

"Mais où sont les neiges d'antan? " :s

I had to Google the quote to make sure I didn't miss anything.

And I agree, it will probably get few if any replies. With the forums so much slower, that's hard to avoid. But it's sad that as much as people talk about how they want to help in some way change the world for the better, most of the time it's just a news story without any reflection on the human side of the entire thing. And as far as governments go, those with some ability to help often still don't, and wait for the rest of the world to do it so then they can in return be critical of how it was done.

I'm hoping for the best, but don't see it likely panning out that way.

[Humber]

The sentiment of the civilians leaving the Donbas area for Russia.

https://rumble.com/vve3jv-we-just-want-to-live-tens-of-thousands-evacuate-to-russia.html

[BilliH12]

I'm very worried about my family, who now live there.

[airshifter]

I'm very worried about my family, who now live there.

I worked with a guy and him and his wife hit the immigration lottery to come here to the US. AFAIK all their families are still in the Ukraine. I'm going to hit him up over the weekend and see how he's doing.


As much as the world talks.... they will watch it happen.

[Zico]

Crazy times indeed. Just subbing to hear views and sentiments on this BS. The similarities to the Cuban crisis are interesting despite being in reverse.

Does the world have a responsibility to not sit back... or is the risk of there being a WW3 just not worth it?

[airshifter]

Hard to say if Putin has already gone off the deep end or is bluffing his way into easier negotiations.

As for responsibility, the world should be more involved in a lot of things. But "the world" as we know it is more likely to talk about it and do nothing that has a chance of impacting them in a negative way. At least more countries have got on board with giving up military hardware that could help Ukraine, but it might be too little too late.

It worked somewhat for North Korea when the western world had soft leaders, so Putin might as well give it a try. But the difference is Russia is a known nuclear capable country, so the world leaders will negotiate even more readily.


I wish someone close to him within Russia would just take him out.

[CWJ]

#StandWithUkraine

[Humber]

Armistice Day today (11/11) and yet the war in Ukraine continues unabated.

[Jag_Warrior]

Armistice Day today (11/11) and yet the war in Ukraine continues unabated.

If I was to call Putin a rabid animal, that would be an an insult to rabid animals. Armistice Day means nothing to bloodthirsty dictators such as him. He’s just pure evil.

I agree with what CWJ said: #StandWithUkraine

[KeelanLamb]

Hi!
The situation in Crimea is complex, and there are different interpretations of events depending on who you ask. Russia claims that it has the right to protect Russian speakers and interests in Crimea, while Ukraine and its allies see the Russian intervention as a violation of international law and Ukrainian sovereignty.

The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 led to an ongoing conflict between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, which has resulted in thousands of deaths and displacement.

It's important to note that the situation in Crimea is not just about Ukraine and Russia, but also reflects broader geopolitical tensions and power struggles between different countries and alliances. The international community has expressed concern about the situation in Crimea, with some countries imposing economic sanctions on Russia.

While it's difficult to predict what might happen in the future, it's important for all sides to engage in dialogue and seek peaceful solutions to conflicts. The use of military force should always be a last resort, and efforts should be made to prevent conflicts from escalating into full-blown wars.

[Yaroslav Fadeev]

I like it so much when people say that you need to negotiate with putin. Are you out of your mind? You are not negotiated with terrorist, you are destroyed them!