I know what the connection between the Crimea and Russia is, the Crimea is part of the Ukraine under international law and that law protects Russia from separatists as well... "it used to be ours and we still have really close ties and we'd really like it back" is not a valid justification for a creeping takeover of another country's territory.
As for the Crimea. The situation there is complicated. The people who occupied the government buildings there are not all Putin's puppets. Not all of them. Many just are afraid of current Ukrainian regime, some want independence, some want to join Russia even though they dislike Putin. And some are of course Putin followers. Of course all of them are playing into Putin's hands.
Honestly I'm more concerned about Russian armored vehicles slowly occupying more and more territory around the naval base to "protect" it than I am about pro-Russian militias that may or may not be under the control of Moscow storming the Crimean parliament and the airports. Although now some reports are saying Russian soldiers are also involved in the takeover of the airports but it's hard to be sure.
On March 01 2014 01:00 Sent. wrote: Honestly I think Crimea should return to Mother Russia. If I'm not mistaken most of people there consider themselves Russians and they're historically closer to Russia. I think it's a bit unjust to force them to live under Ukrainian flag just because of Khrushchev's crazy whim. On the other hand it would be beneficial for Russia and what's good for Russia is usually bad for Poland so I wouldn't be very happy if that actually happened.
Reminds me of the Nazi Germany - Austria (Invasion).
Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch on Russia's part; though the more I look at Ukraine, the more I think the country should split up. But it's best to have some referenda on that. And some UN action.
So let's have nato go into western Ukraine and have us a good old fashion'ed partitioning of a nation previous line is sarcastic, and a result of playing a lot of eu4 lately.
PS it's too bad self-determination is so important, or Ukraine could sell crimea to Russia to get the money to pay off its debts.
I don't think it's a good precedent or a good idea in general that if one part of a country is pissed that its gangster leaders can't leech the country anymore or is afraid of the consequences now that they can't anymore that they should be allowed to secede. It's also horrible in my mind that you can overthrow your corrupt government and then lose half your country because that half doesn't like the corrupt government being gone. The Ukraine should not be punished because it got tired of a corrupt political class screwing it over.
Secession sentiment doesn't seem to be as unified or strong in the East as it is in Crimea anyway, I don't think there's much danger of the "Russian" half breaking off the political structure and will doesn't seem to be strong enough there, but Crimea is a different story. Much more pro-Russian and it has Russian soldiers there.
The corruption isn't just from the Russian side though, the corruption is from everywhere; it just so happened that the most recent batch was more from the Russian side. That's more an artifact of parties varying over time. And you're assuming that they overthrew the corrupt government to install something non-corrupt; as a question of fact, I see nothing indicating they're going to actually put in a non-corrupt government; merely that they want to (who doesn't). I'm also not seeing much competence coming in with a new government.
Also, a land belongs to its people, not to some hypothetical nation. It's not a punishment to Ukraine if some of its citizens decide they want to separate from it. A nation exists for its people, and can be discarded or changed if it no longer serves its people.
The east would probably want to stay in Ukraine I think, but in a free and open referendum, I would tend to guess Crimea would vote to join Russia.
On March 01 2014 04:35 DeepElemBlues wrote: I don't think it's a good precedent or a good idea in general that if one part of a country is pissed that its gangster leaders can't leech the country anymore or is afraid of the consequences now that they can't anymore that they should be allowed to secede. It's also horrible in my mind that you can overthrow your corrupt government and then lose half your country because that half doesn't like the corrupt government being gone. The Ukraine should not be punished because it got tired of a corrupt political class screwing it over.
Secession sentiment doesn't seem to be as unified or strong in the East as it is in Crimea anyway, I don't think there's much danger of the "Russian" half breaking off the political structure and will doesn't seem to be strong enough there, but Crimea is a different story. Much more pro-Russian and it has Russian soldiers there.
I don't think Crimea was that much pro-Yanukovych. They wanted bigger autonomy and/or independence and/or join Russia for a long time. And it is not like the new government is not corrupt, just changing of the guards.
In the east most people consider themselves Ukrainians even if they are closely tied to Russia. Crimeans on the other hand do not. I think most reaonable proposals were about referendum in Crimea and possibly Doneck (which was separate republic before Lenin made it part of Ukraine). Half of the country definitely does not want to secede.
