Slashdot Mirror
Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today reports, "Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity' in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament. ... Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.' The U.S. and U.K. have said that the agreement remains binding and that they expect it to be treated 'with utmost seriousness, and expect Russia to, as well.'"
Don't think they could do it in time. Sad though it is, the sensible thing would probably have been not to get rid of them in the first place.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more.
Ukraine's strange love for nuclear power
Missile
Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.
I think we've all gotten complacent with the idea that another World War couldn't happen. They thought the same thing in the 20's (anyone remember the Kellogg–Briand Pact?). But it can not only still happen, but I think people would be surprised at how little it would take to actually set it off. That's why diplomats have to treat shit like this very carefully.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You do understand that Ukraine has enough expertize and know-how to make nukes within a few months? You do realize that Ukraine power supply is 50% nuclear?
There are nations in this world that can build nuclear weapons within months, if they wanted to. They simply choose not to. I would name Ukraine as one of these nations.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
We should all be thankful that people in the relevant positions in Ukraine have shown much restraint so far and trusted or hoped that diplomatic and economic means would be brought to bear. Once a shooting war starts in the Ukraine, the casualties will quickly accumulate. There's a large civilian population there, several large cities. The population is very polarized. Oh and Russia is pushing more soldiers, armor, mines, etc into the Crimea by the hour.
"Just start the war already?" Because you are bored? What a horrendous sentiment.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'
Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.
It's almost as good as Putin's quote about "local security forces" buying Russian uniforms at any local military surplus store. So in order to protect law and order in my own country, I'm supposed to don the uniform of a foreign country? Now where did I put that old French Foreign Legion ensemble?
Not because we are bored. Because the war has already started on the Russian side, and all the Ukraine is doing now is losing. There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened. The only question is when Ukraine is going to fight -- when it can be confined to Crimea and the east, or when they are fighting an existential fight in the west?
But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in.
"Even Poland?" What does that mean? Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France. They fought back very well. They were just not of the same caliber as the German officer corps, and were slightly behind in the tech race. The "horses verses tanks" scenario is highly overblown. Poland's infantry and artillery were adequate for the time, but no one really expected Blitzkrieg to work as well as it did. If Poland had a Guderian, it could have turned out very different.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?
I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.
Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
> Would they actually launch a nuke at their neighbor?
As a last act before being completely overwhelmed by a superior force... what do you think?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I already posted this above:
Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?
I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.
Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Don't forget Poland was fighting a two front war. Germans on one side, Russians on the other.
Or... maybe they didn't give them all up?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders. A short while later, Hezbollah started threatening Israel again, claiming it was occupying some fictitious piece of land that was never part of Lebanon. Instead of the UN and international bodies backing Israel's claim that it had fully withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they publicly referred to this piece of land as "disputed territory". This taught us two things:
1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed".
2. International guarantees are utterly meaningless.
Countries are better off retaining their weapons and enforcing the peace themselves. Regardless of how much political pressure you're under, ignore it, because at the end of the day you cannot outsource your citizens security.
And on the flip side: the international community should shut the !#@ up until they gain a record of walking the walk instead of talking the talk. It's criminal to play with other people's lives in this way.
Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.
The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack, including Ukraine. And now it is back to seizing territory as has previously occurred to many of the neighbors of Russia (nee Soviet Union) in the last century: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Now they try again with Ukraine.
Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine - 12 Feb 2008
Russia threatens to aim missiles at Czech Republic, Poland if US installs defence shield - 20-02-2007
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Relevant in that discussion would be how much of that is in Crimea and possibly eastern Ukraine and how much of it are Russians / willing to leave so to say.
No-one would do that except maybe some comic book villain.
Assume "Paper" is a treaty guaranteeing "Territorial Integrity". Then:
Rock beats Paper
Nuke beats Paper
Nuke beats Rock
Nuke loses to Nuke (MAD)
Who would ever play Paper?
You are oversimplifying to a dangerous degree.
There is at the moment no legitimate Ukrainian government. Putin is a vile authoritarian asshole, but he is right about one thing: Yanukovych's de facto removal from office was a coup.
