Ukraine III: appropriate handling required

[sologdin]

by Ukrainian facists at this very moment.

i doubt the pogrom accusation, but the svoboda party fits the description.

[Linsox]

In other news, it looks like Donetsk Regional government just passed a resolution calling for a referendum on the protection of the Russian language, preservation of social benefits and the formation of self defence groups.

How much this decision has to do with the pro-Russian demonstrators occupying parts of their building is unclear.

Here is some good English-language coverage finally. "Parts of their building" doesn't do it justice. More like "already stormed the building and have threatened to do more next time". My friend wanted to show his opposition to the Russian flag-wavers and said he would be scared for his life. Anyone clinging to the just-Crimea scenario, please read that article.

Ukraine becoming part of the EU but not NATO was the compromise the west worked towards, and thought this was something Russia could live with, but Putin has put paid to that. The customs union Putin has pushed should have been a wake-up call for the west, and in the back of their minds they've probably realized this, but this realization has likely become victim of But Surely It Will Not Come To THAT!?

As for Gorbie, he was definitely not cool with the demise of the Soviet Union, but he was not left with a choice in the matter. ETA: though I see you mentioned 1989, so I guess you're referring to the Wall coming down, and Empire refers to Eastern Europe. Carry on.

NATO is as popular in Ukraine as Russia is in this thread, FYI.

[jurble]

Breaking News

Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26413953

[snake]

Maybe think they can play Good Cop? It looks like they're hoping there is still a way to de-escalate this thing because all the other alternatives don't bear thinking about. I hope they're right.

The US is going to catch the flu if Russia turns off Europe's heating, but you are right that the case for calm, cautious diplomacy is going to look a lot more compelling to Merkel et al.

That was an excellent article I think. Very complicated situation to say the least. Think it's possible to go back to the agreement that was originally signed by all parties or has that ship sailed?

[The BlackBear]

Wow, what possible reason is there for making that demand? The Ukrainian army is hardly threatening them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jerble,

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26413953

I guess the Russians are done waiting for Ukraine to make the first move. They're going to impliment the "hit'em back first with the mailed fist of Defending the speakers of Russian" here.

:vomit:

[Horza]

That was an excellent article I think. Very complicated situation to say the least. Think it's possible to go back to the agreement that was originally signed by all parties or has that ship sailed?

That thing died pretty much the moment it was signed. It wasn't a deal between all parties as there was no way the Maidan was going to accept after the events of the preceding day and it undid any faith Yanukovych's backers had in him.

[KAH]

NATO is as popular in Ukraine as Russia is in this thread, FYI.

This link bears that out, although it hasn't always been like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Popular_opinion_in_Ukraine

Guess Putin puts little stock in polls, no big surprise there.

[The BlackBear]

I guess the Russians are done waiting for Ukraine to make the first move. They're going to impliment the "hit'em back first with the mailed fist of Defending the speakers of Russian" here.

:vomit:

But it seemed like Russia was proclaiming themselves to be defending ethnic russians from the far right supporters not the military. If this was to come to fighting, the best they could have hoped for is the Ukrainians to attack first.

[jurble]

Jerble,

I guess the Russians are done waiting for Ukraine to make the first move. They're going to impliment the "hit'em back first with the mailed fist of Defending the speakers of Russian" here.

:vomit:

The BBC says only that Ukrainian agency is reporting it, so it might be not be the case. Still, if true, if the troops don't surrender, and if Russia assaults, does this begin a wider war? Or does it stop there?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BlackBear,

And these "ultra-nationalists" are in the Ukrainian Navy HQ? That's absurd.

[Werthead]

well, that is definitely the version they used to excuse their actions.

it appears that it worked, at least in your case.

Yes, yes, it was Big Bad NATO bullying poor little defenceless Serbia for no reason, a nation which had never done anything wrong and where everything smells of flowers.

yes, nato members invaded both afghanistan and iraq in self defence.

NATO did not invade either country.

Actually, technically no-one invaded Afghanistan at all: the internal opposition armed by Russia with the full permission and support of the West threw out the Taliban and invited NATO and the UN to send troops into the country. Which was then completely bungled, but it wasn't an invasion.

