Situation in Ukraine

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaki13

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

Where are the weapons of mass destruction :dozey:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaki13

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franky

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

Where are the weapons of mass destruction :dozey:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

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

This is already happening:

http://jalopnik.com/swiss-air-force-clo ... 1525789830

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franky

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.

This is an exempt from article from 2008:

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintexmemory

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

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

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.

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

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.

Your analysis is broadly correct and Putin knows that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franky

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

This is a nice picture
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ztlCwMimCB...00/Meme+77.jpg

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/28/john- ... ama-video/

McCain understands the situation as well.