What Happened in the Ukraine?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]magick wrote:
Is there any significant economic or political ties between Russia and Crimea that causes Russia to consider Crimea important enough to outright invade on a flimsy rationale?

Besides the whole “Crimea gives Russia access to the Black Sea” and “Russia has a big-ass naval base in Crimea”.[/quote]

First, we have not invaded. Our treaty with Ukraine allows us to deploy up to 25,000 ground troops with armored support vehicles and such in order to protect our interests, with very broad provisions as to the actions those troops can take. Even the highest estimates put the number of troops we have in the Crimea at less than that so there is no volition of our treaty or international law.

Second, with the situation the way things are in Ukraine, do you not see the need for Russia to not only secure a very important strategic base but also protect the many Russians living in the area? Allow me to offer an example. Say there are a group of Americans living in a foreign country in a concentrated area, we will call this area a consulate with the head of it called the Ambassador. Say there is also an important American military/paramilitary group located there too. Now, say there is evidence of unrest and impending violence in the area. Do you not think that America should increase its military presence in order to protect it’s citizens and military interests there, despite what the international community may think?

82

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
Is there any significant economic or political ties between Russia and Crimea that causes Russia to consider Crimea important enough to outright invade on a flimsy rationale?

Besides the whole “Crimea gives Russia access to the Black Sea” and “Russia has a big-ass naval base in Crimea”.[/quote]

First, we have not invaded. Our treaty with Ukraine allows us to deploy up to 25,000 ground troops with armored support vehicles and such in order to protect our interests, with very broad provisions as to the actions those troops can take. Even the highest estimates put the number of troops we have in the Crimea at less than that so there is no volition of our treaty or international law.

Second, with the situation the way things are in Ukraine, do you not see the need for Russia to not only secure a very important strategic base but also protect the many Russians living in the area? Allow me to offer an example. Say there are a group of Americans living in a foreign country in a concentrated area, we will call this area a consulate with the head of it called the Ambassador. Say there is also an important American military/paramilitary group located there too. Now, say there is evidence of unrest and impending violence in the area. Do you not think that America should increase its military presence in order to protect it’s citizens and military interests there, despite what the international community may think?[/quote]

But there is not evidence–none that I have seen at least–that ethnic Russians in Crimea and East Ukraine have been threatened in the last 4 months. The violence of Maidan did not seem to be generalized, either in the West, and certainly not in the East.
Do you not think that this incursion itself would be enough to awaken resentment (among Tatars, or eastern Ukrainians) of Russians? It seems if Moscow were concerned with the welfare of ethnic Russians, they would not want to provoke a civil action…or perhaps that is the true purpose.

83

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

But there is not evidence–none that I have seen at least–that ethnic Russians in Crimea and East Ukraine have been threatened in the last 4 months. The violence of Maidan did not seem to be generalized, either in the West, and certainly not in the East.
Do you not think that this incursion itself would be enough to awaken resentment (among Tatars, or eastern Ukrainians) of Russians? It seems if Moscow were concerned with the welfare of ethnic Russians, they would not want to provoke a civil action…or perhaps that is the true purpose.
[/quote]

It does not matter if ethnic Russians are specifically targets or not, a civil war in Ukraine will result in the deaths of Russians no matter what. Also, given the hyper nationalistic nature of EuroMaiden do you really think that in the case of full blown civil war, they will not try to take over the naval base we have there? No, the strong presence and tactics employed by Putin are meant to send a clear message to the Ukrainians: we will protect our own and our interests no matter what. That alone should help keep the situation mostly under control. After all, most Ukrainians (including EuroMaiden) do not want Russia occupying Ukraine and we do not want to occupy Ukraine, otherwise we would have. After all, we were invited by a legitimate Head of State to intervene. It would be very expensive on our part and we really have no interest in annexing Ukraine at this point. It would just be a drain on our resources right now.

84

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
Is there any significant economic or political ties between Russia and Crimea that causes Russia to consider Crimea important enough to outright invade on a flimsy rationale?

Besides the whole “Crimea gives Russia access to the Black Sea” and “Russia has a big-ass naval base in Crimea”.[/quote]

First, we have not invaded. Our treaty with Ukraine allows us to deploy up to 25,000 ground troops with armored support vehicles and such in order to protect our interests, with very broad provisions as to the actions those troops can take. Even the highest estimates put the number of troops we have in the Crimea at less than that so there is no volition of our treaty or international law.

