War threat in Ukraine

[moXJO]

Sounds like a lot of conspiracy theories in that statement

The situation is very dangerous and delicate, it could escalate to a multi-nation war with extreme and severe consequences which include nuclear retaliation from Russia.

The US and NATO can't offer air defense or boots on the ground to help the Ukrainian people, because Putin has warned every nation that he is ready to use his nuclear arsenal.

Some people are trying connect dots that aren't there, and find similarities with US incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan to the current Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The USA never claimed that Iraq and Afghanistan was the territory of the USA, unlike Putin's Russia which has claimed that the Ukraine is Russian territory and its democratically elected government are Nazis waging genocide on its people, with no evidence other than all the Ukrainian people willing to fight for their neighbours and land.

Two world wars began in Europe, the people of the world do not want another. After the cold war ended Western governments opened their business doors to Russia, creating immense wealth for Russia and its people. Instead of using most of the new found wealth to improve the the lives of Russian citizens and modernise the country, the powerful have instead made a few super wealthy and the armed forces expand.

Countries like Germany may now be heading towards a recession because they put all their eggs in the Russian energy basket. Other countries are also in the same boat and on top of an energy crises is the added stress of food shortage from the loss of Russian and Ukraine crops, transport logistics, commercial flights being re-routed, the possibility of 10 million Ukrainian refugees, toxic pollution from war on their borders, death and destruction and fear of a world war.

Only conspiracy theorists and movies see western governments being "sneaky" and pushing countries to world wars.

Claim: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia​

Fact: For more than three decades, NATO has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia.​

NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, at the London NATO Summit of July 1990 (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia.​

In 1997, NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002, this was upgraded, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) (The Founding Act can be read here)​

We set out to build a good relationship with Russia. We worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning.​

However, in March 2014, in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia. At the same time, NATO has kept channels for communication with Russia open. The NATO-Russia Council remains an important platform for dialogue. That is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has invited all members of the NATO-Russia Council to a series of meetings to improve security in Europe.​

You have got to be kidding me right?
Is this a serious post?
We went into Iraq for less.
As for government overthrows or support of violent regimes, well we have plenty:
Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Brazil, Cambodia, China and lets not forget the sht puddle that was Cuba. And that list is only up to D so far.

Russia was making accusations against Obama long before this blew up.

Redirect Notice

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A conversation between a State Department official and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine that was posted on YouTube revealed an embarrassing exchange on U.S. strategy for a political transition in that country, including a crude American swipe at the European Union.


The leaked conversation appeared certain to embarrass the United States and seemed designed to bolster charges - from Russia, among others - that the Ukrainian opposition is being manipulated by Washington, which President Barack Obama's administration strenuously disputes.

This was 2014.

We also had McCain and Senator Chris Murphy rock up to the protest and speak. Back in 2014. You also had John McCain have a dinner with the likes of Svoboda (they captured about 10% of the vote and were growing).
Maybe learn a bit about Svoboda roots and how it to had influence in how all this went.
His one pre 2012 article (tried to make all articles pre 2015)

Svoboda: The rise of Ukraine's ultra-nationalists

The ultra-nationalist Svoboda party was a big winner in Ukraine's recent election. How radical is it?

www.google.com.au

So maybe back off your "Nazi conspiracy" when you think it's entirely a Russian disinformation campaign. Because that's not the only truth in a propaganda war.
We had roughly $500 million pour into the region from I think 2009 to possibly 2014 from the US. Then weapons.


And all thus isn't even into the why it all began in the first place. Do you honestly think the US, Russia or Europe would be involved if it wasn't strategically advantageous. It's nothing to do with freedom and its not a conspiracy theory.

There are so many talking points but I don't have the time. But maybe ready deep into the situation rather then believe whatever idiots tell you.

 

[JohnDe]

You have got to be kidding me right?
Is this a serious post?
We went into Iraq for less.
As for government overthrows or support of violent regimes, well we have plenty:
Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Brazil, Cambodia, China and lets not forget the sht puddle that was Cuba. And that list is only up to D so far.

Russia was making accusations against Obama long before this blew up.


So maybe back off your "Nazi conspiracy" when you think it's entirely a Russian disinformation campaign. Because that's not the only truth in a propaganda war.
We had roughly $500 million pour into the region from I think 2009 to possibly 2014 from the US. Then weapons.


And all thus isn't even into the why it all began in the first place. Do you honestly think the US, Russia or Europe would be involved if it wasn't strategically advantageous. It's nothing to do with freedom and its not a conspiracy theory.

There are so many talking points but I don't have the time. But maybe ready deep into the situation rather then believe whatever idiots tell you.

Yes, it does seem that you have the views of a kid.