Yanukovych can still make a claim of legitimate legal authority to invite Russian troops in.
And some part of the population in Crimea wants them there.
So, an "invasion"? Not clear.
As for "an existential fight in the west", it's doubtful that Putin wants to absorb all of Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is a synthetic state, based on the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" set up by the USSR...which was created with a bunch of ethnic Russians exactly to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check. All in all, letting Crimea go back to Russia might be in everyone's best interest...but only if it's handled in a legitimate way. Right now, nothing happening over there has any legitimacy.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You're missing some history.
Invasion of Poland, Fall 1939
In September 1938, after signing away the Czech border regions, known as the Sudetenland, to Germany at the Munich conference, British and French leaders pressured France's ally, Czechoslovakia, to yield to Germany's demand for the incorporation of those regions. Despite Anglo-French guarantees of the integrity of rump Czechoslovakia, the Germans dismembered the Czechoslovak state in March 1939 in violation of the Munich agreement. Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the integrity of the Polish state.
German forces moving into Poland was an act of war to France and Britain so France had to be neutralized before German forces moved into Russia.
The Crimea is the new Sudetenland, and it is Russia that is accumulating territory.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You may recall it was the Russians that invaded.
Do you have any limits to the extent you would permit Russia to seize additional territory? Western Ukraine? Poland? Finland? Malta? Scotland?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea"
I don't know much about international law, but the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (the "security pact" referred to by the Ukrainian Parliament member) doesn't appear to obligate the US to do anything in this situation, other than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
Additionally, the Budapest Memorandum is more of a diplomatic "gentleman's agreement"; it is not a treaty confirmed by the Senate. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem to me that the US is obligated to do squat. Sorry Ukraine!
>That's why diplomats have to treat shit like this very carefully.
Only if the complaintant has nuclear weapons, or strong pacts with nations that do have nuclear weapons and have pledged to threaten to use them on their behalf. There is much wisdom in the MAD strategy - we buy a measure of peace with the threat of making the results of war truly horrifying. If Russia believes they can easily annex part of Ukraine using conventional weapons without invoking a prohibitive response from the US or Great Britain, then why should they not? (I'm talking geopolitics here, not morality.) On the other hand if Ukraine had nukes there would be a very real threat that a retaliatory strike would poison choice parts of Russia, making Russia far less likely to invade in the first place.
The problem primarily arises when nukes find their way into the hands of unstable actors. Or alternately when two Powers misjudge each other's actual position in a game of nuclear brinksmanship, as happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Russia has put the US and Great Britain in a very uncomfortable position - if we fail to convince them to back off we risk undermining decades of disarmament treaties around the world that depend on our promises of defense, and if politics alone can't solve the problem we may very well end up in another game of nuclear brinksmanship.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The problem primarily arises when nukes find their way into the hands of unstable actors
WTF do you think Ukraine is? Giving nukes to an unstable country with a openly hostile relationship with its nuclear neighbor is FUCKING INSANE.
Would you support Russia just handing over a shitload of nukes to Cuba? North Korea? Iran? You know, to protect them from U.S. invasion?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
So where do you plan on living after blowing up all of the infrastructure in your own country?
Hmm...South Ossetia sound familiar? That would be the last time Russia decided it wanted part of its neighbors' territory.
Last I checked, the Russians pretty much got their way that time.
And it's looking like they're going to get their way this time too.
So, when does someone stop them from "grabbing small territories"?
Because we can ALWAYS say "well, it's just a small bit of territory. We can't go to war over every small bit of territory..."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Russia has had a treaty to use former Soviet military bases in Crimea, Ukraine, but Putin is now claiming that treaties with Ukraine are void. Russia doesn't have permission to occupy Crimea as it has, nor threaten to annex Crimea. Russia is also threatening a broader war on Ukraine having mobilized its army some time ago. It looks like you're the one that is out of touch. Sorry.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They have a prior agreement to be in Crimea to secure their naval base in Sevastopol. They certainly don't have any prior agreement to blockade and assault Ukrainian army bases and barracks and border posts.
