Ukraine X

[Angalin]

With a little more Ukraine and a lot less Sweden. Thank you.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I'm not keeping up with developments anymore. Last I heard, protests were flaring up all over Eastern Ukraine, and the Ukrainian army was moving in to try and disperse them.

Then there was the burning of the building with protesters inside. Then a storming of some police station by protesters.

And that's the last I heard. Anything new after that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

With regard to Russian fears of NATO encirclement there is a fundemental factual dispute. Russia claims NATO promised, after German reunification, that it would not expand further eastward. NATO says it no such promise. Where is the evidence of any agreement by NATO to restrict it's eastward expansion?

[Linsox]

New Donbass poll

[Borque]

With regard to Russian fears of NATO encirclement there is a fundemental factual dispute. Russia claims NATO promised, after German reunification, that it would not expand further eastward. NATO says it no such promise. Where is the evidence of any agreement by NATO to restrict it's eastward expansion?

There is nothing written, and several different versions of what was said.

Here is a good article from Der Spiegel about this.

[SkaggCannibal]

With regard to Russian fears of NATO encirclement there is a fundemental factual dispute. Russia claims NATO promised, after German reunification, that it would not expand further eastward. NATO says it no such promise. Where is the evidence of any agreement by NATO to restrict it's eastward expansion?

There was never written anything down, so Russia doesn't have a leg to stand on. But it was promised when there was an agreement on the unification of Germany, but not in a signed agreement. Here is an article on it. It was indead verbally agreed upon and promised, a US secretary of state said it in a speech on Feb 6 1990 at the Kremlin. But they never signed anything, and so basically the US tricked Russia in believing. But you could also say, Russia let the US trick them. Anyone interested, that article is very informative and after reading you can make up your own mind.

ETA: ninja'd by Borque, article is the same.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Bourqe, Skagg,

Thank you both. I can't get the article up on my iPhone.

[Stannisaurus]

Isn't a "don't surround the other country with militarily allied states" deal pretty much clearly implied in any kind of agreement made to end the Cold War?

Wasn't that the point of ending the Cold War? Even if it wasn't explicit, is seems like common sense to me.

And even if it wasn't implied in any kind of deal (which imo it was), is it any weird that the Russians feel uneasy with it?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stannissaurus,

NATO is not particularly aggressive. Kosovo is probably what has made the Russians more nervous about NATO. However, with the Russians holding the nuclear trump card do they really think NATO would take direct action against Russian territory?

[Stannisaurus]

@ Ser Scot

Well I would say that the U.S./NATO are particularly aggressive (is there much of a point pretending that those two are separate?)

Nuclear weapons would be an absolutely-last-effort answer because the moment that one nuclear bomb would leave from moscow, the whole country would be destroyed by the U.S. nukes.

So no, nuclear weapons are not a guarantee because if (hypothetically speaking) the NATO started a conventional war, it wouldn't be in Russia's interest to go nuclear unless NATO was hell-bend on eradicating Russia anyway and it is unlikely for a modern war to go there. And as far as i know, Russian military isn't nearly as powerful as the U.S. one, not to mention the whole NATO.

Wouldn't you feel threatened if Russia, with (hypothetically speaking) twice the weapons and army that the states, surrounded the U.S. with allied countries even if the U.S. also have nuclear weapons?

[Lummel]

Isn't a "don't surround the other country with militarily allied states" deal pretty much clearly implied in any kind of agreement made to end the Cold War?

Wasn't that the point of ending the Cold War? Even if it wasn't explicit, is seems like common sense to me.

And even if it wasn't implied in any kind of deal (which imo it was), is it any weird that the Russians feel uneasy with it?

& what would this have to do with the situation in Ukraine since annexing chunks of Ukraine only serves to bring the Russian Federation closer to NATO countries. The cold war ended, effectively, because the Soviet Union could no longer continue it, not because of a treaty agreement.

There a narrative of Russia vs 'the west' but that is a narrative. Another narrative less stressed in the media is how deeply Russian individuals and corporations are integrated into 'the west'. This is where they are buying property and companies, where they are sending their children to get privately educated, where they are trading.

[Stannisaurus]

& what would this have to do with the situation in Ukraine since annexing chunks of Ukraine only serves to bring the Russian Federation closer to NATO countries.

I already gave multiple possible reasons for that in the previous thread. In addition to those reasons, what could Russia do anyway? Just let NATO incorporate/ally with everyone at the Russian border... which would again bring NATO closer to the Russian Federation? (except that Russia would now be smaller)

The cold war ended, effectively, because the Soviet Union could no longer continue it, not because of a treaty agreement.

