Crisis in Ukraine

[Jola]

Except that there is a democratic ground level movement in that region which wants to join Russia. There are ethnic Russians in Crimea, lots of them. There are no American civilians in Cuba. But even that is not relevant. What's relevant is that the West wants to have Kosovo and Guantanamo while denying Russia Crimea and the people there the right to secede if they so wish.

And many Cubans may support the USA and would just love love to become US citizens.

Who says this is not the case ? Do they need a referendum ?

 

[Space_Chief]

Who says many Cubans don't support the USA and would just love love to become US citizens ?

Who says they do? I'd venture that most would want their own country to be free and prosperous, and independent like most people. There is no precedent for a former Eastern Bloc country to want to give up its sovereignty to any pro-Western power. Even under Reagan no Pole, Hungarian or Czech would want to join the USA. This did not occur anywhere in Western Europe either where US bases are aplenty. If you look at Central And South American history and opinion they are not very pro-US and I doubt Cuba would break that mold. US bases in Europe are not very welcome except in the context of protection from Russia and benefits to the local economy.

 

[Jola]

But why do you think that it is ok for Russia to invade a neighbouring country just because some Russians live there ?

This is what Hitler did WRT the Sudetenland, Austria and Poland, and started WW2.

 

[Unhappy438]

Statement from the Ukraine foreign office on the Russian incursion.

Statement of the MFA of Ukraine with respect to assault landing of the Russian Armed Forces in the Kherson region on March 15


Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine expresses its strong and categorical protest against the landing on March 15, 2014 near the village Strilkove, Kherson region of troops of the Russian Federation Armed Forces in a number of 80 military personnel, and seizure of the village Strilkove with the support of 4 helicopter gunships and 3 armored combat machines.

Ukraine Foreign Ministry declares the military invasion by Russia and demands the Russian side immediately withdraw its military forces from the territory of Ukraine.

Ukraine reserves the right to use all necessary measures to stop the military invasion by Russia.

 

[Space_Chief]

But why do you think that it is ok for Russia to invade a neighbouring country just because some Russians live there ?

The Russians have a lease agreement with Ukraine over their access to the Black Sea. It's an important base for the Russians as their other harbours in the West freeze over during winter. So they have a right, to have a certain amount of troops there as per agreements and out of their own necessity. This issue is different from the issue of possible secession. Russia may also claim that the process of the ousting of the previous Ukrainian president was illegal and that its people are in danger. This is unlikely but there has been at least one anti-Russian law passed in Ukraine so far. Russia has said it does not want to annex Crimea, which was earlier, under Catherine the Great Russian and seen as Russian by subsequent Tsars.

This is what Hitler did WRT the Sudetenland, Austria and Poland, and started WW2.

Hitler started WW2 because Poland had a treaty with UK and France. Hitler staged a fake attack using convicts in Polish uniforms and then launched his defensive offensive. Austria and Sudetenland (parts of Czechoslovakia) did not start WW2. If Poland did not have a treaty of mutual defense with UK and France, these two countries would not have declared war on Germany and there would have been no WW2 in Europe. Hitler also offered Poland an option of going with him against the Bolsheviks but the Poles refused. Interestingly the Holocaust did not feature as a valid reason to respond to Hitler. The West brushed off reports by people like Witold Pilecki of what the Nazis were up to i.e. murdering Jews en masse.

For the West having Ukraine in the NATO camp would be an excellent thing. It would mean Russia ceases to be an Eurasian empire and only an Asian power.

It's likely that things will just continue to smoulder there. Crimea will keep some soft of autonomy and the Russian bases there will stay in Russian hands. Rest of Ukraine may go more pro-west in the meantime, who knows.

A reasonably strong Russia is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a counterbalance to a strong Germany and a strong China/India on the other side. At present US soldiers are in Germany and WE to not only protect against Russia but to keep an eye on Germany. But when they leave, and leave they will, a counterbalance is good.

 

[Garson007]

Might makes right.

Orania can't secede because we will stop them. If Orania had China as an ally, then we would let them.

Kosovo could secede because Serbia had no might and Kosovo had a mighty backer.

Geopolitics are really quite simple.

 

[Space_Chief]

Might makes right.

Orania can't secede because we will stop them. If Orania had China as an ally, then we would let them.

Kosovo could secede because Serbia had no might and Kosovo had a mighty backer.

Geopolitics are really quite simple.

