Big problem here! being in the Crimea region and a very pro Russian council, people who live there are all Russian (or want to be) they all speak Russian and the fleets are all there, Russia need this region, Ukraine has very little or no influence there, it's bloody Ukrainian soil ffs!
Putin knows what he's doing as well, he's cleaver, he knows very little can happen in terms of the west/Nato BUT... Ukraine can do something and I think they might just do.... leading to a civil war in Ukraine, their economy is close to collapse they don't really have much to lose and with Russian backing for eastern Ukraine, this imo will lead to major shit happening.
This can get very very serious, and is extremely worrying.
This not an issue that we, either as the EU or heaven forbid NATO to get involved with. Whilst I hold no brief for Russian sabre rattling, I do realise that the Ukraine is in Russia's back yard, with a sizeable majority of ethnic Russians, furthermore the Crimea was part of the old USSR, until Nikita Khrushchev gifted the Crimea back to Ukraine, in 1954.
They will also state that they are just protecting Russian lives and interests and that they are assisting a democratically elected President, overthrown by a putsch, that he is probably a corrupt murdering despot is bye the bye.
This issue should be left clearly in the remit of the UN security council, where we know that Russia will use it's veto, probably with China abstaining, after all it is the world body, that is what it is there for
I think the nation has had enough of recent military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, with it's cost in human lives, that's not counting the billions it has cost us.
It is not for the UK govt or the EU to get involved with, leave it with the United Nations.
This not an issue that we, either as the EU or heaven forbid NATO to get involved with. Whilst I hold no brief for Russian sabre rattling, I do realise that the Ukraine is in Russia's back yard, with a sizeable majority of ethnic Russians, furthermore the Crimea was part of the old USSR, until Nikita Khrushchev gifted the Crimea back to Ukraine, in 1954.
They will also state that they are just protecting Russian lives and interests and that they are assisting a democratically elected President, overthrown by a putsch, that he is probably a corrupt murdering despot is bye the bye.
This issue should be left clearly in the remit of the UN security council, where we know that Russia will use it's veto, probably with China abstaining, after all it is the world body, that is what it is there for
I think the nation has had enough of recent military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, with it's cost in human lives, that's not counting the billions it has cost us.
It is not for the UK govt or the EU to get involved with, leave it with the United Nations.
There is one MASSIVE problem with this though mate...The West signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine.
This not an issue that we, either as the EU or heaven forbid NATO to get involved with. Whilst I hold no brief for Russian sabre rattling, I do realise that the Ukraine is in Russia's back yard, with a sizeable majority of ethnic Russians, furthermore the Crimea was part of the old USSR, until Nikita Khrushchev gifted the Crimea back to Ukraine, in 1954.
They will also state that they are just protecting Russian lives and interests and that they are assisting a democratically elected President, overthrown by a putsch, that he is probably a corrupt murdering despot is bye the bye.
This issue should be left clearly in the remit of the UN security council, where we know that Russia will use it's veto, probably with China abstaining, after all it is the world body, that is what it is there for
I think the nation has had enough of recent military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, with it's cost in human lives, that's not counting the billions it has cost us.
It is not for the UK govt or the EU to get involved with, leave it with the United Nations.
There is one MASSIVE problem with this though mate...The West signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine.
Really? I didn't realise. The issue is when everyone gets involved it could turn into one massive problem.
This not an issue that we, either as the EU or heaven forbid NATO to get involved with. Whilst I hold no brief for Russian sabre rattling, I do realise that the Ukraine is in Russia's back yard, with a sizeable majority of ethnic Russians, furthermore the Crimea was part of the old USSR, until Nikita Khrushchev gifted the Crimea back to Ukraine, in 1954.
They will also state that they are just protecting Russian lives and interests and that they are assisting a democratically elected President, overthrown by a putsch, that he is probably a corrupt murdering despot is bye the bye.
This issue should be left clearly in the remit of the UN security council, where we know that Russia will use it's veto, probably with China abstaining, after all it is the world body, that is what it is there for
I think the nation has had enough of recent military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, with it's cost in human lives, that's not counting the billions it has cost us.
