Ukraine to join NATO

[Illuminatus Primus]

The idea that Russia can somehow coerce EU to do it's bidding strikes me as questionable at best. The door swings both ways: EU needs a seller and Russia needs a buyer. Besides how come Canada can't pressure USA over anything?

You can't refuse to buy heating oil in the winter, numbnuts. This is like saying PO isn't a problem because we're buyers, they're sellers. Its the exact same logic.

[Kane Starkiller]

You can't refuse to buy heating oil in the winter, numbnuts. This is like saying PO isn't a problem because we're buyers, they're sellers. Its the exact same logic.

That's an excellent point. Now if you could just point to where I exactly suggested that EU should refuse to buy Russian oil.

[Crazy_Vasey]

You can't refuse to buy heating oil in the winter, numbnuts. This is like saying PO isn't a problem because we're buyers, they're sellers. Its the exact same logic.

In many parts of Europe the weather simply isn't extreme enough to make heating a matter of life or death for all but the very old, the very young, and the sickly. We could certainly minimise our purchases from them, if nothing else: it just requires the will to do so, which, admittedly, doesn't exist at this point in time. And, hey, come Peak Oil we're probably going cold whether we like it or not unless we're rich so might as well get used to it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The point is the buyer often (especially with NG which must be supplied over land by pipeline) has no choice but to go without it or undesirable or limited substitutes. However, the seller can just sell it to someone else, at worst they sell it for cheaper or they cannot sell quite as much. That's much different from just "having to go without" gas or dealing with substitutes. As Stas et al has described, Russian gas price hikes are nothing more than functions of the market; they have control of a high, inelastic demanded good therefore as demand rises the price does. Buyers don't buy simply because they're spoiled or as a fashion choice; goods aren't inelastic unless there are usually good reasons you have to buy it.

[Shroom Man 777]

In many parts of Europe the weather simply isn't extreme enough to make heating a matter of life or death for all but the very old, the very young, and the sickly. We could certainly minimise our purchases from them, if nothing else: it just requires the will to do so, which, admittedly, doesn't exist at this point in time. And, hey, come Peak Oil we're probably going cold whether we like it or not unless we're rich so might as well get used to it.

Why would Europe want to inconvenience its people and its economy? Just because Putin is a Bad Man? By that logic, Americans should be riding bicycles or trains because Saudi Arabia is even worse than Vladimir the Vampire Hunter.

[Crazy_Vasey]

Why would Europe want to inconvenience its people and its economy? Just because Putin is a Bad Man? By that logic, Americans should be riding bicycles or trains because Saudi Arabia is even worse than Vladimir the Vampire Hunter.

They don't and won't, obviously, unless something drastic comes to pass. Point is that we could largely live without one of their products if they pushed things too far, so they don't have an entirely free hand

[Kane Starkiller]

In 1954 the USSR applied for NATO. It wasn't let in because of course any peaceful initiative by the USSR is a dastardly ploy. Next year, Warsaw Pact was created.

Of course it was a dastardly ploy. Soviet Union had the entire Eastern Europe in the iron grip ever since the end of WW2. What is the exact date Soviet Union gave the other Warsaw Members an offer they can't refuse is completely irrelevant. The West and East were clearly adversarial, Soviet Union had it's back yard under complete control and then it wanted to enter the Western defense organization to water it down and bog down it's decision making process.

[Ma Deuce]

What is the exact date Soviet Union gave the other Warsaw Members an offer they can't refuse is completely irrelevant.

Besides, I was always under the impression that the Soviet Union created the Warsaw Pact as a direct response to West Germany joining NATO, not because they themselves were refused membership.

Besides, even though Stalin was dead by 1954, eight years of his assholery (including forcing the USSR's new vassal states to refuse Marshall Plan aid) had given the West little reason to trust the Soviet Union. Obviously the west was not completely blameless for the deep mutual mistrust that caused the Cold War, but the USSR's role in stoking this mistrust cannot be ignored either.

[Kane Starkiller]

The very notion that "creation" of the "pact" was anything more than printing a nice sounding contract, which the practically occupied states had no choice but to sign and which de facto changed nothing, is incorrect.
Thus "Warsaw Pact" cannot be a response to NATO since it basically existed before NATO regardless of not being given a name.
Finally any similarities between NATO and Warsaw Pact end in 1959 France which was not overrun by NATO tanks after breaking with NATO command.

[Vympel]

Putin hints at Ukraine being broken up

Putin Hints At Splitting Up Ukraine
The Moscow Times

President Vladimir Putin hinted at last week's NATO summit in Romania that Russia would work to break up Ukraine, should the former Soviet republic join the military alliance, Kommersant reported Monday.

Putin "lost his temper" at the NATO-Russia Council in Bucharest during Friday's discussions of Ukraine's bid to join NATO, Kommersant cited an unidentified foreign delegate to the summit as saying.

