Ukraine

[ledboots]

Maybe some of the European countries could do something. Or the U.N.

 

[Blobbenstein]

What is wrong with Putin's line that they have permission from the legitimate leader of the country, to enter the country?

 

[Second Summer]

Maybe some of the European countries could do something. Or the U.N.

Hehe, do I detect a little sarcasm there? The U.N. obviously has no military powers of its own. It would be up to the security council, and you know how that goes. The European countries ought to do something, I agree. I guess they're hoping not to rock the boat so much that the conflict escalates out of control, but I think with people like Putin you need to show you really mean business.

What is wrong with Putin's line that they have permission from the legitimate leader of the country, to enter the country?

The president was deposed by the Ukrainian parliament, all according to procedure, and he's now a wanted man by the police for various crimes of which he's accused.

 

[das_nut]

How, specifically?

1. Freeze all Russian assets in the US, work with the EU to do the same.
2. Trade sanctions against Russia.
3. Support any territorial claims that other groups have against Russia.
4. Work to remove Russia from the G8 until full Ukrainian and Georgian democracy, territorial integrity, autonomy is restored.
5. Rescind previous understandings keeping US military forces out of other former SSRs.
6. Work to bring other threatened and vulnerable SSRs into organizations that would help protect them (EU, NATO, etc).

 

[Blobbenstein]

I read that Germany gets a large portion of its gas from Russia, so they won't want to push things too far.

 

[Second Summer]

I read that Germany gets a large portion of its gas from Russia, so they won't want to push things too far.

Europe is less dependent on Russian gas than it was a decade ago though, I read. They've also got larger stocks so they can handle a temporary shutdown for longer. And Russia may be quite dependent on the income from the gas as well.

If the stand-off drags out, the turbulence on the markets may force one of the sides to give in ....

 

[Mischief]

1. Freeze all Russian assets in the US, work with the EU to do the same.
2. Trade sanctions against Russia.
3. Support any territorial claims that other groups have against Russia.
4. Work to remove Russia from the G8 until full Ukrainian and Georgian democracy, territorial integrity, autonomy is restored.
5. Rescind previous understandings keeping US military forces out of other former SSRs.
6. Work to bring other threatened and vulnerable SSRs into organizations that would help protect them (EU, NATO, etc).

How do you know that the U.S. administration isn't working in this direction? Obviously, none of this can be done by the U.S. alone, and equally obviously, it can't be done by broadcasting specifics of what is being tried until some agreement is reached, but when Obama said that Russia will be ""isolated", I assumed that this is the direction he intended to go.

 

[Freesia]

 

[Freesia]

Russia should not be invading the Ukraine. But people are not really talking about what it is all about. Basically, Russia has a military base in Sevastopol. So that is what they are going into defending. Which is stupid for many reasons, including the fact that nobody is threatening it yet.

If you protest Russia having a base in Sevastopol, chances are you are from a country which has many military bases in many foreign countries.

THe military base in Sevastopol is important to Russia because it allows them to trade with Iran and Syria. Iran is trying to put a gas pipeline through Syria, and Russia is allied with both countries. THe EU and US form Nato and are against Russia, Iran and Syria doing business together. So just like so many of the world conflicts, this is actually about an oil/gas pipeline, and about wealth and world sovereignty. So Nato jumping up and down has little to do with protecting the Ukrainian people and helping their economy and actually about protecting economic interests.

 

[das_nut]

How do you know that the U.S. administration isn't working in this direction? Obviously, none of this can be done by the U.S. alone, and equally obviously, it can't be done by broadcasting specifics of what is being tried until some agreement is reached, but when Obama said that Russia will be ""isolated", I assumed that this is the direction he intended to go.

Maybe. Or maybe he's just making soundbites. Who knows?

 

[rainforests1]

"It is not appropriate to invade a country", says John Kerry. I'm sure foreigners must laugh at comments like these. I'm sure he would have been so much better than Bush.

 

[Second Summer]

I love how the Russians are pretending they don't have forces in Crimea, claiming the pro-Russian forces there, wearing unmarked, but clearly professional uniforms, are all simply Crimean self-defence forces. Lavrov, nobody believes that BS.

 

[ledboots]

5. Rescind previous understandings keeping US military forces out of other former SSRs.
.

No not this one please.

 

[das_nut]

No not this one please.