The invasion of Iraq should never have happened. However, using the Iraq war as justification for the Russian invasion of Ukraine is so low and weak I feel dirty just answering you.

Putin believes that the Ukraine land is part of Russia, he presumed that the majority of the Ukrainian people agreed with him and would welcome his armies with open arms, causing the Ukraine defence forces to step down and allow the Russian army control and forcing the Ukrainian government to stand down. To Putin's and his army's surprise, the Ukrainian people believe that they are their own people with a land and they are fighting for their independence.

Russian army and air-force is currently destroying cities, they are bombing, shelling, and using missiles and cluster bombs in civilian areas.

As for the Nazi comment, have you watched any of Putin's explanation on why he sent in the army?

To justify his invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has leveled an absurd charge: that forces must intervene to stop the Nazification of Ukraine at the hands of its Jewish leader, Volodymyr Zelensky.​

​

“We will strive for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine,” the Russian leader said in an address last week ordering a military attack on Ukraine, adding his goal was “to protect people who have been abused by the genocide of the Kyiv regime for eight years.”​

And why has Ukraine become so militarised?

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, pro-Russian forces, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other. Conflict began in February 2014 following the Revolution of Dignity, and focused on the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. The conflict includes the Russian annexation of Crimea (2014), the war in Donbas (2014–present), naval incidents, cyberwarfare, and political tensions. Intentionally concealing its involvement, Russia gave military backing to separatists in the Donbas from 2014 onwards. Having built up a large military presence on the border from late 2021, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, which is ongoing.​

 

[Smurf1976]

Countries like Germany may now be heading towards a recession because they put all their eggs in the Russian energy basket.

On that one I'll simply note that people whose focus is energy have been warning of that one for a very long time. It was an entirely foreseeable, and actually foreseen by more than a few, circumstance.

Relying on a plausibly hostile foreign supplier with "just in time" delivery for something on which society is highly dependent is nothing short of crazy, it's just asking for trouble.

 

[moXJO]

Yes, it does seem that you have the views of a kid.

The invasion of Iraq should never have happened, but for you to use Iraq as justification for the Russian invasion of a free and democratic Ukraine is so low and weak I feel dirty just answering you.

Putin believes that the Ukraine land is part of Russia, he presumed that the Ukrainian people agree with him and would welcome his armies with open arms and the armed forces to step down and allow the Russian army to control and force the Ukrainian government to stand down. To Putin's and his army's surprise, the Ukrainian people believe that they are their own people with a land and they are fighting for their independence.

Russian army and air-force is currently destroying cities, they are bombing, shelling, and using missiles and cluster bombs in civilian areas.

As for the Nazi comment, have you watched any of Putin's explanation on why he sent in the army?

To justify his invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has leveled an absurd charge: that forces must intervene to stop the Nazification of Ukraine at the hands of its Jewish leader, Volodymyr Zelensky.​

​

“We will strive for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine,” the Russian leader said in an address last week ordering a military attack on Ukraine, adding his goal was “to protect people who have been abused by the genocide of the Kyiv regime for eight years.”​

And why has Ukraine become so militarised?

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, pro-Russian forces, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other. Conflict began in February 2014 following the Revolution of Dignity, and focused on the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. The conflict includes the Russian annexation of Crimea (2014), the war in Donbas (2014–present), naval incidents, cyberwarfare, and political tensions. Intentionally concealing its involvement, Russia gave military backing to separatists in the Donbas from 2014 onwards. Having built up a large military presence on the border from late 2021, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, which is ongoing.​

Uh huh. I'm not the one advocating to cross the red line into ww3 so we can all enjoy dying. I can send you a link to go join the battle instead and keep the numbers low.



I said the government is "sneaky" and you said that wasn't the case. I then listed a small sample (out of the many many examples) of the times the US overthrew governments, or supported criminals. You disputing past history?
There was no justification. Simply the west is just as capable.

The point of enlightening others about Svoboda (and really the azov battalion) is their politics. Others can dig right in themselves as it's not just some Russian "conspiracy". It started off as a neo nazi group in its heyday. That's not to say that Ukraine is ultimately a nation of "Nazis". Simply that this group has heavily influenced politics and propaganda for a long time as well. You can look at Poland's right wing as well.

The truth goes a lot deeper then the surface level sht you quote. It was ultimately 'the Ukrainian government's decision to suspend the signing of an association agreement with the European Union' that started this mess.
But it comes down to: people are dying because Ukraine is of strategic position to others. That's it.

 

[againsthegrain]

these days it doesn't take much to be a neo nazi at all, have a different opinion to the left, show some patriotism and your public enemy no1

 

[JohnDe]

Uh huh. I'm not the one advocating to cross the red line into ww3 so we can all enjoy dying. I can send you a link to go join the battle instead and keep the numbers low.



