Ukranian Crisis

[Feanor]

Some photos from Balaclava. It looks like not all the Coast Guard vessels left. A few still remain.

u_96:

Ukrainian T-64Bs in Crimea are being shipped northward by Russia.

And Ukrainian troop movements near Russia are becoming alarming. Ukrainian tanks were pulled out of a central storage base are being delivered to an unknown military unit.

u_96: "

The Ukrainian Council of National Security stated that Russia intends to sabotage the presidential elections in Ukraine.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ñîâåò íàöèîíàëüíîé áåçîïàñíîñòè è îáîðîíû Óêðàèíû îáâèíèë Ðîññèþ â ïîïûòêå ñðûâà ïðåäñòîÿùèõ ïðåçèäåíòñêèõ âûáîðîâ

The Right Sector storm of the Rada failed, after some sort of compromise was reached, but the Rada is now considering banning Right Sector entirely.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Íà Óêðàèíå ìîãóò çàïðåòèòü "Ïðàâûé ñåêòîð".  Ðàäå "çàñëàííûõ êàçà÷êîâ" îáâèíèëè â "ðàáîòå íà Ïóòèíà"

 

[swerve]

Noriega of Panama comes to mind as does Granada. While both were 20th Century, they aren't all that far removed from now.

If the Ukraine cuts the Pensions and people can't survive, there is going to be quite a bit more unrest, and trouble.

But neither of those was a land grab, so they're not comparable. The USA was in & out of Grenada in 52 days, for example.

You're clutching at straws.

 

[2007yellow430]

But neither of those was a land grab, so they're not comparable. The USA was in & out of Grenada in 52 days, for example.

You're clutching at straws.

Didn't we install a different government in Grenada after the invasion, and it's one that was subservient to us? This history tells a different picture, indeed we had to veto a UN resolution over this invasion (just like Russia just did):

The US Invasion of Grenada:

The similarity between the US and Russia is amazing, each side uses their own logic to justify their behavior.

I don't mean to inject politics here but I thought this would be illuminating.

 

[Volkodav]

Wasn't the intervention in Grenada in response to a Bloody coup in which the Prime Minister and loyal government ministers were executed? There was also the presence of Cuban Troops / advisers and Soviet advisers, as well a curfew specified included summary execution on individuals caught breaking it?

A quick bit of google foo and I also read that Grenada has been a stable democratic society since the US intervention, including fair and honest changes of government upon the election of opposition parties at elections. Grenada also has a national holiday on the date of the US invasion named "Thanks Giving Day".

I do not for one second support the notion that doing nothing in the face of a bloody coup is the right thing to do. Yes IMO the coup was the excuse Reagan used to launch the invasion an imprint his questionable version of the world on the region but without it is likely he would not have been able to act, simple as that. I also believe that Grenada is better off today than they would have been under a military dictatorship, just look at the instability in other countries where no-one intervened.

Sounds quite different to the current issue in the Ukraine so probably not an example worth pursuing any further.

I should add that I am what many in my country would call a Leftie, i.e. an elitist egalitarian with a social conscience who sees himself as a right leaning centrist. I have no time for right, or left wing, green or religious ideologs and despair at the lack of moderate political choice in my own country.

 

[Feanor]

I do not for one second support the notion that doing nothing in the face of a bloody coup is the right thing to do.

Hmm. So you'd support Russian military intervention in Ukraine if say... Right Sector violently seized power? I mean the current coup was far from bloodless, and there's evidence to suggest that the Maydan snipers were hired by the opposition (though honestly it's such a mess that I can't tell whether it's true).

 

[Feanor]

But neither of those was a land grab, so they're not comparable. The USA was in & out of Grenada in 52 days, for example.

You're clutching at straws.

I think the real issue is that people are taking the Russian governments' statements at face value. The real reason for Russian action is different. On February 21st an agreement was signed between Yanukovich and the opposition. This agreement was strongly back by the West, who also seem to have convinced Russia who in turn got Yanukovich on board. This agreement included withdrawing a lot of the anti-riot police from Kiev. The opposition then ignored the agreement and proceeded to violently storm the government quarter seizing power. The West then pretended like there was no agreement, and essentially accepted the new government as legitimate. Russian moves in Crimea were two-pronged. 1) Demonstrate to the west that Russia can not be dealt with in that manner. If the west back an agreement, that agreement needs to be enforced. 2) Demonstrate to Russian populations in the near abroad, and to its own population at home, that the Russian government will not abandon Russians stuck in ex-Soviet states by the borders drawn up, the way the Yeltsin government did in the 90s. Putin's message is that Russia can not be treated like it lost a war, by the west. Either the west deals openly and fairly, or Russia will act unilaterally, to secure its interests.

