Printable View
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.
http://loiter.co/v/watch-as-1000years-o ... rs-change/ watching that video makes you realise the Europe's borders have always been rather fluid!
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--
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
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/opinio...0b9_story.html
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?)
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
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?
Do you not believe in the sovereignty of a nation?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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-a...rosecutor-080/
The right wing militias who now rule on the streets of Ukraine:
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-right-sector-militants-210/