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"

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And so what? If Ukrainians decide to go west, that's fine with me. Certainly more fine than when Russia decides that Ukrainians will go east. If Ukraine tried to do the same to Russia, they'd get invaded too. In fact, whenever X has problems with Russia or Russia has problems with X, the end result is always that Russia invades X. We've seen this.

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"

[ilguido]

Well, it usually works. Don't fix it, if it ain't broken.

More seriously, Ukraine is a failed state at the mercy of the shenanigans of both western and Russian shills. And, more importantly, neither party, Russia and West, act for the better of the Ukrainian people.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

More like the recent confrontation in Georgia. Some ethnocentric asshole took charge of the country, and attempted to reorganize the nation more to his liking, at the expense of ethnic Russians and Russian Nationals. The asshole unbelievably thought that he had the backing of the West. Asshole figured out to late that this supposed "backing" didn't go so far as committing money, troops, or hardware to the oppression of Russian people.

I see the same situation here, today, in the Ukraine. Who elected that chump president, again? More than a hundred thousand Ukes have already fled the Ukraine, seeking asylum in Russia.

Maybe it's just because I don't hear the full story here in Scotland, but from what I've seen, this seems to be quite different to the Georgia situation. There has always been ethnic tension in former Soviet states due to the Soviets' reliance on resettled populations to establish control, but Ukraine seemed to be relatively peaceful on that front. The only area with any serious ethnic tension seems to be Sevastopol. The current bunch of reformers are looking to westernise increase trade with the west, not "westernise" per se, whereas closer alignment with Russia does seem to imply becoming part of a larger machine -- Russia still appears very imperialist.

The circumstances leading to the Orange Revolution was arguably a disaster for Ukraine, because policies ended up taking a back seat to corruption.

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"

[cold fjord]

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

Got any links?

By the way, where are the "western forces" invading Ukraine? If you want to try playing the "reciprocal game," there should be Western military forces moving into Ukraine against the will of the Ukrainian government.

I haven't heard about the US Marines, British airborne, or German panzer divisions showing up. Do you have any news? Or is it all just Russian military forces moving into Ukrainian territory?

Alleged home video of Russian attack helicopers

I wonder who the AC is?

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[ilguido]

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.

I don't want to start a heated debate, so I'll answer only this point: saying that "the 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people" is the exact mistake that brought them at this point. The Ukrainian people is all the people that dwells Ukraine: Ukrainians, Russians, Hebrews, Romanians, Poles and Tatars. The opposition parties should have been more levelheaded: if they really wanted to keep Ukraine united, they should have tried to keep the people (all of them) united. Instead they let the nationalists take a big part in the whole process, including rejecting a reasonable deal mediated by the EU with a president that was actually democratically elected and had a lot of support in vast areas of the country, taking three seats in the government including ministry of defence, and removing the Russian language from the list of the official languages of the country.

I'm not saying that Russia is right, but that the revolutionaries acted quite stupidly: they should have tried to wheedle ethnic minorities, not stir them up.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[argStyopa]

I have to admit, It's kinda cool that Putin posts on slashdot.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[loonycyborg]

Well, as a Russian citizen I don't consider the government to be in any way imperialist. Both Ukraine and Georgia issues are started by blatant cases of cultural imperialism. There was outright attempt of genocide in Ossetia. Ukraine isn't better. All former soviet republic countries are ruled by former soviet statesmen who want to justify their positions by encouraging local nationalism. Country borders are in many ways artificial because they were set during soviet times when there was no plans to make them independent states. Crimea itself was part of Russian 'Soviet Republic' in the past and later was passed to Ukraine to make the map look more beautiful or something. All ethnic russian people that ended up on territory of Ukraine due to those shenanigans are target of 'ukrainization' efforts by ukrainian nationalists. There's no other way to stop those radicals than armed force it seems.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Erikderzweite]

US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: “Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. ” Nuland said the United States will continue to “promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”

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"

[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.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

As Polish citizen I remember a long history of Russian "protection".

In XVIII Russia protected orthodox minority so well that Poland ceased to exist for 125 years.

In 1920 Red Army came to protect Polish workers in farmers - it was barely stopped in bloody battle near Warsaw.

In September 1939 Red Army was forced to protect the eastern part of Poland as Hitler protected the western part

Easter Europe was further protected in late 1940-ies, then in 1956 in Budapest, then in 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
In 1970 and 1981 Poland was "protected" by its own Yanukovych-like traitors.

But then USSR was busy protecting Afghanistan...

Sarah Palin

[Vinegar Joe]

Predicted the same thing in 2008.

Re:Sarah Palin

[amiga3D]

Today Ukraine, tomorrow Alaska? They've been bitching about getting ripped off back in 1867 when they sold it to the US for 7.2 million dollars. After the discovery of Gold and Oil there it looks like they got fucked over. No wonder Palin is nervous.