And to be honest, nobody in the west can guarantee the safety of Russian minorities from extremist groups, who have a very real chance of coming to power. When iirc Svoboda activists run around the center of Kiev chanting "Moskali on the knives" (i.e. kill the Russians)... there is a problem.

Personally, I think the Crimean move was ill conceived. Prior to this action, Russia had a lot of friends in Western Europe. Russia had excellent relations with Germany, France, and Italy. In many cases those countries were willing to deal with Russia even against US objections. Russia had garnered a lot of good will by acting in a reasonable and predictable manner. Even the War in Georgia was ultimately accepted, and even justified by the EU. Now a lot of (if not all of) that good will has been squandered over a clumsy territorial gain. Not to mention the gigantic financial loses Russia will take both from rebuilding Crimea, and from the sanctions the west will impose.

 

[Volkodav]

Hmm. So you'd support Russian military intervention in Ukraine if say... Right Sector violently seized power? I mean the current coup was far from bloodless, and there's evidence to suggest that the Maydan snipers were hired by the opposition (though honestly it's such a mess that I can't tell whether it's true).

Yes, with the caveat that they pulled out after rather than just annexing the country as part of a greater Russia.

If the Ukraine was to vote in a UN sanctioned and supervised referendum some years after the Russian pull out to become part of Russia that is a different matter.

 

[swerve]

Hmm. So you'd support Russian military intervention in Ukraine if say... Right Sector violently seized power? I mean the current coup was far from bloodless, and there's evidence to suggest that the Maydan snipers were hired by the opposition (though honestly it's such a mess that I can't tell whether it's true).

The evidence to which you refer is, AFAIK, the testimony of a doctor called Olga Bohomolets, who put it forward as a possibility (& not 'the Maidan snipers', but some of them) in a conversation with the foreign minister of Estonia, which he then reported to Catherine Ashton, in a phone call which was bugged by someone, who released the recording.

Dr Bohomolets has since stated publicly that she does not have firm evidence, & that she did not mean to suggest that all or most of the shootings were done by hirelings of the opposition. That hasn't stopped a lot of claims that it's 'a known fact'.

 

[2007yellow430]

The evidence to which you refer is, AFAIK, the testimony of a doctor called Olga Bohomolets, who put it forward as a possibility (& not 'the Maidan snipers', but some of them) in a conversation with the foreign minister of Estonia, which he then reported to Catherine Ashton, in a phone call which was bugged by someone, who released the recording.

Dr Bohomolets has since stated publicly that she does not have firm evidence, & that she did not mean to suggest that all or most of the shootings were done by hirelings of the opposition. That hasn't stopped a lot of claims that it's 'a known fact'.

One of the difficulties in this type of thread is that when you research the issues you get all sorts of info, and not all of it is real. It makes it very hard to see who is right, who is wrong, and where the confusion starts. Too much info.

 

[Feanor]

The evidence to which you refer is, AFAIK, the testimony of a doctor called Olga Bohomolets, who put it forward as a possibility (& not 'the Maidan snipers', but some of them) in a conversation with the foreign minister of Estonia, which he then reported to Catherine Ashton, in a phone call which was bugged by someone, who released the recording.

Dr Bohomolets has since stated publicly that she does not have firm evidence, & that she did not mean to suggest that all or most of the shootings were done by hirelings of the opposition. That hasn't stopped a lot of claims that it's 'a known fact'.

The number of police who were hospitalized, or killed, with firearms injuries, was very high. Whether the snipers specifically were Maydan hirelings does not change the fact that there was a lot of violence from the extremist right wing groups including a widely reported murder of a worker from the Party of Regions. There were certainly more opposition shot then government forces. But this doesn't change that the whole thing was quite violent and certainly a coup.

Yes, with the caveat that they pulled out after rather than just annexing the country as part of a greater Russia.

If the Ukraine was to vote in a UN sanctioned and supervised referendum some years after the Russian pull out to become part of Russia that is a different matter.

What about the same referendum region by region? And what should we do if the Ukrainian central government refuses? Especially when they're not even willing to federalize Ukraine, allowing some local self-government.

EDIT: To make things clear I don't think that military intervention in Ukraine is a good idea. It may become necessary, even unavoidable, but it would be a bad thing.

 

[Volkodav]

The number of police who were hospitalized, or killed, with firearms injuries, was very high. Whether the snipers specifically were Maydan hirelings does not change the fact that there was a lot of violence from the extremist right wing groups including a widely reported murder of a worker from the Party of Regions. There were certainly more opposition shot then government forces. But this doesn't change that the whole thing was quite violent and certainly a coup.