Second, with the situation the way things are in Ukraine, do you not see the need for Russia to not only secure a very important strategic base but also protect the many Russians living in the area? Allow me to offer an example. Say there are a group of Americans living in a foreign country in a concentrated area, we will call this area a consulate with the head of it called the Ambassador. Say there is also an important American military/paramilitary group located there too. Now, say there is evidence of unrest and impending violence in the area. Do you not think that America should increase its military presence in order to protect it’s citizens and military interests there, despite what the international community may think?[/quote]

Nah. Here in the states we let the embassy get ripped to shreds and lose good people.

Then cover it up, obfuscate, and even lie before congress. What ever it takes to be absolved of guilt or charges of wrong doing.

85

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
Is there any significant economic or political ties between Russia and Crimea that causes Russia to consider Crimea important enough to outright invade on a flimsy rationale?

Besides the whole “Crimea gives Russia access to the Black Sea” and “Russia has a big-ass naval base in Crimea”.[/quote]

First, we have not invaded. Our treaty with Ukraine allows us to deploy up to 25,000 ground troops with armored support vehicles and such in order to protect our interests, with very broad provisions as to the actions those troops can take. Even the highest estimates put the number of troops we have in the Crimea at less than that so there is no volition of our treaty or international law.

Second, with the situation the way things are in Ukraine, do you not see the need for Russia to not only secure a very important strategic base but also protect the many Russians living in the area? Allow me to offer an example. Say there are a group of Americans living in a foreign country in a concentrated area, we will call this area a consulate with the head of it called the Ambassador. Say there is also an important American military/paramilitary group located there too. Now, say there is evidence of unrest and impending violence in the area. Do you not think that America should increase its military presence in order to protect it’s citizens and military interests there, despite what the international community may think?[/quote]

Nah. Here in the states we let the embassy get ripped to shreds and lose good people.

Then cover it up, obfuscate, and even lie before congress. What ever it takes to be absolved of guilt or charges of wrong doing.
[/quote]

Hey, it is not our fault we have a strong, intelligent leader.

87

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I do not think Putin wants to disrupt the oil lines. He needs them for his country’s economic stability as the EU is his largest customer. [/quote]

I don’t think he wants it disrupted either and is largely why he is there. But at the same time, wtf is Europe going to do? Not buy it? lol.

Putin is certainly in the position of power here, weak economics or not. It isn’t like the rest of the global economy is booming, so the disruption in flow of Russian gas and oil to Europe will cause shockwaves globally.

The west can try and put economic pressure on him, but he also controls a very big proverbial “light switch” too.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the international community is perfectly okay with posturing and bloviating in newspapers to keep this at a relative stale mate until spring/summer.[/quote]

I’ve been thinking there’s a lot of stalling too. And from my perspective, that’s a good thing.

I’m curious how the house will respond the sanctions and whatnot that Obama’s moving through congress.

I absolutely hate how the media here is is actually putting up images of the two staring each other down and the coverage as a whole making it out to be Obama vs Putin, freedom vs tyranny, when it’s really so much more nuanced.

90

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The raid on OBL’s compound was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

[/quote]

I don’t buy this either.
[/quote]

Well, it’s his word against yours. He certainly means it.[/quote]

While obviously any opinion other than his, or any suggestion that his description may have a touch of dramatization to sell a book is pure speculation, we are talking about POTUS here.

I just don’t see any individual with the will to power to become POTUS or the cunning political mind, presence and ambition to be re-elected in the proverbial shithole that is American election cycles passing up this opportunity.

There is very little down side for being wrong compared to the upside of being right. I can’t imagine there would be any speculation Bush wouldn’t have also given it the green light, or Clinton before him.

92

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

But there is not evidence–none that I have seen at least–that ethnic Russians in Crimea and East Ukraine have been threatened in the last 4 months. The violence of Maidan did not seem to be generalized, either in the West, and certainly not in the East.
Do you not think that this incursion itself would be enough to awaken resentment (among Tatars, or eastern Ukrainians) of Russians? It seems if Moscow were concerned with the welfare of ethnic Russians, they would not want to provoke a civil action…or perhaps that is the true purpose.
[/quote]

It does not matter if ethnic Russians are specifically targets or not, a civil war in Ukraine will result in the deaths of Russians no matter what. [/quote]
I am sorry, but I am missing something here…facts. It seems that the Russian Russians will have preciptiated a civil war through their invasion–and it is an invasion–in eastern Ukraine, a violent conflict which was not in prior existence. There was no demonstrable threat to the Russian ethnic community there.

Hypernational? I do believe you have more immediate information than I do, but that it may be biased. The right wing Ukrainians–and trust me, I know of them–were a minor component of the Maidan events. But in Crimea, the Russians put in a thug as provincial prime minister, a hypernational thug whose party garnered only 3% in the last general provincial elections. So a claim that the Kiev government overthrew a legitimately elected leader is hardly a defense given the Russian coup in Simferopol.

