Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crimea is bigger than Wales, you saying were not big enough to be a country either? :P

----------------------

BBC with a shock announcement today: Ukraine activists attacked in Crimea!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26503478

OMG, next minute they will be telling us Israeli activists are unpopular on the Gaza strip :P

some people have gardens bigger than the smallest independent city states in the world ;)
 
Crimea is bigger than Wales, you saying were not big enough to be a country either? :P

----------------------

BBC with a shock announcement today: Ukraine activists attacked in Crimea!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26503478

OMG, next minute they will be telling us Israeli activists are unpopular on the Gaza strip :P

Seems that if you're pro-Ukrainian in Ukraine then you bring Russian violence on yourselves.
 
Seems that if you're pro-Ukrainian in Ukraine then you bring Russian violence on yourselves.

They were in Crimea though.

-----------------------------

I thought this was pretty surprising:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Russian President Vladimir Putin referendum planned for March 16 on Crimea joining Russia violated Ukraine's constitution and was against international law.

Considering how dependant German is on Russian gas that is probably the biggest development thus far, looks like the west will not be backing down.
 
They were in Crimea though.

I know you don't want to hear this, but Crimea is still part of Ukraine, despite Russian troops invading it.

Is there not a bit of a double-standard here? Russia invaded Crimea to "protect Russian citizens" despite no evidence of there being any threat to Russian citizens in Crimea. Now it seems that Ukrainian citizens are under threat from pro-Russian mobs.
 
I know you don't want to hear this, but Crimea is still part of Ukraine, despite Russian troops invading it.

Is there not a bit of a double-standard here? Russia invaded Crimea to "protect Russian citizens" despite no evidence of there being any threat to Russian citizens in Crimea. Now it seems that Ukrainian citizens are under threat from pro-Russian mobs.

You do realise that Crimea is already a recognised region within Ukraine with it's own devolved parliament?
 
And?

It doesn't change the fact that Crimea is a recognised region within Ukraine that has it's own devolved parliament. It's about as close as you can get to a country in it's own right, so why shouldn't the people living there have the right to self-determination? Being invaded by Russia doesn't really change that, but if they just annex it without actually having a proper vote then yeah bad, but otherwise it seems that democracy only "works" when it gives the west the result they want to hear.
 
i love how everyone used to rant on about how much better than the western media RT was and how they reported the truth...

now they're all changing their minds. people seem to equate "reporting the truth" with "reporting what i want to hear"
 
And?

It doesn't change the fact that Crimea is a recognised region within Ukraine that has it's own devolved parliament. It's about as close as you can get to a country in it's own right, so why shouldn't the people living there have the right to self-determination? Being invaded by Russia doesn't really change that, but if they just annex it without actually having a proper vote then yeah bad, but otherwise it seems that democracy only "works" when it gives the west the result they want to hear.



that's why I posted it after scorza post lmfao :)
 
And?

It doesn't change the fact that Crimea is a recognised region within Ukraine that has it's own devolved parliament. It's about as close as you can get to a country in it's own right, so why shouldn't the people living there have the right to self-determination? Being invaded by Russia doesn't really change that, but if they just annex it without actually having a proper vote then yeah bad, but otherwise it seems that democracy only "works" when it gives the west the result they want to hear.

Who has said they don't have a right to self determination? Being invaded by Russia has made a free and fair election impossible imo - the Russians need to order their troops back to their bases, re-instate the Crimean Council of Ministers who were deposed by Russian soldiers on 27th Feb, and allow for a period of calm where both sides can have a say before a referendum takes place in front of neutral international observers later this year.

Suppose the British Army seized the Scottish parliament (let's suspend our disbelief and imagine that the British Army had the capability to do this), arrested Alec Salmond, installed a pro-union leader and were patrolling the streets of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen and brought forward the referendum to the end of March - would you respect a No to independence vote in such circumstances?
 
Who has said they don't have a right to self determination? Being invaded by Russia has made a free and fair election impossible imo - the Russians need to order their troops back to their bases, re-instate the Crimean Council of Ministers who were deposed by Russian soldiers on 27th Feb, and allow for a period of calm where both sides can have a say before a referendum takes place in front of neutral international observers later this year.

Suppose the British Army seized the Scottish parliament (let's suspend our disbelief and imagine that the British Army had the capability to do this), arrested Alec Salmond, installed a pro-union leader and were patrolling the streets of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen and brought forward the referendum to the end of March - would you respect a No to independence vote in such circumstances?
That's all well and dandy if Ukraine ever actually agree to it though, which I seriously doubt.
 
[..]
So can't they hold a referendum in Crimea and let the people choose? From what I suspect it would go Russia's way. That would be the most democratic thing to do and since we're all about democracy (when it fits).

Not now, no. Not a meaningful one, anyway. There's no chance at all of a genuine referendum in the current circumstances.