If you want to chalk Iraq up to misguided American neo-con imperialism, that's fair, but when you put it up against incidents of Russia's unwarranted aggression in the last 30 years, Russia comes out rather far ahead. It certainly wouldn't come down to penalties.

i mean, there were evidence of afghanistan harbouring bin laden and iraq's WMDs...

Well, Bin Laden appearing on TV in Afghanistan and the Taliban saying yes, he was there might have been a slight clue that he was there.

it is a hipocrisy of the worst kind to chalk that up as "history of self-defence".

It's false equivalence and/or historical ignorance to suggest that the situations are comparable.

Regarding Kosovo, you also said that "NATO has only ever acted in defence of NATO member countries or their direct interests" in the previous thread. No amount of rhetorical acrobatics can turn Kosovo intervention into a defensive action by NATO.

Events in Kosovo were sending refugees into neighbouring European countries, destabilising the peace achieved (at some considerable cost) after the only recently-concluded Bosnian conflict. This was happening on the borders of major European nations and was a further act of violence by an unstable and violent regime which had, frankly, been given a lot of leeway it did not deserve by other nations. It was also made clear that ethnic cleansing and bloody repressions on that scale would not be tolerated, any more than they were by Nazi Germany during WWII.

Ultimately, it was an intervention to prevent the widespread massacre of civilians, which was expected to take place because Serbia had form.

I am not sure what the deeds of "the prior decade" had to do with the operation

Kosovo came after the Bosnian War, most notably the devastation of Sarajevo. NATO stayed out of the conflict, let Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia get on with it for years and was rewarded with the bloodiest conflict in Europe since the end of WWII. It sparked major economic and destabilising problems across that part of Europe. Whilst all sides committed atrocities in the war, Serbia certainly committed the worst, at Srebenica. When the war ended, NATO and the EU took stock and realised that they had completely failed to act in any way to save civilian lives on their own doorstep, and made a mockery of their post-WWII promises to ensure a peaceful and stable Europe (which by itself meant swallowing a lot of Eastern Europe being controlled by Russia for forty-five years). It was a major humiliation and the member-states agreed it would not be tolerated again.

When it did happen again, in Kosovo, the EU and NATO's response was overwhelming. It had to be, to preserve any sense of legitimacy to the organisations after their failure to act in the earlier conflict. Ironically, if the Bosnian War had never happened and then the Kosovo conflict took place, NATO would probably have done nothing. It was the preceding decade of anarchy in the Balkans that gave NATO the impetus to act over Kosovo.

Maybe, if Nato had stayed where it was and didn't expand East, this would have worked out better. Just saying.

Or maybe by now a resurgent Russia would have gobbled up the Baltic States and Ukraine and be making suggestions to Poland and Romania that they might want to rejoin the Old Red Club, if they know what's good for them?

What is a bit concerning is the media black-out that appear to be taking place in the Crimea (and Russia?). According to the Russian authorities there's an ongoing progorm against Russians perpetrated by Ukrainian facists at this very moment

Oddly, the thousands of journalists spread out across the entire country working for hundreds of different media organisations from all over the world have not been able to confirm this. I'm not sure Putin knows how the modern media world works.

There are right-wing fascist nutjobs in the Ukrainian opposition (who are no longer the opposition) and we need to be seriously concerned about that and what they might do in the future. But there is no evidence of them undertaking some kind of pogrom against Russians elsewhere in the country at this time.

It's also worth noting that the West's position during the riots and clashes was that Ukraine should be allowed to decide its own fate through nationwide elections, not offering blanket support for the Ukrainian opposition under all circumstances. By taking the actions it has, Russia has pushed the West and western Ukraine into the same boat, which is really not what they wanted.

In fact, the Russian actions today suggest it is somewhat rattled by the talk of economic sanctions against them. They really didn't expect that to happen, and now seem to be getting antsy in response rather than taking measured, reasoned actions.

The speed of the Russian mobilisation in Crimea is what astounds me, they've for all intents and purposes completely cut off the peninsula. How much evidence is there they've been preparing to do this? Days, weeks, months?

Russia certainly has multiple contingency plans for all sorts of possibilities (as any country does, really). "Invading Crimea to support the Black Sea Fleet," is probably one of the most well and intricately-planned ones. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't wargamed it.

