Ukrainian mess

[D H]

What I would hope comes out of this is a partial rewriting of the constitution to limit presidential power to make this less likely to happen again.

My opinion: That is a bit overly rosy thinking.

Fixing their constitution to limit presidential powers won't fix the problem because corruption in the Ukraine is rampant throughout the Ukrainian society, public and private. Their president was corrupt, their parliament is corrupt, their judges are corrupt, their local officials are corrupt. I suspect even their dog catchers expect a bribe from Fido's owners when they catch Fido running down the street (or when they catch Fido in Fido's fenced-in back yard).

Corruption was *the* way of life for the 70 years that the Ukraine was under Soviet control. Expecting that to reverse itself after only 25 years of independence is expecting too much. It took the US 150 years or so to get corruption under control, and it's still present in the US to a limited extent.

 

[voko]

I think it is more properly termed a revolution (by the people) as opposed to a coup (by a government faction). Thats not that important...

These two terms usually carry lots of ideology. For example, what Bolsheviks did in 197 was initially called a "coup" by themselves, then they started calling that "revolution". Those whom they overthrew, including the (then) competing parties, always called that a "coup". It is probably too early to speak of a "revolution" here, given that those guys in Rada and regional exec. and legis. bodies who were pro-Yanukovich just a few days ago and now fiery revolutionaries.

In either case, the existing government is overthrown so the existing laws and constitution need not necessarily apply. So while the exact path isn't clear yet, legality/constitutionality need not necessarily apply.

This raises an interesting question: is Rada now really representative of the Ukranian people? It is very much possible that it is not, so we may not be seeing the end of the revolution just yet. Hopefully, it will not be a bloody end.

 

[voko]

Corruption was *the* way of life for the 70 years that the Ukraine was under Soviet control.

Less than that. Before Stalin's death, corruption was not a major element of the Soviet regime. Back then it was a regime based on fear, not on corruption. I think it is safe to say that corruption was firmly planted during Brezhnev's rule.

 

[mheslep]

Corruption was *the* way of life for the 70 years that the Ukraine was under Soviet control. Expecting that to reverse itself after only 25 years of independence is expecting too much. ...

Most all of eastern Europe was under Soviet control for 50 years or longer: Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, etc. Though they undoubtedly have their problems with corruption, I would not label all those states as intractably corrupt. Note that the man who led the Orange Revolution in 2004, Yushchenko, pushed corruption reforms (if ineffectively) and does not appear to have enriched himself on the back of the nation. Yushchenko certainly was not a Moscow toady.

 

[Nikitin]

What many of the Ukrainians in Maidan don't realize is that corruption, poverty, wealth discrepancies etc. won't just magically disappear if Yanukovich is ousted and Ukraine sings that deal with the EU (actually, Ukraine will get ****ed). The problem with corruption and theft is the post-Soviet oligarch-dominated culture, and it goes from bottom to the very top.

Also, DH, post-Soviet countries are much more corrupt than the USSR was. Your moral standards tend to deteriorate when your paychecks stop coming while at the same time your neighbour suddenly is a multi-millionaire.

As in a lawful democratic succession in power vs. a coup d'état?

Well, they surely had some kind of official excuse/procedures, but in all fairness, it was nothing but a coup by the Western-Ukrainians.

In Ukraine, though, this is not the first time when procedures are brushed aside, and, interestingly, Timoshenko is again a beneficiary. I wonder what her political credibility stems from. Is it now the martyr thing?

She doesn't have any. Well, OK: some people are stupid enough to trust her, but I think many hate her just as much as they hate Yanukovich. At least they should: She is thoroughly corrupt.

 

[mheslep]

Corruption Perception Index for some select countries (out of 177)

Norway 5
Austria 26
Estonia 28
Poland 38
Czech R. 57
Russia 127
Ukraine 144
http://www.transparency.org/country

It may be that with this change of leadership Ukraine will have an opportunity to reduce corruption as have its neighbors.

 

[D H]

Most all of eastern Europe was under Soviet control for 50 years or longer: Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, etc.

That's only in comparison to other even more corrupt former Soviet countries. Compare them to western European countries and the picture isn't so pretty. There are quite a few former Soviet countries that are perceived as less corrupt than Italy or Greece. That's not a good comparison. Compared to Spain? Now only two, Poland and Estonia, come out better. Compared to Portugal? Now it's only Estonia. To Austria or France? None. Note that Spain, Portugal, Austria, and France are not the paragons of clean, non-corrupt countries.

Just look at your own source, post #43.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26336032

The hopeful outlines of an optimistic endgame emerges.

 

[mheslep]

Corruption Perception Index for some select countries (out of 177)

Norway 5
Austria 26
Estonia 28
Poland 38
Czech R. 57
Russia 127
Ukraine 144
http://www.transparency.org/country

It may be that with this change of leadership Ukraine will have an opportunity to reduce corruption as have its neighbors.

CPI (corruption) rankings for comparison, right after the Orange revolution or 2005 under the reformer Yushchenko:

2004 Ukraine: 122, Russia 90
2005 Ukraine: 107, Russia 126 Yushchenko becomes President
2006 Ukraine: 99, Russia 121 Yanukovych becomes PM
2007 Ukraine: 118, Russia 143
2008 Ukraine: 134, Russia 147
2009 Ukraine: 146, Russia 146
2010 Ukraine: 134, Russia 154 Yanukovych become President

 

[jtbell]

After reading about the takeover of the Crimean parliament building by pro-Russian demonstrators, I went to the Wikipedia page about Crimea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

to review its history, and landed in the middle of what looks like an editing war: (I added the boldface)

On 26 February 2014, thousands of pro-Russian and pro-Ukraine protesters clashed in front of the parliament building in Simferopol prompting Russian President Vladimir Putin to put 150,000 Russian troops on alert along the Ukrainian border. The protests followed the ousting of the Russian-backed Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych on 22 February 2014, and a push by many pro-Russian protesters for Crimea to secede from Ukraine and seek assistance from Russia.[35] The russian army wore pink dresses as they are little girls

 

[SteamKing]

Well, if the flame war has broken out, can the shooting war be far behind?

 

[Dotini]

Well, if the flame war has broken out, can the shooting war be far behind?

Once the dogs of revolution are loosed, it's hard to expect a nice, well-behaved result.
Someone's going to get their hair mussed.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Nothing can stop Russia from invading Ukraine

Russian gunmen control Crimea airport
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26379722

 

[Tosh5457]

Nothing can stop Russia from invading Ukraine

Russian gunmen control Crimea airport
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26379722

They just have to be very careful how they do it though, the whole's world is watching, and they can't just repress people like in the old ways. Too bad Ukraine isn't in NATO, in the eventual intervention of Russia the European Union and US will do nothing. And even if they were, no country wants to start such a war.

Anyway I think the consensus in Ukrainians is that they want to get rid of Russian influence, and rightly so IMO. Makes me glad to see Ukrainians here in Portugal, on the opposite corner of Europe, showing support for this Ukrainian revolution.

 

[lisab]

They just have to be very careful how they do it though, the whole's world is watching, and they can't just repress people like in the old ways. Too bad Ukraine isn't in NATO, in the eventual intervention of Russia the European Union and US will do nothing. And even if they were, no country wants to start such a war.

Anyway I think the consensus in Ukrainians is that they want to get rid of Russian influence, and rightly so IMO. Makes me glad to see Ukrainians here in Portugal, on the opposite corner of Europe, showing support for this Ukrainian revolution.

Bolded text: I'm not so sure about that. The US wouldn't do anything to intervene, outside of a strongly-worded condemnation . The EU would debate it from now until who-knows-when, but ultimately do nothing. Who is left, the UN?

 

[Vanadium 50]

they can't just repress people like in the old ways.

Why not? If Russia moves troops into the eastern part of Ukraine, as "requested" by local governments (who may or may not declare independence), who is going to stop them? The EU? I think Putin can handle a few wagging fingers and clucking tongues from the Eurocrats. The US? What will the US do? Draw some more red lines?

