Did any agreements Russia strongarmed Ukraine's opposition into signing, include the right to order protesters shot without being charged or to secretly graft tens of millions for a personal Disneyland? If Russia feels that the Ukrainian parliament has suddenly become illegitimate or under the control of armed protesters, then why don't they push for new, internationally-monitored elections instead of sending in their stormtroopers and carving up the country a couple of weeks later?
I am no expert on Ukrainian law, however most democracies have a parliamentary process to remove chief executives who violate their oath of office and engage in criminal activities as was the case in the Ukraine. How do you know the Ukrainian parliament didn’t follow Ukrainian law? I assume the Ukrainian parliament followed their laws. They are the only recognized elected legal authority in the nation. Was it a coup? Webster’s defines “coup” thusly; “: a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act” If it was a coup, it doesn’t mean it was illegal. The arrest warrant was issued on February 24th and no one knew where Yanukovich was at the time. But I don’t think that is relevant to the discussion. http://www.npr.org/2014/02/24/281914834/arrest-warrant-issued-for-ukrainian-president-yanukovych
This weekend Russia will conduct a referendum on the annexation of Crimea. There are only two options on the ballot, direct annexation by Russia, or become a Russian vassal state. That is not much of a referendum. It's reminiscent of the old Soviet style ballots. And not surprisingly, Putin will not allow international vote monitors. So the world will just have to accept Putin's word about the results - not that it matters. More disturbingly, Russia is now moving troops close to the Eastern Ukrainian border in a move similar to what they did in the Crimea before they invaded under the cover of night. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if on Monday or shortly thereafter Putin announces the annexation of Crimea. And I wouldn't be too surprised to see those mysterious Russian trucks and troops on the Eastern Ukrainian border cross that border and invade and occupy the Eastern Ukraine within in days. I don't think Putin is fazed much by the prospect of economic sanctions - at least not now. After all, he is comfortably ensconced in his palatial dachas. He owns a country. He is a dictator. So why should he care? http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/ Since Putin invaded Crimea, the Russian stock market has plummeted. Russian interest rates have risen and will thwart economic development. I think those trends will continue as long as Putin remains in Crimea. http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/investing/russia-crimea-markets/ I don't think it's going to get really ugly in the coming days. But Putin needs to be stopped. This crap needs to end here and now.
And he won't be stopped just by slapping travel sanctions on his friends and freezing their Western assets. The people of Russia need to know that they will pay an intolerable price as long as this man runs their affairs and continues his present course of action. If that means the average Russian has to go on a calorie restricted diet before they figure out that Ukrainians have rights too, then so be it, let the fuckers starve while they enjoy their empire. Give it a couple of weeks to a month to see if the first round of sanctions moderates their behaviour, and if not, crush the life out of their freaking "economy" from top to bottom and see how they fare when they can't even afford to pay the poorly trained conscripts they count on for their own defense.
True, if I were a Russian oligarch, I would be real nervous right about now. Your fortune is at risk and you have a nutcase with his fingers on the nuclear buttons and becoming more tyrannical by the hour leading your country. According to Merkel, he is a nutcase. By all accounts he is antisocial, a loner. He recently divorced his wife. I don't think the guy is batting with a full deck. And that is scary. Additionally, I think he thinks the West is weak. Putin like dictators before him have confused the openness of the West with weakness. It's pretty obvious, he hasn't learned much from history. I think he thinks the West will be hurt by sanctions far more than he. And I think he will be in for a big surprise. He needs the money more than the West needs his natural gas. That Russian economy that has tripled since the fall of the Soviet Union will go right back to Soviet era size with the termination of trade with the West.
We may be experiencing some cultural dissonance here, I'm not sure. I took your use of "coup" to mean "coup d'état". I see them as the same thing. A coup d'état is an unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government. The vote to oust Yanukovych was unconstitutional as it didn't follow the procedures outlined in Articles 108 - 111 of the Ukrainian constitution. I was pointing out that even though the argument may be made for it being "legal", (I'm not sure how that works when it seems that the only reason that may be is because no laws have been made against what happened - that sounds a bit of a semantic argument), it wasn't constitutional. So the strict letter of the law wasn't followed and Putin has a case when he says it's not 'legitimate'. It's all moot of course. The government is recognised internationally and still doesn't give Putin the right to invade. I thought it was as it made it sound like he was running from the warrant. Also, how is Putin a dictator? That sounds like jingoism.
is having most of the world's nuclear power in a shooting war with each other really that great of idea?
