Russia has annexed Crimea, will it stop there or go further?

[DanteGabriel]

Slate writer and former Bosnian war correspondent calls this straight-up revenge for Russian humiliation over Kosovo. With an interesting passage on translation:

"It was our Western partners who created the precedent; they did it themselves, with their own hands, as it were, in a situation that was totally analogous to the Crimean situation, by recognizing Kosovo's secession from Serbia as legitimate,” said Putin. And then, as he cited American statements on Kosovo, he got more and more worked up until he said, “They wrote it themselves. They spread this all over the world. They screwed everybody—and now they are outraged!” (The Kremlin's official translators, who are forever civilizing the Russian president's speech, translated this sentence as “They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree, and now they are outraged!” The expression Putin used, however, was “vsekh nagnuli,” street slang for having had nonconsensual anal sex with everybody, rather than for having everybody agree.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/03/putin_s_crimea_revenge_ever_since_the_u_s_bombed_kosovo_in_1999_putin_has.2.html

Maybe the Russian speakers here can chime in on that...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

I thought that South Ossetia was Russian revenge for Kosovo? How many times will they avenge the Serbs in Kosovo?

[Dinsdale!]

Dinsdale,

Russia invaded and annexed a chunk of another nation. Oppossing that action is not being agressive toward Russia. It's standing for the proposition that we don't want nations invading and annexing pieces of other nations.

Scot,

My apologies for the ambiguity. I was referring to expansion of NATO to Georgia and the Ukraine and our general heavy-handed approach to Russian interests in Eastern Europe. I absolutely support strong sanctions against Russia for the invasion and annexation of Crimea.

[Dinsdale!]

?????

Expanding NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia. Why?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dinsdale,

Okay, that makes more sense. I suppose it's a response to aggessive Russian moves.

[snake]

Not really. Mostly the EU demanded tighter regulation and such while Russia didn't care.

The Russians launched various anti-EU propaganda campaigns. The EU didn't but there was cooperation, obviously, with the protest movements against the deal with Russia.

Actually, while negotiating with the EU, Ukraine was also negotiating with Russia with regards to the customs union. So Jose Manual Barroso stated, "one country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union".

[Prosesskrift]

Actually, while negotiating with the EU, Ukraine was also negotiating with Russia with regards to the customs union. So Jose Manual Barroso stated, "one country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union".

That's a rather obvious statement I would think.

[snake]

That's a rather obvious statement I would think.

Why? I know Canada is constantly trying to get FT agreements with other countries outside of NAFTA. The US or Mexico never complains or says we can't be involved in more than one trade agreement.

And Russia was not against the agreement between the EU and Ukraine as long as they had one with Ukraine as well. Just seems strange to me that the EU would act that way.

[Shryke]

Expanding NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia. Why?

Because that hasn't been a thing for almost 5 years with the Ukraine? And with Georgia for over 6?

"recent aggressive stance" makes no sense as a statement of US policy with Russia.

[Miodrag]

<snip>

How am I to prove it isn't a standard diplomatic talk? How is anyone? It's one of those assumptions that are impossible to verify. If you believe husbands usually cheat on their wives, how can anyone dissuade you? I don't think diplomats are so bored they're discussing matters they have zero control over. Why would they? Very few countries and even fewer diplomats are able to influence political developments in foreign countries: why would the rest of them discuss such things?! And, the discussion alone isn't a crime. You and I can talk about robbing a bank, but it's still not a crime. However, if a bank is indeed robbed, and we're recorded while talking about it, you think the sheer possibility that someone else was perhaps thinking the same would be enough to free us? Of course not. No crime would ever be solved that way. And the crime was committed in Ukraine: hundred people killed, and the country is in chaos. Who triggered the violence that resulted in those deaths? We don't know, because there's no investigation about sniper-fire that initiated clashes. Why is there no investigation? We don't know, but Estonian Foreign Minister (also in an intercepted conversation) says it's because the new regime is blocking the investigation. Is the new regime recognized by other countries? It is by some, USA among them. How is the new regime structured? Just like a US official wished. How much did the US State Department spend on Ukraine? Five billion dollars. Can that much money buy you a significant political influence? Most definitely. Does this mean US officials are extraordinarily influential in Ukraine? Of course. Who is the top State Department official for Ukraine? Victoria Nuland, the same one whose already mentioned wishes were somehow fulfilled.