I guess you could say that, even though I am fairly sure that at some point head of states met, exchange handshakes and hugs and all that. I don't see how this changes anything I said though, unless you want to suggest that NATO, as the winner of the Cold War, gets to expand its power globally while Russia as the loser should not complain.

There a narrative of Russia vs 'the west' but that is a narrative. Another narrative less stressed in the media is how deeply Russian individuals and corporations are integrated into 'the west'. This is where they are buying property and companies, where they are sending their children to get privately educated, where they are trading.

I don't disagree but I don't think this goes against anything I said. The "Russia" vs "West" is about the countries, not individuals.

[Lummel]

Yes but NATO membership wasn't on the cards beforehand for Ukraine, now though there is going to be a perception that Russia is an unpredictable and dangerous state, and the only protection against that is joining NATO (or the Russian Federation willingly or not). This is a red herring issue in regards to Ukraine, the country worried about the spread of a military alliance needs a peaceful diplomatic offensive to reassure any countries that might be prepared to join the alliance, a land grab can only provoke the outcome that it apparently sought to avoid.

Power is not simply an issue of controlling square miles of territory. Nor did NATO win the cold war, rather the cold war came to end because the Soviet Union could no longer continue it. The Russian Federation isn't winning some putative conflict with NATO through action in Ukraine, nor can it. If you want to think in terms of beating NATO only non-military action in terms of influencing other states to leave the alliance or not to join it the first place is going work - but again Russian Federation versus NATO isn't a helpful lens in looking at Ukraine.

From a Russian perspective surely the involvement of outside countries is a complicating factor in a local struggle rather than the local struggle a proxy for some bigger international conflict.

[Borque]

but again Russian Federation versus NATO isn't a helpful lens in looking at Ukraine.

I view it alternatingly through a "Putin improving his popularity" lens and a "Russia wants to strike the fear of God into their neighbors" lens.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I'm not keeping up with developments anymore. Last I heard, protests were flaring up all over Eastern Ukraine, and the Ukrainian army was moving in to try and disperse them.

Then there was the burning of the building with protesters inside. Then a storming of some police station by protesters.

And that's the last I heard. Anything new after that?

That's basically it.

[Ramsay Gimp]

There was never written anything down, so Russia doesn't have a leg to stand on. But it was promised when there was an agreement on the unification of Germany, but not in a signed agreement. Here is an article on it. It was indead verbally agreed upon and promised, a US secretary of state said it in a speech on Feb 6 1990 at the Kremlin. But they never signed anything, and so basically the US tricked Russia in believing. But you could also say, Russia let the US trick them. Anyone interested, that article is very informative and after reading you can make up your own mind.

ETA: ninja'd by Borque, article is the same.

Interesting reading, it certainly gives Russia an understandable reason to be upset. Also severely damages whatever trust there was between them and the U.S., which can't be good since it will make future negotiations more difficult

Stannissaurus,

NATO is not particularly aggressive. Kosovo is probably what has made the Russians more nervous about NATO. However, with the Russians holding the nuclear trump card do they really think NATO would take direct action against Russian territory?

I don't think there's a major fear of direct NATO action against Russian territory (though I wouldn't discount it - Russia has suffered some extremely destructive invasions), but becoming encircled will be a blow to their status as a world power. NATO is indeed poking the bear when they support anti-Russian factions in states neighboring Russia

Also, while it may or may not be true that NATO wants to encircle and threaten Russia, that is definitely the perception within Moscow.

[arya_underfoot]

I think we've been over this before. Encircling and containing Russia can only be a good thing for the majority of the world. They have repeatedly demonstrated callous disregard for international law and conventions in their quest for regional supremacy. Force is the only language they understand. They will hate it, and do whatever they can to resist, but the expansion of NATO to contain Russia is essential for peace in surrounding regions.

[E-Ro]

Just read this http://news.yahoo.com/u-russian-planes-flew-near-california-guam-upped-020022310.html

I think we've been over this before. Encircling and containing Russia can only be a good thing for the majority of the world. They have repeatedly demonstrated callous disregard for international law and conventions in their quest for regional supremacy. Force is the only language they understand. They will hate it, and do whatever they can to resist, but the expansion of NATO to contain Russia is essential for peace in surrounding regions.

We don't really need to do anything like that just yet though. I don't really think allot of people understand just how powerful the United States military really is. We can strike at any country in the world AT WILL, from south america to Asia. Our navy is far more advanced then anything anyone else has, our air-force while not as advanced is still better then anything anyone else can throw at us, and our infantry in addition to being well trained, and superbly equipped, are outnumbered only by china. Of course china doesn't have the tech we have, and they don't have bases near our soil, like we have near them.

We struggle with non conventional enemies(who doesn't?), but you can be damn well sure in a conventional war, we win. That becomes doubly true when the stakes are higher.