It is not for the UK govt or the EU to get involved with, leave it with the United Nations.
There is one MASSIVE problem with this though mate...The West signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine.
Really? I didn't realise. The issue is when everyone gets involved it could turn into one massive problem.
Thing is if we all stand by and let a country invade another that we've agreed to protect then we all might as well call it a day, this type of measure is there in place to stop such things.
This not an issue that we, either as the EU or heaven forbid NATO to get involved with. Whilst I hold no brief for Russian sabre rattling, I do realise that the Ukraine is in Russia's back yard, with a sizeable majority of ethnic Russians, furthermore the Crimea was part of the old USSR, until Nikita Khrushchev gifted the Crimea back to Ukraine, in 1954
Not even close. Less than 20% are ethnic Russians. Also Crimea continued to be in the USSR long after Khrushchev's time as Ukraine was a Soviet state until 91
Since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have left such a sour taste in the western public's mouth, Putin has been punishing the leaders ever since. Basically has a free reign on Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
This not an issue that we, either as the EU or heaven forbid NATO to get involved with. Whilst I hold no brief for Russian sabre rattling, I do realise that the Ukraine is in Russia's back yard, with a sizeable majority of ethnic Russians, furthermore the Crimea was part of the old USSR, until Nikita Khrushchev gifted the Crimea back to Ukraine, in 1954.
They will also state that they are just protecting Russian lives and interests and that they are assisting a democratically elected President, overthrown by a putsch, that he is probably a corrupt murdering despot is bye the bye.
This issue should be left clearly in the remit of the UN security council, where we know that Russia will use it's veto, probably with China abstaining, after all it is the world body, that is what it is there for
I think the nation has had enough of recent military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, with it's cost in human lives, that's not counting the billions it has cost us.
It is not for the UK govt or the EU to get involved with, leave it with the United Nations.
There is one MASSIVE problem with this though mate...The West signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine.
Really? I didn't realise. The issue is when everyone gets involved it could turn into one massive problem.
Thing is if we all stand by and let a country invade another that we've agreed to protect then we all might as well call it a day, this type of measure is there in place to stop such things.
Interestingly I assumed this too, but the wording of the Budapest Memorandum seems to suggest Ukraine are in this alone. (Original document here)
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.
My understanding of this is that we essentially said:
1. We'll respect your borders, don't worry about us invading you anytime soon... 2. ... in fact, we'll never even threaten you - let alone attack you. 3. We wont impose any economic sanctions on you either, least not for our own gain. 4. If anyone decides to nuke you, don't worry - we'll tell the UN and let them know. 5. We'll also avoid nuking anyone else that doesn't have nukes.. unless they attack us or our friends, and they have a friend who has nukes. 6. Should we find keeping these promises a little difficult though, we'll definitely have a chat about it.
Or have I read this wrong? Surely I have as this seems pointless, it's basically us promising not to invade or nuke them - there doesn't seem to be anything about collective defence; the strongest form of action mentioned is reporting an attack to the UN Security Council; (Of course, which would be a pointless exercise) and that's in the event that there are nuclear weapons used against them.
Now that Russia (who were the third signatory) have decided it doesn't care anymore, the whole document is a bit pointless.
I must say, if that was the incentive for Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons (... To Russia.) then they really did get a bone deal. However it does make sense, this was to provide them with assurances about nuclear weapons in particular - and there isn't even the remotest chance of those being used thankfully.
I agree. When I read the claim that I was able to move to and settle in the Czech Republic thanks to the 'installation of a puppet regime', I knew the first article was bollocks. Which is a pity because it is true that previous Western foreign policy interventions, especially in Iraq, have given the Russian regime the (typical) ammo to play their "what about you lot in xxxx, nah, nah nah."
It's also worth mentioning that Yanukovic was elected on a mandate to move Ukraine towards the West and the EU, and not to turn the country away from that in favour of renewing ties - ties that bind - with Russia.