I said the government is "sneaky" and you said that wasn't the case. I then listed a small sample (out of the many many examples) of the times the US overthrew governments, or supported criminals. You disputing past history?
There was no justification. Simply the west is just as capable.

The point of enlightening others about Svoboda (and really the azov battalion) is their politics. Others can dig right in themselves as it's not just some Russian "conspiracy". It started off as a neo nazi group in its heyday. That's not to say that Ukraine is ultimately a nation of "Nazis". Simply that this group has heavily influenced politics and propaganda for a long time as well. You can look at Poland's right wing as well.

The truth goes a lot deeper then the surface level sht you quote. It was ultimately 'the Ukrainian government's decision to suspend the signing of an association agreement with the European Union' that started this mess.
But it comes down to: people are dying because Ukraine is of strategic position to others. That's it.

"I said the government is "sneaky" and you said that wasn't the case" You sure did say that, and as well as a few other things. "something feels very off with this all....This goes a lot deeper than dropping "freedom bombs".... I'm not blind to the fact we have sneaky arse western governments"

Where did I say 'that wasn't the case'

In 1994 Ukraine became a NATO partner, the first step to becoming a member of NATO.
The Ukraine had also wanted to join the EU, with its diplomats coming to an agreement with the European Union to join. However the government refused to join and instead signed an agreement with Russia. Which caused 100,000's Ukrainian citizens to march and protest (remember that democratic countries allow protesting, we do the same in Australia), which turned violent when government forces started shooting.
Ukranian protests increased, calling for the country to join the EU. Elected members of the Ukraine parliament listened and were appalled by the violence that the President caused, and voted for his the removal. Democracy at work, a bit like the 'dimisal'.
Putin did not like the idea of a democracy on the front door of Russia, so invaded and took Crimea, even though both countries had a long standing agreement -

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances Russia was among those who affirmed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine (including Crimea) and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.[159][163] The 1997 Russian–Ukrainian Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership again reaffirmed the inviolability of the borders between both states,[163] and required Russian forces in Crimea to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, honor its legislation and not interfere in the internal affairs of the country.[165]​

Yes you are correct, there is a lot more to the story. What you don't take into account is that you must read from both sides, and maybe talk to some involved, to understand what has and is happening.

The majority of the Ukrainian people have wanted and have demonstrated for independence for generations. It's not about what the west or the US want or what he or she says. It is what a country with it's own language and heritage wants and what they have had to endure to try and get it.

Putin invaded the Ukranine, not the other way around. NATO is a defensive pact, with specific rules that stop it from being an offensive force, it works like a democracy where leaders from each member nation debate and vote.

Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. Attention now focuses on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in Donbas, a conflict that has taken some 14,000 lives, but Moscow’s seizure of Crimea — the biggest land-grab in Europe since World War II — has arguably done as much or more damage to Europe’s post-Cold War security order.​

​

Ukraine lacks the leverage to restore sovereignty over Crimea, at least for the foreseeable future. But that does not mean the West should accept it. Doing so might only encourage the Kremlin to believe that taking the territory of other countries is an action that it can get away with.​

​

CRIMEA’S ILLEGAL ANNEXATION​

Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution ended in late February 2014, when President Victor Yanukovych fled Kyiv — later to turn up in Russia — and the Rada (Ukraine’s parliament) appointed an acting president and acting prime minister to take charge. They made clear their intention to draw Ukraine closer to Europe by signing an association agreement with the European Union.​

​

Almost immediately thereafter, armed men began occupying key facilities and checkpoints on the Crimean peninsula. Clearly professional soldiers by the way they handled themselves and their weapons, they wore Russian combat fatigues but with no identifying insignia. Ukrainians called them “little green men.” President Vladimir Putin at first flatly denied these were Russian soldiers, only to later admit that they were and award commendations to their commanders.​

​

The sizeable Ukrainian military presence in Crimea stayed in garrison. If shooting began, Kyiv wanted the world to see the Russians fire first. Ukraine’s Western partners urged Kyiv not to take precipitate action. Since many enlisted personnel in the Ukrainian ranks came from Crimea, Ukrainian commanders probably had less than full confidence in the reliability of their troops.​

​

Things moved quickly. By early March, Russian troops had secured the entire peninsula. On March 6, the Crimean Supreme Council voted to ask to accede to Russia. The council scheduled a referendum for March 16, which offered two choices: join Russia or return to Crimea’s 1992 constitution, which gave the peninsula significant autonomy. Those who favored Crimea remaining part of Ukraine under the current constitution had no box to check.​