Kosovo also set the precedent. This is just the fallout from that. Kosovo has been ethnically cleansed off Serbs. I don't think Crimea will be nearly as badly ethically cleansed.

 

[MattyW]

The referendum is originating with the civilian legislature of that region and not the Russian military though. And it's not like the Cubans want the Yanks there.

Look, there are a lot of Russians in that part of Ukraine, similar to the case of Donetsk. If these people suddenly want to do what their brethren did in Kiev, who can blame them? I certainly can't.

Their are almost one million Cubans living in the United States already who consider themselves political refugees. Not to mention the almost 200000 who have been stopped before arriving at the US and returned to Cuba. In a country with a population of only 11 million that almost a tenth have escaped says a lot. These numbers also only apply to the US {which obviously has the majority of Cuban refugees}.

There are only 2 million people in the Crimea of the 45 million in the Ukraine or about 4.5% {and note I am including the 22% Ukrainian and 12% Tartar population who no doubt want nothing to do with Russia} of the population of the country. The US is already housing almost 10% of the Cuban population so by your logic it would be OK for the US to annex sections of Cuba??

According to this study...
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...evealing-map-of-who-wants-to-move-to-the-u-s/

It turns out that there are 44 countries where, according to Gallup's data, more than 5 percent of the adult population say they would like to move to the United States. Five percent! That's a remarkably large share. In 15 of those countries, the proportion of the population that wants to move to the United States is above 10 percent. And there are three countries where more than a quarter of the adult population would like to move here: Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Dominican Republic.

All of these countries have a higher percentage of population desiring to live in the US does that somehow mean the US would be justified in annexing the 44 countries listed??

 

[HDS]

[video=youtube;MXgypsnfRCo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgypsnfRCo[/video]

Not sure if this has been posted before, apologies if it has. Really comes as no surprise that USA is funding the protests.

That one riot police member getting pulled back by another back into the defensive line is really scary. If he hadn't done that the poor guy would be probably torn apart by the mob.

How these riot police oaks can hold their cool like that and not beat the **** out of the protesters is beyond me.

 

[Unhappy438]

Not sure if this has been posted before, apologies if it has. Really comes as no surprise that USA is funding the protests.

Conspiracy theory video, is that all it takes to convince you? Do you not value a greater level of evidence?

 

[Redeemed]

American drone captured by the Russians. I don't know if covered already here.

 

[HDS]

Conspiracy theory video, is that all it takes to convince you? Do you not value a greater level of evidence?

I have more than enough evidence to convince myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=472 (07:30)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/americ...as-spent-5-billion-to-subvert-ukraine/5367782

Do those riots look like peaceful protests to you? Nothing short of terrorism.

 

[Unhappy438]

I have more than enough evidence to convince myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=472 (07:30)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/americ...as-spent-5-billion-to-subvert-ukraine/5367782

Do those riots look like peaceful protests to you? Nothing short of terrorism.

Yes and violent riots somehow equal American funded...

American drone captured by the Russians. I don't know if covered already here.

Yup covered, debunked due to the range of the drone.

 

[HDS]

Yes and violent riots somehow equal American funded...

Are you stupid or something? Or did you just not click and read the links I posted? In the first video I posted, watch from 06:30 to 07:20.

Looks like you also completely ignored this video that I posted earlier, which I believe you even quoted (can't remember exactly). Who do you think shot those people?

Here, I'll even make it easier.

Paet says that someone named Olga — believed to be the head of the Maidan medical service, Olga Bogomolets — told him the snipers in Kiev were not ordered by Yanukovych.
“What was quite disturbing, this same Olga told that, well, all the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” Paet said, in English. “She also showed me some photos, she said that she is medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.”

The western media are obviously biased, making the protesters out as the poor victims, while they are in fact the radical terrorists. Those pictures you see of the 'innocent' protesters lying in pain and covered in blood? Yeah, after relentlessly assaulting the security personnel until the security is forced to retaliate, do they take pictures of the aftermath and pass it on as "poor protesters beaten by evil security for simple peaceful protests".

I don't believe either the russian or the eu propaganda spewed out by those official newspapers. If you want the truth try forming the bigger picture by yourself.

 

[Unhappy438]

Are you stupid or something? Or did you just not click and read the links I posted? In the first video I posted, watch from 06:30 to 07:20.

Thats not her admitting that the money has gone to the protests, dont make things up to suit your agenda.

Looks like you also completely ignored this video that I posted earlier, which I believe you even quoted (can't remember exactly). Who do you think shot those people?

Here, I'll even make it easier.