This isn't even to mention the uniformed troops with no identification patches, which everybody knows are Russian (by their own numerous admissions when asked), but which Russia refuses to acknowledge outright. That alone is a war crime.
just one MP talking out of stress
This is truly the crux of the issue from the perspective of Ukraine, since now they see a lack of nuclear deterrent made them unable to resist Russia.
In all such cases the discussion is opened by someone of a second rank, acting as a battering ram. Once the discussion is open and the shock is gone, the leaders can step in. For example in the USA during the presidential campaigns the VP candidates are the ones doing the aggressive talks, allowing the POTUS candidates to look, well, "presidential".
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
What I think isn't getting talked about is that this is a much broader political threat. Ukraine gave up it's nukes under the assurance that the interested parties would protect it from each other. Russia has now reneged on that treaty, and the MP is reminding the US, Great Britain, and the world that we have an obligation to intervene.
It might be tempting to simply let Russia get away with this and avoid the threat of renewed nuclear war (cold or otherwise), but if we do that we also tell every other nation that has disarmed, or is considering disarming, that we cannot be trusted to honor our obligations under those treaties, severely undermining decades of work on disarmament.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Your view is very simplistic.
1. To be fair, with the exception of Romania, all of those countries were part of the Russian Empire not too long (20 years) before they had military conflicts with the USSR.
2. In the end, Poland actually gained territory before and after WWII. Before, Poland got a chunk of Czech territory, after it got part of Germany. Ukraine got a chunk of Romania. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania became independent countries, which had either never existed (in this case how do you assess what terrirtory is "theirs"?) before or had been absorbed by their neighbors (not just Russia) long time prior.
3. Romania was an ally (probably unwillingly, but still) of the Nazi Germany and there were many Romanian soldiers fighting on the Eastern front against the USSR.
Anyways, my point is that history is not black and white.
I suspect, having plenty of people who remember living behind the Iron Curtain, that residents of countries like Ukraine would rather emigrate than go back to Russian rule.
Communism wasn't evil, but the communists were - maybe they're not communists anymore, but why would anybody believe that things will be "better this time"?
Maybe some state could send an ambassador to negotiate with the Putin and then declare "Peace for our time!" a reality.
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
Contrary to what your propaganda sources claim there is not the slightest doubt that Putin has violated public international law and basically all existing treaties between Russia and the Ukraine. It also doesn't take much intelligence to see who's the bad guy here, namely the one who sends masked soldiers as thugs into a peaceful neighboring country claiming they are there for "protection", besieging army bases and threatening & beating up inhabitants who do not speak Russian. The act is particularly evil, because the Russian and the Ukrainian speaking people in the Ukraine never had any problems getting along with each other, and now Putin's thugs are creating unrest in order to destabilize the new government in Kiev.
It's a fucking disgrace and you know it.
The ethnic Russians in Crimea seem quite eager with going back to Russian rule.
And what other chance Iran has to avoid US invasion? It is coming sooner or later.
They can surely make Nuclear Devices fairly rapidly. I doubt they will be able to weaponize them within a reasonable time-frame. (reasonable being: the time it takes Russia to steamroller the whole country and seize any facilities).
Assuming (hopefully) that the current situation on the ground is going to be static for a while and doesn't become a shooting war, then yes the Ukrainians can and probably should build a few dozen nukes with some delivery capability as a deterrent.
Amen to that. All those who have wargasms whenever conflict arises have the opportunity to ship out and become foreign fighters. The jihadist do that in Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. However it much more expedient to be a chicken hawk and send kids barely out of high school to be killed and maimed in war and after the fact complain about high taxes.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
How to explain it? There isn't much mystery I think.
Careful planning, speedy operations, overwhelming force, and generally achieving at least tactical surprise against a population with no viable means to either fight or defend itself. Even the Ukrainian military garrisons were greatly overmatched.
The Russians seem to have learned from their experiences in Georgia.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Now, you see, this is the sort of shit which makes me REALLY wary of any Russian actions.