​

The conduct of the referendum proved chaotic and took place absent any credible international observers. Local authorities reported a turnout of 83 percent, with 96.7 percent voting to join Russia. The numbers seemed implausible, given that ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars accounted for almost 40 percent of the peninsula’s population. (Two months later, a leaked report from the Russian president’s Human Rights Council put turnout at only 30 percent, with about half of those voting to join Russia.)​

​

On March 18, Crimean and Russian officials signed the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Crimea to Russia. Putin ratified the treaty three days later.​

​

RUSSIAN CLAIMS​

Moscow maintains a historical claim to Crimea. The Russians colonized Crimea during the reign of Catherine the Great, and they founded Sevastopol — the peninsula’s main port and largest city — to be the homeport for the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Following the establishment of the Soviet Union, Crimea was a part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic until 1954, when it was transferred administratively to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.​

​

It is also true that Crimea in 2014 had an ethnic Russian majority of about 60 percent — the only part of Ukraine where ethnic Russians constituted the majority. But it is equally true that, when the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, the resulting independent states recognized one another in their then-existing borders. Russia’s seizure of Crimea from Ukraine violated, among other agreements, the UN Charter, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances for Ukraine and the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and Russia.​

​

Moscow expressed concern about the fate of ethnic Russians in Crimea, but no evidence showed any threat to them. The Russian government justified the referendum and annexation as an act of self-determination, though it appears that well less than half of the Crimean population actually voted to join Russia. In any case, the Kremlin applies the principle of self-determination selectively; Moscow responded to the desire of Chechens for independence from Russia after the Soviet collapse with two bloody conflicts.​

​

It appears that domestic politics provided one motive behind Putin’s decision to seize Crimea. He returned to the presidency in 2012 with an economic situation much weaker than during his first two terms as president (2000-2008). Instead of being able to cite economic growth and rising living standards, he based much of his reelection appeal on Russian nationalism. Seizing Crimea in a quick and relatively bloodless operation proved very popular with the Russian public. Putin’s approval rating climbed accordingly.​

​

CRIMEA TODAY AND LOOKING FORWARD​

Crimea has undergone significant changes over the past six years. A large number of ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars — some put the total at 140,000 — have left the peninsula since 2014. Crimean Tatars complain of intimidation and oppression as one reason for moving. During the same period, some 250,000 people have moved from Russia to Crimea (Crimean Tatar leaders claim the influx is much larger). The inflow has included troops and sailors, as the Kremlin has bolstered the Russian military presence on the peninsula, deploying new submarines, surface combatants and combat aircraft among other things.​

​

The economic picture is mixed. Trying to create a success story, Moscow has poured in more than $10 billion in direct subsidies as well as funding major construction and infrastructure projects, such as the highway and railroad bridges that now cross the Kerch Strait to link Crimea directly to Russia. On the other hand, small business has suffered, particularly with the decline in tourism, which once accounted for about one quarter of Crimea’s economy. Crimea also remains subject to a variety of Western economic and other sanctions. It is probably fair to say that the reality of the economic situation today falls short of what many in Crimea expected, or hoped for, with Russia’s annexation.​

​

The ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict in Donbas has pushed Crimea to the back pages, with Kyiv understandably focusing on trying to end that fighting, which claims the lives of Ukrainian soldiers on almost a weekly basis. Still, while Donbas has meant far more dead than Crimea, Crimea’s seizure arguably has done as much, if not more, damage to the European security order. A key premise of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and subsequent documents was that state borders should be inviolable and not changed by force; Russia’s actions in 2014 shredded that principle. That has caused unease among Russia’s other neighbors.​

​

The Ukrainian government maintains that it will get Crimea back. Analytically, it is difficult to see how Kyiv can muster the political, diplomatic, economic and military leverage needed to do so. Perhaps the one possibility would be if Ukraine were to achieve dramatic success in growing its economy, both in absolute terms and relative to the Russian economy, to the point where Crimeans calculated that their living standards would be better off as part of Ukraine. Moscow would likely fiercely resist that — just ask the Chechens — and, in any case, Ukraine’s economy has a long way to go.​

​

Even if Crimea’s return appears implausible in the near term, the United States and Europe should continue to support Kyiv’s position, maintain Crimea-related sanctions on Russia, and hold to the policy of non-recognition of Crimea’s annexation. Moscow should pay some price for its use of military force to seize the peninsula. That’s the right thing to do for Ukraine, for the European security order, and for dissuading the Kremlin from trying land grabs elsewhere.​

​

The West also should remember the case of the Baltic states. For five decades, the United States and other European countries refused to recognize their incorporation into the Soviet Union. For most of that time, the Baltics regaining independence seemed implausible…until it happened.​

 

[moXJO]

these days it doesn't take much to be a neo nazi at all, have a different opinion to the left, show some patriotism and your public enemy no1

In 90% of cases I would agree. However when your flag sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia: a modified Wolf's Hook, a black sun (or "Hakensonne") and the title Black Corps, which was used by the Waffen SS. Not to mention swastika tattoos, iron Cross. And you influence/train hard right around the world allegedly including the nz mosque shooter. Your leaders were hard-line right. There's probably to much to mention here but we also had instances of groups in Australia training.