Of course it isn't. But at what point do you stand up for yourself? Would you rather Putin ruled the world? When do you say no to Putin?
Lack of free speech and the right to protest, tight media controls, absurd levels of corruption, centralized concentration of power, the use of violence and murder to accomplish political goals. After all, even Hitler came to power by an electoral landslide, did he not?
That's Putin's argument, at any rate. I agree with you that it has some plausibility. So do the Western arguments against Russia's occupation and potential annexation of Crimea. But to my eyes at least, the kind of stuff being discussed here on Sciforums (and in most of the media) is mostly rhetorical smoke. What's really driving this is real-politik, nations' calculation of their own interests. That's certainly true in Russia's case. Moscow calculates that Ukraine is vital to Russian interests and that they can't just sit idly by and watch it drift westwards. And while the West is far more moralistic, it's seemingly in in the EU's interest to add a new nation the size of France to its own sphere of influence. So both sides try to craft rhetorical arguments in hopes of convincing everyone why all of the angels are aligned precisely with what (just coincidently) are their own interests. I still don't think that Putin is going to back down unless there's a change of government in Kiev that's seen in Moscow as being more Russo-philic. Currently, he's trying to pressure the Ukrainians in that direction. And so far, Kerry and company refuse to even contemplate that, continuing to treat the current Ukrainian government simply as a nonnegotiable given, and insisting that the only item remaining on the agenda is how Russia is going to back down in Crimea. Needless to say, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of diplomatic movement at the moment. My guess is that the Crimeans will vote for Russia on Sunday. (Whether or not the voting was fair will be disputed.) Putin is likely to remain silent about his intentions for a while after that, giving the results of the vote time to sink in. That's probably the next step as he ratchets up the pressure. It's predictable. There will be frenzied screeching in Washington and other Western capitals. A bigger wildcard is the Russian military movements near the border of mainland Ukraine. Some news reports have them very large. Earlier I saw reports of 80,000 troops, hundreds of armored vehicles and some 90 helicopters. But other reports have them relatively small. CNN today said they were about 8,000-10,000 troops. If the larger estimates are indeed the correct ones (I have no way of knowing), Russia may be contemplating moving its forces into the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk, Kharkiv and Dnepropetrovsk. Either that, or it's sending a message to Kiev that such a move is very much on the table and requires a concession in order for Moscow to call it off. The danger there is that if Russia really does move into eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian military will very likely engage them. So there will be fighting, perhaps large division-sized battles on a scale Europe hasn't seen since World War II. If that happens, and particularly if the Ukrainians are perceived to be getting their butts kicked, pressure in Western capitals for military intervention will rise to such a pitch that it might be awfully difficult to ignore. I'm not sure what would happen then. Things get harder to predict. The Europeans have no stomach, and in some cases little capacity, for serious combat. And I don't see the Obama administration sending in US ground forces. So NATO might try to intervene on the cheap, with another air-only campaign. But that's not likely to work nearly as well against Russia as it did against Libya or Serbia before that. So when the air campaign doesn't succeed, does the West start escalating its military involvement incrementally, or does it back down, letting Russia have eastern Ukraine? It would be extremely dangerous. If the US and Russia got into direct combat, and if either side was in danger of losing face, would Washington or Moscow contemplate use of a tactical nuclear weapon, either to even things out or to draw a line in the sand? Once each side was committed, could either of them even tolerate the political consequences of defeat? Hopefully Putin doesn't push it that far. Maybe he'll be willing to take Crimea for Russia and then call it a day, letting the rest of Ukraine slide west. But I have some doubts about that. In Moscow the Ukraine is seen the same way that Canada is seen in Washington DC. Watching it move into a global competitor's sphere of influence might very well be intolerable.