On March 01 2014 04:43 zlefin wrote: The corruption isn't just from the Russian side though, the corruption is from everywhere; it just so happened that the most recent batch was more from the Russian side. That's more an artifact of parties varying over time. And you're assuming that they overthrew the corrupt government to install something non-corrupt; as a question of fact, I see nothing indicating they're going to actually put in a non-corrupt government; merely that they want to (who doesn't). I'm also not seeing much competence coming in with a new government.
Also, a land belongs to its people, not to some hypothetical nation. It's not a punishment to Ukraine if some of its citizens decide they want to separate from it. A nation exists for its people, and can be discarded or changed if it no longer serves its people.
The east would probably want to stay in Ukraine I think, but in a free and open referendum, I would tend to guess Crimea would vote to join Russia.
You are right and I said that earlier in this thread. The corruption and decay in the Ukrainian political class started well before Yanukovych.
They haven't even had a new government for a month yet, I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for a while on their intentions to erect a non-corrupt political structure.
Loss of territory and the population living there and the resources and geographical advantages like good ports etc. is very real. And think of the military losses! The Crimea is the home to Ukraine's navy as well. In any potential conflict in the future, Russia owning the Ukraine would put Kiev at a substantial disadvantage. Russia could launch airstrikes, raids, maybe even open a second front from the Crimea. Russia owning the Crimea relegates the Ukraine to being hamstrung in any war it might have with Russia sometime in the future. Their strategic position would be very much weakened. And that would make it much more likely that Russia would continue to try to control the Ukraine. It would be pretty harmful to the rest of the Ukraine to lose the Crimea.
A government exists for its people. A nation is an older and deeper thing. A nation is not a state. Self-determination is an absolute right we like to tell ourselves but Balkanization just since WW2 (existed forever but not called Balkanization of course) has happened in the Balkans and the Caucasus and is happening in the Middle East right now and it was and is really pretty bad for all of those places. There's no reason to think the Balkanization of the Ukraine would not be equally bad.
On March 01 2014 01:53 Makro wrote: starting a nuclear war for ukraine (no offense) seems to be highly over exagerated, i don't think leaders (more, their advisor) are that stupid
On March 01 2014 05:40 darkness wrote: As much as I dislike Russia's foreign policy, EU-US vs Russia war may get very ugly. Hopefully no nuclear bombs this time.
I don't think it will get that far.
also, I might be too much of an optimist but lets see what russia plans to do with their air control in ukraine. Perhaps its just a peacekeeping mission to keep air space dominated and instate a no fly zone, Like the US did so so many times in so so many countries in the past few years. I mean, I know russia isn't exactly painted as a positive nation, but who knows what they are up to atm, until we see some congruence between stated operations and also their actions.
Apparently the Russians have airlifted 2000 additional troops into the Crimea in addition to whatever other assets that they have moved there over the past couple days.
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.
On March 01 2014 05:51 nunez wrote: fresh of the press...
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.
I hope we did give aid to the opposition. It shows that Obama is smarter than I give him credit for.
I really miss the days of peacekeeping Instead countries seem to be supporting potentially violent revolutions instead of trying to mitigate violence :/
On March 01 2014 05:51 nunez wrote: fresh of the press...
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.
I hope we did give aid to the opposition. It shows that Obama is smarter than I give him credit for.
I really miss the days of peacekeeping Instead countries seem to be supporting potentially violent revolutions instead of trying to mitigate violence :/
The days of peacekeeping never happened. It was just that we never found out who they payed at the time.
On March 01 2014 05:51 nunez wrote: fresh of the press...
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.
I hope we did give aid to the opposition. It shows that Obama is smarter than I give him credit for.
I really miss the days of peacekeeping Instead countries seem to be supporting potentially violent revolutions instead of trying to mitigate violence :/
The days of peacekeeping never happened. It was just that we never found out who they payed at the time.
On March 01 2014 05:51 nunez wrote: fresh of the press...
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.
EPT
...
Instead countries seem to be supporting potentially violent revolutions instead of trying to mitigate violence :/