What about the same referendum region by region? And what should we do if the Ukrainian central government refuses? Especially when they're not even willing to federalize Ukraine, allowing some local self-government.

No problem with that either, so long as there is no overt Russian presence and UN sanction and supervision. Same should apply to the Ukrainian Central government. I'm a believer in self determination whether its the Falklands, Timor Leste, or Ukrainian Regions.

 

[Feanor]

Some updates. Another territorial defense unit is being formed in Western Ukraine. It will be under the command of the local governor. I.e. not responsible to Kiev.

Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - Ландвер на Украине

Russia intends to hand over to Ukraine the weapons and equipment of units that did not cross over to the Russian side. 350 trucks and armored vehicles are being shipped immediately. Photos of the T-64Bs being shipped north.

Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - О передаче вооружений. ОбновлÑемый поÑÑ‚
u_96:

Meanwhile the Russian government justified troop concentrations in Bryansk by claiming that they're rebuilding an old airbase there.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ñêîïëåíèå âîéñê â Áðÿíñêîé îáëàñòè Ðîññèÿ îïðàâäûâàåò âîññòàíîâëåíèåì ñîâåòñêîãî àýðîäðîìà, ðàçãðàáëåííîãî â 2011 ãîäó

Russian BRDM-2 based loudspeaker units are being brought to the borders of Ukraine.

u_96:

Russia has also cancelled the agreements regarding the basing of the Black Sea Fleet, because Crimea is now part of Russia.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ðîññèÿ íà÷àëà ðàñòîðæåíèå äâóñòîðîííèõ ñîãëàøåíèé ñ Óêðàèíîé ïî ×åðíîìîðñêîìó ôëîòó

 

[Feanor]

No problem with that either, so long as there is no overt Russian presence

Without it, how do you force the central government in Kiev to allow this to happen? How do you prevent Right Sector from shooting up the pro-Russian demonstrators like they did in Kharkov? Who's going to take on the messy task of forcing the current government in Ukraine to take the desires and interests of its own populations into account?

These ****ers already took IMF money on conditions that will ruin ordinary people. They already tried to ban a language that a gigantic portion of their population considers their first language. They're already cleaning house, killing off, or arresting, both their own former allies on the right and their opponents on the left. When people rise up again, in a few months, or sooner, what will keep Right Sector from riding the wave into office? What will keep the new National Guard, and various other militias, from being used to violently stamp down the pro-Russian movements in the east?

 

[Volkodav]

Without it, how do you force the central government in Kiev to allow this to happen? How do you prevent Right Sector from shooting up the pro-Russian demonstrators like they did in Kharkov? Who's going to take on the messy task of forcing the current government in Ukraine to take the desires and interests of its own populations into account?

Didn't say it would be easy and Timor for instance was a blood bath that forced an international intervention but it ended up being for the greater good (still massive room for improvement though). If Russia is serious and in particular if they are confident of the result then they could support a Nato peace keeping force to stabilise and provide security for the elections.

 

[Feanor]

Didn't say it would be easy and Timor for instance was a blood bath that forced an international intervention but it ended up being for the greater good (still massive room for improvement though). If Russia is serious and in particular if they are confident of the result then they could support a Nato peace keeping force to stabilise and provide security for the elections.

A NATO peacekeeping force would have to deal with an extremely hostile local population... I think a UN peacekeeping force would be a better solution. An even better one would be CIS peacekeeping, provided that the peacekeepers are non-Russian. But as it stands, NATO entering Ukraine is anathema to the pro-Russian forces, and the Russian government. But here's another question, you support referendum by region. Do all NATO members support that solution? Because they just pushed for and passed a general assembly resolution protecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

I really don't see any good outcome here. And that's what worries me the most. The Kiev government is appalling. The multitude of armed militias being formed are extremely alarming. The inflexible position from both the West and the East is downright dangerous. And at the end of it all Ukraine is still economically a basket case, dependent on foreign financial and economic support.

 

[Feanor]

Meanwhile the Auto-Maydan (a Euro-Maydan splinter) together with the US sponsored Democratic Alliance, tried to break into an armored repair plant. They were fought off by locals, while the workers of the factory stood by with weapons (including fire arms) to protect the factory where a number of armored vehicles are currently located.

ЛОГОВО ÐЕТОЛЕРÐÐТÐОГО СРЕДÐЕВЕКОВОГО МРÐКОБЕСР- Бронетанковый автомайдан им. Швондера.