I don’t see the distinction you are trying to make between “rhetorical smoke” and “real-politick”. Additionally, nations act according to the interests and desires of those who control them. That my friend is an important distinction, it certainly isn’t in the interests of the Russian people to annex Crimea and risk economic sanctions from the West. Putin calculates that he wants Crimea, Georgia and all the former Soviet states. Putin appears want to be the new czar who restores the Russian empire. The costs of Putin’s narcissistic ambitions will be borne by the Russian people. Economic deprivation, starvation and war are not in the interests of the Russian people. The greater glory of Putin might make Putin feel better but it doesn’t put prosperity in the pockets of his people. The age of imperialism and colonialism died with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don’t see that the West really cares much about the Ukraine. It is an economic basket case. It has little strategic military value. The West does care when one nation violates the norms of acceptable behaviors and repeatedly violates international law by invading and annexing its neighbors. Europe and the West in general, have seen this before and it didn’t end well. Putin’s actions threaten international stability. Nations need to respect their neighbors. It is just that simple. If they don’t, war and chaos follows. That is what history has taught us time and time again. I agree with you, in that I don’t think Putin is going to back down, and I don’t see a change of government in Kiev given all of the anti-Russian sentiment in the country. As for the West, if this were the first time Putin pulled this stunt, I think the West would give Putin a pass on the Ukraine and let him have it just as they did with Georgia. Because the Ukraine, is just not important to the West, strategically or economically; but this isn’t the first time Putin has invaded and annexed his neighbors. It’s becoming a habit with Putin. From the perspective of the West, this isn’t about the Ukraine or Crimea, it’s about Putin’s continuing pattern of aggression towards neighboring states and his apparent disconnect from reality. Given there are armed thugs and Russian troops patrolling the streets and controlling the voting and given that there are only two choices on the ballot, join the Russian Federation now or later, I’d say you are correct. If only one person votes in the referendum, Putin wins. It’s funny how that works when the only option on the ballot is to be annexed. I think they are doing more than contemplating, I expect Russian troops to move across the Eastern Ukrainian border sometime within the next few weeks. Russia has already sent agent provocateurs across the Eastern border as they did in the Crimea as a precursor to Russian troop movements across the border. Well, I don’t think the Ukrainians will engage when Russian troops invade and occupy the Eastern portion of the country. Thus far Ukrainians have showed great restraint and great intellect in handling this crisis. I think the far more likely situation would be for the Ukrainians to begin a campaign of asymmetrical warfare. And I don’t see the West intervening militarily with air support, or troops on the ground. However I would expect the West to supply the Ukrainian government with weapons and technical advice. The strategy would be to make this occupation and annexation very expensive for Russia both in terms of blood and treasure. If NATO did decide to intervene militarily, Russian forces would not present much of a threat to the West. The West and particularly The US has, as you pointed out, engaged Russia’s best military hardware, both air and ground, easily and successfully in the past. Western troops are better trained and are better equipped than Russian troops, not to mention exponentially more numerous. Russian troops would be easily beaten back into Russia by the better trained, better equipped and experienced Western troops. And that is where it would end. I don’t see western forces crossing into Russia’s border unless Russia unleashes its nukes. And I don’t see Russia unleashing its nukes, as long as they don’t cross the border. In the interim, economic sanctions imposed by the West after Russian annexation of Crimea will wreak havoc on the Russian economy. Russia will be locked out of the international banking system which will make international trade almost impossible for Russia. Russia will stop oil and gas exports to Europe and Europe will find alternate sources. Russia will have essentially three choices, withdraw in disgrace, suffer economic collapse, or fire the nukes and die in the ensuring holocaust. So baring further military escalation by Russia, I think the West will try to bleed Russia by supporting insurrection and starving it with economic sanctions and political isolation. Under this scenario, the West doesn’t need to intervene militarily. Russia will eventually crumble under its own weight and as a result of the poor decisions made by Putin just as its predecessor the Soviet Union died decades ago. Putin is trying to ride a dead horse. I don’t think the West is as concerned about losing face as Putin is. Face is more important in dictatorships than it is in democratically elected governments because change is the normal order of business in democracies – not so much in dictatorial countries. In dictatorial or fascist states, change is a threat. Intimidation doesn’t work so well when you have lost face. Democracies rely more on cooperation, fascists and dictatorships rely on intimidation. It’s difficult to intimidate people when you are viewed as weak. Here is something else for Putin to contemplate, and I am sure he has, the US has antiballistic missile defenses. The US withdrew from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty more than a decade ago and has been beefing up its anti-ballistic missile defenses ever since. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_07-08/abmjul_aug02