Besides, most of the people in the Crimea are there as a result of Stalin killing or deporting most of the inhabitants and replacing them with Russians. That's not the best basis for democracy.

Then there's the issue of treaties:

The Crimea was moved from Russia to the Ukraine by a leader of the USSR. Since all three were part of the USSR at the time (1950s), that was legitimately within his power.

After the collapse of the USSR and the resulting independence of Ukraine, the border between Russia and Ukraine was agreed by treaty to be the pre-existing border, the border that had existed when both were republics in the Soviet Union. That clearly makes Crimea part of the Ukraine. The treaty was signed by Russia, UK, Ukraine and USA and explcitly binds those countries to enforce the treaty. That would be implicit anyway, even without the explicit clause stating it. That's what treaties are for - to bind the signatories to support whatever is agreed in the treaty. In return for Russia agreeing to the pre-existing borders and not attempting to change them using military, political or financial power, the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. It had the 3rd largest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world, so this was a a big issue.

Either the UK attempts to uphold treaties it signs or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then what's the point of any country making any agreement with the UK?

If Russia and Ukraine negotiate a new treaty, one which supersedes the existing treaty, that would have course be a different matter. I hope that diplomats from other countries, including the UK, are working behind the scenes to cause that, but the UK should attempt to uphold treaties that it signs even if it isn't convenient to do so. Especially when it isn't convenient to do so.
 
That's all well and dandy if Ukraine ever actually agree to it though, which I seriously doubt.

Well if they do then I'll be the first to criticise them. I personally doubt they'll get an opportunity to object, looks like Crimea will be annexed by Russia.
 
That's all well and dandy if Ukraine ever actually agree to it though, which I seriously doubt.

They might agree to some sort of trade. Although since Russia has already broken one treaty, Ukraine has no reason to rely on any new one. Russia could agree to trade X for Crimea, occupy Crimea and then not do X.
 
That clearly makes Crimea part of the Ukraine. The treaty was signed by Russia, UK, Ukraine and USA and explcitly binds those countries to enforce the treaty. That would be implicit anyway, even without the explicit clause stating it. That's what treaties are for - to bind the signatories to support whatever is agreed in the treaty. In return for Russia agreeing to the pre-existing borders and not attempting to change them using military, political or financial power, the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. It had the 3rd largest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world, so this was a a big issue.

Either the UK attempts to uphold treaties it signs or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then what's the point of any country making any agreement with the UK?

If Russia and Ukraine negotiate a new treaty, one which supersedes the existing treaty, that would have course be a different matter. I hope that diplomats from other countries, including the UK, are working behind the scenes to cause that, but the UK should attempt to uphold treaties that it signs even if it isn't convenient to do so. Especially when it isn't convenient to do so.

AFAIK the treaty only binds the countries to respect the treaty it doesn't compel co-signatories to take action against another if they violate it (I believe that would then be referred to international law and the UN :S which in this case wouldn't be very productive)

The more complex aspect is that certain elements of the nuclear disarmament treaty are tied up in certain (wider) NATO agreements that have some unfortunate clauses regarding non-nuclear agression against X (in this case the Ukraine would qualify as X) from nuclear countries or non-nuclear countries supported by nuclear countries which could make things a little messy.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

I'm no great fan of Kissinger, but his Washington Post article is very salient. In it he outlines the principles under which he feels the current crisis can end:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.
 
This is written by Boris Johnson and fictional, but also completely true and very funny :D

It was midnight in the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin was watching himself in the mirror as he toned his glistening pecs. “Pretty buff,” he thought. Behind him on the desk were a slew of headlines from the Western press – and they were very satisfactory. “Putin calls West’s bluff”, read one. “Obama – what a pussy”, said an American tabloid. “Putin brings back USSR”; “A Tsar is Born!” and so on. A thin smile passed across the lips of the former KGB man. Yes, he was summoning up the spirit of the former Soviet Union, the spirit of – Stalin himself! Just then there was a disturbance in the air.

A window seemed to bang. A net curtain puffed out. Putin turned around to see a little moustachioed man standing behind him. There was no mistaking those crinkling Georgian eyes and the evil glitter within. “Joseph Vissarionovich!” said Putin, laying down the dumb-bells, and noting that his arms were trembling. “Someone said they were trying to summon up my spirit,” snapped Stalin. “I see I am back in my old office. But who are you, and what the hell is going on?”

Putin did his best to bring the former communist tyrant up to date. “So capitalism didn’t collapse under its own contradictions?” asked Stalin. “Er, not exactly, Comrade Stalin,” said Putin, falling easily into the old ways of address. “Hmmm”, said the world-class mass murderer. His eye fell on the headlines. “Well, I see that you are at least continuing the struggle against imperialism. It says you have launched an invasion. That’s good – but where?” Putin gulped. “Well, Comrade Stalin, we have had to send some of our crack troops against the fascists in Cri –” He faltered. “Cri – Cri –” “Cri-Cri?” Stalin sneered. “What’s got into you, man? Where are we invading? Cricklewood? Christmas Island?”

