Ukrainian Conflict

[RRW]

Ukraine puts forces on combat alert, warns of war

(Reuters) - Ukraine put its armed forces on full combat alert on Saturday and warned Russia that any military intervention in the country would lead to war.

After a more than three-hour meeting with security and defense chiefs, Acting President Oleksander Turchinov said there was no justification for what he called Russian aggression against his country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A200UG20140301

[Xellos-_^]

So is Obama going to do a pivot to Eastern Europe now?

[AnimeFan188]

U.S. Spies Said No Russian Invasion of Ukraine—Putin Disagreed:

"On Thursday night, the best assessment from the U.S. intelligence community—and
for that matter most experts observing events in Ukraine—was that Vladimir Putin’s
military would not invade Ukraine. Less than 24 hours later, however, there are
reports from the ground of Russian troops pushing into the Ukrainian province of
Crimea; the newly-installed Crimean prime minister has appealed to Putin to help
him secure the country; Putin, in turn, is officially asking for parliament's permission
to send Russian forces into Ukraine. It’s not a full-blown invasion—at least, not yet.
But it’s not the picture U.S. analysts were painting just a day before, either."

See:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...disagreed.html

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

So is Obama going to do a pivot to Eastern Europe now?

There's been much talk of a Pacific Pivot, but the Middle East and Europe stubbornly refuse to become insignificant.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

There's been much talk of a Pacific Pivot, but the Middle East and Europe stubbornly refuse to become insignificant.

If Ukraine get invaded and yet USA does nothing, it would destabilise the Pacific if the perception is that the US can't defend its allies there. Ukraine has a treaty that said America has to defend it; breaking treaties have consequences.

Also, Ukraine disarmed their nukes willingly in exchange for a defence guarantee; this event makes the argument that nuclear proliferation is the only defence. And that any nation who doesn't want nukes is asking to be invaded like Ukraine is.

In short: Build your own nukes or die.

[konart]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

If Ukraine get invaded and yet USA does nothing, it would destabilise the Pacific if the perception is that the US can't defend its allies there. Ukraine has a treaty that said America has to defend it; breaking treaties have consequences.

Also, Ukraine disarmed their nukes willingly in exchange for a defence guarantee; this event makes the argument that nuclear proliferation is the only defence. And that any nation who doesn't want nukes is asking to be invaded like Ukraine is.

In short: Build your own nukes or die.

And what treaty is that? Because it's not the case if we are talking about Budapest agreements.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by konart

And what treaty is that? Because it's not the case if we are talking about Budapest agreements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ns_and_Ukraine
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

Before voting on accession, Ukraine demanded from Russia, the USA, France and the United Kingdom a written statement that these powers undertook to extend the security guarantees to Ukraine. Instead security assurances to Ukraine (Ukraine published the documents as guarantees given to Ukraine[5]) were given on 5 December 1994 at a formal ceremony in Budapest (known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances[6]), may be summarized as follows: Russia, the UK and the USA undertake to respect Ukraine's borders in accordance with the principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, to abstain from the use or threat of force against Ukraine, to support Ukraine where an attempt is made to place pressure on it by economic coercion, and to bring any incident of aggression by a nuclear power before the UN Security Council.

The agreement was specifically created before Ukraine would give up their nukes.

And I guess you are technically right in that the US doesn't have to defend Ukraine; the one who broke the treaty is Russia. But the fact remains that Ukraine's position came from them trusting the world powers. And now that trust is broken, and this can have global issues.

So, yeah, American can stay out if they want. But if they stay out then we are going back to the Cold War immediately.

[SaintessHeart]

There are still the French and the Brits.

Would be interesting if two centuries old rivals put their differences aside to defend Ukraine.