in case you people give a crap about reality, just in case, the voting is fair and noone is pushing anyone with guns like the Western fucks did in Kiev. Crimea was Russian territory and this is why it has such a vast majority of Russians there and not just Ukranians who speak Russian language. The goal of the West right now is to discredit Russia, Putin, Crimea joining Russia, and paint it in any shit it can possible can. That means slogans like "Putin is Stalin", "Invasion of Crimea", "Voting under a gun". Anything to save Obama fuck face. If in future the West will try to pull another stunt like the one it did by financing Nazists who fought alongside Chechen terrorists...the reaction of the Russian government will be much more than a simple annexation of Crimea. Go get mined and fucked USS truxton, the display of Obama muscles will not get you anywhere. ...oh and while the Americans are basing their ships with missiles in Bolgaria and moving them up to Odessa...here is something for US to remember Crimea has anti missile systems working great, the recent 2 US UAVs electronically disabled over Crimea has proven the effectiveness of protection of Russian land. http://www.janes.com/article/35013/...pre-planned-engagements-with-bulgaria-romania
Oh, well if it was fair as you claim, then why did Russia hide the voting? Why did they refuse international observers? Instead of physically ejecting UN observers under the threat of violence as they did, why didn’t Russia allow them to observe the elections? Those UN observers could have provided credible proof and validated your claim. But they didn't, why? And 58% of the Crimean population, isn’t vast by any stretch of the imagination and not all of them want to rejoin Russia. And then a good chunk of that 58% is in the Crimea because of the Russian naval base. Yeah, Crimea was once Russian territory; parts of France were once English territory too. Parts of Italy were once part of France. Poland was once German territory. Parts of the USA were once French, English, Spanish, and Mexican territories. The Philippines and several Pacific Island states were once US territory too. So what is your point? Crimea is currently not Russian territory. And that is the point. Territorial boundaries change and there is a process for that change that doesn’t involve invading your neighbors and annexing them as Russia has repeatedly done under Putin. Well if that were the case, Russia could easily thwart that by opening its actions to the press. Instead of beating up reporters in the streets as they have done and as evidenced by videos, why won’t they stop molesting the press, both domestic and foreign, as they have done? Instead, Russia has chosen to beat up reporters and restrict access to them. By these actions, Russia is discrediting itself. It doesn’t need the West to do that. I haven’t heard any slogans from the West. And if you don’t want people to accuse you of forcing a vote under the gun, then get rid of the guns. By the way, Obama doesn’t need to save his face. He didn’t invade any country and he certainly hasn’t attempted to annex anything as is Putin. Except, the West didn’t finance the Nazi’s and they certainly didn’t enter an alliance with the Nazi’s and Russia did. I think you need to brush up on your history. And for the rest of that paragraph, it doesn’t make any kind of sense. I can only explain it as your ignorance or sheer delusion or some combination of both. “If, against all expectation, Germany finds itself in a difficult situation then she can be sure that the Soviet people will come to Germany's aid and will not allow Germany to be strangled. The Soviet Union wants to see a strong Germany and we will not allow Germany to be thrown to the ground.” - Joseph Stalin, 1939 http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/episode-1/ep1_stalins_pact.html Well the joint naval exercises with the Bulgarian and Romanian navies were planned well in advance (i.e. 1 year)and before Russia invaded the Ukraine. Those naval exercises have nothing to do with nor are they intended to have anything to do with the crisis created by Russia invading its neighboring states. For starters, because the US does not have ships based either Bulgaria or Romania – one of those damn minor details again. The US is now participating in joint naval operations with Bulgaria and Romania as the US does with many countries across the globe. And you want the world to believe those “self-defense” forces, which