Re:Sarah Palin

[sumdumass]

I think you have Tina Fey and Sarah Palin confused.

Unless you are thinking about the short run hit "Who's Nailin' Paylin?".

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

[AHuxley]

Re This isn't about the US bro
The US spent a lot on color revolution efforts over the years and really wants to see some payback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (26 November 2004)
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
The US really wants NATO up against Russia (encirclement, containment) - like the Soviet Union used Cuba.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

US invaded Iraq, tried to reform the government, and eventually left.

Russia invaded Crimea, and may soon attempt to annex it.

That's a big difference, legally and morally.

Well, to be fair, Crimea was part of Russia until 1964 when Nikita Khrusjtsjov arbitrarily gave it away to Ukraine (according to some historians he did so while drunk). The majority of the people there identify with being Russian. Not saying Putin is right, but he is welcomed by many there.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[drolli]

Now thats an unfair comparison. There were never that many interest or citizens of the US in Iraq as Russians in Crimea.

Since the revolution i hoped that Ukraina and EU do the most reasonable thing: Declare that Russia can keep the military base there (in the best interest of everybody), declare that the crimea is automonous in many aspects, and make an agreement that Russian is the second official language in Ukraina, and the first in the East part and the Crimea. Make a trade agreement and offer Russia Ukraina as a marketplace to access EU. Give Russia the prospect of becoming associated (not member, but free trade) with the EU via this way.

History has no rewind button. Russian speaking population is now living everywhere in the former Soviet union, and we have seen example of discrimination of Russians in other countries (Baltic states) before, where in some it was forbidden to speak russian.

The nationalist political games which the west does not keep a safe distance from are not good.

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

[Half-pint HAL]

Actually the US had every right to invade Iraq. After the first Gulf War the cease fire conditions called for UN inspection of Iraq for chemical weapons. Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn. He continuously sent fighters into the no flight zone also. Violations of the cease fire agreement were so numerous as to make it a joke. Look at it as simply a continuance of the original conflict.

As I recall it, Saddam said the UN inspectors were welcome, as long as there were no American inspectors there, because he was convinced they were CIA spies. Hans Blix felt this was reasonable, the Americans said "hell no" and used their permanent security council status to block any agreement to carry on without any US presence on the ground. In effect, it was the US that stopped the inspections.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Half-pint HAL]

Sevastapol is largely Russian, but Crimea on the whole is ethnically Tatar. The problem is a hangover from the old imperial tactic of settling a privileged minority to try to make the local populace easier to control, and to try to trigger language change. Congo's crisis came because independence didn't do enough to start the process of returning land from the privileged settled whites to the native population, and then Mugabe gained power on the land reform ticket with no real plan on how to do it right -- because land reform clearly wasn't all that important to him. Apartheid in South Africa was a privileged minority brutally supressing the local population in order to maintain their own status. The settlement of Scottish Protestants in Ireland was aimed at the same goal, and the partitioning of Ireland was designed to keep the "loyalists" in the majority over the republicans, thereby maintaining British control. This led to decades of bloodshed and bitterness after the partition.

Now I'm not saying I have the answer, but the problem starts with the settlements, and Russia "defending" them under a banner of human rights is entirely disengenuous. They were planted there as a lever for Soviet Moscow to retain power, and they are being used by CIS Moscow to try to regain power (or control, at the very least.

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

[shia84]

Please elaborate a bit more on your first sentence. I don't live there, so I have to rely on Wikipedia etc., but the population of Crimea is around 2 million, out of which 58% (1.16m) are Russians and 12% (0.24m) are Tatars, with 24% Ukraininans.
If 100% of Sevastopol (population of 380'000) were Russian, that still leaves 780'000 Russians vs 240'000 Tatars for the rest of Crimea. I'd say if anything, Crimea on the whole is ethnically Russian.

Maybe you're referring to the historical development. But I don't see how 3 centuries of Tatar rule take precedence over 4 centuries of Bulgarian rule, 2 centuries of Kievan Rus' rule (both slavic) and all the others (Greeks, Goths, Huns, ....) before the Tatars arrived in the 15th century. And for the Russian rule since the 18th century, afaict the whole pretext for the subjugation was that the Crimea was slavic lands.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Dachannien]

As I recall it, Saddam said the UN inspectors were welcome, as long as there were no American inspectors there, because he was convinced they were CIA spies.

No, Saddam didn't want the inspectors there because he didn't want actual evidence to get out that he didn't have WMDs. He was more afraid of Iran than he was the US, and he said as much after he was captured and before he was executed.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[drolli]

Estonia, Latvia have both laws in place which pose big disavantages to russian communities existing there. A quick google search would have shown you this.

"Forbidden to speak russian" was meant to be "Forbidden to speak russian on official purposes".

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

[cold fjord]

The Soviet Union shipped ethnic Russians to live in many "Soviet Republics," including the conquered and annexed Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. They did that as a means to pacify the annexed territory. Those populations are now serving as an excuse for Russian intervention and occupation. Can we expect to see Russia annexing those territories again due to the presence of Russian minorities? Is this the Sudetenland all over again? Does the world learn?

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

[Erikderzweite]

He is not. Although Russian was not forbidden per se, the use of the language was severely restricted including the law that forbade teaching children in Russian.

Not to mention the fact that the Russians were not granted citizenship based on their ethnicity alone.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Erikderzweite]

There are more Tatars outside of Sevastopol than in the city, but they are still a minority. Their history with Russia is pretty complicated and has many conflicts the latest being WWII where the Tatar community openly supported Hitler even after they were denied their own country. While most collaborationists themselves could escape with the retreating Wehrmacht, the common people were not so lucky: the Tatars were deported to Uzbekistan, many of them died. 1989 the Soviets acknowledged the deportation as a humanitarian crime and allowed the Tatars to return to the peninsula.

The area is a powder keg now. The Tatars share anti-Russian views with the Ukrainian nationalists and the Russians, who compose the majority of the people there feel threatened by the new government fearing Latvian-style discrimination.

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

[Uberbah]

American Exceptionalism strikes again. How many invasions and regime changes has Russia performed over the last 10 years compared to your government? Is Putin asserting he has the right to have anyone murdered, anywhere in the world, based on his say so alone - and acting on those claims? How many military bases does Russia have around the world compared to the United States. Does Russia have special forces operating in more than half the world's countries?

Anyone with a half-functioning brain can see which country needs to have it's imperialistic wankers put in check first, and that it's not Putin.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[microbox]

Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn.

The actual inspectors on the ground disagree with this assessment.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Uberbah]

you seem to forget that the constitution trumps any UN treaty

You seem to forget that very Constitution makes treaties the second highest law of the land. Treaties like the U.N. Charter.

Now, you were saying?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[phantomfive]

Uh, so lets talk about America when America does something? Even if America had just acquired Canada and Mexico, it still would have nothing to do with this situation. Comparing every international event to America is the sign of a juvenile mind, and trying to justify behavior based on American's behavior is the sign of juvenile ethics.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Nyder]

Actually the US had every right to invade Iraq. After the first Gulf War the cease fire conditions called for UN inspection of Iraq for chemical weapons. Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn. He continuously sent fighters into the no flight zone also. Violations of the cease fire agreement were so numerous as to make it a joke. Look at it as simply a continuance of the original conflict.

Excuse me? If some big ass country was bullying me, I'd make what they were doing harder. Our invasion of Iraq was not only wrong, it destabilized the region into a big ass terrorist training area, something Saddam kept from happening.

And how many WMD's did we find? I know Bush said there were there, but how many did we find? Oh ya, None.

The biggest outrage of all of this is all the art and artifacts that got destroyed during this time, all that history lost.

 

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.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[jklovanc]

Crimea was part of Russia until 1964 when Nikita Khrusjtsjov arbitrarily gave it away to Ukraine (according to some historians he did so while drunk).

According to this it was a vote in the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR that caused the transfer and not Khrusjtsjov alone.

By a decree issued February 19, 1954 of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Crimea was transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. This decree was passed amid solemn circumstances. There were many speeches, which as far as one could tell had one purpose: to explain to the peoples of the USSR the reasons which made this act essential. According to the speakers the chief reasons were these: 1) The Crimea's economy is closely linked with the economy of the Ukrainian Republic; 2) The Crimea forms, as it were, a natural extension of the southern Ukrainian steppes.

The majority of the people there identify with being Russian.

Perhaps because most of the Tartars were exiled and may Ukrainians were starved in 1932 and 33. This followed by Russians moving to the area to support the Black Sea Fleet may be the reason for so many Russians on Ukrainian land.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[drolli]

Yeah. Imperialist pride. Sure. How about: Maybe they were sent there and did not like it, but after they lived in a purely russian city, where russuan language was demanded from the Soviet Union, newly built there for 50 years they are not welcome at "home"?

Never keep people living somewhere responsible for the political actions of their leaders 60 years ago.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

They want to live as Russians in the place they call home, then someone comes by and wants to strip them of their rights. Think again.
Wanna be part of Europe? Better come up with ways to integrate, not exclude them.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

Ukraine is calling it an invasion. They are in a position to do that.

The presence of any local Russian majority population does not constitute an open invitation to invasion.

The Sudetenland is quite appropriate as a comparison. And yes, it is an occupation - by Russia. The Soviet Union transferred the Crimea to Ukraine, and Russia has recognized that in their treaties leasing the military bases.

Trolling? I think that's your job.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

Trolling? I think that's your job.

You're presenting a slanted picture (as usual). I'm just straightening it out.
You have no idea what is going on there as all your information is from news outlets, I have friends and relatives there. So please do yourself a favor and shut up.

With the same effect I can say that Ukraine is calling the current government a coup d'etat (financed by western NGOs, which were barred from Russia a while ago), and is welcoming Russia's presence.

Sudetenland was used as a staging board for further expansion, which would reveal you as a mad neo-con, if you would argue that Putin is doing something even remotely similar.

As far as I see it they (eastern Ukraine + Crimea) should have a referendum and split (Kosovo precedent), or hold general elections (for all of Ukraine), which should be overseen by (honorable) observers.
Until then, Russia is well within it's right to answer to the call of Ukrainian people (ethnic Russians or not) to secure the area.

The Soviet Union transferred the Crimea to Ukraine, and Russia has recognized that in their treaties leasing the military bases.

Ratified by? When? Thought so.
Go divide and conquer your own country and mind your own business!

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

You aren't "straightening out" the picture so much as trying to confuse it.

The Sudeten crisis was Germany supposedly rescuing ethnic Germans from mistreatment. Does that sound familiar? That is what the Russian government claims they are doing - saving ethnic Russians from mistreatment. Just like they were threatening to do in the Baltic republics in the 90s.

Any place that has someone with Russian blood is apparently in danger of invasion by Russia to "save them."

Putin's War in Crimea Could Soon Spread to Eastern Ukraine

... Russian ethnicity and citizenship trump national sovereignty. At the very least, they provide a convenient pretext for territorial expansion, as they did in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where Russia was also ostensibly protecting Russian citizens—also newly minted for the occasion. Just this week, for instance, Russia introduced a law to make it easier for Ukrainians to get Russian citizenship—you know, to give Russia someone to protect.

If Russia is "well within its rights" to invade, then, I would say that NATO is well within it rights to come to the assistance of Ukraine at Ukraine's request, and Ukraine is well within its rights to rearm with nuclear weapons. Happy?

Why don't you complain about the USSR's actions to the Supreme Soviet. That would seem to be appropriate. It seems likely Putin will start reviving that once he is done rehabilitating Stalin.

Ukraine isn't Russia. Russia's current behavior is a menace to peace. If Russia was keeping Russian military forces in Russia instead of invading a neighbor we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, why don't you mind your own business and keep your country out of Ukraine?

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.

[shutdown -p now]

You say this as if the other side doesn't have its own Nazis. Here is what the synagogue in Simferopol looks like, a day after its takeover by the local pro-Russian "self-defense force". The text says "Death to Jews".

Also, Crimean Tatars are not happy about Russian takeover for a good reason stemming from their own recent history. You might want to look it up on Wikipedia.

Oh, and the guy they've put in charge of Crimea? He has statues of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky in his work cabinet.

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.

[jklovanc]

They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

You need to go back a little further and read a little history. In 1932-1933 there was a famine caused by Russia which killed over 2 million Ukrainians. When the Germans invaded they were seen as liberators by many as they were kicking out the hated Russians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I also wonder if Russia is spinning WW2 ties with the German army to make their case look better.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[amiga3D]

After Stalin caused the death of millions of Ukrainians I can see why they would prefer the Nazis. The lesser of two devils.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Anonymous Coward]

They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

Yarosh and his ilk are bad news. They are not representative of the majority of Ukrainians in the western half of the country. Given what Stalin did to the Ukrainian population, it's understandable that there are present-day extremists who have adopted their positions from those who welcomed the Nazis as liberators. (That was a really bad decision, by the way. After Stalin had starved millions of them to death, they got stomped on by the Nazis, and then got stomped on again by Stalin towards the end of the war. They were fucked either way, but the way things worked out, they got fucked three times.)

There are lots of "they" in the movement to depose Yanukovych. There are hard-right elements within the Maidan, but they are not representative of the Maidan. (The closest American political analogies would be that the KKK is not representative of conservatism, let alone the GOP, and that Occupy Wall Street is not representative of the progressive movement, let alone the DNC.)

For what little it's worth, I think the most reasonable solution is to divide the country. Most of the land mass of Ukraine leans towards Europe, but some of that land mass, specifically Crimea, leans towards Russia. (This is in large part due to Stalin-era resettlements, but WW2 is long over, and so is the Holodomor, so it ought to be a moot point.) If Putin wants is a port for his fleet (he does), and if the Crimean region wants to ally itself with Russia (it does, by as large a margin as Western Ukraine wants to ally with Europe), then they should probably be free to leave.

The interesting question is how much more Ukranian territory Putin wants as a buffer zone between Europe and Russia. (Having a buffer zone is kind of a Russian thing. I can't say I blame them, given the history of invasions from Europe...) A partitioned Ukraine shrinks that buffer zone considerably. Taking all of Ukraine by force back into the Russian fold would, at the moment, imply a war whose costs could well exceed the worth of the natural gas reserves and the fleet. The question is -- how much territory is enough for Putin, and will the rest of Ukraine cede it?