Im sure now that Olga has provided a statement i suppose that's case closed, on who shot who, the USA definitely funded everything because of this. And you ask me if im stupid or something?

The western media are obviously biased, making the protesters out as the poor victims, while they are in fact the radical terrorists. Those pictures you see of the 'innocent' protesters lying in pain and covered in blood? Yeah, after relentlessly assaulting the security personnel until the security is forced to retaliate, do they take pictures of the aftermath and pass it on as "poor protesters beaten by evil security for simple peaceful protests".

I don't believe either the russian or the eu propaganda spewed out by those official newspapers. If you want the truth try forming the bigger picture by yourself.

About the first sensible paragraph yet, there is definitely bias on both sides of the media. The difference is that the Russian side censors theirs, whilst western media is much more free and open.

 

[IzZzy]

I wonder if we can't split this read into reporting the facts and moving opinions to another?

 

[Garson007]

I wonder if we can't split this read into reporting the facts and moving opinions to another?

The two would be inseparable.

 

[HDS]

Thats not her admitting that the money has gone to the protests, dont make things up to suit your agenda.

The first video I posted, about the protests, where people say that you get paid to attend protests...not the Victoria Nuland one...

Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. ” Nuland said the United States will continue to “promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”

And even then, where does this money come from? to be able to pay protesters hundreds of thousands dollahs a day.

Again, you either didn't watch the video or didn't listen properly.

Im sure now that Olga has provided a statement i suppose that's case closed, on who shot who, the USA definitely funded everything because of this. And you ask me if im stupid or something?

Who exactly did she provide a statement to? Who will investigate it? Does a person who replies with :

I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,

want to investigate the shootings, while they are clearly not in EU's favour?

The shootings were organised by somebody from the new coalition. Who does the US support, if not them...
Should be evident enough from what happened in the past.

About the first sensible paragraph yet, there is definitely bias on both sides of the media. The difference is that the Russian side censors theirs, whilst western media is much more free and open.

LOL that is the biggest joke I heard in a while. EU media are the biggest twisters of truth you will see. They are liars. The one side of the story that benifits them will be reported.

If you think Russian newspapers are the only ones filled with propaganda you are clueless.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Why China is right on the future of Ukraine

I found this article very informative and balanced, unlike most of the Western media.

This Crimean crisis is, perhaps, reaching its apogee. As a referendum is held on the Black Sea peninsula, a territory 25pc bigger than Wales and home to 2m people, the stand-off between Russia and the West continues, dominating the global news cycle.

Talk of a new Cold War is deeply alarmist. Politicians on both sides are posturing in front of each other and their respective electorates. Be in no doubt, though, relations between Russia and the US are now at their lowest ebb since the Soviet Union collapsed more than 22 years ago.

While the possibility of East-West military confrontation remains remote, the war of words is casting a pall over global financial markets. Investors worry that argy-bargy between Moscow and Washington, and a Ukrainian sovereign default, could spark another Lehman-style “systemic moment”.

Crimean voters are today almost certain to back closer ties with Moscow. Two-thirds of them are ethnically Russian and there is widespread anger at last month’s mob-ousting of Ukraine’s elected president.

While Viktor Yanukovich had become unpopular, his 2010 election was “fair” and “competitive” according to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. And he wasn’t up for re-election until 2015.

Yanukovich would almost certainly have lost that ballot – with many Russian-speaking Ukrainians voting against him, too. That natural democratic process, a milestone on the road to Ukrainian nation-building, was thwarted by rock-throwing thugs – thugs openly backed by the West.

Across Crimea, as with other majority Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine, there is concern that EU and US governments supported a protest movement, replete with nasty Right-wingers, that violently removed an elected president.

There is shock that the deal struck on February 22 and signed by three EU foreign ministers – for a government of national unity and a thorough investigation of the Kiev sniper shootings that killed almost 80 – has been ripped up.

There is outrage that Ukraine’s “interim” government and new parliament – both formed in a manner that was opaque and at odds not only with last month’s deal, but also the Ukrainian constitution – have practically no connection to the country’s Russophile east.

On top of that, among the new administration’s very first actions was to repeal a long-awaited 2012 law recognising Russian as an official regional language. This deliberately incendiary move was bitterly criticised right across the nation, not only by Russian-speaking regions but Ukrainian-speaking strongholds, too.

These are some of the contemporary reasons why Crimea will vote to join Russia – reasons that combine, of course, with centuries of shared history.

