News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Borek
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the chaotic situation in Ukraine, questioning who truly controls the protests and the government amidst escalating violence, particularly in Kiev. It notes the deep cultural and political divisions within Ukraine, with significant pro-Russian sentiments in the east and pro-European aspirations in the west. The conversation reflects on the lack of strong U.S. support for the protesters compared to past interventions during the Orange Revolution. Participants express skepticism about the motivations behind the protests, suggesting they may be influenced by foreign interests and local radicals. The overall sentiment is one of uncertainty regarding the future of Ukraine, with concerns about potential power struggles and external influences.
  • #101
Greg Bernhardt said:
Does Ukraine have any defensive capabilities or will they just let Russia roll the tanks in?

Hardly, it will not be a new Georgia, but an incredible mess, threatening the stability in whole Europe, possibly ending in WW3, if Rambo-Putin has been snorting too much steroids lately.

They have the whole kit; navy, air force and a rocket army from previous Soviet... 160,000 active personnel and 1,000,000 reserve = hell on earth.

640px-Sukhoi_Su-27UB_Belyakov.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
5umeiq.jpg
 
  • #103
mheslep said:
Such as?

IMO
Like being realistic about the limits of our influence on Russia's bid to execute this planned operation to reduce Western influence (who gets the money). It's not a shock that Russia 'invaded' , it's just been a matter of timing for a event we have been expecting for a while. It seems to me that the EU has been the primary agent pushing it from Russia in a bid to exert more control over the resources (hydrocarbons/gas) they use. The value of Russian influence and military resources in the area override almost any bid by the West to stop this reordering cold. The best we can do is to move the line of where the country will be effectively split by hitting them in the pocketbook or padding a wallet with deals. The Russia pocketbook is already empty so I expect incentives will work better to moderate their behavior to something less than messy and costly open warfare. Our strategic relationship with Russia is more valuable than the Crimea so most expect to see some sort of Crimea autonomous status within the Ukrainian state as the best outcome.

To me the #1 thing is to prevent attacks on local Russian interests in the region. Protection of 'Russians' and their property has been the traditional rational for armed invasion.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
I don't think anyone has mentioned yet in this thread that Crimea has been part of Ukraine only since 1954. From 1783 until then, it was part of first the Russian Empire, then the Russian SFSR within the Soviet Union. Before that, it appears (from Wikipedia) that you have to go all the way back to the 10th and 11th centuries to find Crimea under control of the Kievan Rus' which is sort of the "mother" of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.

So why was Crimea transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954? It might have had something to do with Nikita Khrushchev taking over after Stalin's death. His family background was part Ukrainian, he spent his youth and early career in Ukraine, and was head of the Communist Party in Ukraine before and after WWII.

Of course, under the Soviet Union, it probably didn't make any practical difference whether Crimea was officially part of Russia or Ukraine, because everything was ultimately run from Moscow anyway. :rolleyes:

This is not to say that I support Putin taking over Crimea by force; merely to note that he might feel more "justified" in coming to the "rescue" of the Russians there, than the ones in Canada or the USA.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
jtbell said:
This is not to say that I support Putin taking over Crimea by force; merely to note that he might feel more "justified" in coming to the "rescue" of the Russians there, than the ones in Canada or the USA.
Well, in case of (re)conquering Chechen Republic of Ichkeria Putin seem not to be bothered with ethnic argument.
 
  • #106
lisab said:
I think having permanent members on the Security Council is a fatal flaw in the organization - pretty much gives them carte blanche.

Yes, I also think it's a problem. I was thinking about exactly that a couple of hours ago - it is pretty outdated today, methinks.
 
Last edited:
  • #107
DennisN said:
Yes, I also think it's a problem. I was thinking about exactly that a couple of hours ago - it is pretty outdated today, methinks.
It's been a long standing concern given the principal (permanent) members have veto power. No country likes to give up power.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine the current sitution reflects ethnic and economic interests:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/27/world/europe/ukraine-divisions-crimea.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/ukraine.html
NYTimes said:
What began three months ago as a protest against the Ukrainian government has now turned into a big-power confrontation reminiscent of the Cold War and a significant challenge to international agreements on the sanctity of the borders of the post-Soviet nations.
 
Last edited:
  • #108
Ukrainian prime minister: Russia has made a "declaration of war"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-prime-minister-russia-had-no-reason-to-invade/
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine - Ukraine mobilized for war on Sunday, after Russian President Vladimir Putin declared he had the right to invade, creating the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the Cold War.


U.S, UK, France & Canada is stepping out of G8 preparation talks.

NATO Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen accuses Russia of threatening peace and security in Europe.

And what are USA & UK going to do about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by Ukraine, USA, UK, and Russia:

Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapon Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America,

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 Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;

  2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America 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-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

  3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 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 Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America 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 Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclearweapon 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. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

Signed in four copies having equal validity in the Ukrainian, English and Russian languages.

For Ukraine:
(Signed) Leonid D. KUCHMA
For the Russian Federation:
(Signed) Boris N. YELTSIN
For the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland:
(Signed) John MAJOR
For the United States of America:
(Signed) William J. CLINTON

This in the light of Putin roaring about Syrian sovereignty is maybe the biggest joke since 'Baghdad Bob'.
 
Last edited:
  • #110
voko said:
That is charming, given the USA's record in 21st century invasions. Iraqi WMD, ah oh.

That's not fair, you can't blame 317 millions for one Texan redneck that don't know how to read a map!
 