This is Sudetenland redux. What are Lithuanians, Latvians and Kazakhs to think of their Russian neighbors? Are they to be a fifth column in service to Moscow, whose ambitions are now clear to any impartial observer?

And with respect, I do appreciate your position in this matter.

93

“We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today?s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

Franklin Roosevelt? Jimmy Carter? Barack Obama?

No, one Vladimir Putin, in his op-ed piece in the New York Times, Sept 11, 2013.

I guess “international law” only applies to the US and its missteps in Syria, and never to Putin and Russian, anywhere, anytime.

94

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I do not think Putin wants to disrupt the oil lines. He needs them for his country’s economic stability as the EU is his largest customer. [/quote]

I don’t think he wants it disrupted either and is largely why he is there. But at the same time, wtf is Europe going to do? Not buy it? lol.

Putin is certainly in the position of power here, weak economics or not. It isn’t like the rest of the global economy is booming, so the disruption in flow of Russian gas and oil to Europe will cause shockwaves globally.

The west can try and put economic pressure on him, but he also controls a very big proverbial “light switch” too.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the international community is perfectly okay with posturing and bloviating in newspapers to keep this at a relative stale mate until spring/summer.[/quote]

I’ve been thinking there’s a lot of stalling too. And from my perspective, that’s a good thing.

I’m curious how the house will respond the sanctions and whatnot that Obama’s moving through congress.

I absolutely hate how the media here is is actually putting up images of the two staring each other down and the coverage as a whole making it out to be Obama vs Putin, freedom vs tyranny, when it’s really so much more nuanced. [/quote]

I feel like it is in everyone’s best interests for this to kind of linger just like it is now, at least until a Ukraine government can be reestablished. Which I assume will take at least into the summer to iron out the details and get things moving.

96

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I am sorry, but I am missing something here…facts. It seems that the Russian Russians will have preciptiated a civil war through their invasion–and it is an invasion–in eastern Ukraine, a violent conflict which was not in prior existence. There was no demonstrable threat to the Russian ethnic community there.[/quote]

No, an invasion would mean that Russian troops have either engaged the Ukrainian military forces, or seized control over the governmental functions, and was not allowed to be there. Our treaty with Ukraine that allows us to operate our base there also allows us to have up to 25,000 troops there to protect our interests. We have not exceeded the number of troops we are allowed to have, and we have not seized any Ukrainian territory.

Now, as to the threat to Russian lives and interests. How are they not threatened? The threat of civil war has been there since Yanukovych fled and the right wing nationalist started inciting EuroMaiden to more violent acts. It doesn’t even matter that the right wingers are a minority among the protestors. So were most of the right wing nationalist movements in the early 1900’s but remember how those turned out? Not too great for the ethnic minorities or “impure” people in those countries. By reacting strongly and decisively, we have sent the message to the EuroMaiden group and all of Ukraine that if things get out of hand we will step in and stop it. Imagine if someone had done that in Germany in the 1920’s. This will provide a great incentive to the more level headed majority among EuroMaiden to not follow along with the right-wing nationalists if and when they try to exert their influence.

[quote]
Hypernational? I do believe you have more immediate information than I do, but that it may be biased. The right wing Ukrainians–and trust me, I know of them–were a minor component of the Maidan events. But in Crimea, the Russians put in a thug as provincial prime minister, a hypernational thug whose party garnered only 3% in the last general provincial elections. So a claim that the Kiev government overthrew a legitimately elected leader is hardly a defense given the Russian coup in Simferopol. [/quote]

It doesn’t matter if the nationalists are a numerical minority, they are still behind the most violent portions of the protests, and it is in the nature of these types of people to incite violence. What we are doing with our heavy handed tactics is providing the more levelheaded elements of EuroMaiden with a very good reason to not get caught up in the right wing nationalist rhetoric. I think we are all very much aware of what happens historically when otherwise decent enough people get caught up in that kind of rhetoric.

As for the rest, that is all just conjecture. Aksyonov’s ascension to Prime Minister of Crimea is of course not legal, but what do you expect from a mobster like him, but there is no evidence that Russia is behind that or the airport.

[quote]
This is Sudetenland redux. What are Lithuanians, Latvians and Kazakhs to think of their Russian neighbors? Are they to be a fifth column in service to Moscow, whose ambitions are now clear to any impartial observer?

And with respect, I do appreciate your position in this matter.[/quote]

They will realize that we could annex Crimea right now and could have before any of this happened legally and without an invasion. Crimea is an autonomous state within Ukraine and as such, its parliament can vote to secede from Ukraine and there is and was enough support within Ukraine to do so many times in the past and now. We just plain do not need to stage coups and invasions. If we wanted Crimea, it would be ours but we are just getting over the disaster that was the Soviet Union and the depressions that followed it’s collapse. We are not looking to add territories that will only drain our resources and slow our growth.

