WikiLeaks Cables Foreshadow Russian Instigation of Ukrainian Military Action

Now that Russia has sent troops to seize the Crimean Peninsula, international politics are tense and frantic. An anonymous reader notes an article from Joshua Keating at Slate, which points out that some of the diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks illustrate how this situation is not at all unexpected. Quoting a cable from October, 2009: "... pro-Russian forces in Crimea, acting with funding and direction from Moscow, have systematically attempted to increase communal tensions in Crimea in the two years since the Orange Revolution. They have done so by cynically fanning ethnic Russian chauvinism towards Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, through manipulation of issues like the status of the Russian language, NATO, and an alleged Tatar threat to 'Slavs,' in a deliberate effort to destabilize Crimea, weaken Ukraine, and prevent Ukraine's movement west into institutions like NATO and the EU." The article points out another cable from a few days later, which was titled, "Ukraine-Russia: Is Military Conflict No Longer Unthinkable?"

Comments

"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

and now let's talk about the leaked documents involving the "pro-western forces in the Ukraine""

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Tablizer]

Just like the Cold War when half the world's nations were treated like nothing more than political footballs by both sides. It's partly why the Middle East is such a mess as both sides propped up dictators and fools and blowback fuel.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[arglebargle_xiv]

So wait: now EVERY country that has a Russian minority can expect to be invaded by Russia?

It'd never happen. I mean, that'd be like every country that had a German minority being invaded by Germany.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[wheelbarrio]

I'm sorry but that is just the weakest moral equivalence BS. The fact that both parties to a dispute have tarnished reputations has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of their current cause. Some details for you to think about, if you care to come off the fence:

* Ukraine has been pretty badly run since independence but it's hardly a "failed state" - at 117 out of 178 countries it's not even in the bottom half of the index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index) - the US is 159 if you want to know.
* The overt and covert hands of Russia are MUCH more evident in Ukraine than the West's. US foreign policy been incredibly inward-looking of late and not much bothered with the complexities of post-Soviet states' politics (a mistake). EU is in play but mostly economically - this is the proximate cause of this whole recent mess.
* The 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people - if you're an ethnic Russian in Crimea you live in Ukraine but probably have much more allegiance to mother Russia than the government in Kiev. If you're a kid in Kiev born post-Soviet era to ethnic Ukrainian parents, different deal. Ethnic Tatar, different again.
* People who live in Ukraine should decide how they are governed. If that means some regions split off and join Russia leaving a rump that is European-looking, fine.
* The one certainty once Russia gets involved militarily is that people will needlessly die, many Ukrainians will lose the right to choose their destiny, and the West will look foolish for having dealt with Putin's Russia as anything except an nuclear-armed oligarchic petrostate, i.e. a bad actor. How European countries let themselves become dependent on Russian oil and gas supplies with no thought for exactly this kind of contingency is beyond me. What are they going to do now, threaten economic sanctions that involve turning off their own heating?

So let's be careful before casting judgement but don't just throw the hands up and say "pot, kettle". I blame FOX (because I can) for having destroyed the critical thinking faculties of a generation of Americans with their discovery/invention of the "Fair and Balanced" trope, even amongst people that don't watch the damn channel.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

US foreign policy been incredibly inward-looking of late and not much bothered with the complexities of post-Soviet states' politics (a mistake).

Oh? Perhaps you missed the news that the USA is harvesting everyone in the world's communications, engaging in industrial espionage, poisoning online communications, inserting covert backdoors in electronics products, invading innocent countries, torturing "enemy combatants", tapping phone calls of world leaders, "discrediting in the media" people they don't like...

The USA has no right to any moral high ground here I'm afraid.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[pellik]

Did you read the part in the summary which clearly states these actions were done at the behest of Moscow in order to destabilize the region and justify their eventual invasion?

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[ultranova]

Well, as a Russian citizen I don't consider the government to be in any way imperialist.

That's probably safest. Wouldn't want to accidentally eat polonium.

There was outright attempt of genocide in Ossetia.

Of course there was. And Winter War was started by the shelling of Mainila.

Some countries never change. But at least they act as efficient evangelists for Nato.

Both Ukraine and Georgia issues are started by blatant cases of cultural imperialism.

No, they were started by Putin trying to build a third Russian Empire on the ruins of Soviet Union. At this point the hope for Russia, the region and perhaps the world is that old age does its job before he can cause irreparable damage.

The truly sad thing is that it's saber-rattling like this that keeps Russia from assuming the place its size, population and natural resources would otherwise entitle it to. No one wants to deal with people who renege on their deals and send in the military the second they get - or manufacture - an excuse. Why do you think Ukrainians hated the very thought of "closer ties" - also known as chains - with Russia enough to revolt?

All former soviet republic countries are ruled by former soviet statesmen who want to justify their positions by encouraging local nationalism.

And Russia is the worst of the lot.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[loonycyborg]

No, they were started by Putin trying to build a third Russian Empire on the ruins of Soviet Union. At this point the hope for Russia, the region and perhaps the world is that old age does its job before he can cause irreparable damage.