It's the sort of post that's drenched in pro-Russian propoganda that I draw parrallels to something that would come out of Rush Limbagh or Glenn Beck.
1) Except they didn't outlaw the Russian language. Someone proposed the bill and it got vetoed. But hey, you could twist that to be a major slight against the ethnic Russians.
2) You "side with Crimea and Russia?" Whoa dude. Whoa. While I'd LOVE to see a real actual vote by the people (or even their representative) about what they want to do, I'm not really sure I can trust the Crimean parliment because of all the armed foreign troops deciding who gets to go in and vote.
3) You are desperately trying to spin it that the Russians are helping the suppressed Crimean people. No dude. Just no.
Yeah, this is the sort of nationalistic bullshit which scares me. It's not so bad when the bad guy spews bullshit. But when he gets true believers that eat it up, you've got a bad situation where people get stupid and start launching things at each other.
Hey, if they really want to be Russian again, good for them. But the Russians troops would have to stop holding a gun to their head before I trusted anything come out of the region.
I have regular access to both Russian and American news sources. I am an American, and most people would consider me a rather hawkish conservative. But I do have a Russian wife, and many of my closest friends are Russian or Ukrainian.
I have no love for Putin.
But the situation in Ukraine is *not* what you think it is if you're following the US media. It may be that Russian influence is causing problems in Crimea, but you should also know that that portion of the country is hugely ethnic Russian, and strongly in favor of Russian rule.
Furthermore, the new Ukrainian "government" has really staged a revolution, and hardly can be said to have popular backing. The leaders of the new government are a bunch of thugs, with *strong* ties to neo-Nazi fascism and came to power through violent means.
The old government in Kiev was corrupt, and needed to go. The president had signed an agreement and a plan was in place for an orderly transition to a more democratic government. The "revolutionaries" couldn't wait for the indicated time, and basically jumped the gun with a coup. Putin is right in that regard.
While I wish Russia would stay out of it, and I am not really sure that Russian "sympathesizers" in Crimea don't have official backing from Russia, I can also see the point of wanting to inject some stability in a region where there are both cultural ties and geopolitical considerations for Russian security.
The best thing would be if everyone would back off a bit, and an formal vote -- with international observers from both the West and Russia -- were held. My guess is that there are actually a couple of votes needed. One to elect a new government (or possibly confirm the existing one, transforming it from an "illegal" government formed by forceful coup into one that is democratically elected), and possibly one for Crimea to determine its fate as either a part of Ukraine, a part of Russia, or possibly as an entirely new state.
I have never been more angry with US media than I have with their handling of this Ukrainian situation. Their handling is extremely biased, to the point of completely yellow journalism. I highly recommend paying attention to other sources. The Russian media is of course hardly objective -- it is state controlled after all, and you can't watch Russian news without seeing Putin on screen talking at least 30% of the time (I think Putin secretly wanted to be a TV star). But, I've found information made available via BBC to be far more objective, and trustworthy, at least in this matter, than our local American media.
Do the research, and try to get the facts. Do not trust US media to give it to you clearly. I don't understand the reasons for the bias, but I guess a combination of post-Soviet bias combined with the fact that "bad" news sells, and what could be worse news than a highly aggressive Russia threatening Europe?
They knew damn well that they are not going to win alone. They were pinning down and bleeding majority of German army waiting for French and British forces to roll in from west. Maybe WW2 would be over in several months if only supposed allies had guts and basic decency to honour their obligations.
Contrary to your propaganda I think there is actually significant doubt as to whether he has violated international laws.
Well, soldiers operating without proper identification is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its subsequent modifications(the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977."). For example, from Article 37:
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
[...]
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status;
Also the use of the Night Wolves violates article 43:
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
Wait, how and when did Crimea become "Russian" anyway? Oh yea, when Stalin kicked the Tatars out and moved the Russians in.
It's SEMI-autonomous which reflects the fact that historically it hasn't been either Russian or Ukrainian for long periods of time.