The customs union Putin has pushed should have been a wake-up call for the west

Yeah, this was worrying. It's basically the economic version of the Warsaw Pact (taking in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan meant that the overwhelming majority of the former USSR was already signed up to it), and such unions could turn to military purposes very easily. Ukraine moving to the EU instead was a serious blow in their plans for the customs union.

It would have perhaps been more sensible for Ukraine to have agreed to remain neutral from both economic plans and act as an economic buffer instead, but that ship has sailed.

That was an excellent article I think. Very complicated situation to say the least. Think it's possible to go back to the agreement that was originally signed by all parties or has that ship sailed?

That's long, long gone by this point.

[jurble]

15:58:

The press office for the Ukraine defence ministry in Crimea confirms to the BBC that an ultimatum from Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been delivered. The Russian naval forces are said to have given Ukraine's forces in the region until 05:00 local time (03:00 GMT) to surrender or else face an all-out assault.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26413953

Ultimatum was real.

[KAH]

Yeah, this was worrying. It's basically the economic version of the Warsaw Pact (taking in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan meant that the overwhelming majority of the former USSR was already signed up to it), and such unions could turn to military purposes very easily. Ukraine moving to the EU instead was a serious blow in their plans for the customs union.

It would have perhaps been more sensible for Ukraine to have agreed to remain neutral from both economic plans and act as an economic buffer instead, but that ship has sailed.

Eh, remaining an "economic buffer"? The long-term smart answer would be going with the EU, the short- and medium term smart answer would be going into customs union with Russia et al.

What does remaining an economic buffer mean? "We agree to remain an economic backwater until our neighbours can resolve their differences, however many decades that will take."

I can understand keeping NATO at an arm's length, but if Ukraine can't even explore economically beneficial options westwards, the people "in charge" in Kiev might as well bow their necks for Moscow and take what's offered from there anyway.

[KAH]

In re: gas, this seems to make a somewhat more solid case of European readiness than initial cautiousness implied:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26418664

[Fez]

Eh, remaining an "economic buffer"? The long-term smart answer would be going with the EU, the short- and medium term smart answer would be going into customs union with Russia et al.

What does remaining an economic buffer mean? "We agree to remain an economic backwater until our neighbours can resolve their differences, however many decades that will take."

I can understand keeping NATO at an arm's length, but if Ukraine can't even explore economically beneficial options westwards, the people "in charge" in Kiev might as well bow their necks for Moscow and take what's offered from there anyway.

Could they have tried going with a third party for economic development instead, like China? Or with South American countries?

[Clueless Northman]

In re: gas, this seems to make a somewhat more solid case of European readiness than initial cautiousness implied:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26418664

That's not caution, that just plain good luck, because the winter has been surprisingly mild in many European countries. Some ares of Norway barely spotted any snow.

It would have perhaps been more sensible for Ukraine to have agreed to remain neutral from both economic plans and act as an economic buffer instead, but that ship has sailed.

Yeah, this has been my position for some time. Not aligning with one bloc doesn't mean not being able to trade, could even have had some favorable deals, just not being formally integrated into one or the other.

Ukraine might have been better by going fully one way or the other, of course, but thing is, the other bloc wouldn't have liked it, and half the Ukrainians would've been pissed off, just as we saw these few months. So this isn't picking what would be ideal in an ideal world, it's picking the less awful option from a lot of bad options - the 2 other ones ensuring internal chaos and trouble with some powerful neighbours.

Then of course, for this to pass, you'd have not only need Ukrainian Western and Eastern leaderships to agree to the plan, you'd have also needed EU, NATO and Russia to be on board; so, tough luck... It's quite possible that Ukraine was in some lose-lose position from the beginning - at least until one side totally crashes down.

[jurble]

lol:

https://twitter.com/edwardlucas/status/440516024140849152

Interesting rumour from Russian oligarch: Putin has a brain tumour which is why he is acting so oddly

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jerble,

Then why is he getting so much support from the Russian government?

[The BlackBear]

Jerble,

Then why is he getting so much support from the Russian government?

Cult of personality

William Hague says there will be no military intervention, from the UK. This isn't unexpected, but does it rule out lending aid in a similar fashion as Libya and Syria?

The 24 hr BBC news shows that whilst the admiral did defect, the majority of the rank and file are defiant, in the face of his calls for them to follow suit.