Ukraine in turmoil

[Daimonion]

And so is Putin doing (and probably even more)...

[Rinaldo]

A state that severely victimizes a group of people through amoral laws annexes part of a sovereign country because it needs to "defend its racial minorities".

Party like it's 1938.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Party like it's 1938.

Let's guard against over-simplification, shall we?

Ian Welsh makes some good points, here:

http://www.ianwelsh.net/some-perspective-on-russian-intervention-in-the-ukraine/

[Rinaldo]

Let's guard against over-simplification, shall we?

Ian Welsh makes some good points, here:

http://www.ianwelsh.net/some-perspective-on-russian-intervention-in-the-ukraine/

Oh, absolutely. I just have a hard time stomaching Russian hypocrisy.

If Crimea wants to go, let them! But not like this.

[North Star]

Oh, absolutely. I just have a hard time stomaching Russian hypocrisy.

If Crimea wants to go, let them! But not like this.

+1

Oh, and replacing Germany, Sudetes or Austria in Welsh's text is fun 

[mc ukrneal]

Ian Welsh makes some good points, here:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/some-perspective-on-russian-intervention-in-the-ukraine/

Not really. Mostly 'so what' sort of points. Although, I disagree on #1 - Putin would happily conquer what he can. He has now shown that twice. Putin's ambitions are now available for the world to see and as the smart man he is, he is taking advantage at Ukraine's weakest moment.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

If Crimea wants to go, let them! But not like this.

It was obvious as soon as Ukraine became independent that Crimea would eventually be a problem. All the more so as much of the Russian navy is based there. If the Ukrainian nationalists had been smart, they would have got rid of Crimea long ago.

[knight66]

It was not always so Russian as an area. I can't see why a country should be chopped up due basically to the megalomania of one man, who in some respects is indeed acting like Hitler. He had an hour and a half by phone with Obama yesterday telling him he would do whatever he decided to do. We are in a position where he has for several years been fighting a proxi war in Syria, now he intends to expand his territory. The pattern and the methods have been well learned.

But I don't think any country has the stomach to take him on yet, understandable. So in this round, he will get away with annexing part of someone else's country with a further possibility of sparking a civil war. What next I wonder?

Mike

[Todd]

I can't see why a country should be chopped up due basically to the megalomania of one man

While Putin is an autocrat and engages in blatant aggression in other countries, I'm not sure that any Russian leader would be willing to let the Crimea go.  It is too important strategically to Russia, and I fully understand why Russia would go to war to keep it.  To many western eyes, it may look like Ukrainians want democracy and Russia is thwarting that, but Europe expanding eastward directly threatens Russia.  European powers have not always been peace-loving neighbors from a Russian perspective.  This time is probably different, but what Russian leader would want to take that chance? 

Aside from stern warnings, some stiffly worded memoranda, and some pointless UN resolutions, there's not really anything any other country can do, unless the US wants to move a big chunk of its Atlantic fleet to the Black Sea and risk a large-scale conflict.  The Ukraine is not worth that.

[Gurn Blanston]

While Putin is an autocrat and engages in blatant aggression in other countries, I'm not sure that any Russian leader would be willing to let the Crimea go.  It is too important strategically to Russia, and I fully understand why Russia would go to war to keep it.  To many western eyes, it may look like Ukrainians want democracy and Russia is thwarting that, but Europe expanding eastward directly threatens Russia.  European powers have not always been peace-loving neighbors from a Russian perspective.  This time is probably different, but what Russian leader would want to take that chance? 

Aside from stern warnings, some stiffly worded memoranda, and some pointless UN resolutions, there's not really anything any other country can do, unless the US wants to move a big chunk of its Atlantic fleet to the Black Sea and risk a large-scale conflict.  The Ukraine is not worth that.

I have been struggling to crystallize my POV, I think you have summed it up nicely. While I completely sympathize with the Ukrainian cause, it is very difficult to see what material support can be offered short of provoking a major world conflict. I have to ask myself; if I were an Ukrainian, would I:

A - take the 95% of my country already in hand and cede Crimea to Russia, or would I: 
B - go to war with Russia over a small piece of territory mainly inhabited by Russians who wish to be Russians and not 'Ukrainians' even though the land is strategically priceless?

Clearly my own answer would be A.

I realize this is rather simplistic, but when you take away the trappings and get to the nut of the matter, this is where the issue lies.

GB

[knight66]

While Putin is an autocrat and engages in blatant aggression in other countries, I'm not sure that any Russian leader would be willing to let the Crimea go.  It is too important strategically to Russia, and I fully understand why Russia would go to war to keep it.  To many western eyes, it may look like Ukrainians want democracy and Russia is thwarting that, but Europe expanding eastward directly threatens Russia.  European powers have not always been peace-loving neighbors from a Russian perspective.  This time is probably different, but what Russian leader would want to take that chance? 

Aside from stern warnings, some stiffly worded memoranda, and some pointless UN resolutions, there's not really anything any other country can do, unless the US wants to move a big chunk of its Atlantic fleet to the Black Sea and risk a large-scale conflict.  The Ukraine is not worth that.

There is nothing there I disagree with. But I think Putin could have struck a deal with a stable government. He can't walk away from the vital port and if he did it would send out signals that would get him more of the same. But he has immediately decided on confrontation. It will mean loss of life and possibly decades of damage to his neighbour.

Mike

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

There is nothing there I disagree with. But I think Putin could have struck a deal with a stable government.

But Ukraine doesn't have a stable government. The elected president was just driven out in a de facto coup d'etat, largely funded by our (US) tax dollars. ($5 billion is the figure publicly admitted to by our meddling neocon diplomat on the ground, Victoria Nuland.) Much of the country is in chaos, with the eastern parts refusing to obey any instructions coming out of Kiev.

Under such circumstances, with the possibility of losing control over your own military bases, what would you do?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

While I completely sympathize with the Ukrainian cause,

And what is "the Ukrainian cause" anyway? There are at least two: the Western Ukrainians (pro-EU) and the Eastern Ukrainians (pro-Russia).

[Gurn Blanston]

And what is "the Ukrainian cause" anyway? There are at least two: the Western Ukrainians (pro-EU) and the Eastern Ukrainians (pro-Russia).

I'm thinking of the Western cause, actually. Without denying the other, of course. Does not a similar situation exist in most countries that are multicultural? But what I am really getting at is if Ukraine is supposed to be an independent country (it is supposed to be, last time I looked) then the desire to stop being a satellite of Russia in a situation reminiscent of the Soviet days is certainly a valid one. Just because a segment of the population is culturally Russian, doesn't mean the country itself needs to be a de facto part of Russia or has to bend to Russia's will. Or maybe the country itself is simply too large to accommodate diversity and still maintain unity. In which case, there will be even more disruption. Sad to say... 

[knight66]

About one fifth of the population is of Russian extraction. Substantially they are second or third generation in Southern Ukraine which was packed by Russian emigration to service Soviet requirements in the area. The figures ignore the history, whereby the Russian Soviet gov exploited the country and many millions died due to Russian actions even before the 2nd world war. So, to my mind the Ukraine cause is of self determination. But, effectively, they have just lost Southern Ukraine, it has been invaded, with Ukrainian soldiers hemmed into their own barracks by Russian soldiers and the port blockaded by Russian navy. The least bad way out of this will be to allow the ethnically predominant part of the country to vote for separation, which of course it would.

So, basically yesterday was probably the last day of the country being intact, mind you, there is land just over the borders with Russia that was historically theirs. Rather as with Finland the Russians expanded the size of their land by simply throwing out the natives and taking it over at the end of WW2. So, I suppose, what happened yesterday and today is just another bite at the cherry by a pretty much unremittingly hostile neighbour.

Even if arrangements are made, the Russians will depend on the Ukrainians for gas and oil supplies, but no doubt they will be able to extort them into submission.

Mike

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I'm thinking of the Western cause, actually. Without denying the other, of course. Does not a similar situation exist in most countries that are multicultural?

The last time we had such a situation, the result was a civil war. Just sayin'.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Even if arrangements are made, the Russians will depend on the Ukrainians for gas and oil supplies, but no doubt they will be able to extort them into submission.

Huh? The gas and oil come from Russia and go through Ukraine via pipelines on the way to Europe. Unless I'm missing something?

[knight66]

If the southern tip of Ukraine goes to Russia, the pipeline to the south will have to go across Ukrainian land as now, so, that may provide some bargaining power to the Ukrainians depending on whether Russia leaves them any clothes at all. They need a bail out now, but as things have developed the World Bank will not be able to lend, nor the EU and nor would Russia. So, bleak whichever likely outcome you care to contemplate.

Mike

[Todd]

The US concedes the obvious.  And who knew John Kerry was so cheeky?  Said the Secretary of State: You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext[.]

[mc ukrneal]

But who says he stops there? It is quite maddening.  The claim that Russians in the region were somehow under threat is laughable.

The Western response has been utterly pathetic. They simply do not understand Russia or the Russian mentality. They look weak, they act weak, and as long as they do so, Putin will just keep doing it. They are enabling him.