I’m not sure if I’m completely wrong – I’m no expert on Eastern European politics, but the Western media view that Russia are solely to blame for this doesn’t seem 100% right;
a) There are a great many people in Crimea who perceive themselves as Russian, or are at least Russian speakers b) The Ukriane has been through a great upheaval which has pitted what could loosely be termed as pro-European and pro-Russian citizens against one another c) The democratically elected gov’t was toppled as it was perceived as being pro-Russian (or not pro-European enough) d) One of the first actions of the new, unelected, Ukrainian government was to pass a law which stated that in places where there is an ethnic minority of more than 10% - which certainly affects Crimea –it was removing the right of Russians (and any other minority) to have their language recognised as an official language. If you were an ethnic Russian concerned about your future in the country that would pretty much seem to prove your fears. e) Crimea until 60 years ago was not part of the Ukraine, it was “gifted” by the then leader of the USSR Kruschev (sp) – himself a Ukrainian – hence the odd situation that you have almost 60% of this part of the country identifying themselves as Russian f) As an aside I would find it astonishing if it wasn’t so depressingly hypocritical that the UK and US are now lecturing Russia about impeding another nations sovereignty
I’m not for a second saying that Russia invading what is still part of another countries sovereign territory is correct, but neither is the removal of the rights of thousands of people by an unelected government. Before fundamental changes to the Ukrainian constitution are enacted – which includes the rights of ethnic minorities and integration with Europe – surely the least the government should have is the legitimacy of election ? I feel like the press are only giving us one side of the story.
I’m not sure if I’m completely wrong – I’m no expert on Eastern European politics, but the Western media view that Russia are solely to blame for this doesn’t seem 100% right;
a) There are a great many people in Crimea who perceive themselves as Russian, or are at least Russian speakers b) The Ukriane has been through a great upheaval which has pitted what could loosely be termed as pro-European and pro-Russian citizens against one another c) The democratically elected gov’t was toppled as it was perceived as being pro-Russian (or not pro-European enough) d) One of the first actions of the new, unelected, Ukrainian government was to pass a law which stated that in places where there is an ethnic minority of more than 10% - which certainly affects Crimea –it was removing the right of Russians (and any other minority) to have their language recognised as an official language. If you were an ethnic Russian concerned about your future in the country that would pretty much seem to prove your fears. e) Crimea until 60 years ago was not part of the Ukraine, it was “gifted” by the then leader of the USSR Kruschev (sp) – himself a Ukrainian – hence the odd situation that you have almost 60% of this part of the country identifying themselves as Russian f) As an aside I would find it astonishing if it wasn’t so depressingly hypocritical that the UK and US are now lecturing Russia about impeding another nations sovereignty
I’m not for a second saying that Russia invading what is still part of another countries sovereign territory is correct, but neither is the removal of the rights of thousands of people by an unelected government. Before fundamental changes to the Ukrainian constitution are enacted – which includes the rights of ethnic minorities and integration with Europe – surely the least the government should have is the legitimacy of election ? I feel like the press are only giving us one side of the story.
That's pretty much my understanding and view of it.
I can actually understand what Putin claimed to be his reasoning - even if I don't believe it. As far as I can see, it was close to tipping point before possible Russian intervention intervention.
Obviously it would be better to have a proper protocol to deal with it (UN) but clearly Russia was going to do as Russia wanted and this has given them a pretty convincing excuse.
Perhaps, *to play devils advocate*, on the other hand, without some form of external intervention we could've been witnessing something far worse - civil war and a country with two identities? History shows the potential hatred that can brew in one country.
You're right about Russia using the conduct of the US/UK as an example of how we're just as bad, I think they did that when we claimed there attacking of Georgia was disproportionate. Then when we became involved with Libya they used identical words in their condemnation if I remember rightly; "disproportionate response".
Additionally, during the Georgia conflict (coincidentally didn't they take back a region then? North osseta?) the US actually had a military presence that was exercising at the time - yet there was still nothing other than strong words; so the Budapest Memorandum included, I can't see anything stronger here happening thankfully.
Hopefully this can be resolved without bloodshed - but personally I reckon a few battles and Ukraine suddenly becoming much smaller.
Disclaimer: I'm totally clueless. I'm enjoying reading this thread but largely these are my musings over a cup of coffee at lunch.
Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.
The decision regarding the removal of the Russian language as a recognised one was extremely foolish, although it was taken by people who had seen young civilians murdered on the streets of their capital, which might at least explain such a foolish knee jerk reaction. Nevertheless, it was renounced almost immediately. So that excuse to invade no longer exists.
The bit that Putin doesn't want you to remember is that Yanukovic was democratically elected,yes, but on a mandate to increase Ukraine's ties with the West. Yanukovic had no mandate to tear up the EU agreements and return the Ukraine to the embrace of Putin.
I'm glad that Cameron is talking about sanctions such as slowing down visas for Russian businessmen. He should go a lot further. He should get HMRC target the tax affairs of all rich Russians who are swanning around in London, claiming non-dom status. Starting with Abramovic.
Even if "Yanukovic had no mandate to tear up the EU agreements and return the Ukraine to the embrace of Putin", he was democratically elected. The danger is that more and more countries where a minority of (say) 48/49% don't like the elected government are rising up (examples being Egypt, Ukraine), deposing the elected government, and then going about trying to run their country. Not much later, the now majority who didn't elect the new junta rise up, and it all starts over again (example Egypt, and in future maybe Ukraine?). How do we, as observers, stop this never ending conflict? I have no idea...
The decision regarding the removal of the Russian language as a recognised one was extremely foolish, although it was taken by people who had seen young civilians murdered on the streets of their capital, which might at least explain such a foolish knee jerk reaction. Nevertheless, it was renounced almost immediately. So that excuse to invade no longer exists.
The bit that Putin doesn't want you to remember is that Yanukovic was democratically elected,yes, but on a mandate to increase Ukraine's ties with the West. Yanukovic had no mandate to tear up the EU agreements and return the Ukraine to the embrace of Putin.
I'm glad that Cameron is talking about sanctions such as slowing down visas for Russian businessmen. He should go a lot further. He should get HMRC target the tax affairs of all rich Russians who are swanning around in London, claiming non-dom status. Starting with Abramovic.
The law which made Ukrainian the only official language hasn’t been repealed has it?
The decision regarding the removal of the Russian language as a recognised one was extremely foolish, although it was taken by people who had seen young civilians murdered on the streets of their capital, which might at least explain such a foolish knee jerk reaction. Nevertheless, it was renounced almost immediately. So that excuse to invade no longer exists.
The bit that Putin doesn't want you to remember is that Yanukovic was democratically elected,yes, but on a mandate to increase Ukraine's ties with the West. Yanukovic had no mandate to tear up the EU agreements and return the Ukraine to the embrace of Putin.
I'm glad that Cameron is talking about sanctions such as slowing down visas for Russian businessmen. He should go a lot further. He should get HMRC target the tax affairs of all rich Russians who are swanning around in London, claiming non-dom status. Starting with Abramovic.
The law which made Ukrainian the only official language hasn’t been repealed has it?
Don't have a link at hand but on the Today programme this morning I think it was no less than John Simpson who said they dropped it almost straight away, and crucially before Putin started sending the boys round.
Even if "Yanukovic had no mandate to tear up the EU agreements and return the Ukraine to the embrace of Putin", he was democratically elected. The danger is that more and more countries where a minority of (say) 48/49% don't like the elected government are rising up (examples being Egypt, Ukraine), deposing the elected government, and then going about trying to run their country. Not much later, the now majority who didn't elect the new junta rise up, and it all starts over again (example Egypt, and in future maybe Ukraine?). How do we, as observers, stop this never ending conflict? I have no idea...
What I have learnt after 21 years living in a young post Communist democracy, is that we (including me) were appallingly naive to believe that once you proclaim a 'democracy' , everything automatically functions like a mature democracy of the type we are lucky enough to enjoy in the UK. You don't suddenly overnight get a functioning justice system full of wise judges, a police force who are basically committed to doing the right thing, or journalists committed to fearless pursuit of the truth. Or citizens who understand that democracy is something that each of them has to fight to protect, every day. All we can do is seek out the right people and back and support them. Now Disco who started this thread won't want to hear this but the process of EU accession was exactly that kind of sustained investment in such values which has at least brought these countries most of the way towards what we consider to be normal. And Putin hates that. The thing with Ukraine is that there is a large highly educated section of the population who could lead their country down the path the Czechs and Poles have gone. And you know, the Czechs and Poles don't want to go back to the embrace of Russia. On that you can take my word.