are not Russian according to Putin, have sophisticated anti-missile technologies? My God, that is pretty amazing stuff for a backyard militia which suddenly came into being only a few days ago. I mean it was already amazing they had military trucks, Russian issued military weapons and military uniforms and gear that they purchased at their local stores. Additionally the UAV is not a missile, nor was one flying over Crimea or the Ukraine. Therefore one couldn’t have been brought down by anything. Not the mention, the 66th Intelligence Brigade, the US Army unit alleged to have controlled the UAV (i.e. drone) doesn’t exist. – another one those damn minor details again. The 66th is a armored regiment based out of Germany and Colorado. The only one making the allegation you just made is the Russian government and the Russian state controlled press. And not surprisingly Russia doesn’t have any evidence to back that claim up, because it didn’t happen. You are being played my friend, played like a sap. You are being victimized by your leaders, just like Hitler victimized the German people before, during and after WWII. He is playing on nationalism to advance his personal agenda at the expense of the state and everyone in it. He is flying the banner of nationalism high and at the expense of the long term health and wellbeing of the Russian people. So enjoy your nationalistic fervor, it won’t last long and it comes with a hefty price tag. It did for Nazi Germany and it will for Russia as well. If Russia wants to be successful, if the Russian people want to be successful, if Russians want to be a global player, then they need to learn some really basic lessons, you get more and a lot further with a little honey. Winning friends and influencing people is by far a better strategy than the barrel of a gun. The world operates on trust. Trust is the foundation of economic prosperity and you don’t earn trust when you threaten your neighbors and steal their lands as Russia has repeatedly done under Putin. The reason the world turns to the US in times of stress, the reason money flows into the US from places like Russia in times of unrest, as is currently the case, is because people trust the US. Russia can earn trust too. But it is going to take time and it will need to be earned - not with missiles and not with guns and not with intimidation- but with honesty, openness and mutual respect. That means you don't invade your neighbors and lie about it, nor do you annex them. You respect them. That is why countries like Bulgaria and Romania invite US military forces to participate in joint military exercises. They trust the US will not use the opportunity to invade, occupy and annex their countries. A little trust goes a long way. And Russia is in dire need of trust at the moment and it has little to offer, no thanks to Putin.
the ethnic ukrainians and tarters refused to vote in this farce. russia used guns the west didn't. that you think thats what happened makes me question your grasp on reality.
Translation: "Fuck you America, you don't need to have a big penis to be important, no one gives a shit about monitoring votes, and if you embarass us one more time, we'll do something incredibly stupid and self-destructive just to give you a scratch!"
And Russia says they had 85% voter turnout. I guess that means Russians were the only ones allowed to vote. I have heard the ballots were premarked and multiple ballots were ok.
oh here is something, since US reporters were not allowed to these votes, how these "premarket ballots" myths spring up? The whole idea of Crimeans being pushed around against their will is rediculous, I been to the region and it is full of Russians and they were Russian patriots long before this fake Ukraine revolution in Kiev thing came up. And joint exercise with Romania preplanned 1 year ago, just says that the US has planned this Ukraine revolution long before and came quite prepared.
its tatars (not a sauce...) and some of them did support the Crimea separation from Ukraine. The strategy with Tatars, since they feel so independent from everyone, was to give them language recognition priviliges in the new government and also give them governing roles as well. The West uses any slight economic instability in a region to distabilize situation in accordance to their future plans for the region. Didn't like socialists in Chile? Kill the ruler and bring in Pinochet. Didn't like the oil prices and lack of supply in Libya? Demonize Kaddafi and destroy any forces within Libya loyal to him. Didn't agree to Syria's Assad using non West weapons and not giving resource control to the right companies? Demonize him and finance the rebel terrorist forces. Didn't like Ukraine policy of favoring Russian companies over European? well you know the result of that. A democratically elected president had to run for his life to another country because he refused to be further provoked for violence. You think burned tires and sticks won Euromaidan rulers seats inside Ukraine government? You are wrong. Their leaders fought alongside Al Quida financed terrorists in Chechnya. They used snipers to take out Berkut government forces, a fact which the West is burying deep and not letting U.N. investigate further.