We also could have annexed Georgia and Ossetia back in 2008, but we didn’t. We did not take any territory from Georgia at all, and we recognized Ossetia as an independent state. We still maintain a military presence there, yes, but at the request of the Ossetians. The bottom line is, the things we are being accused of doing make no sense at all when you look at the actions of Russia in recent years.

97

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I thought you were a US citizen, Matt. Was I mistaken?
[/quote]

No, I am a citizen of the United States of America, but I am also a citizen of the Russian Federation and was a citizen of the Soviet Union before that. Nothing can change the fact that I was born and raised in what is now Russia. The fact that I am a citizen of the US and Russia is what makes this situation really hard for me.

98

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
“We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today?s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

Franklin Roosevelt? Jimmy Carter? Barack Obama?

No, one Vladimir Putin, in his op-ed piece in the New York Times, Sept 11, 2013.

I guess “international law” only applies to the US and its missteps in Syria, and never to Putin and Russian, anywhere, anytime.
[/quote]

Exactly. Putin is asserting the right of the Russian Federation to use force to protect Russian within Ukraine in the event that violence breaks out. You will notice that, even though parliament has authorized the use of force, we have not done so. We will only do so if necessary to protect Russian lives and Russian interests, as well as Ukrainian lives.

99

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
“We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today?s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

Franklin Roosevelt? Jimmy Carter? Barack Obama?

No, one Vladimir Putin, in his op-ed piece in the New York Times, Sept 11, 2013.

I guess “international law” only applies to the US and its missteps in Syria, and never to Putin and Russian, anywhere, anytime.
[/quote]

Exactly. Putin is asserting the right of the Russian Federation to use force to protect Russian within Ukraine in the event that violence breaks out. You will notice that, even though parliament has authorized the use of force, we have not done so. We will only do so if necessary to protect Russian lives and Russian interests, as well as Ukrainian lives.
[/quote]

Look. No one has threatened ethnic Russian civilians–Ukrainian citizens, in large part–in Crimea prior to this week. You have bought the premise, whole and undiluted, without any tangible proof of a threat, now or in the future. (Show us the report of Ukrainian fascists surrounding the fleet in Sevastopol. It is not happening, it will not happen…or are you telling me that the Russian Parliament is so fearful of a fantasy.)

Second, Russian forces–in disguised uniform–have brandished weapons, surrounded the provincial parliament, demanded that Ukrainian forces abandon their bases and surrender their weapons. This is an invasion. Be proud of it, if you choose, but why disguise the intention?

Third, the presence of armed foreign–yes, foreign–forces on Ukrainian territory is unprovoked and can only serve to provoke the violence that the Russian parliament piously authorizes.

Were I to believe in the proffered reasons for this invasion, I would also believe that the vaunted Russian military could have waited for the first real threat, and closed off the entire peninsula in 6 hours. A “preemptory” invasion is entirely unwarranted here, and is only a pretext to an expanded presence and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. Every example you offer–South Ossetia, Georgia–is precedent, not a legitimation.

100

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Look. No one has threatened ethnic Russian civilians–Ukrainian citizens, in large part–in Crimea prior to this week. You have bought the premise, whole and undiluted, without any tangible proof of a threat, now or in the future. (Show us the report of Ukrainian fascists surrounding the fleet in Sevastopol. It is not happening, it will not happen…or are you telling me that the Russian Parliament is so fearful of a fantasy.) [/quote]

Again, it does not matter if anybody is specifically threatening ethnic Russians. The fact is that civil war in Ukraine is a very real possibility right now, and there is no denying that civil war in Ukraine threatens the lives of the millions of Russians living in the Ukraine.

No, people in unmarked military uniforms with equipment that can be found in large amounts in any part of the former Soviet Union have done these things. You do not have any more proof that these people are Russian military units than I do that they are not.

You keep overlooking the fact that the Russian military forces in Crimea are allowed the be there by the treaty we have with Ukraine allowing us to maintain our base there.

I have proffered no reasons for the supposed invasion of Crimea because we have not invaded Crimea. We do not need to invade Crimea. If we wanted Crimea, we could have kept it back in the 1950’s when we GAVE it to Ukraine peacefully, we could have taken it back at any time during the reign of the Soviet Union, we could have taken it back during the confusion of the fall of the Soviet Union, and there has been enough support within the Crimean Parliament pretty much every election cycle in the past 20 some odd years for Crimea to secede and rejoin Russia. There is just no need to use force to take it.