I think this all ends diplomatically. Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor the rest of Europe, has much to gain from a civil war. Maybe all that needs to happen is Ukraine extends the lease on the port for a decade or two on the cheap. Or something to do with gas royalties. This is the sort of problem that is best solved by bankers and ballots, not bullets.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[ZarathustraDK]

So what you're saying is that if Russia occupies South Carolina then you'll support russia because the US has a bunch of nationalistic patriots who view their territory as "historically american", and don't want foreigners occupying them for the reason of it being none of their damn business.

Their reason for opposing russian rule may be flawed, that doesn't mean that russian rule is a flawless idea, nor that opposing it is the wrong idea.

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.

[hydrofix]

They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

You would be surprised to hear that many democratic countries in present-day Europe apart from the Nazi-Germany itself fought alongside the Nazis in WWII, including Italians, Finns, Romanians, Bulgarians and Norwegians. And these were the real-deal WWII genociding, totalitarian, Führer-hailing Nazis – not some modern-day, nostalgic Neo-Nazis, who don't even know how to genocide. And apart from those countries that fought alongside them, in the 1930s Nazis had large amounts of supporters in every Western country, and their policies were widely regarded as progressive, modern and necessary. Nowadays we know that the Nazi policies led to ruin, but the masses of the 1930s did not and thought they were behaving rationally. Do you think human thinking has changed much in mere 80 years?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

The protest leaders did nothing to banish Nazis from their midst, they relied on them heavily and made their leader Deputy Secretary of the National Security. So yes, in this case I don't care how noble their goals were. I sympathise with the Ukrainian's struggle for a fair government, but I will not support this uprising.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

The famine was not in Ukraine only, parts of Russia and Belarus have suffered as well. The matter is highly disputed, it didn't help that the Ukrainians ones used the photos from US Great Depression to illustrate the atrocities of the Russians.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[mc6809e]

And later went on to liberate almost all of Europe. Do your point is ?

You exaggerate (probably because you're some sort of Soviet apologist).

The Soviets were doomed without the help of the rest of the Allies. The entire world would have been better off if the Soviets and Nazis had just been allowed to kill each other off. They were made for each other.

Communists, Nazis -- how anyone could pick one as better than the other is beyond reason.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

Czechoslovakia's strong production was providing a great deal of war supplies to the Germany (one in three panzers were produced there), both Hungarians and Romanians were part of the Axis as well not to mention Ustase in Croatia. You may consider marionette governments as a form of penance.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[guacamole]

There were also Russians fighting on the side of Nazis. Many of those collaborators did not view themselves as Hitler's subordinates. Their goal was to liberate their countries from Communists. Vlasov's Russian army wanted to create a free and independent Russia, while Ukraine's Stepan Bandera wanted to create a free and independent Ukrainian state. For this reason, Hitler had a quite uneasy relationship with them since he had other plans for conquered territories.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[hydrofix]

The point is, there are no Nazis in power in those countries nowadays (some Baltic countries may be considered an exception though).

What on Earth are you talking about? There are definitely no Nazis in power in any Baltic country (Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia) – they are all lead by liberal-democratic, conservative, social-democratic or centrist governments.

Fidesz, the ruling party of Hungary, has links to Nazi-like groups, but it is still half a Europe away from the Baltics.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

I talk about SS parades and monuments in Latvia. Supported and mandated by the government. I talk about the discrimination of ethnic Russians who were refused the citizenship and were stripped of some rights there. Lithuanian government pursuits the use of Soviet symbolic but does not do the same to the Nazi insignia. All of the above routinely ignored by the European Union.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

As said, I don't care how noble their goals were. Siding with Nazis is an excuse to nothing. Vlasov and Bandera were used by the Nazi regime and whether they genuinely believed that they are fighting for noble cause is irrelevant -- both were sentenced to death for a reason.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Chris Mattern]

And later went on to liberate almost all of Europe.

Really? REALLY? Ask the Poles how "liberated" they were. Ask the Czechs how "liberated" they were. Ask the Slovaks how "liberated" they were. Ask the Hungarians how "liberated" they were. Ask the Bulgarians how "liberated" they were. Ask the Romanians how "liberated" they were. Ask the East Germans how "liberated" they were. Ask the Baltics how "liberated" they were. Yep, that's a lot of liberation, there.

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.

[Half-pint HAL]

And the UK and US sold lots of weapons and military training to Saddam Hussein and the Afghan warlords. Did we invade ourselves to punish ourselves for supporting our enemies and install puppet governments ruled by our governments?

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.

[Erikderzweite]

They got marionette governments to act as a buffer for Soviet Union. Because, you know, Czechs made a third of Third Reich's tanks, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians were actually fighting along with Nazis. Poland, too, has happily participated in the division of Czechoslovakia (after capturing parts of Ukraine and Belarus in 1919-1921). And Germany, well, started the whole mess. Besides, the Germans should be really thankful for the GDR: without it US and UK would carry on with the plan of destroying Germany's industry and reducing the country to an agrarian one. Instead, the Western Germany got Marshall's plan, become the showcase of Western way of life and is now the locomotive behind the whole EU.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Uberbah]

You exaggerate (probably because you're some sort of Soviet apologist).

Your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired (probably because you're some sort of Western Imperialist apologist).

The Soviets were doomed without the help of the rest of the Allies.

Are you out of your mind? The Western Front, Africa, and the Pacific combined were a sideshow next to the Eastern Front. Western nations counted their casualties in the thousands to hundreds of thousands. Eastern Front casualties were counted in the tens of millions.

If there was no Soviet Union crushing German forces by sheer will and numbers, you could have forgotten about liberating France because Germany would have made short work out of Great Britain. Then it would only be a question of if the French and British fleets would return home, or flee to the United States in exile. But noooo, it was the Americans swooping in, suffering paper cuts in comparison, that saved the day and deserve the credit!

Morans.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[guacamole]

As said, I don't care how noble their goals were. Siding with Nazis is an excuse to nothing.

I beg to differ. It's only ex post, with all of our current knowledge of the full extent of Holocaust and other Nazi "accomplishments" and future plans, we can say TODAY that siding with Nazis back then was bad. In reality, back in the 30s, the Soviet union was regarded as just as bad and just as evil as the Nazis. So a lot of smaller nations were effectively choosing between two evils. Finns for example saw no difference between Nazis and Soviets, but sided with Nazis at the beginning of war hoping to recover territory lost to Soviets in the Winter War. Poland was partitioned between Soviet Union and Germany, and then the Soviets round up every single Polish officer, tens of thousands, execute and bury in a mass grave in Katyn. Millions Ukrainians die from the policy of starvation before the WWII. The was plenty to hate the Soviet Union for.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[mjwx]

And later went on to liberate almost all of Europe. Do your point is ?

You exaggerate (probably because you're some sort of Soviet apologist).

The Soviets were doomed without the help of the rest of the Allies.

And here you're exaggerating.

The outcome in WWII would have been the same, except that all the conquered German territories would have been in Soviet hands. So France, Norway, Holland, Greece and so forth. It would have cost Stalin another 10 or 20 million people (most of them to starvation, disease and non battle related causes) but he would have succeeded.

The sad fact of the matter is that even if the British had acceded to Hitler's peace offering in 1941, he still would have fallen to the Russians because he would have made the same mistakes in the Crimea, at Kursk, Stalingrad, freezing near Moscow. Stalin didn't win the eastern front as much as Hitler lost it. In the mean time, the industrial base of the Soviets had been moved into the Urals outside the longest ranges of Nazi bombers and could produce T34 tanks in staggering numbers.

In 1944 it took the combined power of all the allies to make Stalin blink enough to agree to split Europe at Yalta. The full power of the US, the British and the dominion (India, Canada, Australia, et al.).

Re:Still far from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, jokes on him, You can't destroy mass.

Why not just give up?

[hydrofix]

Why shouldn't Ukraine just give up Crimea for the sake of national unity? Ukraine as a whole seems to be flying from one crisis to another, and it is seems to be torn between the pro-Russia and pro-West factions. Maybe Ukraine should just focus building its future as a Western country, and give up those territories where the population wants to live under Russian rule. Maybe later those areas can then join Ukraine if they so wish, like happened with the unification of West and East Germany.

Re:Why not just give up?

[amiga3D]

Why do you think that would satisfy Putin?

Re:Why not just give up?

[Meditato]

It wouldn't satisfy Putin. He took South Ossetia from Georgia and is likely still engineering a wider pro-Russia coup in Georgia. He engineered this situation in the Crimean Peninsula, and he's probably engineering other such incidents in other former soviet republics.

Re:Why not just give up?

[ZarathustraDK]

Actually not a bad idea.

If Ukraine ceded control of Crimea it would gain more unity, and have less trouble separating itself from Russia and foster its ties with the EU. Crimea is an autonomous region with its own government, so Ukraine stand to lose very little from there other than having a national minority there (they still have access to the Black Sea from the mainland). Russia OTOH gains very little: They already have a fleetbase there, and a national majority that'll follow their whim, that wont change with annexation. They will, however, have to contend with a large ukrainian minority that will be none too happy of their new overlords, and who can get reinforced from their homeland easily. Also, they'll obliterate any chance of moving at Ukraine as a whole, because this action will fan anti-russian sentiment.

All in all, the move on Crimea is a provocation from Russia trying to destabilise Ukraine. They may end up getting Crimea, but if they fail to throw Ukraine into chaos, then they come out of this the loser.

Re:Why not just give up?

[AHuxley]

A split would work well. The pro Western faction can be happy under US protection. The EU can rush in with loans (banker bail in) and generations in the region return to having laws passed from EU vs Soviet Union.
New pipeline deals with a new, split, weak Ukraine start to look amazing to the EU :)
The US gets NATO very near Russia under the cover of a new, split, weak Ukraine "invite".
Other parts go to Russia, Russians in the area feel safe, Russia keeps its mil happy with vital areas still been in Russian hands.
Win win win win for bankers with new 'loan' energy contracts, the USA, Russia, EU .... Ukraine escapes the horror of the Soviet Union only to be occupied in parts by the USA, EU and Russia.
Fun and years of extra funding for CIA, FSB and MI6 too.

Re:Why not just give up?

[guacamole]

I wonder the same. Crimea is historically neither Russian nor Ukrainian. It was populated by Tatars who constantly launched attacks against everyone north of them. Once they burned Moscow to ground. It was conquered by Russian Empire in 18th century culminating a rivalry that lasted for centuries. Crimea was defended by Russian Empire in the Crimean War of the 19th century. A lot of Russian blood was spilled there, and nationalist politicians in both Russia and Ukraine constantly manipulate the popular sentiment. It's a big problem for Ukraine.

However, I can see one reason why Ukraine may be reluctant to part with Crimea. It could only be a beginning of further partition of Ukraine. For example, once in control of Crimea Russia and its brethren in Ukraine could start a new campaign now to transfer the cities of Kharkiv and Donentsk to Russia, again both heavily dominated by Russians, and so on. The nationalist Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky has said many times that he sees a division of Ukrain where the west Ukraine has capital in Lviv, surrounded by 4-5 west Ukrainian provinces. No matter what happens, this conflict will go on for a LONG time...

Re:Why not just give up?

[Tough Love]

Russia has at least a superficially "legitimate" claim for Crimea, since some 60% of the population are ethnic Russians.

Only because Stalin deported 100% of the Tatars in 1944 (killing half of them)

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[WoOS]

> Kremlin had no other choices left with Ukraine.
Really? Like peaceful coexistance?

Putin is wagering it all. If he does not get at least Crimea from this (or even the whole SE of the Ukraine) he has a major defeat on his hands: Confidence in Russia fulfilling its contracts (they guaranteed Ukraine's teritorial integrity for getting back USSR nuclear weapons) will be severly damaged (also damaging their natural gas trade), the Ukraine will make life a hell for the Russian fleet in Sewastopol by subtle sabotage and the Ukraine now will definitely want to get into NATO as soon as possible.

With such high stakes he must be very sure, he can win this.

Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone

[msmonroe]

Isn't this what the U.S. did in Grenada?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Thatcher sent a message to Reagan: This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East/West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country. I must ask you to think most carefully about these points. I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. You asked for my advice. I have set it out and hope that even at this late stage you will take it into account before events are irrevocable. (The full text remains classified.)

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:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Erikderzweite]

>they guaranteed Ukraine's teritorial integrity for getting back USSR nuclear weapons
The treaty in question was signed but never ratified, neither by Russia, nor by US or UK.

Besides, US has guaranteed non-expansion of NATO to the Eastern Europe once. The Russians may be just learning from the world's leading democracy.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Runaway1956]

Really? How was that little fiasco in Georgia resolved, again? Oh yeah - Russia ensured the safety of ethnic and national Russians, and withdrew.

Re:What does this mean?

[AHuxley]

Re 'not irredentist land grabbers"
Covert United States foreign regime change actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
The US basically swaps out a gov, installs a weak new gov, or supports a gov and then gets a "request" for a shared or join facility (base, covert listening station).
No need to used the term land grabbers, when a term like research facility, partnership, joint military facilities, radar base, camps, air station, facilities, installations sound so much more normal.

Re:Soviet Union

[guacamole]

There was no need to bribe Ukraine. Ukraine was 100% under Soviet control. No one knows why exactly the transfer happened. I believe it was meant to represent a display of friendship between Ukraine and the Soviet leadership. Back then no one would have imagined that the republics could split some day. For example, Russian nationalists are crying crocodile tears because of some territories lost to Kazakhstan during the partition of USSR, though Crimea is the most hurtful thing for them.

Re:Still far from...

[sumdumass]

Not really, This law defines a WMD for the purpose of domestic law enforcement as basically needing to expel something or cause damage by a projectile being expelled. A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't. However, a rock in a slingshot might be.

It's tricky narrowing down a definition because it relies on devices defined in section 921 also and that specifically mentioned a starter pistol as a firearm if it can_be modified to shoot a projectile propelled by an explosive device even though it hasn't_been.

Originally, the term entered popular vocabulary by the use in the Safwan cease fire agreement with Iraq with the first gulf war. How it has changed to include a pencil sharpener or some silly irrelevant objects I don't know.

Re:Still far from...

[nogginthenog]

A rock falling from orbit would be a WMD!

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?

They cannot stop with Crimea

[Freultwah]

Crimea's only freshwater source is the Dnieper River in Ukraine via the North Crimea Canal. The peninsula is not connected to mainland Russia in any way, only to Ukraine via the Isthmus of Perekop, a 5 to 7 km wide strip of land. Without the canal, there is no water on the peninsula if you discount bottled Evian. Desalination is too costly and only possible in coastal cities. Therefore, in order to secure water supply to the newly re-grabbed piece of land, Russia needs to secure the canal and the Kakhovka Reservoir in mainland Ukraine, which means occupying, well, more land.

Re:They cannot stop with Crimea

[Chris Mattern]

This is overstating things. Water rights are an old story in many places. People work out having other countries upstream of them, even unfriendly ones. Hell, even India and Pakistan manage. And the only *land* access to the Crimea is over the Isthmus of Perekop, but it is quite accessible across the Kerch Strait, which is very narrow (less than three miles wide), and is serviced by frequent and regular ferries. There are proposals to bridge it as well (it's been bridged in the past).

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.

Re:Paul the Octopus for president!

[ericloewe]

Well, the guy certainly is predictable. It was 100% obvious that he was going to invade as soon as the "local militiamen" (who managed to organize themselves and acquire somewhat modern military equipment and uniforms in two days!) started showing up.

Who wouldn't have predicted this?

[swb]

Anyone who has paid even slight attention would have predicted this.

The Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Putin is not going to walk away from that (in fact they have a lease, although it has a somewhat dubious approval).

Putin would like to keep all of Ukraine in his orbit, but I think even he has doubts about his ability to seize Ukraine with force. The West will whine about the Crimea but has no leverage and will just hope they can bluff enough to maintain the rest of the existing Ukrainian borders without having Moscow annex the eastern part, too.

The whole east/west struggle is something of a pyrrhic victory for no matter who "wins" -- Ukraine's economy is a trainwreck, and the "winner" will have to spend big bucks to keep it propped up, which nobody wants to do.

When Russia invaded Georgia back in 2008

[Kartu]

Most western government thoughts were actually "oh, how do we spin it to continue business as usual with Russia".

Tagliavini commission was created, and as it included 2 German "experts" who had upfront declared Russia had right to invade, so it was clear what kind of task was assigned to them, (thank you Ms Merkel)
Commission has come to surprising conclusions, that Georgian government did not have right to defend it's own people on its own territory (which was bombed by heavy artillery on daily bases), yet Russia had right to defend it's "peacekeepers", (even though there is no evidence that any attack on Russian "peacekeepers" whatsoever has been carried out by Georgians), but just overreacted a bit. (on top of it 2 Georgian peacekeepers were killed on 6th of Aug 2008, somehow neither that did justify actions of the Georgian government (it was actually a mixed Russia-Georgian peacekeeping operation))

Now, Russia is AGAIN getting premium treatment, for just being aggressive. You can clearly see that in most messages (and even journalist comments) in the West.
Oh, there are interests, you know. Old USSR junk that is even remotely usable only vs former USSR republics absolutely has to be stationed in the Ukraine. Oh and there are Russians on the peninsula. And oh, there are interests of Putin there. Oh dare not make him angry, or it is all your fault.

I recall a guy called Chamberlain had similar, as well as extremely successful, approach to aggressors about 70 years ago.

Re:When Russia invaded Georgia back in 2008

[Erikderzweite]

> I recall a guy called Chamberlain had similar, as well as extremely successful, approach to aggressors about 70 years ago.

Why? It has been indeed a success -- pushing the Germany to the East via Munich Agreement and Sitzkrieg aka doing nothing when Germany invaded Poland. Eventually Hitler did attack the USSR and everyone was happy for a while. Except the France who got occupied in the process.

Re:NOT

[MightyMartian]

It's amazing how any mention of Russia brings out the lunatica

Re:Still far from...

[Richard_at_work]

Uhm, no, that's nothing more than a bullshit excuse - the US did not have authority from the UN to depose the Iraqi government, they were never granted that in 1991, and they were never granted that at any time after 1991. They were given the authority to carry out specific actions in order to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but no more.

You also ignore the fact that as part of their request for help, the Kuwaiti government promised democratic elections in a free Kuwait. They never happened.

Re:Still far from...

[jopsen]

Forging evidence of and publicly lie about mass-destruction weapons in order to make a case to invade a country...

Hey, I'm no fan of the crimes the US have been conducting over the past decade... But at least the US issued a declaration of war, and gave both Iraq and Afghanistan the option of negotiating their way out of the conflict without deploying troops on the ground.

Here the Russians haven't issued an ultimatum, they haven't given proper notice, nor have they tried to resolve their issues through neither direct negotiations or the UN. And as of right now, they do not seem open to retreat in favor of a UN peace keeping force.

This is an old school imperialistic land grab, seems like the Russians might get away with it because they don't care about sanctions. And sanctions won't last forever anyway, does anybody still remember Georgien? That wasn't so long ago, and more or less equally unprovocated.