 

[voko]

Who is left, the UN?

Since we are assuming a military action by Russia, the UN won't be able to do a thing, Russia being a permanent member of the Security Council, wielding its power to veto.

 

[D H]

Anyway I think the consensus in Ukrainians is that they want to get rid of Russian influence, and rightly so IMO.

This is not a universal consensus across all of the Ukraine. The eastern part of the Ukraine has a significant number of ethnic Russians and the dominant language in the eastern part of the Ukraine is Russian. In particular, the Crimea is predominantly ethnic Russians. It's dubious that the ethnic Russian majority in the Crimea would view Russian intervention as repression.

 

[voko]

The renegade Yanukovich who is desirous of restoration and who is the legitimate President poses an interesting dilemma for Russia.

 

[D H]

The renegade Yanukovich who is desirous of restoration and who is the legitimate President ...

That is a ridiculous statement. He abandoned his job. I suspect that even the ethic Russians in the Ukraine want him back for one reason only: To put him in jail.

 

[voko]

That is a ridiculous statement. He abandoned his job.

"Legitimate" means "conforming to the law or to rules". Neither version of the Ukrainian Constitution has a provision for losing presidency over "abandoning the job". So he is most definitely a legitimate president, de jure, if you so prefer. That this may be very different de facto constitutes the dilemma I spoke about.

 

[SteamKing]

Why not? If Russia moves troops into the eastern part of Ukraine, as "requested" by local governments (who may or may not declare independence), who is going to stop them? The EU? I think Putin can handle a few wagging fingers and clucking tongues from the Eurocrats. The US? What will the US do? Draw some more red lines?

The US could send Secy. of State Lurch to hang around Putin's office in the Kremlin, looking dour and worried, mumbling something about Genghis Khan.

 

[mheslep]

On the subject of non-violent actions the US *could* take:

• Replace the $15B Russia promised the Ukraine under Yanukovych
• Announce banking sanctions will be applied to any Ukrainian official that uses the military against peaceful civilians. Consider the same for Russian officials should they move militarily into the Ukraine.
• UN speech by Kerry/Obama loudly associating the US with self-determination of free peoples.
• Sail the US Navy into the international waters of the Black Sea, ruling out any future Russian naval blockade.

Other ideas?

 

[voko]

[*]Sail the US Navy into the international waters of the Black Sea, ruling out any future Russian naval blockade.

This will be ineffectual under the Montreux Convention. Unless, of course, the US are willing to dismiss Turkey as an allied nation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Any reaction and Russia can tighten the natural gas pipe line that Eastern Europe depends on. Such a shame.

 

[mheslep]

This will be ineffectual under the Montreux Convention. Unless, of course, the US are willing to dismiss Turkey as an allied nation.

Apparently Montreux allows up to 30,000 tons of non-Black Sea state war ships, which the US has already made use of in the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, during which three US naval vessels were allowed through the straights by Turkey.

 

[D H]

On the subject of non-violent actions the US *could* take:

• UN speech by Kerry/Obama loudly associating the US with self-determination of free peoples.

Something along the lines of the one option I left in your list will be very attractive to the Obama administration. Your other options? Maybe not.

Other ideas?

Since we're in the realm of fantasy,

• As an act of good faith to the new Ukrainian government, Russia turns Yanukovich over to Ukrainian authorities, along with the numbered Swiss bank accounts where a good amount of the Ukraine's former wealth now lives.

 

[voko]

Apparently Montreux allows up to 30,000 tons of non-Black Sea state war ships, which the US has already made use of in the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, during which three US naval vessels were allowed through the straights by Turkey.

I do not think that played any significant role during that event. I do not that that was much more than a token gesture.

Speaking of the US warships in the Black Sea, during the recent Olympics there were a couple of US ships there, also as a token gesture, one of them running aground, and her CO ending up removed from command. I wonder how that might affect the willingness of the US to deploy forces in that theatre as further token gestures.