Well might be safe to use the term.

I don't want this to detract from the overall thread. Just that the right is becoming hard-line through Europe. And this was originally to counter "it was all Russian spin".

Look for articles pre 2016. Anything written now is tainted much more then it was then.

 

[JohnDe]

In 90% of cases I would agree. However when your flag sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia: a modified Wolf's Hook, a black sun (or "Hakensonne") and the title Black Corps, which was used by the Waffen SS. Not to mention swastika tattoos, iron Cross. And you influence/train hard right around the world allegedly including the nz mosque shooter. Your leaders were hard-line right. There's probably to much to mention here but we also had instances of groups in Australia training.

Well might be safe to use the term.

I don't want this to detract from the overall thread. Just that the right is becoming hard-line through Europe. And this was originally to counter "it was all Russian spin".

Look for articles pre 2016. Anything written now is tainted much more then it was then.

Wow, if I understand you right, that's amazing. You're saying that the Ukraine government, that was democratically elected, has all those symbols and paraphernalia.

And so with that analysis it must be concluded that the EU and NATO are of the same ilk.

Meaning that Puntin is the only leader standing up to all those elected nations of Nazi symbols and corruption.

Truly amazing how conspiracies take over rational thought.

For the record, Putin's secret service has poisoned and murdered their 'enemies' across the globe. Putin and his cronies will one day stand in front of a war crimes court and be judged for their actions including the cluster bombing of residential areas of Ukraine.

Nothing can make it right, not even you mentioning other wrongs by other nations.

 

[moXJO]

"I said the government is "sneaky" and you said that wasn't the case" You sure did say that, and as well as a few other things. "something feels very off with this all....This goes a lot deeper than dropping "freedom bombs".... I'm not blind to the fact we have sneaky arse western governments"

Where did I say 'that wasn't the case'

In 1994 Ukraine became a NATO partner, the first step to becoming a member of NATO.
The Ukraine had also wanted to join the EU, with its diplomats coming to an agreement with the European Union to join. However the government refused to join and instead signed an agreement with Russia. Which caused 100,000's Ukrainian citizens to march and protest (remember that democratic countries allow protesting, we do the same in Australia), which turned violent when government forces started shooting.
Ukranian protests increased, calling for the country to join the EU. Elected members of the Ukraine parliament listened and were appalled by the violence that the President caused, and voted for his the removal. Democracy at work, a bit like the 'dimisal'.
Putin did not like the idea of a democracy on the front door of Russia, so invaded and took Crimea, even though both countries had a long standing agreement -

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances Russia was among those who affirmed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine (including Crimea) and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.[159][163] The 1997 Russian–Ukrainian Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership again reaffirmed the inviolability of the borders between both states,[163] and required Russian forces in Crimea to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, honor its legislation and not interfere in the internal affairs of the country.[165]​

Yes you are correct, there is a lot more to the story. What you don't take into account is that you must read from both sides, and maybe talk to some involved, to understand what has and is happening.

The majority of the Ukrainian people have wanted and have demonstrated for independence for generations. It's not about what the west or the US want or what he or she says. It is what a country with it's own language and heritage wants and what they have had to endure to try and get it.

Putin invaded the Ukranine, not the other way around. NATO is a defensive pact, with specific rules that stop it from being an offensive force, it works like a democracy where leaders from each member nation debate and vote.

Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. Attention now focuses on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in Donbas, a conflict that has taken some 14,000 lives, but Moscow’s seizure of Crimea — the biggest land-grab in Europe since World War II — has arguably done as much or more damage to Europe’s post-Cold War security order.​

​

Ukraine lacks the leverage to restore sovereignty over Crimea, at least for the foreseeable future. But that does not mean the West should accept it. Doing so might only encourage the Kremlin to believe that taking the territory of other countries is an action that it can get away with.​

​

CRIMEA’S ILLEGAL ANNEXATION​

Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution ended in late February 2014, when President Victor Yanukovych fled Kyiv — later to turn up in Russia — and the Rada (Ukraine’s parliament) appointed an acting president and acting prime minister to take charge. They made clear their intention to draw Ukraine closer to Europe by signing an association agreement with the European Union.​

​

Almost immediately thereafter, armed men began occupying key facilities and checkpoints on the Crimean peninsula. Clearly professional soldiers by the way they handled themselves and their weapons, they wore Russian combat fatigues but with no identifying insignia. Ukrainians called them “little green men.” President Vladimir Putin at first flatly denied these were Russian soldiers, only to later admit that they were and award commendations to their commanders.​

​

The sizeable Ukrainian military presence in Crimea stayed in garrison. If shooting began, Kyiv wanted the world to see the Russians fire first. Ukraine’s Western partners urged Kyiv not to take precipitate action. Since many enlisted personnel in the Ukrainian ranks came from Crimea, Ukrainian commanders probably had less than full confidence in the reliability of their troops.​

​

Things moved quickly. By early March, Russian troops had secured the entire peninsula. On March 6, the Crimean Supreme Council voted to ask to accede to Russia. The council scheduled a referendum for March 16, which offered two choices: join Russia or return to Crimea’s 1992 constitution, which gave the peninsula significant autonomy. Those who favored Crimea remaining part of Ukraine under the current constitution had no box to check.​

​

The conduct of the referendum proved chaotic and took place absent any credible international observers. Local authorities reported a turnout of 83 percent, with 96.7 percent voting to join Russia. The numbers seemed implausible, given that ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars accounted for almost 40 percent of the peninsula’s population. (Two months later, a leaked report from the Russian president’s Human Rights Council put turnout at only 30 percent, with about half of those voting to join Russia.)​

​

On March 18, Crimean and Russian officials signed the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Crimea to Russia. Putin ratified the treaty three days later.​

​

RUSSIAN CLAIMS​

Moscow maintains a historical claim to Crimea. The Russians colonized Crimea during the reign of Catherine the Great, and they founded Sevastopol — the peninsula’s main port and largest city — to be the homeport for the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Following the establishment of the Soviet Union, Crimea was a part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic until 1954, when it was transferred administratively to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.​

​

It is also true that Crimea in 2014 had an ethnic Russian majority of about 60 percent — the only part of Ukraine where ethnic Russians constituted the majority. But it is equally true that, when the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, the resulting independent states recognized one another in their then-existing borders. Russia’s seizure of Crimea from Ukraine violated, among other agreements, the UN Charter, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances for Ukraine and the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and Russia.​

​

Moscow expressed concern about the fate of ethnic Russians in Crimea, but no evidence showed any threat to them. The Russian government justified the referendum and annexation as an act of self-determination, though it appears that well less than half of the Crimean population actually voted to join Russia. In any case, the Kremlin applies the principle of self-determination selectively; Moscow responded to the desire of Chechens for independence from Russia after the Soviet collapse with two bloody conflicts.​

​

It appears that domestic politics provided one motive behind Putin’s decision to seize Crimea. He returned to the presidency in 2012 with an economic situation much weaker than during his first two terms as president (2000-2008). Instead of being able to cite economic growth and rising living standards, he based much of his reelection appeal on Russian nationalism. Seizing Crimea in a quick and relatively bloodless operation proved very popular with the Russian public. Putin’s approval rating climbed accordingly.​

​

CRIMEA TODAY AND LOOKING FORWARD​

Crimea has undergone significant changes over the past six years. A large number of ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars — some put the total at 140,000 — have left the peninsula since 2014. Crimean Tatars complain of intimidation and oppression as one reason for moving. During the same period, some 250,000 people have moved from Russia to Crimea (Crimean Tatar leaders claim the influx is much larger). The inflow has included troops and sailors, as the Kremlin has bolstered the Russian military presence on the peninsula, deploying new submarines, surface combatants and combat aircraft among other things.​

​

The economic picture is mixed. Trying to create a success story, Moscow has poured in more than $10 billion in direct subsidies as well as funding major construction and infrastructure projects, such as the highway and railroad bridges that now cross the Kerch Strait to link Crimea directly to Russia. On the other hand, small business has suffered, particularly with the decline in tourism, which once accounted for about one quarter of Crimea’s economy. Crimea also remains subject to a variety of Western economic and other sanctions. It is probably fair to say that the reality of the economic situation today falls short of what many in Crimea expected, or hoped for, with Russia’s annexation.​

​

The ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict in Donbas has pushed Crimea to the back pages, with Kyiv understandably focusing on trying to end that fighting, which claims the lives of Ukrainian soldiers on almost a weekly basis. Still, while Donbas has meant far more dead than Crimea, Crimea’s seizure arguably has done as much, if not more, damage to the European security order. A key premise of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and subsequent documents was that state borders should be inviolable and not changed by force; Russia’s actions in 2014 shredded that principle. That has caused unease among Russia’s other neighbors.​