""We are talking here about protection of our citizens and compatriots, about protection of the most fundamental of the human rights – the right to live, and nothing more."
Utter bollocks Mr Lavrov and you know it. The new Ukrainian government didn't threaten the life of anyone. And try attending to the human rights of your own citizens before waving your willy around in another country.
This is as much about missile defence as it is NATO. The best way the West could really upset Putin now is to get the interim Ukrainian government to agree a roadmap for defence co-operation with the US once a new President is elected. Moscow will go bananas, might even force them to come to terms with their actions.
2 things: 1) The UK should not interfere politically and 2) NO AID in any form, cash, weapons, food; nothing should be sent to the Ukraine .. IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM
Anyone that thought Russia would cede control of the Crimea has either not been paying attention or has no comprehension of its strategic importance. Having fought the Turks, the British, the French, and the Bulgars and the Moldovans, then forcibly exiled the entire indigenous Tartar population to Siberia, they are not now going to let the EU take control by proxy in a political deal which loses them not only Ukraine as a buffer state on its western flank but also their major Naval bases protecting their southern flank.
The port city of Sevastopol has for centuries dominated the black sea, albeit with a fleet confined by the constricting influence of the Byzantine and Ottoman/Turkish controlled Dardanelles, which grants access to the eastern Mediterranean. Sevastopol sits on a peninsular jutting into the Black Sea being almost entirely surrounded by water excepting two rather thin land bridges at Chongar and Krasnoperekopsk. The peninsular has cliffs running along most of its southern coast, protecting an inland plateau that is both fertile and productive. The natural defences of this peninsular and its position at the centre of the Black Sea lends itself perfectly to a defensive and offensive Navel base. Moreover the straights of Kerch control access to the other major Russian Naval base on the Black sea, Rostov.
Without access to Rostov and Sevastopol Russia would lose the ability to protect is Southern flank from invasion, contain the Turkish fleet in Sinope (also any NATO vessels that require a base) as it has had to do before. It would also lose the ability to mount an offensive push into Anatolia which would threaten Constantinople/Istanbul and the Dardanelles as I have said above are the gateway to the eastern Mediterranean and all that lies beyond.
Russia’s defensive strategy has for centuries been the old Mongolian action of retreat, retreat and more retreat leaving nothing of value to the enemy behind until the offensive has over extended its supply lines and then to counter. The Russian army also knows that the rainy season and harsh winter will do the majority of its work for it to an unprepared aggressor. A simultaneous attack from the West and the south would however cut off any retreat and prevent the retreat beyond Siberia to behind the Ural Mountains. Where historically new weapons are made and supplies kept having been moved during the long retreat.
Russia will never give up protection to its south any more than it would disarm its medium range rockets and other weapons placed in central Asia protecting its Western approaches. Having devastated the indigenous Tartar nation by removal to Siberia in the 1940’s ethnic Russians now make up 58% of the population, thus political and strategic considerations tell me that there is no way the USSR will back down or pull back. The invasion of the Crimea was always going to happen and those in control in Kiev should have know this, they after all were only granted control to this autonomous region in 1958.
The West’s reaction to this is futile and damaging, futile because we are simply not in a position to influence militarily what goes on in the region without risking all out conflict and damaging because the political sabre rattling without any means of backup make us look weak and ill prepared. A far better strategy to ensure the freedom of the Ukraine and peace in the region would be allow Russian control of Crimea with our blessing in return for guarantees over the Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. This would allow the European Union to build political relations preventing the withdrawal of Russian gas supplies as a means of maintaining political control. Yet again we have allowed the Russians to wrong foot the NATO and EU foreign ministries.