The truly sad thing is that it's saber-rattling like this that keeps Russia from assuming the place its size, population and natural resources would otherwise entitle it to. No one wants to deal with people who renege on their deals and send in the military the second they get - or manufacture - an excuse. Why do you think Ukrainians hated the very thought of "closer ties" - also known as chains - with Russia enough to revolt?

That's a cute theory based on complete ignorance of current situation. Just look at the consequence: Georgia is still independent and many Ossetians were saved from getting killed. I'd say Russia did a better job at avoiding being imperialist than, say, US. Honestly, I'm a world citizen, and I'm for complete abolition of separate states. For now I think the less separate states there is the better. Especially those run by petty national radicals like Georgia and Ukraine. Partition of Soviet Union was a joke, most of its people was against it.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Raenex]

Partition of Soviet Union was a joke, most of its people was against it.

If you mean most Russians were against it, that wouldn't surprise me. If you mean the people in the countries being subjugated to rule from Russia, you're clearly biased.

Well ... what do you expect

[giorgist]

If the US could invade Iraq without UN support and under the pretense of the moral high ground as defined by the US, then so can Russia invade Crimea. If the Kosovo can leave Serbia and become it's own country under the support of the US even though it is historically Serbian but by population Albanian so can Crimea which has a Russian majority. The US has made their bed and now it is sleeping in it. Precedence is a bitch, the US set the precedent and now they are winging about what is happening in Crimea !! Russia supplies 60% of Europe's energy and it will increase to 80% ... the US has nothing to stand on. If they apply sanctions, the Russians will increase the price of gas and oil and have Europe pay for them just for giggles.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[phantomfive]

The US has made their bed and now it is sleeping in it.

Wow, talk about ameri-centrism. This isn't about the US bro, this is about Ukraine and Russia. The US isn't suffering here, Ukrainians are. The US has nothing to do with it except the complaints of a whining president.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[TapeCutter]

You seem to have forgotten Bush's temper tantrum when the UNSC refused to endorse his invasion plans. The things you list were reasons to invade but they don't add up to a "right" to invade, to do that the US had to dump long held foreign policy, ignore existing treaties, and adopt something called the Bush doctrine.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[CSMoran]

Precedence is a bitch, the US set the precedent and now they are winging about what is happening in Crimea !!

Precedence only matters in law, in places that use common law. In other legal systems, precedence doesn't matter at all.

It matters diplomatically and in propaganda.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

The US spent a lot on color revolution efforts over the years and really wants to see some payback

Russia has spent a lot on separatism efforts in many countries after the Soviet Union, centered in Russia, had previously shipped ethnic Russians to live in many occupied countries, often after engaging in various flavors of ethnic cleansing or other mass killings. We can expect more "protection" to be needed by those Russian in years to come, and Russian aggression and occupation of those countries will always be a danger under the current Russian government.

US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (26 November 2004)
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

There is a great deal that the account you reference leaves out, including government election fraud and thuggery. Lets add some more background.

Ukraine's Orange Revolution

The US really wants NATO up against Russia (encirclement, containment) - like the Soviet Union used Cuba.

Having regained its independence after a long, bitter period of foreign rule, Ukraine really, really wants to remain independent with its territory intact. By itself against Russia it is unlikely to do so given Russia's history and power, as we are seeing demonstrated now, and previously in Georgia.

You may recall that the Ukrainians have plenty of motivation to be free of Russia since a special word is used for the crime against humanity inflicted upon them by the Soviet Union, the heart of which was Russia: Holodomo. The Ukrainian terror famine killed perhaps as many as 10,000,000 people as the police, secret police, and army were used to confiscate food and prevent people from leaving.

The Soviet Story - trailer
The Great Famine

The Soviet Union had to be contained, Russia didn't ..... or are we seeing now that it does?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Erikderzweite]

It's still no reason to strip said Russians of their rights like Baltic countries did. The fear is that the new Ukrainian government would do similar steps and the fact that one of the first laws passed by the new government was to remove Russian's language "regional language" status is a strong indication for it.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Megol]

If they want to live as Russians they can move to Russia.

Unless Russian leaders want to have them as an excuse to pressurize the colonized countries instead and don't really care about them.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[phantomfive]

If Russia stops trying to take territory from other countries, it won't need to be contained.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Kharny]

yes, shocking, people who immigrated to a foreign nation finally had to learn the nations language, just like everyone else who does that.

Only in their case, they got to wait a bit longer than most people.

I'm sorry, but the fact is that the russians that lived in the former baltic states had the ability to learn the native languages for years, but refused in their imperialist pride.

Furthermore, there is always the option to leave the country they illegally occupied for years and move back to their own nation of russia.

The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

I don't care who is right or wrong in the Ukraine, I don't care who is more manipulative: EU, USA or Russia. I don't care who has stolen more: Yanukovych or Tymoshenko. I pity those who died in this conflict, but I don't even care who has started the bloodshed.