Isn't there too much coincidence in all of this?

If two, say, Brazilian officials were recorded instead of Nuland and Pyatt, it'd mean what you suggest: just a chat; there would be no reason to suspect Brazil influenced the Ukrainian coup in any way. Two Russian officials talking about who'd be good for the government of Canada? Same thing, just a chat. I'm pretty sure Brazilian officials don't discuss who should or should not enter Ukrainian government, just like Russian officials don't discuss Canadian government, but even if they do, I'm positive nobody's going to leak those conversations, cause they'd prove nothing. Here, we have Russians revealing their secret recordings, just to show to the world what were Nuland and Pyatt talking about a country in upheaval. If the conversation wasn't important, Russians would look like complete morons for blowing up their cover for no good reasons, and the world would laugh at them. Do you hear anybody laughing?

If those were two Russian diplomats talking about future Ukraine government, it'd be upsetting, and with a good reason. Especially if a coup eventually ended the way they desired. It'd be equally wrong. I'd find it equally wrong. And I'm 100 percent sure people here would be very upset. People here were freaking out the other day over a single Estonia-related remark a Russian official made in a UN session: it wasn't a leaked confidential conversation, but an official remark delivered in the place designed for such statements; and people were freaking out, they were adding Estonia to the 'list of Putin's crimes'. That's the effect words of a superpower can't help but carry, and it only gets worse if the words weren't even meant to be heard in public, especially if the superpower in question has a history of orchestrating coups (for example, the coup in Serbia of which I already wrote here, and helping of which former US ambassador to Serbia William Montgomery openly admitted).

[Miodrag]

Miodrag, Dicer,

I agree with Maithanet. Do you think there were no conversations in the Kremlin about Yanukovych that patterned after the one you are upset about Nuland having? Surely the Kremlin had people they would prefer to be in power in Kiev? I really do not see how this private conversation is damning in any way.

Every time someone brought up examples of US/EU crimes against international law and sovereign countries, people like you argued that nothing from the past can absolve today's Russia. All of those US/EU crimes are well known, many are fresh in memory, and some are still going on as we speak, but you were resolute in rejecting any suggestion Russia's action should be analyzed in the context of those crimes. In order to remove that kind of talk out of Ukraine threads, you even started a separate thread on US crimes. However, when Nuland tape is discussed, suddenly the very possibility that someone somewhere might be acting similarly to Nuland seems crucial to you. Not that you or anyone else have any proof that diplomats do think and speak and act like Nuland, but, since it can't be ruled out, it's enough to clear the good name of Victoria Nuland in this particular situation.

[Shryke]

Why? I know Canada is constantly trying to get FT agreements with other countries outside of NAFTA. The US or Mexico never complains or says we can't be involved in more than one trade agreement.

And Russia was not against the agreement between the EU and Ukraine as long as they had one with Ukraine as well. Just seems strange to me that the EU would act that way.

Yes they were. The Russians were pushing hard to skuttle the deal between Ukraine and the EU and instead get one between them and the Ukraine. Both sides were working at getting Ukraine to lean their direction.

That's what this whole thing started with. Yanukovych went with the Russian deal and large parts of Ukraine went nuts. It's also why the Russians are so pissed over the revolution, because they are desperately trying to bring Ukraine into their fold rather then let it drift west like most of the other former soviet satellite states.

Ukraine's posiion before all this requited a delicate balancing act to integrate it's economy with both sides because of the political consequences and because of the various regulation-based conditions signing a deal with the EU has.