I say all this to emphasise there are two sides to every story and, I must say, most Western analysts present just one. Take the question of Russian troops in Crimea.

Under an internationally ratified agreement struck in 1994, Moscow can station 25,000 soldiers on the peninsula, not only at the Sevastopol naval base, but also on bases throughout the country. The latest figures from informed Russian and Western sources put the total at around 16,000.

We don’t actually know if additional Russian troops have entered Ukraine – which is why, having initially screamed “invasion”, more responsible Western broadcasters now talk of Russia’s “intervention” in Crimea. Certainly, if invasion footage existed, it would be all over our airwaves. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but I’ve yet to see it.

Yes, Russian troops may have left their bases. But what would British troops in, say, Cyprus do if the island suddenly saw riots and was on the cusp of serious bloodshed?

What would we (and the world) expect them to do? We’d expect them to leave their bases and keep the peace, perhaps paying special attention to the safety of British citizens.
Consider, too, international law. Moscow still sees Yanukovich as the legitimate president, who requested the deployment of Russian troops right across eastern Ukraine (which hasn’t happened), not just Crimea.

If Crimea does vote overwhelmingly to join Russia, Western protests could be seen as thwarting the will of the people, a violation of self-determination rights enshrined in the UN Charter.

It’s anyway not clear whether Russia will allow Crimea to join, as that could lay Moscow open to accusations of ignoring Kiev. There are precedents here, including South Ossetia. The Kremlin has so far said only that it accepts the right of the Crimean parliament to hold a referendum.

A strong pro-Russia result may instead be used to cut a deal securing Crimea’s status as an autonomous region or protectorate. We’ll see.

Such nuances have been thrown to the wind. Because it’s Russia, everyone loses their heads, goes into uber-conflict mode, claims the moral high ground and – with little regard for the facts – barks loudly for a punitive response. As such, European foreign ministers could approve sanctions against Russia tomorrow.

This would be madness – partly because it’s a complex situation in which ancient cultural and political forces are at work. Various local parties feel aggrieved, are right to, and are pursuing their national interest.
What business is that of ours?

While arguably not warranted, sanctions would also be deeply counter-productive – and not just economically. EU-Russia trade has grown from €90bn in 2002 to €335bn 10 years later. Russia is the world’s eighth largest economy, Europe’s second-largest retail market and it supplies a third of the EU’s natural gas.

Western banks have $242bn (£145bn) of exposure to Russia, compared with just $160bn of assets held by Russians in the West.

These commercial realities, along with huge direct investments made by leading US and European firms, mean sanctions won’t involve trade, and are unlikely to extend beyond symbolic asset freezes on a handful of individuals.

To have threatened “significant repercussions” that we never would nor could impose undermines the West, weakening the positive influence we may have had on events in Ukraine.

To have then intervened with such belligerent and cack-handed rhetoric has ensured our contribution has so far been negative, fanning the flames of conflict, rather than making bloodshed less likely.

Perhaps the most enduring damage we’ve done – even if sanctions don’t happen – is diplomatic, harming relations not only with Russia but also its even more powerful allies. For, in recent days, China has entered the fray.

“We don’t see any point in sanctions,” said Shi Mingde, Beijing’s ambassador to Germany, this weekend. “Sanctions could lead to retaliatory action, triggering a spiral with unforeseeable consequences.”

The Chinese are urging patience, calling for talks after the referendum.

“It is time for Western powers to abandon their Cold War thinking,” China’s Xinhua state news agency boomed last week. It gives me no pleasure to write this, but beyond the EU and US diplomatic corps, the vast majority of those following events in Ukraine, from wherever in the world, will think the Chinese are correct.

Enemies for much of the Cold War, Russia and China have built serious commercial ties across their 2,700-mile border. Bilateral trade has grown sevenfold since 2002, to almost $100bn annually, as both sides recognise the economic synergies between the world’s largest energy exporter and the world’s most populous nation and biggest manufacturer.

China’s penchant for agricultural produce and steel and coal-based imports means it’s now also Ukraine’s second-largest trading partner – after Russia, of course.

The emerging Russia-China axis is among the most under-reported major trends of our time. The stronger it gets, the more power the West cedes to the East.
Our response to Ukraine is strengthening relations between Moscow and Beijing, uniting them in opposition to our actions. Serious diplomatic damage has been done – and it could get a lot worse yet.

 

[Polymathic]

Putin may of overplayed his hand, Russia needs the EU more than the EU. China needs the US more than Russia.