Comments
http://stopwar.org.uk/news/ten-things-to-remember-about-the-crisis-in-ukraine-and-the-crimea
Putin knows what he's doing as well, he's cleaver, he knows very little can happen in terms of the west/Nato BUT... Ukraine can do something and I think they might just do.... leading to a civil war in Ukraine, their economy is close to collapse they don't really have much to lose and with Russian backing for eastern Ukraine, this imo will lead to major shit happening.
This can get very very serious, and is extremely worrying.
Putin rolling into the Crimea
There are absolutely no sanctions anyone can implement that would bother him.
They will also state that they are just protecting Russian lives and interests and that they are assisting a democratically elected President, overthrown by a putsch, that he is probably a corrupt murdering despot is bye the bye.
This issue should be left clearly in the remit of the UN security council, where we know that Russia will use it's veto, probably with China abstaining, after all it is the world body, that is what it is there for
I think the nation has had enough of recent military conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, with it's cost in human lives, that's not counting the billions it has cost us.
It is not for the UK govt or the EU to get involved with, leave it with the United Nations.
1. We'll respect your borders, don't worry about us invading you anytime soon...
2. ... in fact, we'll never even threaten you - let alone attack you.
3. We wont impose any economic sanctions on you either, least not for our own gain.
4. If anyone decides to nuke you, don't worry - we'll tell the UN and let them know.
5. We'll also avoid nuking anyone else that doesn't have nukes.. unless they attack us or our friends, and they have a friend who has nukes.
6. Should we find keeping these promises a little difficult though, we'll definitely have a chat about it.
Or have I read this wrong? Surely I have as this seems pointless, it's basically us promising not to invade or nuke them - there doesn't seem to be anything about collective defence; the strongest form of action mentioned is reporting an attack to the UN Security Council; (Of course, which would be a pointless exercise) and that's in the event that there are nuclear weapons used against them.
Now that Russia (who were the third signatory) have decided it doesn't care anymore, the whole document is a bit pointless.
I must say, if that was the incentive for Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons (... To Russia.) then they really did get a bone deal. However it does make sense, this was to provide them with assurances about nuclear weapons in particular - and there isn't even the remotest chance of those being used thankfully.
It's also worth mentioning that Yanukovic was elected on a mandate to move Ukraine towards the West and the EU, and not to turn the country away from that in favour of renewing ties - ties that bind - with Russia.
a) There are a great many people in Crimea who perceive themselves as Russian, or are at least Russian speakers
b) The Ukriane has been through a great upheaval which has pitted what could loosely be termed as pro-European and pro-Russian citizens against one another
c) The democratically elected gov’t was toppled as it was perceived as being pro-Russian (or not pro-European enough)
d) One of the first actions of the new, unelected, Ukrainian government was to pass a law which stated that in places where there is an ethnic minority of more than 10% - which certainly affects Crimea –it was removing the right of Russians (and any other minority) to have their language recognised as an official language. If you were an ethnic Russian concerned about your future in the country that would pretty much seem to prove your fears.
e) Crimea until 60 years ago was not part of the Ukraine, it was “gifted” by the then leader of the USSR Kruschev (sp) – himself a Ukrainian – hence the odd situation that you have almost 60% of this part of the country identifying themselves as Russian
f) As an aside I would find it astonishing if it wasn’t so depressingly hypocritical that the UK and US are now lecturing Russia about impeding another nations sovereignty
I’m not for a second saying that Russia invading what is still part of another countries sovereign territory is correct, but neither is the removal of the rights of thousands of people by an unelected government. Before fundamental changes to the Ukrainian constitution are enacted – which includes the rights of ethnic minorities and integration with Europe – surely the least the government should have is the legitimacy of election ? I feel like the press are only giving us one side of the story.
I can actually understand what Putin claimed to be his reasoning - even if I don't believe it. As far as I can see, it was close to tipping point before possible Russian intervention
intervention.
Obviously it would be better to have a proper protocol to deal with it (UN) but clearly Russia was going to do as Russia wanted and this has given them a pretty convincing excuse.
Perhaps, *to play devils advocate*, on the other hand, without some form of external intervention we could've been witnessing something far worse - civil war and a country with two identities? History shows the potential hatred that can brew in one country.