​

The Ukrainian government maintains that it will get Crimea back. Analytically, it is difficult to see how Kyiv can muster the political, diplomatic, economic and military leverage needed to do so. Perhaps the one possibility would be if Ukraine were to achieve dramatic success in growing its economy, both in absolute terms and relative to the Russian economy, to the point where Crimeans calculated that their living standards would be better off as part of Ukraine. Moscow would likely fiercely resist that — just ask the Chechens — and, in any case, Ukraine’s economy has a long way to go.​

​

Even if Crimea’s return appears implausible in the near term, the United States and Europe should continue to support Kyiv’s position, maintain Crimea-related sanctions on Russia, and hold to the policy of non-recognition of Crimea’s annexation. Moscow should pay some price for its use of military force to seize the peninsula. That’s the right thing to do for Ukraine, for the European security order, and for dissuading the Kremlin from trying land grabs elsewhere.​

​

The West also should remember the case of the Baltic states. For five decades, the United States and other European countries refused to recognize their incorporation into the Soviet Union. For most of that time, the Baltics regaining independence seemed implausible…until it happened.​

We need to separate "what the people want" first and foremost.
It was ultimately decided by those in control and influenced from there. I don't want to get into that aspect. As I obviously would support the freedom of the people. But at this stage they are basically just pawns between superpowers.

The question is why do you blow over the "uprising" *cough* Coup *Cough*. US had their dirty fingers in it. Despite being the ultimate sht bag Viktor Yanukovich was democratically elected.

Observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said there were no indications of serious fraud and described the vote as an "impressive display" of democracy. "For everyone in Ukraine this election was a victory," João Soares, president of the OSCE's parliamentary assembly, said.


Old Viktor went with a Russian financial bailout package and tighter ties to Moscow. Not with the EU. Now just this part of the story could fill pages.
Anyway it was bye bye Viktor. I'm only up to speed on the western version of him which is "corrupt murdering shtbag".

Now was it the sanitised version of "freedom protesters overthrowing a brutal dictator"
Or
"Western powers gaining influence to those with similar objectives on the ground"?

I guess we will know if Ukraine goes to sht similar to the regime change in Libya. US and allies are great at toppling government, not so great at nation building.

 

[moXJO]

Wow, if I understand you right, that's amazing. You're saying that the Ukraine government, that was democratically elected, has all those symbols and paraphernalia.

And so with that analysis it must be concluded that the EU and NATO are of the same ilk.

Meaning that Puntin is the only leader standing up to all those elected nations of Nazi symbols and corruption.

Truly amazing how conspiracies take over rational thought.

For the record, Putin's secret service has poisoned and murdered their 'enemies' across the globe. Putin and his cronies will one day stand in front of a war crimes court and be judged for their actions including the cluster bombing of residential areas of Ukraine.

Nothing can make it right, not even you mentioning other wrongs by other nations.

Umm the azov flag
Keep dickbating though. Let's see what you can youtube next.

 

[noirua]

Russia-Ukraine: Zelenskyy urges global boycott of Russian products if war continues: LIVE UPDATES

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an Instagram post Monday, is calling for "new sanction steps against the war, for the sake of peace" if Russia continues its ongoing military action in Ukraine.

www.foxnews.com

 

[moXJO]

these days it doesn't take much to be a neo nazi at all, have a different opinion to the left, show some patriotism and your public enemy no1

Hey you send your kids to die for some bull**** war. **** your patriotism for foreign nationals. And **** using war as a solution.

 

[againsthegrain]

Hey you send your kids to die for some bull**** war. **** your patriotism for foreign nationals. And **** using war as a solution.

Its some bs and foreign war until it comes and knocks on your door and its too late, every coin has two sides

 

[over9k]

Chris Macintosh's latest thoughts:

Russia is way more critical to the world economy than it was some 20 years ago.



Some 20 years ago Europe (and the “West”) had the North Sea, which produced as much as Russia and the US. Today, the North Sea is a shadow of its former self. And if US shale continues to disappoint, it won't be long before Russia becomes the world's biggest oil producer "beyond reasonable doubt".



Do you think that Rosneft, Lukoil, or Gazprom are in trouble of being sanctioned when they supply some 36% of Europe's oil needs?



And natural gas (not that this is unappreciated).



Furthermore, there are probably a couple of commodities that few have given any thought to, coal in particular.

Russia exports almost as much thermal coal as Australia (granted the chart below is a few years old but volumes wouldn’t have changed materially in that time). Russia also exports about as much coking coal as the US and about 40% of Australia.



Hmmm... switch off Russian natural gas (for a theoretical exercise), and the world will need a stink load more of coal of which Russia is one of the top 5 global suppliers. Guess you could always turn to uranium?



Granted Kazakhstan isn't Russia, but they are rather friendly. Of course, uranium produced (yellow cake) isn't the stuff that goes into nuclear reactors. That is enriched uranium, which Russia (Rosatom) accounts for 50% of world enriched uranium production. That is absolutely extraordinary. Roughly 20% of the US electricity supply comes from nuclear. You know who's really screwed?



Our French mates run the place on nuclear, and guess what? Over half of this enriched uranium comes from the Russkies.

And who accounts for a fair whack of grain exports?



And without fertilizer crops don't grow. Here are the world's top fertilizer exporters (as of 2020 and the value of exports in US dollars).



Should the rest of the world be sanctioning Russia's commodity exports, we'd likely see Weimar Republic style inflation in those countries, particularly Europe.

You might say, "Surely, there must be other countries Western governments can turn to."

Here is a neat little picture to make this easy from a geopolitical perspective. The options available to the West from "friendly" states.



One word: yikes!

Can you see now why the calls for sanctions of all Russian exports are not only naive, but also self-destructive?

 

[moXJO]

Its some bs and foreign war until it comes and knocks on your door and its too late, every coin has two sides

I was a little harsh
But the idiots are baying in the media to cross red lines. It's not worth the destruction it would bring. There's other options at this stage.

 

[greggles]

Can you see now why the calls for sanctions of all Russian exports are not only naive, but also self-destructive?

Through complacency and a lack of foresight, the west has created a massive hole that we now cannot easily dig ourselves out of. We have done exactly the same with China and we have done it because of our love of cheap consumer products.

Europe took Russia's oil and gas (and everything else they rely on) for granted, thinking good ol' Vlad wouldn't do anything really bad. Putin bided his time and then struck when he thought Europe was at peak dependency.

When we should have been going out of our way to find and nurture more friendly (and democratic) sources of cheap labour and energy, we just took the easy option and look where it has gotten us. Russia and China's economic power has been paid for by the western world for more than 20 years, and we have gleefully funded both their war machines.

Putin and Xi know the weaknesses of western democracies, most critically the fact that our inept leaders only think one election cycle at a time and have no long term vision for anything.

Time for the western world to change course and start to isolate rogue authoritarian regimes around the world. Either that or get busy writing our own death warrants.

 

[sptrawler]

Through complacency and a lack of foresight, the west has created a massive hole that we now cannot easily dig ourselves out of. We have done exactly the same with China and we have done it because of our love of cheap consumer products.

Europe took Russia's oil and gas (and everything else they rely on) for granted, thinking good ol' Vlad wouldn't do anything really bad. Putin bided his time and then struck when he thought Europe was at peak dependency.

When we should have been going out of our way to find and nurture more friendly (and democratic) sources of cheap labour and energy, we just took the easy option and look where it has gotten us. Russia and China's economic power has been paid for by the western world for more than 20 years, and we have gleefully funded both their war machines.

Putin and Xi know the weaknesses of western democracies, most critically the fact that our inept leaders only think one election cycle at a time and have no long term vision for anything.

Time for the western world to change course and start to isolate rogue authoritarian regimes around the world. Either that or get busy writing our own death warrants.

The good thing is, we are going green and we did lift them out of poverty, we can hold our head up high. Well until we get shot at. ?

 

[waterbottle]

@moXJO, largely in agreement with what you've said.
Not sure why there's such opposition to the idea that the media we're consuming is just as biased as the media that Russians are consuming... And that perhaps we don't have the entire story?

The best solution at this point (for the world) is to allow Russia to topple the Ukrainian government with as little humanitarian impact as possible.

Best case scenario it remains a neutral state and we restore ties with Russia.

The West is fooling itself if it thinks Russia is in pain or Putin gives a sh*t. Oil has sky-rocketed by 30% in 2 weeks and the US hasn't even turned off their imports!!!

We are staring down the barrel of hyperinflation with no remedy (green tech is not ready yet and the people don't want nuclear)

 

[Value Collector]

You have to love the Javelins, 280 tank kills from 300 fired, for those not familiar with the Javelin, watch the 40 second video of one being tested against a tank.

300 Shots Fired, 280 Russian Tanks Gone: US Missiles In Ukrainian Hands

Javelin missile: The Ukrainian military fighting the much larger Russian invasion force has been able to kill hundreds of Russian tanks and armoured vehicles using a hand-held anti-tank missile supplied by the US, according to a US journalist.

www.ndtv.com

 

[sptrawler]

If that is true @Value Collector , why would anyone build tanks? It kind of indicates the Russians just want to commit suicide, I mean really 280 tanks, for 300 missile shots.
Amazing if true.