Ukraine War Thread

[Metahive]

If he wants to compare that to a similar situation in history that involved the Germans, the Wiedervereinigung is not what I would think of ...


*cough* Sudetenland *cough".

[Ahriman238]

Pro-Russia forces stormed the Ukrainian naval headquarters in the Crimean city of Sevastopol on Wednesday, according to an eyewitness account from an Associated Press photographer.


The photographer witnessed several hundred members of "self-defense" units take down the gate, enter the headquarters' premises, and raise the Russian flag.

A Reuters witness reported seeing three Russian flags flying above the base, as well as three armed men, possibly Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms, at the gate.

About a dozen Ukrainian servicemen were later pictured being led out of the base.

The reports come a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty with Crimean leaders to annex the Ukrainian peninsula.

Hours after the treaty was signed, the Ukrainian military said one of its servicemen was killed in an attack on one of its bases by pro-Russian forces in the regional capital Simferopol.

The Ukrainian military authorized its forces to use weapons to defend themselves following the attack.

However, Russian state-run news agency RIA Novosti cast doubt over the incident, saying the Ukrainian defense ministry had failed to identify the culprits and that the report had been "circulated" by foreign media.

Citing a Crimean news agency, it said that in fact it was a pro-Russia militiaman who had been shot dead by snipers "while searching for a group of unidentified gunmen" in the streets of Simferopol. Two others were injured, it said.

NBC News was not able to independently confirm that account.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- Alexander Smith

Sounds legit. Storming military bases totally counts as self-defense right?

[K. A. Pital]

There were of course no real options in the "referendum" since it was rigged from beginning to end and I find it mighty cynical to say that the crimean Russians will be better off in Russia than in a "failed" state like Ukraine when Russia has done its darndest to destabilize the Ukraine even further than it already was. Much can be said about the legitimacy of the crimean Russians to rejoin Russia, but the fact that Putin decided to achieve this via imperialist bullfuckery taints the whole process.

I don't understand why you use "failed" in quotes. There is absolutely no reason to do it now. Would you refer to Yugoslavia as a "failed" state, or a failed state? The latter, I think. And of course Russia wants to destroy Ukraine. None of this has any relation to whether Crimea would be better under Russia than under Ukraine. Russia may very well create a "paradise" in Crimea, washing it with money like Sochi, especially now that it's a question of prestige, and at the same time utterly annihilate Ukraine's economy. The United States helped Puerto Rico industrialize, but maintained a multi-decade embargo against Cuba. Different territories - different objectives.

That is like calling Hitler's attack on the USSR a correct use of the right to national self defence.

Saying the vote is rigged is a valid objection. Bringing up a German attack on Russia which resulted in the direct genocide of 15 million people is, however, just emotional reactions.

Or bribed or enticed by Russia.

Are you Putin's mirror? Cause I remember he just said that the nationalists and nazis in the Maidan were paid to by... tadam... the West! I mean, seriously. One can sponsor a rebellion, but people have to walk the last mile themselves.

Also, Putin's argument of "we gave it away 50 years ago and were wrong in doing so, so we can take it back" is beyond bizarre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_India ... ion_of_Goa

I don't think anyone cares that much if it's 50 years or 200 years. Or, frankly, 1000 years in case of Kosovo. You have the power to take something, you take it. International relations are a rule of force, and I said it before - legalism will never be able to stop such events from happening because the whole set-up is rigged towards the UNSC members. Russia can do shit with Crimea, the US can support Indonesian genocide in East Timor or even directly invade Iraq, and so on and so forth.

There's simply no other way than to say "powers in the UNSC can capture territories from weaker nations and nothing will ever happen". Don't like it? Argue for the abolition of the UNSC, perhaps that will teach major powers not to mess with smaller countries.

[fgalkin]

http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/19/ukra ... oboda-mps/

The head of Ukraine’s state TV company has been attacked by at least three MPs from the far-right Svoboda party and forced to resign.

Members of Svoboda barged their way into the offices of Aleksandr Panteleymonov, the acting president of the National Television Company of Ukraine on Tuesday night.

They were angry that public broadcaster, First National Channel, had broadcast the Russian Parliament signing a treaty with Crimea on Tuesday.

Yelling and beating Panteleymonov around the head, the men accused him of serving Putin, while there were Ukrainians “dying at the hands of Russian occupiers” and called him “Moscow trash.”

They then forced him to sign a letter of resignation.

Ironically, one of the men involved in the assault was the deputy head of Ukraine’s committee on freedom of speech.

Members of the Svoboda party filmed the attack and then posted it online.

Ukraine’s prime minister has condemned the incident calling it “unacceptable for a democratic society.”

National Television Company (NTU) is state-run and operates Ukraine’s largest public broadcaster, First National Channel.

During the Maidan anti-government protests, Panteleymonov, who ran First National Channel, was seen by many Ukrainians as pro-Yanukovych and biased in his coverage.

The Svoboda party currently has around 40 members of parliament.

Copyright © 2014 euronews

Svoboda has no power in the Ukraine! It is all Russian propaganda! Those are all Russian plants! [/Thanas]

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Mange]

http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/19/ukra ... oboda-mps/

The head of Ukraine’s state TV company has been attacked by at least three MPs from the far-right Svoboda party and forced to resign.

Members of Svoboda barged their way into the offices of Aleksandr Panteleymonov, the acting president of the National Television Company of Ukraine on Tuesday night.

They were angry that public broadcaster, First National Channel, had broadcast the Russian Parliament signing a treaty with Crimea on Tuesday.

Yelling and beating Panteleymonov around the head, the men accused him of serving Putin, while there were Ukrainians “dying at the hands of Russian occupiers” and called him “Moscow trash.”

They then forced him to sign a letter of resignation.

Ironically, one of the men involved in the assault was the deputy head of Ukraine’s committee on freedom of speech.

Members of the Svoboda party filmed the attack and then posted it online.

Ukraine’s prime minister has condemned the incident calling it “unacceptable for a democratic society.”

National Television Company (NTU) is state-run and operates Ukraine’s largest public broadcaster, First National Channel.

During the Maidan anti-government protests, Panteleymonov, who ran First National Channel, was seen by many Ukrainians as pro-Yanukovych and biased in his coverage.

The Svoboda party currently has around 40 members of parliament.

Copyright © 2014 euronews

Svoboda has no power in the Ukraine! It is all Russian propaganda! Those are all Russian plants! [/Thanas]

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

No-one has denied that Svoboda is in the government, but this is a police matter and it has been condemned by the Ukrainian Prime Minister. You should then also complain about the Chetniks and Cossacks in Crimea, but I haven't heard anything...

[fgalkin]

Chetniks and Cossacks are not Member of Parliament Committe on Free Speech. These men were.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

Chetniks and Cossacks are not Member of Parliament Committe on Free Speech. These men were.

Oh of course, that makes everything better.

[fgalkin]

Chetniks and Cossacks are not Member of Parliament Committe on Free Speech. These men were.

Oh of course, that makes everything better.

Again, it seems that you see no difference between street thugs and members of government?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Zaune]

Well, a certain amount of overlap isn't altogether unheard of.

[Thanas]

Again, it seems that you see no difference between street thugs and members of government?

Oh, you mean like the Russians who installed a known mobster in crimea? Yeah, so much difference.

[Mange]

Of course they do... Today Crimea, Narva tomorrow?

Reuters by Yahoo! News: Moscow signals concern for Russians in Estonia

[K. A. Pital]

Again, it seems that you see no difference between street thugs and members of government?

Oh, you mean like the Russians who installed a known mobster in crimea? Yeah, so much difference.

Repeating a lie does not make the lie a truth, Thanas. The leader of Crimea is no mobster and has never been. You have fallen victim to the cheapest propaganda trick. The whole story is a duck, number of the 'case' is false and everything else about it is just made up smear campaing shir.

[Pelranius]

Of course they do... Today Crimea, Narva tomorrow?

Reuters by Yahoo! News: Moscow signals concern for Russians in Estonia

I'll worry if they keep on repeating it.

[The Romulan Republic]

If they keep doing it, its probably a matter of time until World War III.

[Vympel]

EDIT: Oh wow, Putin apparently thinks this is the same situation as German reunification. How delusional can one get?

His description of what happened in relation to Crimea, Russia and Ukraine given the break up of the USSR is accurate. Its an irrelevant fig leaf for the pursuit of strategic interests, but its accurate.

The entire speech is one lol to another. If he would not be the head of Russia, one would think this to be a raving lunatic on the level of UKIP. The Orwellian doublespeak is great.

I think you're overstating things big time there. Its pretty boilerplate ethnonationalist stuff. With the exception of this:

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

Which no reasonable person can possibly argue with, IMO. The best propaganda speeches have elements of truth, after all. He's hoisting them by their own petard.

[TheHammer]

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

Which no reasonable person can possibly argue with, IMO. The best propaganda speeches have elements of truth, after all. He's hoisting them by their own petard.

The key problem here, is that Russia moved troops in prior to the independence vote. If you invade and occupy a region militarily, and then have a "vote" to legitimize that occupation, its not going to be viewed in the same light as a vote for independence. Regardless of whether the end result would have been the same, it leaves the door open for everyone in the outside world to say that the vote was rigged by the invading power. If support for reunification was so overwhelming, it begs the question as to why Russia felt the need to send in troops without allowing a "free and fair" vote to first take place.

[Lord MJ]

Hard to justify Western involvement when the Ukrainians didn't even mount even a token attempt to resist the invasion of Crimea. I mean, Ukraine's military is no match for Russia, but if I understand it, it's not completely impotent either.

It's too late now since the Russians have solidified their positions and "formally" annexed Crimea. But when the first inkling of Russian troops being in Crimea emerged, couldn't have the Ukrainians sent in their forces to at least try to defend their territory? If a foreign power invades your territory, the people there in theory support joining the foreign power, and you make zero effort to resist the incursion, you pretty much rule out other countries sticking their necks out on your behalf.

[Thanas]

Which no reasonable person can possibly argue with, IMO.

Of course everyone can argue with that. For one, Kosovo was not a landgrab by the west.