You're right about Russia using the conduct of the US/UK as an example of how we're just as bad, I think they did that when we claimed there attacking of Georgia was disproportionate. Then when we became involved with Libya they used identical words in their condemnation if I remember rightly; "disproportionate response".
Additionally, during the Georgia conflict (coincidentally didn't they take back a region then? North osseta?) the US actually had a military presence that was exercising at the time - yet there was still nothing other than strong words; so the Budapest Memorandum included, I can't see anything stronger here happening thankfully.
Hopefully this can be resolved without bloodshed - but personally I reckon a few battles and Ukraine suddenly becoming much smaller.
Disclaimer: I'm totally clueless. I'm enjoying reading this thread but largely these are my musings over a cup of coffee at lunch.
Breaking News
Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.
The bit that Putin doesn't want you to remember is that Yanukovic was democratically elected,yes, but on a mandate to increase Ukraine's ties with the West. Yanukovic had no mandate to tear up the EU agreements and return the Ukraine to the embrace of Putin.
I'm glad that Cameron is talking about sanctions such as slowing down visas for Russian businessmen. He should go a lot further. He should get HMRC target the tax affairs of all rich Russians who are swanning around in London, claiming non-dom status. Starting with Abramovic.
""We are talking here about protection of our citizens and compatriots, about protection of the most fundamental of the human rights – the right to live, and nothing more."
Utter bollocks Mr Lavrov and you know it. The new Ukrainian government didn't threaten the life of anyone. And try attending to the human rights of your own citizens before waving your willy around in another country.
Sounds like 1914 but it is 2014
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it - Edmund Burke
The port city of Sevastopol has for centuries dominated the black sea, albeit with a fleet confined by the constricting influence of the Byzantine and Ottoman/Turkish controlled Dardanelles, which grants access to the eastern Mediterranean. Sevastopol sits on a peninsular jutting into the Black Sea being almost entirely surrounded by water excepting two rather thin land bridges at Chongar and Krasnoperekopsk. The peninsular has cliffs running along most of its southern coast, protecting an inland plateau that is both fertile and productive. The natural defences of this peninsular and its position at the centre of the Black Sea lends itself perfectly to a defensive and offensive Navel base. Moreover the straights of Kerch control access to the other major Russian Naval base on the Black sea, Rostov.
Without access to Rostov and Sevastopol Russia would lose the ability to protect is Southern flank from invasion, contain the Turkish fleet in Sinope (also any NATO vessels that require a base) as it has had to do before. It would also lose the ability to mount an offensive push into Anatolia which would threaten Constantinople/Istanbul and the Dardanelles as I have said above are the gateway to the eastern Mediterranean and all that lies beyond.
Russia’s defensive strategy has for centuries been the old Mongolian action of retreat, retreat and more retreat leaving nothing of value to the enemy behind until the offensive has over extended its supply lines and then to counter. The Russian army also knows that the rainy season and harsh winter will do the majority of its work for it to an unprepared aggressor. A simultaneous attack from the West and the south would however cut off any retreat and prevent the retreat beyond Siberia to behind the Ural Mountains. Where historically new weapons are made and supplies kept having been moved during the long retreat.
Russia will never give up protection to its south any more than it would disarm its medium range rockets and other weapons placed in central Asia protecting its Western approaches. Having devastated the indigenous Tartar nation by removal to Siberia in the 1940’s ethnic Russians now make up 58% of the population, thus political and strategic considerations tell me that there is no way the USSR will back down or pull back. The invasion of the Crimea was always going to happen and those in control in Kiev should have know this, they after all were only granted control to this autonomous region in 1958.
The West’s reaction to this is futile and damaging, futile because we are simply not in a position to influence militarily what goes on in the region without risking all out conflict and damaging because the political sabre rattling without any means of backup make us look weak and ill prepared. A far better strategy to ensure the freedom of the Ukraine and peace in the region would be allow Russian control of Crimea with our blessing in return for guarantees over the Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. This would allow the European Union to build political relations preventing the withdrawal of Russian gas supplies as a means of maintaining political control. Yet again we have allowed the Russians to wrong foot the NATO and EU foreign ministries.