As for racist assholes, I think you're believing too much of Putin's propaganda about nazis and fascists, which were only a small part of the protests and government. As for removing Russian as an official language (hardly "outlawing" it) that was indeed provocative, and intended to poke a finger, but is it really racist? Given that Tymoschenko herself is a native Russian speaker from a Russian speaking town in eastern Ukraine who is a very prominent figure in the anti-Yanukovych camp, so is she racist or a Russian traitor or...?
If Crimea wants to leave, then a legal referendum could help with that. However the current one is not. You may argue that the "coup" wasn't legal but that doesn't mean Russia gets to pick and choose with breaking of laws is allowed (those in its favor) and which can not (those opposed to Russia). Having only 10 days to set up and hold and election by itself is a ridiculous farce. Given the presence of foreign troops, with citizens being blockaded within their barracks, hospitals being overrun by troops, journalists being hassled, houses of Tatars being marked specially with paint, there is no possible way this will be a free and fair election.
It's not posturing, Russia has legitimate interests in the Ukraine such as a warm Water naval base, several natural gas pipelines and I could easily see how Russia would use military force to protect those interests from outside interlopers. Unfortunately using military force to protect those interests from the host nation is going to require a level of brinkmanship that is likely to be beyond even a former KGB Colonel's.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Yes, I do realize that. The problem is that Russian has two distinct words denoting Russian ethnicity/self-identification ("russkiy") and citizenship ("rossiyanin") which does not exist in English. The soldiers in the videos use the word that denotes citizenship. Not to mention various other slip ups (some have even named the place of origin where their units are normally stationed; heck, there was one guy from Pskov VDV who was openly wearing a cap with it inscribed!).
Anyway, at this point, believing that tens of thousands of troops, all dressed in brand spanking new Russian digital camo (which was only adopted a few years before and not used by any other ex-Soviet republic), carrying the best gear that Russian army has at its disposal (Pecheneg, AS Val etc), and riding around on BTRs with Russian flag colors on the tips of their exhausts, are some kind of "spontaneously organized local self defense force" requires going so far beyond Occam's razor that it's not even funny. Anyone who seriously believes that there are no Russian troops in Crimea is either not familiar with the facts, or plainly retarded, or is intentionally misrepresenting the issue.
Many of those countries broke away too, and were only subject nations for a relatively short period of time (ie, the passed back and forth over time as the history of European wars went on). At the time of WWI, Soviet control of those countries was relatively weak as they had their own internal problems to finish sorting through, and in WWII most of those countries had been considered independent. USSR took the opportunity to claim some of countries after the war as its own.
The Baltic nations (or the land under them) had been part of Swedish empire for as long as they were a part of the Czarist Russian empire, so they were never really Russian any more than they were Swedish. Whenever they got a chance to get away from Russia or USSR they did so.
And yes, many of those countries did some minor allying with Germany during WWII, often grudgingly, but this was because they feared Stalin more than Hitler, because they remembered their bad history with Russia but Germany was an unknown. But Russia used this as a context for taking over the countries and subsequently punishing them (ie, the Tatars were kicked out of Crimea as punishment for alleged collaboration with Nazis).
Russian foreign minister Lavrov has accused Ukraine of violating treatries by not allowing in Russian citizens. So it seems to ignore the treaties on one hand but complains when the other side isn't abiding by them...
(Sort of a silly argument by Lavrov, given that there's effectively an existing state of occupation by either Russian soldiers or pro-Russian separatist militants, so Ukraine would have to be really really stupid to let in even more Russian citizens to undermine the state.)
I'm not so sure about the coup. Because it really is not clear. First off, you can not trust one word that Yanukovych says, period. He basically engineered his own election by many accounts; of course whether that is true or not is debatable as well. Second, he was losing badly in negotiations when many of his MP allies were deserting. Third, he left quickly which surprised many in government. Yes things didn't follow all the rules (the rules were written to give president most of the power and to make sure parliament couldn't mess this up).