 

[voko]

[*]As an act of good faith to the new Ukrainian government, Russia turns Yanukovich over to Ukrainian authorities, along with the numbered Swiss bank accounts where a good amount of the Ukraine's former wealth now lives.[/list]

Nah, the Swiss would very much mind parting with those hard-earned monies. In fact, they already have: according to the news circulated just today, the Swiss authorities have frozen the assets of Y & Co.

 

[mheslep]

I would like to know, with regards to self-determination in Ukraine and elsewhere, i) what might be attractive to the American people and ii) what might be somewhat effective.

I see no use in gaming out the https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/wZautQ0yhm4?start=238&end=249&version=3administration (very pretty, but in time of action decides "I will diminish, and go into the West")

 

[mheslep]

... Your other options? Maybe not.

Not *my* options; all of them are actions taken in the past by the US in foreign affairs.

 

[SteamKing]

Apparently Montreux allows up to 30,000 tons of non-Black Sea state war ships, which the US has already made use of in the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, during which three US naval vessels were allowed through the straights by Turkey.

Yes, but these ships were restricted to delivering humanitarian supplies to Georgia. The Russian foreign minister issued very pointed warnings aimed at NATO and the US against violation of the Montreux Convention.

From a sea power standpoint, it would be very reckless to send a NATO naval squadron into the Black Sea without friendly air cover. The tonnage limits imposed by the Convention preclude aircraft carriers from transiting the Straits from the Mediterranean due to their size, and given the Turkish government's growing antipathy with the West, it is doubtful that permission for overflight by NATO or US aircraft of Turkish territory would be granted, especially is a clash with Russian forces appeared possible.

 

[Nikitin]

The recent Russian military actions are probably aimed at strong-arming the government in Kiev into cooperation. A Russian invasion of Ukraine makes no sense right now, as all Putin would end up with is diplomatic isolation abroad and a cluster**** in occupied Ukraine.

I think the most Russia will do is destabilize the country and push for referendums and revolts in pro-Russian regions, incase Kiev is filled with idiots who refuse to listen.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, but these ships were restricted to delivering humanitarian supplies to Georgia.

They were US Navy warships, not a barge loaded with flour. One of them was an Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer.

The Russian foreign minister issued very pointed warnings aimed at NATO and the US against violation of the Montreux Convention.

Yes, well I'd like to see some pointed warnings from the US/NATO aimed at the Russia's violations of pick-a-paragraph in the UN charter. The Russian FM has only a bit more moral authority than von Ribbentrop. There was no violation.

The ships were sent once in 2008, they can be sent again. US Naval vessels patrol international waters around the world, and not all are part of air-covered carrier task forces. Turkey is not the only air route into the Black Sea; Bulgaria is a NATO member (and the coast is 50 mins from Aviano). The point being, Putin can have his wish to keep the US Navy out of the Black Sea by staying out of the Ukraine (and Georgia, and the Baltics, ...).

Anyway, moving ships around is bottom of the list. There are several positive actions the US can take.

 

[voko]

They were US Navy warships, not a barge loaded with flour. One of them was an Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer.

This sort of thinking has been obsolete for over 70 years. The US Navy, whose principal instrument of naval warfare is air power, knows that better than anyone else.

Yes, well I'd like to see some pointed warnings from the US/NATO aimed at the Russia's violations of pick-a-paragraph in the UN charter.

When I read this and other articles all I can see is rumours and, perhaps, conjectures. Are you aware of anything more substantial than that?

The Russian FM has only a bit more moral authority than von Ribbentrop. There was no violation.

Precisely. Those ships completed their humanitarian mission and then were happily underway homebound, exactly as Herr Lavrov wanted them to.

US Naval vessels patrol international waters around the world, and not all are part of air-covered carrier task forces.

Of course they do. In the Black Sea? That makes headlines.

The Black Sea has been Russia's home waters for about two centuries. One has to be completely insane to go there with a military objective not backed by an overwhelming force. I can't recall the USA's doing anything that in a very long time.