[sbg711]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkiSPMpTp_I

Seems western media decided to soothingly change sides

Originally Posted by RRW

Ukraine puts forces on combat alert, warns of war




http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A200UG20140301

Ukraine puts forces on combat alert just as I put my forces on combat alert. Meaning the new government has as much AF obedience as I do. The military command understands it would be committing treason by obeying an unconstitutional president and parliament, and if a counter-revolution were to take place (and by looks of things it is happening all across eastern-Ukraine now) and Yanuk with all exiled ministers would return, those who have sanctioned their subordinates for military action would be tried for war crimes.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

There are still the French and the Brits.

Would be interesting if two centuries old rivals put their differences aside to defend Ukraine.

France and England fought together in wars where both countries were involved at the same time since the Crimean War... which was fought coincidentally against Russia. I don't see how it would not work between France and Britain.

If any, Obama will need to stop being a dithering pussy on foreign policy and hold a strong crystal clear position (through existing treaties) because anything else will be a wrong message to send knowing the situation in the Pacific as VCV mentioned.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by sbg711

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkiSPMpTp_I

Seems western media decided to soothingly change sides

Despite the rise of news-as-entertainment outlets like Fox, some western media outlets are actually still news organizations and covers both sides.

A BBC coverage about the existence of far-right group in Kiev (not a secret) does not constitute "change sides", considering they aren't on anyone's side to begin with. Remember, this isn't Russia, these are not state-owned news media.

Originally Posted by sbg711

Ukraine puts forces on combat alert just as I put my forces on combat alert. Meaning the new government has as much AF obedience as I do.

Sorry, I forgot, you're the leader of what country again?

[sbg711]

The U.S. has more excuses to back down than Russia does. Ukraine is Russia's backyard, and any instability there is a direct threat to Russia's security, unlike the thousands-of-miles-away USA.
Were NATO to penetrate Ukraine in any form, Russia would view it as an act of aggression against itself. And then you'd have a WW3 without a doubt.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Sorry, I forgot, you're the leader of what country again?

Yes, precisely. I'm as much of a leader of a country as Turchynov is.

Originally Posted by kyp275

A BBC coverage about the existence of far-right group in Kiev (not a secret) does not constitute "change sides", considering they aren't on anyone's side to begin with. Remember, this isn't Russia, these are not state-owned news media.

I'll agree with your statement if you show me BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, etc. reports of far-right groups in the opposition from early December. Because that's when news about them started appearing in Russian media.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by sbg711

Ukraine is Russia's backyard, and any instability there is a direct threat to Russia's security, unlike the thousands-of-miles-away USA.

The US thought that of Cuba once (only a short distance away from Florida) and tried to take it back by force (Bay of Pigs Invasion); it did nothing but reinforce the position of the Castro administration. So take a look at that page of history if you think that any Russian intervention is justified; it will only reinforce the new administration's legitimacy to the eyes of the people.

Originally Posted by sbg711

Were NATO to penetrate Ukraine in any form, Russia would view it as an act of aggression against itself. And then you'd have a WW3 without a doubt.

If Russia pull their troops out first, no one will regard this as a repeat of Prague 1968 nor Hungary 1956, and NATO won't be involved. Also remember that Yanukovitch first took power away from elected president Yulia Tymoshenko through very debatable if not illegal means; that was one of the major cause of what we have today.

[Dhomochevsky]

Originally Posted by sbg711

I'll agree with your statement if you show me BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, etc. reports of far-right groups in the opposition from early December. Because that's when news about them started appearing in Russian media.

That would be easy.

There have always been reports that the 'opposition' is a very crude mix of all kinds of political positions, containing extremists of both the far left and the far right, even neo-nazis and ultra-nationalists among them.
By the way, that was one of the reasons no one expected they would get anywhere with their protests: It was thought to be impossible for them to decide on a common demand.

[sbg711]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

So take a look at that page of history if you think that any Russian intervention is justified; it will only reinforce the new administration's legitimacy to the eyes of the people.

In the eyes of whose people? Youtube tells me major eastern cities have already put a Russian flag on top of their administrative buildings.

Kiev's current government is illegitimate law-wise. Eye-wise (not sure if there even is such a definition) it's partially seen as legitimate in Ukraine's west, which has only about 10% of Ukraine's entire population.

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

If Russia pull their troops out first, no one will regard this as a repeat of Prague 1968 nor Hungary 1956, and NATO won't be involved. Also remember that Yanukovitch first took power away from elected president Yulia Tymoshenko through very debatable if not illegal means; that was one of the major cause of what we have today.

The presence of Russian troops in Crimea is not illegal by any means. It is seen as illegal in the eyes of Turchynov. But Turchynov himself is seen as illegal in the eyes of 90% of Ukrainians. But yet again, law-wise, Russia has the authority to place its troops in Ukraine, if Ukraine's legitimate leadership demands it. Not some random guy who was chosen by a random crowd and is now occupying a random seat.

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

That would be easy.

There have always been reports that the 'opposition' is a very crude mix of all kinds of political positions, containing extremists of both the far left and the far right, even neo-nazis and ultra-nationalists among them.

Links to reports please.

[Dhomochevsky]

Go find them yourself if you don't believe me, I don't work on weekends.

Germany is pretty sensitive when it comes to neo-nazis, so there have been more than enough critical reports about that part of the opposition. Especially when some of our politicians (and one of our boxers -_-') got involved with it.

[sbg711]

NATO is simply not going to do anything against Russia, even if Russia were to proclaim whole of Ukraine to be Russian territory. All of the hysteria and drum beating coming from guys like Poland and the US are acts of face-saving, to show that they're not completely ball-less in the face of a Ruski threat.
Though, for the US president to threaten Russia with "costs" is an insult, and was in fact seen as an insult on a top level in Russia. Russia's Federal Council proposed to respond by calling off the Russian ambassador to the US.

Vice representative of the Federal Council said, that "the U.S. president has crossed a red line" in his rhetoric towards Russia.

http://ria.ru/politics/20140301/997697434.html

The Federal Council seems to hold a unanimous position on what actions have to be taken in Ukraine (as well as in regard to the ambassador), as most, if not all, Russians see Ukraine's current situation as threat to their peace and a blatant disrespect from their western friends.

This whole situation however was to be expected. NATO global hegemony was to last only for as long as Russia and China stayed in the background and preferred not to intervene in global affairs. Now a confrontation is arising as both begin to bargain for their national interests. You'll see lots of sabre-rattling in the coming years, but it is highly doubtful any actions on the part of Russia will lead to WW3. Unless of course WW3 is what the west secretly wants.

[Kirarakim]

I have friends who still have family there, getting nervous about the news.

[LeoXiao]

Crimea was Russian before the Soviets decided for some reason to give it to the Ukrainian SSR. I think this happened in the 50s. In any case, 60% of the population there is ethnically Russian.

As for issues concerning "mainland" Ukraine, splitting the country between "Ukrainians" and "Russians" won't work since the populations live together and have ambiguous identity to begin with. Who gets Kiev? How big do you want to make West Ukraine?

This is what happens when you take the USSR, a country of people that were essentially similar culturally and try to split them up based on Western notions of the nation-state and wanton self-determinism. Putting aside some cases like Georgia or the Baltic states, Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus are all part of the same Russian* cultural sphere . It would be nice if Ukraine could get its act together as an independent country like Poland or the Czechs, but given the fact that their culture is undeniably tied to Russia, it's not really possible.

*= русский as opposed to российский. The former refers to the historical state of Rus, the latter only refers to modern Russia. Rus was in fact created in what is Ukrainian in modern times. There is only one English word for both concepts, unfortunately.

The below map shows the gradient of cultural/ethnic identity in the country. Note that only a small part in the west is decisively Ukrainian.

[Fireminer]

But the rift between the Ukrainians, Tatars and Russians has also existed far long ago during the Tsar's reign. Stalin only made it worse. And now this. I fear that this would be an ideal environment for extremist, fasism and Nazi parties.

[Daniel E.]

Guys, remember to use the edit button whenever you want to add something to your comments. Double or triple posting pushes other comments down the pages and it's not that hard to press the edit button either.