[Thanas]

So now Russia is seizing the warships of the Ukrainian navy.

I bet they found some Russian poodle which was threatened to legitimize that lawful intervention.

[Tanasinn]

Ukraine's military has been borderline-impotent since they surrendered their considerable nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees of territorial integrity. Gee, that worked well.

A Ukrainian military resistance to the invasion of Crimea would be a 100% guaranteed failure. Even assuming you could commit your soldiery to commit mass suicide, you then legitimize further invasions of your territory by a belligerent that can easily overwhelm you.

[TheHammer]

So now Russia is seizing the warships of the Ukrainian navy.

I bet they found some Russian poodle which was threatened to legitimize that lawful intervention.

Has the Ukrainian Military been ordered to surrender in every case without firing a shot? It seems that's all they've done as these assets are seized.

[Lord MJ]

In that case, it's a question of whether it's an issue for the US/West. In one aspect, this is all in Russia's backyard, and doesn't affect the west at all. On the other hand, any increase in Russian power means a relative decline in western power, which is a western concern.

As far as do I believe Romney's statement that Russia is the number one geopolitical foe of the US. I don't because these are matters within the Russian backyard, and Russia hasn't demonstrated any ability to even compete with the US on the global stage. If they started more actively backing Iran/Syria, and opposing the US in more global affairs, that assessment could change. It also depends just how active the US wants to be in world affairs anymore. I think the majority of Americans would actually prefer to go back to the pre - WWII levels of engagement. The last 12 years of American international adventurism have soured people on American engagement in the world.

That said, however if Russia tries to invade all of Ukraine or other former Soviet states, and Russia feels free to invade other countries because of the belief that the west is too afraid to take them on with conventional military forces because of fear of it escalating to a Nuclear exchange, they need to be reminded that the US still has teeth, even though our days as the global hegemon are over. Alas, I don't think Obama has the fortitude to play that game, and I don't trust anyone in the GOP to be level headed enough to play that game either.

[TheHammer]

In that case, it's a question of whether it's an issue for the US/West. In one aspect, this is all in Russia's backyard, and doesn't affect the west at all. On the other hand, any increase in Russian power means a relative decline in western power, which is a western concern.

As far as do I believe Romney's statement that Russia is the number one geopolitical foe of the US. I don't because these are matters within the Russian backyard, and Russia hasn't demonstrated any ability to even compete with the US on the global stage. If they started more actively backing Iran/Syria, and opposing the US in more global affairs, that assessment could change. It also depends just how active the US wants to be in world affairs anymore. I think the majority of Americans would actually prefer to go back to the pre - WWII levels of engagement. The last 12 years of American international adventurism have soured people on American engagement in the world.

That said, however if Russia tries to invade all of Ukraine or other former Soviet states, and Russia feels free to invade other countries because of the belief that the west is too afraid to take them on with conventional military forces because of fear of it escalating to a Nuclear exchange, they need to be reminded that the US still has teeth, even though our days as the global hegemon are over. Alas, I don't think Obama has the fortitude to play that game, and I don't trust anyone in the GOP to be level headed enough to play that game either.

I think the key point here is, why should the US and Europe really care about Crimea specifically enough to engage in military intervention? As you noted earlier, it doesn't seem that even Ukraine feels that Crimea is worth fighting for, so why should anyone else?

It seems to me that Ukraine had a potential opportunity to pursue membership in NATO and decided not to do so. Makes it kind of hard to therefore justify rushing to their defense militarily for a region that already was semi-autonomous, and historically Russian. Now, should Russia actually push further into Ukraine, the Hitler parallels would only further be reinforced in the media and public support would likely start tilting towards military intervention. I also think Putin and Russia know that.

The right wingers in this country are trying to paint Obama as being "timid" because of the US response to this being diplomatic, but their holy Reagan didn't advocate direct military intervention when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. If push comes to shove with Ukraine, Obama has the balls to commit military assets, but he wasn't going to do it over Crimea.

[Lord MJ]

Military intervention over Crimea, most definitely not, since Ukraine has pretty much already conceded Crimea. There is the larger geopolitical question about rising Russian power and asserting itself, and thus the relative decline of the west, but that is longer term issue and an inevitable one, Russia was not going to stay down forever, and the west had no reasonable expectation that Russia staying down forever.

What would change the calculus however is if Russia starts asserting itself, by invading former Soviet republics to bring them into it's sphere of influence. That would change the west's decision calculus most certainly.

[Thanas]

The only nations they can invade are those that foolishly believed Russia would honor things they promised (like "territorial integrity of the Ukraine" but it is Russia, so they should instead have kept their nukes and went into Nato ASAP) and who are not members of NATO and/or the EU. Not a lot of those nations left.

But you will probably see the West step up their support of nations like Georgia and Moldova etc. Hopefully the EU and Nato offer further expansion eastwards to all who are willing to come (and who are willing to adapt, but the latter requirement might be waived in face of Russia's actions. For Russia cannot be trusted and needs to be contained).

As to what will happen right now - probably nothing. Russia is in a position that is way too strong for Ukraine to handle and the west cannot wage a war against Russia.