"Do you understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state!" Putin told U.S. President George W. Bush at the closed meeting, the diplomat told Kommersant.

After saying most of Ukraine's territory was "given away" by Russia, Putin said that if Ukraine joined NATO it would cease to exist as a state, the diplomat said.

Putin threatened to encourage the secession of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, where anti-NATO and pro-Moscow sentiment is strong, the diplomat said, Kommersant reported.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who accompanied Putin at the summit, said Monday he did not hear Putin's purported remarks about Ukraine and could not confirm the report.

Putin also offered broader economic cooperation with Georgia's separatist republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Tbilisi sought NATO approval for eventual membership in the alliance.

In a letter sent to the leaders of the breakaway provinces Thursday -- when NATO members were deciding whether to grant Membership Action Plans to Ukraine and Georgia -- Putin said Russia would move beyond symbolic declarations and offer real economic support to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Just days before the summit, Moscow officially lifted long-standing embargoes on trade, transportation and financial transactions with Abkhazia.

France, Germany and several other NATO members opposed putting Ukraine and Georgia on the path toward NATO to avoid provoking Russia, and the alliance postponed consideration of their eventual membership.

I can certainly see the Crimea reverting to Russia - for some bizarre reason Khruschev transferred it from the Russian SFSR to the Ukranian one in 1954 or something - without asking the population of Crimea

Eastern Ukraine would be a nice pick up for them too I'm sure - "we'll take Kharkov back thanks, *yoink*, our entire T-64 reserve just became viable again."

[K. A. Pital]

...for some bizarre reason Khruschev transferred it from the Russian SFSR to the Ukranian one in 1954 or something - without asking the population of Crimea

The reason?

Transferred to the Ukr.SSR as a token of friendship in 1954 on the Celebration of the 300 years of Pereyaslavl Rada.

Actually Khrushev did it for economic considerations mostly, back when the USSR was one, Krym did have more economic ties with Ukr.SSR than with R.S.F.S.R.

Considering the common economy, territorial proximity and close economic and cultural interaction between the Krym Region and Ukr.SSR [...]

This maintained until 1991 - in 1991, the Krym ran a referenda on to what state to belong, and 54% percent voted to remain in Ukraine.

Of course, later it changed when Ukraine suffered an industrial and economic collapse probably twice as bad as Russias, if not worse, and Krym's main revenue source became Russian tourists and Russian residents investing into the region.

A play of fate, I guess.

[Sidewinder]

Putin threatened to encourage the secession of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, where anti-NATO and pro-Moscow sentiment is strong, the diplomat said, Kommersant reported.

Putin also offered broader economic cooperation with Georgia's separatist republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Tbilisi sought NATO approval for eventual membership in the alliance.

I thought Putin wanted to DISCOURAGE Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO? Threatening to support separatists in those nations, i.e., to incite civil war, seems as productive as Bush trying to discourage Iran from developing nukes by threatening that nation, i.e., encouraging Ukraine and Georgia to go the OPPOSITE WAY of Russia's intentions.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Putin threatened to encourage the secession of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, where anti-NATO and pro-Moscow sentiment is strong, the diplomat said, Kommersant reported.

Putin also offered broader economic cooperation with Georgia's separatist republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Tbilisi sought NATO approval for eventual membership in the alliance.

I thought Putin wanted to DISCOURAGE Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO? Threatening to support separatists in those nations, i.e., to incite civil war, seems as productive as Bush trying to discourage Iran from developing nukes by threatening that nation, i.e., encouraging Ukraine and Georgia to go the OPPOSITE WAY of Russia's intentions.

Erm, do you honestly think the EU would want to get tangled in a conflict with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia? Also, do you think the governments of the two countries would like to get involved in a civil war that will surely tear their country asunder? And does the US want to get in a surely bloody conflict that could go potentially nuclear?

[Sidewinder]

Erm, do you honestly think the EU would want to get tangled in a conflict with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia?

No, but the OP suggests the US IS willing to come in conflict with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia. (One more reason to vote for Obama: he doesn't seem to want the US to get in a pissing contest with other nations, unlike Bush.)

Also, do you think the governments of the two countries would like to get involved in a civil war that will surely tear their country asunder?

Georgia ALREADY fought several civil wars to keep Ossetia and Abkhazia from seceding. See here and here.

And does the US want to get in a surely bloody conflict that could go potentially nuclear?

No, but Kaiser Wilhelm II didn't want Germany to get involved in a World War, either. Stupidity got the Second Reich committed in a war it could've avoided, and stupidity might get the US committed in a war on Russia, despite American political leaders' wishes.)

[Illuminatus Primus]

"Ukraine isn't even a state"? At least we don't just come out and say that about our neighbors. You hear that, Mike? Canada isn't a real state, unless you mean a U.S. State.