 

[Volkodav]

A NATO peacekeeping force would have to deal with an extremely hostile local population... I think a UN peacekeeping force would be a better solution. An even better one would be CIS peacekeeping, provided that the peacekeepers are non-Russian. But as it stands, NATO entering Ukraine is anathema to the pro-Russian forces, and the Russian government. But here's another question, you support referendum by region. Do all NATO members support that solution? Because they just pushed for and passed a general assembly resolution protecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

I really don't see any good outcome here. And that's what worries me the most. The Kiev government is appalling. The multitude of armed militias being formed are extremely alarming. The inflexible position from both the West and the East is downright dangerous. And at the end of it all Ukraine is still economically a basket case, dependent on foreign financial and economic support.

I believe if Russia was to tone down both the rhetoric and their actions and make noises about international intervention to protect Russian speakers then that would give France and Germany, in particular, more room to manoeuvre towards a solution. No one wants war but no one want to be seen as weak and doing nothing in what is perceived to be opportunistic annexations.

 

[Feanor]

I believe if Russia was to tone down both the rhetoric and their actions and make noises about international intervention to protect Russian speakers then that would give France and Germany, in particular, more room to manoeuvre towards a solution. No one wants war but no one want to be seen as weak and doing nothing in what is perceived to be opportunistic annexations.

Therein lies the contradiction. That having been said, what kind of solution do you think they could maneuver towards? Russia wants the current government in Kiev out of office. They want a new government, one that is at least on neutral terms with Russia, and one that will decisively stomp on the right wing movements. What can France or Germany do to achieve that?

 

[Volkodav]

Therein lies the contradiction. That having been said, what kind of solution do you think they could maneuver towards? Russia wants the current government in Kiev out of office. They want a new government, one that is at least on neutral terms with Russia, and one that will decisively stomp on the right wing movements. What can France or Germany do to achieve that?

Don't have a clue to be honest, just putting forward suggestions as what is happening now isn't helping anyone. IMO far less chance of the chaotic situation in Kiev or the tolerance of the right ring militias if there wasn't the elephant (or should that be Bear) in the room of the perception of a Russian desire / intent to annex the Ukraine.

This is where the ball is in Russia's court, if they could calm or reduce the concerns of the west then there would likely be a greater possibility of support or assistance to sort out what is happening in Ukraine. Some sort of guarantee that it is not a land grab or annexation, that it is genuine concern over the welfare of ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, maybe Russia should make a big deal about what happened in the former Yugoslavia and point out that it is unacceptable that the same could happen on their doorstep.

Change the rhetoric to something the west (or more to the point the western media) understands and recast Russia as the good guys rather than the current perception that they are opportunistic bullies.

 

[Feanor]

Don't have a clue to be honest, just putting forward suggestions as what is happening now isn't helping anyone. IMO far less chance of the chaotic situation in Kiev or the tolerance of the right ring militias if there wasn't the elephant (or should that be Bear) in the room of the perception of a Russian desire / intent to annex the Ukraine.

I think those perceptions are heavily overblown by Ukrainian nationalists. A Russian threat justifies their own extremism. Prior to the current crisis there was no real chance of any portion of Ukraine rejoining Russia, regardless of the desires of its inhabitants. That having been said, the current Russian position is to use those perceptions as an implicit threat to force the government in Kiev to come to terms. The bigger problem, however, is this. Ukraine in its present form is heavily Russified and depends on Russia economically. I.e. they either have to be pro-Russian, or face economic collapse and social unrest.

This is where the ball is in Russia's court, if they could calm or reduce the concerns of the west then there would likely be a greater possibility of support or assistance to sort out what is happening in Ukraine. Some sort of guarantee that it is not a land grab or annexation, that it is genuine concern over the welfare of ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, maybe Russia should make a big deal about what happened in the former Yugoslavia and point out that it is unacceptable that the same could happen on their doorstep.

Change the rhetoric to something the west (or more to the point the western media) understands and recast Russia as the good guys rather than the current perception that they are opportunistic bullies.

I don't think that Russian political elites understand this. Nor is there any understanding that annexing parts of Ukraine makes Russia the "bad guy". In Russia the perception is that those portions of Ukraine that are heavily pro-Russian should be allowed to join Russia, regardless of what the West, or the rest of Ukraine thinks. And of course regardless of the economic consequences this will have for Ukraine (losing their most economically productive regions). This is the popular perception. Russian politics seems to be that a neutral or friendly government in Kiev (one that understand where their bread is buttered) is a guarantee of an end to Western expansionism into what they see as their traditional sphere of influence.