“Crimea!” blurted Putin, looking more sallow and goblinesque than ever. Stalin blinked. His terrifying eyebrows seemed to merge like a pair of mating hairy caterpillars. He spoke softly. “Crimea? Are you mad? We can’t invade Crimea – we own Crimea. That’s where the Tsars had their summer palace, for heaven’s sake. That’s where I had my greatest diplomatic triumph.” A look of suspicion passed across his face. “You do remember the Yalta summit, don’t you?” “Of course, Comrade General Secretary,” said Putin unctuously. “You carved up the world.

“Roosevelt was dying and Churchill had no cards to play, and so you took advantage of the triumphs of the Red Army and brought huge tracts of Europe into the Soviet sphere of influence. It was superb.” “Thank you,” preened Stalin. “But…” said Putin. “But what?” said Stalin, getting visibly irritated. “But things have not turned out exactly as you foresaw, Comrade.” “In what way?” Putin’s eyes were downcast. He looked as if he might cry. “Really I cannot say, Comrade Stalin. It is too shameful.” “Tell me, confound it!” roared Stalin, or I will have you drowned in the septic tank of the Lubyanka. Tell me which Warsaw Pact countries are coming to help us fight these mysterious Crimean fascists!” “There is no more Warsaw Pact,” sniffed Putin. “No Warsaw Pact!” He took a step towards Putin. “Then tell me who is in Nato!” “Er, places like Hungary.” “What places like Hungary?” said an amazed Stalin. “Well, Poland for instance,” said Putin. “Poland in Nato!” Stalin was turning puce. “Poland, aligned with the imperialists and capitalists of Britain and America! I will have you shot!

“In fact I will shoot you myself. Did this happen while you were running the Soviet Union, you snivelling idiot?” “I am sorry, Comrade Stalin,” said Putin, his voice firming as he tried to make a clean breast of it. “There is no Soviet Union. It broke up before I could take over. The Baltic states have left us and are members of Nato. The -Stans have all gone, and there are American troops in places like Uzbekistan. Even the Moldovans want to leave and join Romania.”

“Romania?” expostulated Stalin. “But Churchill gave me 90 per cent control of Romania! He wrote it on a napkin in Moscow and called it his “naughty document”. You can’t mean to say we have lost control of Romania as well?” “I am afraid so, Comrade. They have all joined a certain Western bourgeois capitalist economic club…”

By now Stalin was really beginning to lose it. He began to jig on one leg, and then to bounce around the room as though on the verge of announcing a general execution of the intelligentsia or the liquidation of the kulaks. “Silence! Lithuania in Nato! Latvia and Estonia in Nato! This is unbelievable! What is your name, you pointy-eared loser? Putin? Putin, I hereby execute you for gross betrayal of the Soviet Union.”

He reached into his sock, drew out a small snub-nosed revolver, and levelled it straight at the quivering form of the Russian president. All Putin’s machismo melted away; his martial arts expertise was forgotten. With a choking sob he flung himself at the feet of the former Soviet leader and clasped his knees in the ancient gesture of supplication. “It wasn’t my fault, Comrade Stalin. The Soviet economic system was just hopeless and the whole thing collapsed. So we replaced it with a gigantic kleptocracy funded by the proceeds of fossil fuel exports – and even then we have pretty shocking life expectancy figures and the birth rate is dismal.

“I am afraid that in the end we have to face the truth that people really do want democracy, and an end to corruption, and they want free markets and the rule of law. That’s why so many Ukrainians are turning to the West – in spite of all the cash I heaped on them – and that’s why in the end I expect we will lose it in Kiev…” “Lose Kiev?” Stalin’s voice rose to a shriek. “Lose the place where Vladimir the Great was baptised? You are a madman and traitor!”

There was a bang. Putin opened his eyes and saw that he was alone. It was just a paperweight that had fallen to the floor, so that his sheaf of cuttings blew mockingly around him. “Is Putin the new Stalin?” asked one.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

I'm no great fan of Kissinger, but his Washington Post article is very salient. In it he outlines the principles under which he feels the current crisis can end:

Wise words from Kissinger, I agree with all of his points.

I've also read the opinion piece by Condoleezza Rice and I must say, it's staggering how much the American Right has degraded over the years. Instead of a clear, rational analysis such as Kissinger's, Rice attacks Obama, throws in the usual Keystone XL pipeline comment and generally follows the neocon guidelines. I don't know what's more dangerous in the world right now, Putin's soviet ambitions or the American conservative nutters.

EDIT: Rice's piece:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...4-e59b1709222c_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom