Re: Ukraine
 

Nord Stream and South Stream allows/will allow Russia to bypass Ukraine with their natural gas supplies to Central and Western Europe, which will in turn allow them to do whatever they want with Ukraine. Central Europe will still get their gas and so why do they care what happens?


The EU and USA need to get on the same page when it comes to these kind of situations. The Americans are talking about possible sanctions etc. and the EU are holding a meeting on Thursday which could discuss political sanctions.. but a UK Govt. document states that they will not impose economic sanctions or close London financial hub to the Russians.

Being realistic Crimea is lost now. It is Russian. But there are going to be a lot of unanswered questions. What happens to Ukrainian assets in Crimea? How will territorial waters be drawn? What will the status of Crimean citizens be? What happens to the Ukrainian minority?

I have read that the Russian are already planning to move ahead with a bridge linking Crimea to mainland Russia so they can bypass Ukraine completely.

Re: Ukraine
 

If it's the end of the world (again) aren't we all supposed to do some random and copious shagging?

Re: Ukraine
 

:fingerscrossed:

Re: Ukraine
 

Bags me ultrarunner.

Re: Ukraine
 

Yeah what happened to him, is he still here?:eek:

Re: Ukraine
 

Camp X.

Re: Ukraine
 

Well hes still on the member list so he's here somewhere waiting for just the right time to pop in :sneaky:

Re: Ukraine
 

Because a country they rely on for an essential supply of energy appears to be engaged in military actions right on their doorstep, perhaps?

Given the country is run by a nutcase who has invaded a neighbouring country, my take on it as someone running Poland etc. would be to remove Russia from the equation, they clearly aren't acting in a way conducive to national security. The Polish and Hungarians as well as the Baltic countries are always desperately worried about anything the Russians do that might threaten them, so I have no doubt gas frakking is high up on their to-do lists.

"**** the EU."

"**** the Americans."

Similar thought process as far as I can see.

I don't think it is lost actually, those Naval officers had very serious balls on them singing the Ukrainian national anthem in front of those Russians in front of TV cameras. 60% may be ethnically Russian but that doesn't mean they all agree and it also means 40% likely don't agree.

Which is bonkers, Putin has lost his mind.

Re: Ukraine
 

I dont think it was ever there ...

Re: Ukraine
 

Just because you disagree with Putin's actions does not mean he's a nutcase. He seems to be one of the more capable leaders at present. Certainly decisive and shrewd.

There are parallels between the Crimea and Northern Ireland (in terms of loyalist populations) and Britain's response in the Seventies was not all that different.

Re: Ukraine
 

putin is not stupid

this is perfect opportunity for russia to take back crimea

hungary 1956

czechoslovakia 1968

I clearly remember both

it do not stop the invasion then, so what the **** has changed?

Re: Ukraine
 

Please could you elaborate?

Re: Ukraine
 

Isn't the whole thing rather like the Sudetenland crisis (Yes, Godwin's Law, I know!) in that you have a sizeable ethnic group, living in another country, and their 'homeland' stating that they have to enter to protect the rights of that group?

Someone up thread suggested letting Russia keep Crimea. Once again, this was how the Sudetenland crisis was initially averted.

Let's hope that this ends a bit better than that one did.

Re: Ukraine
 

Having a very hypothetical moment here....

... 20 years ago California opted out of the United States and in a very friendly way decided to become an independent country of its own and as part of the agreement the new Californian Government signed an a non aggression pact with the USA so that they could retain large numbers of US warships at the San Diego Naval Base together with 25,000 troops to safeguard them......... now wind forward 20 years ....... new powers within California become more hostile with the USA and want to build a stronger alliance with Mexico to the south (More pot growing opportunities and a lot less rules)...... the US friendly Californian government is overthrown in a coup ...... The USA wants access to its 360 warships based in San Diego and threatens to use force if they are blocked from accessing them.......... What advice from other countries around the world do you think the USA would listen to?

Re: Ukraine
 

A professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Affairs has been fired after comparing Putin's actions in Crimea to Hitler's annexation of Austria in '38. BBC News

Re: Ukraine
 

Do you think the USA would intervene to protect its military bases in the UK if the elected UK government was made to flee due to CND protests?