[Miodrag]

They have been making jokes at your expense.

There are posters like yourself that are decent and civil, regardless of do they agree or, like some among them, disagree with me. If those posters were ridiculing me, it would affect me and make me think about it. Jokes of this Russia-hating crowd? Nah, no trouble at all. They have no basic human respect for dead people in Ukraine, why would I expect a better treatment? Thanks for advice, anyway. Worth considering.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Miodrag,

That's because I don't see anything criminal or sinister in the conversation you find so disturbing. They were discussing preferences, that's all. I'm sure the Russians had similar converstions about who they prefered for Ukraine and exerted influence (short of invasion and annexation) to get the peole they wanted into power.

[Miodrag]

DG,

I thought that South Ossetia was Russian revenge for Kosovo? How many times will they avenge the Serbs in Kosovo?

Perhaps until your troops get the hell out of my country, to which your country brought nothing but large-scale destruction and misery.

[williamjm]

What happens if the post-May Ukrainian government openly seeks admittance to NATO and the EU. Should they be turned down?

I can't see any prospect of a country as large and economically troubled as Ukraine getting accepted into the EU in the foreseeable future, even ignoring recent events. At best they can get into the same situation as Turkey where there's some theoretical chance of them joining as some indeterminate point in the future that's unlikely to ever arrive.

Oh, I'd say it goes back rather farther than that.

I did think of exactly the same headline. It was remarkably prescient.

[Shryke]

Perhaps until your troops get the hell out of my country, to which your country brought nothing but large-scale destruction and misery.

You are startlingly transparent, you know that, yes? DG's article becomes even more interesting and useful then before.

Also, I thought all the NATO troops were in Kosovo.

[Shryke]

Anyway, more of what's been going on:

In other parts of Crimea, Russian troops continued the takeover of Ukrainian positions.

The taking of the Perevalnoye base, 25 kilometers (15 miles) southeast of the capital Simferopol, coincided with the expiry of a truce between Ukrainian and Russian defense ministries made last week after the annexation of predominantly ethnic-Russian Crimea.

At Donuzlav Bay, a Black Sea inlet northwest of Sevastopol, Ukraine's minesweeper Cherkasy attempted without success to break to the open sea through a blockade at the entrance to the bay made of three hulks, scuttled by the Russian navy earlier this month.

A Reuters cameraman saw two Russian helicopters flying over the Ukrainian ship and an infantry unit was deployed along the shoreline. The Cherkasy and another five ships were blocked by the sunken Russian vessels.

Defence analysts in Kiev say there are between 8,000 and 10,000 Ukrainian troops deployed at about three dozen bases across Crimea, but the Ukrainian military estimates there are up to 20,000 of their troops on the peninsula.

In the Belbek air base, which has so far refused to surrender, some Ukrainian soldiers were seen leaving in pairs or threes, or packing bags and home appliances into cars. Others said they would remain inside until the end.

More on that from the BBC:

08:53:

Pro-Russian soldiers took over at least two Ukrainian navy ships at anchor in the port of Sevastopol on Thursday. At least 15 men were involved in the assault, a Ukrainian defence ministry spokesman said.

Russians have been seizing everything the Ukrainian military has on the peninsula. Thankfully, all peacefully so far, minus that shooting a few days ago.

[Dinsdale!]

Because that hasn't been a thing for almost 5 years with the Ukraine? And with Georgia for over 6?

"recent aggressive stance" makes no sense as a statement of US policy with Russia.

Yes. For all of the Obama administration the US stance on Russia has been needlessly aggressive. Five to Six years. Recent history.

[Shryke]

Yes. For all of the Obama administration the US stance on Russia has been needlessly aggressive. Five to Six years. Recent history.

Uh, again, how?

I asked before and all you gave was things that STOPPED 5-6 years ago. Ukraine hasn't been trying to join NATO since the 2010 election. Georgia since the invasion in 2008.

What's been this needless aggression you keep talking about?