My theory is that he knew the end was coming. If he lost the elections later in the year (almost certain to happen) he'd have been exposed to a lot of recrimination and prosecution for various misdeeds (all that missing money). So he cut and ran. He wasn't going to stick around for an impeachment.
The constitution is a piece of paper. There is theory versus practice: the theory is the constitution, and the practice is what actually happens on the ground. The parliament reverted to an earlier constitution from last decade. Which is more legitimate than the other? The one he got rid of in order to consolidate more power or the one he replaced it with? Yes at one point there were enough parliamentary votes to bring in the new constitution that is true.
Yanukovych was not the entirety of the government. He has no authority to ask Russians to invade on his behalf. Even if he was still in office he did not have that power as a single person, even with the greatly expanded presidential powers that were added to the constitution while he was there. What he says now is irrelevant. You either assume the current government is legitimate or illegitimate, Yanukovych is out of the picture.
So maybe it was a coup. So what? It gives no extra power to Putin, except an excuse to use his military (I say "his" purposely, most people in his government appear to be his assistants rather than his limits to power). A coup gives no extra legitimacy to Yanukovych either.
Some part of the Crimea wants the Russians out of there too. There is no basis in any treaties for Russia to put troops outside their bases and surrounding zones in Crimea, the treaties are clear where the boundaries are. Going all the way up to the gates of Ukrainian military bases are most certainly not allowed in the treaties. It's clear that this will end badly. Tatar houses are being marked with the same symbol that Stalin used before deporting them, as an attempt by some people there to intimidate the minorities. No way are these pro-Russian fascists going to be singing kumbaya with their former neighbors (yes, people on both sides can be fascist), there are signs this could play out like the breakup of Yugoslavia.
None of what you say is news to me and I'm also not basing any of my assessments on any US media, because they total shit. (Well, I do sometimes take a glimpse at the NY times web pages which are not too bad.) I'm also not from the US.
It is an undeniable fact that Putin is about to annex Crimea in violation all treaties with Ukraine and international public law. It is also a fact that Russia has no track record of protecting minorities in their own country, in fact they suppress them brutally and Moscow's streets are roaming with all kinds of thugs and Neo-Nazis. Putins alleged "reasons" for protecting the Russian speaking population of Ukraine are ridiculous and entirely made up. Moreover, it is a fact that Crimea was occupied by foreign enemy forces and you must be a complete moron if you think that about 16000 to 30000 "pro-Russian self-defense forces" suddenly emerged from the Crimean population, incuding Russian military trucks, Russian combat fatigues, Russian arms and specialized Spetznaz equipment.
The way you depict the political situation is also not quite right. You've fallen prey to propaganda in Russian media, which works even if you think it doesn't (like advertisement). Everybody knows that about 60% of the population on Crimea speaks Russian, but doesn't mean that they want to join Russia. In any case a referendum is staged and meaningless, even the decisions of the Crimean parliament are not worth the paper they are printed on as long as it is occupied and controlled by Russian troops. It's not as if Russia had free elections, it is essentially a dictatorship run by cleptocrats and former KGB officers.
You also seriously underestimate Putins efforts if you think all those "pro Russia" cheers are honest expression of feelings. He can literally spend billions of dollars on the Crim to assure the right outcome and will still make a bargain. Perhaps there is a slight real majority for becoming a part of Russia there. We will never know because the whole situation and the referendum has has "FSB" written all over in huge letters. Until now the situation was halfway decent but it's getting uglier each day. The Ukrainean minority on the Crimean peninsula is already starting to suffer and it's also not so easy to flee.
You are right if you think that Putin has no partical interest in the Crimea per se, though. All he wants is to keep the Black Sea Fleet were it is, access to the ports and consequently keep Ukraine out of Nato, and he will do anything to ensure that, even if it means that he has to invade Ukraine as a whole and install another puppet regime there. The people in Kiev know that, of course, and that they would loose any direct confrontation, hence the restrained reaction. That being said, he is right in one thing: The Svoboda party is a bunch of Nazi thugs. But as mentioned before, it's not as if there weren't any Nazis in the Duma ...