Re: Ukraine
 

Eh?

Re: Ukraine
 

Um, so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin.

Re: Ukraine
 

Yes and would ignore any warnings given by Russia whilst doing so.....

Re: Ukraine
 

There is no more Soviet Union so the comparison to the invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia is a poor example because the motivation and the method isn't the same. In Hungary and Czech they brought in Mongolian shock troops on the first planes to kill any soldiers in sight, shut down the governments, withdrew the Mongolians then put in Russian and other Warsaw Pact troops, established curfews and parked tanks at every major intersection within a couple of days. They did exactly the same thing in Afghanistan. A reporter who was present for all 3 invasions confirmed the use of the Mongolians (who had to be kept separate from other Warsaw Pact troops because they would kill some who they have ethnic feuds with or who they just don't like, (the reporter said they'd kill Albanians and some others on sight if they weren't segregated). Their purpose is to terrorize the population and get everyone indoors. That isn't happening in Crimea or the Ukraine. The German annexation of the Sudetenland (because of supposedly ethnic German predominance in the area) was just a land grab and wasn't the same as what's happening in Crimea where Russia definately has an established expat population and a huge naval facility and a lease for another 25 years that allows them to maintain troops there. The elected president of the Ukraine was deposed by mass protests and the army supporting the interim leader are armed insurgents (by Russia's definition) until elections affirm the legitimacy of the government. Even though Putin says Yanukovich is still the legal president, he allows that there is no future for him, (no doubt because the looted treasury and 80+ killed protesters make him unacceptable to Ukrainian voters). Russia has a nuclear-armed fleet and an important pipeline system to protect in a country on the brink of civil war and the western leaders threatening sanctions shouldn't expect Putin to pay any attention unless they can guarantee the safety of Russian people and assets there, which they can't.

Re: Ukraine
 

My thinking is that in NI during the Troubles, the UK government sent in the army to protect and secure its interests on the basis that there is a large British population there; in the Crimea there is a large Russian population and Russia is intent on preserving its interests and sphere of influence in the same way. That's the parallel I meant.

Obviously there are some fundamental differences in the sovereign status of the two entities - NI being part of Britain and the Crimea/Ukraine not being part of Russia. Nevertheless the use of force is not something Britain can claim the moral high ground on. IMO.

Re: Ukraine
 

Here's a comparable action and you don't have to go that far back for it either, at least I see quite a few similarities. At the time it was presented as being primarily to guard the oil wells and keep Saudi interests safe, and Kahlifa (sp) got a visit from the head man and was councilled to be more of a people person, get caught doing torture less, crank up infrastructure and keep the general population from revolting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Re: Ukraine
 

The thing is with hypocrites, they tend not have much of a sense of irony. :)

Re: Ukraine
 

You've noted the obvious difference being that NI is actual British territory. In addition the request for the Army came from the NI Government as it existed at that time. (Operation Banner)

Re: Ukraine
 

So did the request for assistance to protect the Russian population come from the elected Ukrainian president and the local executive. The big difference between the areas, is there aren't people butchering innocent civilians on the Skankill Road.

Re: Ukraine
 

If the NI government at the time had requested assistance from the Irish Army then you'd be on the money.

In addition, Yanukovych isn't the President of Ukraine. He was removed by the Ukrainian Parliament (and his own Party).

Re: Ukraine
 

Not lawfully.

Re: Ukraine
 

I go back to my previous post, his shrewdness has boxed him into a corner and made him do something nuts. He's not a popular guy at home with the progressive elements, so he has to appeal to the nationalists. And he has to do that because he's afraid the exact same thing could happen to him, i.e. he gets thrown out by an angry mob.

But he's nuts because he has now created a situation which gives them the excuse to do it, economy in a tailspin, etc.

Over-reached.

Re: Ukraine
 

I think it's very similar, when Germany annexed that area it included most of their defences against a German invasion, which made taking over the rest of the country easy. Ditto here, the Ukrainians have got a lot of their regular military in Crimea. Why do you think they haven't switched sides? Because they're been brought in by the Ukrainian Govt. who put people there who they knew would be loyal.

I remember seeing a documentary years ago about the Ukrainian Navy and one of the officers they interviewed said as much, no-one locally trusts them so they have to be very careful who they put there.

Re: Ukraine
 

Fair comment. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Re: Ukraine
 

Well, I never thought I would be right every time, or forever. History will be the judge.

Re: Ukraine
 

If it was similar to the annexation of Sudetenland and the invasion of Czechoslovakia I think all those loyal troops who are currently waiting to see if they'll be sent home in 10 days after the referendum while their families pass them food through the fence would all be dead and the tanks would of rolled into Kiev weeks ago to help put down the revolution.

Re: Ukraine
 

...or similar to the annexation of Austria in 1938... First soldiers marched in, an later they had a referendum, which was basically fabricated. Over 95% were in favor.

The thing is, Russia violated the borders of another nation, and that is totally unacceptable by today's standards in any way, shape or form and should not be tolerated by the international community.

Russia should face her consequences for that behavior.

Regarding the Ukraine, one possible option is looking at Finland regarding diplomacy and foreign policy.

Re: Ukraine
 

and Iraq ?

Re: Ukraine
 

That's right, it isn't similar to Austria either, it was a liebenstraum land grab like the rest of Europe was. The referendum over the future of Crimea was scheduled well before, just stepped up to March 16 and if voters cast ballots according to ethnicity should pass in favour of becoming part of Russia at that time.
Closing all the ports and blockading ships is Russia's response to what could be called a coup, the legality of that and if the charge of piracy applies has yet to be determined. When elections are held in Ukraine those responses will be judged.
The lease on Crimea allows Russia to garrison up to 40,000 troops there, so they can bring in another 25,000 if they want before they violate that agreement.
Re: consequences - I'm sure it's been brought to Mr. Putin's attention that he has been roundly criticized on this forum, and even if it doesn't change his course of action it's sure to weigh heavily on his mind.:p

Re: Ukraine
 

Well the Germans gave the Czechs months to leave the Sudetenland. Invasion didn't happen until five months after they got their hands on the Sudetenland.

Re: Ukraine
 

The Germans had a plan for world domination, a fanatical leader, and a world that didn't want to get involved so they just took what they could until war was declared then started the blitzkreig. If there is a civil war in Ukraine and any faction starts blowing up Russian pipelines or burning ethnic Russians out of their homes Putin will invade; that's what he says anyway. There are a lot of Russians there because a lot moved there during the time of the Soviet Union and also because parts of Ukraine were actually in Russia long before communism. My mother's village in southern Ukraine was in Russia when the family moved there generations before and when they fled in 1929. Though they were ethnic Prussians they learned to read and write Russian in school.
I haven't seen any recent reports of fighting other than occupation of a government building in Donetsk where a few Ukrainian soldiers were seen among the protesters. Other than that everyone including troops on the ground on all sides seem to be waiting for a diplomatic solution.

Re: Ukraine
 

Sounds similar to me, the main difference is that Putin has no plan for world domination but is using the old Soviet desire for it as leverage to stop another angry mob from going after him, imo.

Which is why he's doing it from a position of weakness and it'll fail without going to war. Unlike Hitler who did it from a position of strength and it caused a massive war.

Re: Ukraine
 

Germany was destitute from war reparitions payments and had runaway inflation, youknowwho wouldn't of been elected if the people had a decent standard of living. Isn't the lifestyle of the average worker better in all countries of the former Soviet Union since the end of the USSR? That's the impression I get from the press, (and some relatives). I doubt Putin wants to invade anyone, it costs too much and frankly who needs the agrivation. What I read says about half the money coming into Russia is payment for that oil passing through the Ukraine so the status quo must be the obvious preference.
Here's a blast from the past - Grandpa's passport photo taken in Moscow in 1929 so he could leave. They had to go from just north-east of Crimea to Moscow to get permission to go, then to Riga, Latvia to get on a ship to Southampton, then the Empress of Australia to Canada, arriving with little but train tickets to the west and speaking no English at the start of the great depression.

Re: Ukraine
 

A loving dream? I think you meant lebensraum. :)