What's the alternative at this point? Russia has already taken over parts of Georgia, now it's moved onto the Ukraine, violating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

For those playing along in the audience, that's when Ukraine agreed to give up being the third largest nuclear power in the world, and dismantled its weapons systems. Russia agreed to respect its territorial integrity.

Ukraine has already discussed starting a nuclear weapon program. It's clear the 1994 agreement hasn't protected them.

Now say you're Kazakhstan. In 1991, you had 1400 nuclear warheads, give or take. By 1995, you gave them all back to Russia. In 2000, you destroyed your nuclear capability. You share a long border with Russia. About 1 in 4 people in your country are ethnically Russian. How secure do you feel without nukes? And what about that pesky Kazakhstan ability for biological weapons?

And what about Russia? If you're Putin, you've already gotten away with carving up Georgia. You've gotten away with the occupation of the Crimean. What's next? The Baltic republics are probably safe, due to the EU aegis. But otherwise...

 

[das_nut]

I love how the Russians are pretending they don't have forces in Crimea, claiming the pro-Russian forces there, wearing unmarked, but clearly professional uniforms, are all simply Crimean self-defence forces. Lavrov, nobody believes that BS.

I'd say Obama should call this bluff - stating that since armed, non-governmental militias with unknown goals have taken over the Crimean, obviously the EU and US will deploy peacekeeping forces to ensure fair and free elections (by, of course, Kiev's request).

 

[ledboots]

It's just like the board game Risk. Except people.

 

[Second Summer]

I'd say Obama should call this bluff - stating that since armed, non-governmental militias with unknown goals have taken over the Crimean, obviously the EU and US will deploy peacekeeping forces to ensure fair and free elections (by, of course, Kiev's request).

I'm reading the US State Dept has published a list of 10 of Putin's worst lies:

As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, “The formula ‘two plus two equals five’ is not without its attractions.”

Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.

1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.

The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.

2. Mr. Putin says: Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

3. Mr. Putin says: The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.

4. Mr. Putin says: Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.

The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.

5. Mr. Putin says: There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.

The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.

6. Mr. Putin says: Ethnic Russians are under threat.

The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.

7. Mr. Putin says: Russian bases are under threat.

The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.

8. Mr. Putin says: There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.

The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine’s church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.

9. Mr. Putin says: Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.

The Facts: Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.

10. Mr. Putin says: The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.

The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.

President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims about Ukraine (US State Dept, March 5, 2014)

 

[rainforests1]

What's the alternative at this point? Russia has already taken over parts of Georgia, now it's moved onto the Ukraine, violating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

For those playing along in the audience, that's when Ukraine agreed to give up being the third largest nuclear power in the world, and dismantled its weapons systems. Russia agreed to respect its territorial integrity.

Ukraine has already discussed starting a nuclear weapon program. It's clear the 1994 agreement hasn't protected them.

Now say you're Kazakhstan. In 1991, you had 1400 nuclear warheads, give or take. By 1995, you gave them all back to Russia. In 2000, you destroyed your nuclear capability. You share a long border with Russia. About 1 in 4 people in your country are ethnically Russian. How secure do you feel without nukes? And what about that pesky Kazakhstan ability for biological weapons?

And what about Russia? If you're Putin, you've already gotten away with carving up Georgia. You've gotten away with the occupation of the Crimean. What's next? The Baltic republics are probably safe, due to the EU aegis. But otherwise...

If nuclear warheads bother you so much, why don't you criticize the United States(the first country to have them)? Some of us prefer an isolationist policy where people avoid confrontations where possible. The United States should stay out.

 

[rainforests1]

The political web site I consider most reliable(Counterpunch.org) gives a much different perspective of this conflict than mainstream sources do. They claim that the United States and allies played a large role in causing this conflict, and our allies are Nazis. Hillary compared Putin's actons to Hitler's, but if true this would indicate our allies are much closer to Hitler than Putin is. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank will be getting involved and causing misery to Ukranians just like they have with so many countries before this. Some articles if anyone is interested:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/05/chronology-of-the-ukrainian-coup/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/03/the-dark-side-of-the-ukraine-revolt/

 

[Second Summer]

A referendum is being held in Crimea in a week's time. The result is going to be overwhelming support for independence from Ukraine and instead to become a part of Russia. Realistically, I don't think there is much anyone can do about that. The rest of Ukraine will then probably align itself with the western countries, and these countries will have to split the bill between them. (Of course, there are majorities of Russian-speakers in other parts of Ukraine as well, so there is also the risk that those parts will be "liberated".)