There is one thing that I care about though. On one side of this conflict are Nazis. The "Right Wing", one of the main pushing forces in this uprising, are Nazis. They use Nazi symbols and slogans, they praise WWII Nazi collaborators as their heroes, their leader Yarosh (now the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine) said that Russian people will never give up their ethnics and culture and therefore have to be eliminated.

So, if the Nazis are on one side, I'm on the other. No corruption can justify aligning with Nazis. I don't give a fuck how decent the majority of the protester might be. They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[mc6809e]

Well the Russians joined the Nazi invasion of Poland on September 17th, 1939, so there's that, too.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Zontar The Mindless]

I see. So it's fair to say that whenever some right-wing shit happens to come out in favour of something you also favour, you'll instantly disavow it?

Oh, yes, that is very sensible.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

Except the synagogue was not taken over by "pro-Russian self-defence forces". According to the Jewish association director someone climbed over the fence and made this "graffiti". I saw no claim that pro-Russian forces are behind this.

The point is that the graffiti was not there the day before (when, presumably, those "Nazis" were in charge), and now it is.

In any case, there's plenty of Nazi-like talk coming from Russia and easily seen in comments on YouTube and elsewhere on the Net. How about Sergei Lukyanenko: "There is no such country as Ukraine, and what's there is destined to be either a part of Russia or a Polish protectorate". And there's plenty of far cruder stuff out there if one cares to look.

Don't kid yourself. The Russian tricolor and the orange-black striped ribbon are now as much Nazi symbols as swastika and SS runes.

Crimean Tatars were known Nazi collaborators during WWII.

What, every single one of them? You're trodding awfully close to nazism yourself.

Nonetheless, they still live on the peninsula.

Well yes, they were allowed to return there in 1989, shortly before Ukraine gained independence, which is the only reason why they're there now. To remind, Stalin - you know, the guy whom the new prime minister of Crimea is apparently a huge fan of - resettled all Crimean Tatars from Uzbekistan in 1944, with almost half perishing in the process.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Half-pint HAL]

... they praise WWII Nazi collaborators as their heroes,...

So, if the Nazis are on one side, I'm on the other.

Ergo you are on the side of Joseph Stalin. Death camps. Force labour. Expansionist military aggression. Civilian infrastructure retooled to produce a state-controlled war machine. Genocide of perceived "lesser races". Rejection of religious freedom. Restriction of travel. Secret police encouraging people to inform on their neighbours. Thought police enforcing the norm through "party membership" as a de facto prerequisite for employment.

All the evils we see from the Nazis were evils that Soviet Union had been visiting on its population for a good decade before Hitler rose to power. Knowing what Stalin was doing to them already, and not knowing that the Nazis were equally dangerous as Stalin, it was perfectly logical for them to side with the Nazis.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

The war would be bloodier and take more time, but keep in mind that the vast majority of Lend Lease shipments happened after 1943. Prior to 1943 the Allies delivered much less than promised, e.g. only about one fifth of arranged trucks. The western front also happened in 1944, way after Stalingrad and Kursk.

The Soviets could successfully move their war production east to the Urals and defend the country till the production was running at full speed. The Germans simply didn't have enough resources to push further.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Uberbah]

Ergo you are on the side of Joseph Stalin. Death camps. Force labour. Expansionist military aggression. Civilian infrastructure retooled to produce a state-controlled war machine. Genocide of perceived "lesser races". Rejection of religious freedom. Restriction of travel. Secret police encouraging people to inform on their neighbours. Thought police enforcing the norm through "party membership" as a de facto prerequisite for employment.

Ergo you're a dim-witted demagogue that needs to brush up on his logical fallacies, starting with the False Dichotomy.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, Russia can definitely win this. The question is whether Putin is willing to deal with the consequences.

Re:The primitive division of both sides is appalli

[Zontar The Mindless]

Because Putin is a neo-Soviet gangster, perhaps? And he's pissed off because the Ukrainian people have tossed out their dictator-in-waiting after the latter's sudden volte-face revealed him to be Putin's creature, maybe?

Paul the Octopus for president!

[golodh]

Take any issue at all. Take a random sample of of possible outcomes. It's statistically unavoidable that some of them will more or less hit home.

Even better, take Paul the Octopus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... ), who correctly predicted the outcome of several soccer matches and was offered a job by a UK bookmaker for his performance.

I fear it makes as much sense to credit Paul for deep psychic insights into soccer as Mrs. Palin for an astute grasp of international politics. Perhaps I'd rather take my chances on Paul.

Re:What does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am european, not russian, and certainly not from an eastern block country, and I can say the same. If the US does at it pleases, why not Russia? The "mission" of the US was to invade a foreign country to take down a ruler they didnt fancy, and grab control of the oil supplies. Then about kosovo, nobody cared about two ethnic groups killing each other because there were no resources involved, and UN only intervened when the public outrage was already getting out of control.