This of course ignores our allies as well. But my point is, we shouldn't be so worried that people want to "contain" Russia just yet. The head of NATO thinks that Russia wont send troops into eastern Ukraine, his opinion on the matter is good enough for me.

[Phaing]

Well I would say that the U.S./NATO are particularly aggressive (is there much of a point pretending that those two are separate?)

Without a good leader, the US cannot provide strong leadership in this issue.

This actually works in our favor here, sort of.

This is the EU's issue. Period.

NATO can do nothing because its just a defensive alliance, serving MEMBER nations. Ukraine is not a member.

Let Rumpoy and Merkel show us their metal, if they have any.

I think we've been over this before. Encircling and containing Russia can only be a good thing for the majority of the world. They have repeatedly demonstrated callous disregard for international law and conventions in their quest for regional supremacy. Force is the only language they understand. They will hate it, and do whatever they can to resist, but the expansion of NATO to contain Russia is essential for peace in surrounding regions.

I dunno, Russians like Putin only seem to be comfortable when they can kill everyone around them. They went nuts over 10 little ABMs in Poland, stomped on Georgia, have Belaruss under their thumb and now this crap.

Just remember; to join NATO, you have to renounce any territorial disputes with your neighbors.

And... encirclement comes at a cost;, beware of trapping an animal in a place with no way out. It makes them get mean, and smart.

[Shryke]

I'm not keeping up with developments anymore. Last I heard, protests were flaring up all over Eastern Ukraine, and the Ukrainian army was moving in to try and disperse them.

Then there was the burning of the building with protesters inside. Then a storming of some police station by protesters.

And that's the last I heard. Anything new after that?

Only a few things I saw today, beyond the above mentioned casualties.

1) Preliminary reports on this, but it could be very worrying:

At a press conference today, Marina Ostapenko, an SBU spokesperson, said that the SBU's counter-intelligence group had seized nearly 1.5kg of a radioactive substance, possibly uranium, in the Chernivtsi region.

"The hazardous material was brought into Ukrainian territory from the self-proclaimed Transnistrian Republic in a car with foreign license plates, and was stored in a home-made container."

She said that ten people had been detained by the SBU in the course of this operation, one of whom, according to initial reports, is a Russian citizen.

Ukrainska Pravda notes that the SBU has not ruled out the possibility that the radioactive material was intended to be used to construct a 'dirty bomb'.

http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/2604

No confirmation from other sources that I've seen at least.

2) This was rather amusing:

http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1399238176

Vladimir Putin’s own Council on the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights has confirmed that the turnout for the so-called “referendum” on the Crimea’s status was much lower than reported, and the results also far less overwhelmingly in favour of joining Russia. The same results have been reported from other sources, however this report can hardly be dismissed as seditious US propaganda. The confirmation that Russia used falsified figures to justify the annexation comes on the eve of other supposed “referendums” planned for two east Ukrainian oblasts.

The report finds that while the overwhelming majority of residents of Sevastopol voted for joining Russian (turnout of 50-80%), the turnout for all of Crimea was from 30-50% and only 50-60% of those voted for joining Russia.

The authors also noted that Crimean residents voted less for joining Russia, than for what they called an end to corrupt lawlessness and thieving rule of people brought in from Donetsk (where Viktor Yanukovych and most of his people were from). It was only in Sevastopol, they say, that people genuinely voted for joining Russia. They add that the fear of “illegal armed formations” was higher in Sevastopol than in other regions of Crimea.

And more general shitting on people in Crimea from the report:

Since the report highlights some serious rights violations, including to the Crimea’s indigenous Crimean Tatar population, it makes the failure of the EU and USA to adopt any serious sanctions against Russia particularly disturbing.

Crimean residents were not given adequate information about the consequences of refusing to accept Russian citizenship. A lot of public sector workers were threatened with dismissal if they did not become Russian nationals.

Many Crimean Tatars were also left with no choice but to accept Russian citizenship since they have land plots on agricultural land which according to Russian legislation can only be owned by Russian nationals.

Of the people the authors of the report spoke with, virtually none of those wishing to retain Ukrainian citizenship had received any information from the Russian Migration Service about their legal position as “foreign nationals”, including the need to leave after 90 days; permission to be in the country for only 90 days out of each 180, etc.

Given Moscow’s constant propaganda regarding “protection” of the rights of linguistic minorities, it is of significance that the one Ukrainian-language lyceum in Simferopol is being made Russian-speaking, while the only Ukrainian-Tatar language and literature studies university faculty is closing..

The Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate is effectively also being dissolved with land lease for places of worship now not being renewed.

Obviously I can't confirm the translation but it seems to be circulating about the english sites with no one saying it's being read wrong.

Here's a pseudo-blogger at Forbes on it as well, with a few links:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/