  • #111
2en2etw.jpg
 
  • #112
SIMFEROPOL, March 2 (RIA Novosti) – Ukraine’s autonomous region of Crimea confirmed Sunday that the majority of Ukrainian military units stationed on the Crimean peninsula have expressed their support of legitimately elected Pro-Russian authorities.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140302/18...ities-Confirm-Takeover-of-Military-Units.html

If that is true, then the Russian troops already there or deployed in future won't have anyone to fight, unless Ukraine decides to reclaim Crimea by military action. Which looks like a difficult proposition for Ukraine, given that Crimea is a peninsula with a very narrow connection to the mainland. It has already been reported that Russian troops are reinforcing the connection: "In the north of Crimea, at Armyansk on the Isthmus of Perekop, the BBC saw what appeared to be Russian soldiers digging trenches. The isthmus is strategically vital as it joins Crimea to the rest of Ukraine."
 
  • #113
So the Ukraine is in trouble?? Glad it isn't our problem. We can't fix every unstable region and governmenton Earth. The US should just stay out. Our meddling just makes it worse. We don't need to mess around with regions that have conflicts that go back 1000 years or more.
 
  • #114
This is a critical topic, and it's worthy of a good discussion. Just remember to stay courteous and respectful while posting here. Follow the PF rules, please!
 
  • #115
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/02/ex-cia-chief-why-we-get-putin-wrong.html

The last time Russian troops invaded one of its neighbors, the U.S. intelligence community was also caught off guard.

The year was 2008 and the country was Georgia instead of the Ukraine. And just as in 2014, back then there were early signs that Moscow was serious—it was issuing visas to ethnic Russian speakers in Georgia, like it's doing now in Ukraine. U.S. analysts just didn’t believe Russia would go as far as it did.

Today, as in 2008, American policy makers have found themselves burned after trying to make Vladimir Putin a partner when Putin himself sees America as a rival. This has often led Republican and Democratic led administrations to find themselves flat footed in the face of Russian aggression and U.S. intelligence analysts racing to explain how they misread Putin’s motivations.
...
Not all senior officials underestimated Putin. In 2010, then Defense Secretary Gates was quoted in one diplomatic cable disclosed by Wikileaks as saying Russia was an "oligarchy run by the security services." But Gates was largely an exception.

I don't think anyone who's seen how the USSR operated in the Cold War at the US Intel agency's are shocked, surprised or have been mislead by Putin. It's not a big secret that Russian has been planning and using the standard protocols of fomenting unrest there. The moves for what's happened have been studied, analyzed and presented to policy makers and Western leaders for years. You would think after being treated like a fool by Putin over and over again they would learn.
 
  • #116
D H said:
The Baltic is about 2000 kilometers as the crow flies (and a whole lot further as the ship sails) from the Black Sea. Perhaps you meant this reference? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet.

No, that was in reference to idea of cutting off the base at Kaliningrad (Baltic) in retaliation from an eastern Europe European poster.
 
  • #117
Here is the latest comprehensive coverage by BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26414600#

Recently it occurred to me that it would be interesting to learn more about what is going in Kharkiv and Donetsk. In their article, the BBC mentioned this: "In Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine, some 2,000 people waving Russian flags gathered to protest at the appointment of new pro-Kiev governor, Serhiy Taruta."

Edit: Hmmm. In evolving editions of the story, the name Serhiy Taruta is omitted from the story.
But the NY Times covers it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/w...to-its-oligarchs-for-political-help.html?_r=0

They add: "Another figure reported to be under consideration for a governorship in the east is Aleksandr Yaroslavsky, a developer and banker. The interim government offered him the position of governor of the Kharkiv region, where pro-Russian protesters on Saturday overran a regional administration building."

I looked up Serhiy Taruta, and I learn that he is said to be one of the 500 wealthiest men on the planet, worth a Forbes-estimated 2 billion US dollars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serhiy_Taruta
 
Last edited:
  • #118
Taruta is one of the Ukrainian oligarchs. As far as I understand oligarchs are rather pro-Maidan and pro-EU, as their fortunes may not survive if Putin succeeds. Doesn't mean oligarchs support Euromaidan openly, it also doesn't mean they like the idea of making the rules clear - their fortunes grow easier in murky waters of Ukrainian corrupted economy.

Situation in Ukraine was messy even long before Janukovych was elected, and even before Orange Revolution.
 
  • #119
At least a good news:

"Russian central bank has spent USD10bn trying to defend its currency."

Pity that they presumably gave up, it would be nicer if they used more of their reserves.
 
  • #120
Czcibor said:
At least a good news:

"Russian central bank has spent USD10bn trying to defend its currency."

And why is that a good news, exactly?
 
  • #121
voko said:
And why is that a good news, exactly?

That such invasion turns out to be rather costly for Russians?

(Unfortunately they still have quite big reserves)
 
  • #122
The user/bot "John Slister" whose identical posts were just deleted seems to belong to famous Russian Web Brigades, that are paid to spam forums with pro-Russian regime propaganda.

They were already active on Russian opposition sites. Recently the flocked en-masse Polish websites, now it's first time I see them on English web site.
 
  • #123
Czcibor said:
That such invasion turns out to be rather costly for Russians?

You need to realize that the money spent by the Russian Central Bank did not just disappear. It was sold on Russian exchange markets, and bought by Russian tax residents. And there are draconian rules in Russia that make it difficult (not impossible, though) to siphon foreign currency abroad without using it to pay for imports. So a sizeable chunk of the money will be used to import more stuff into Russia.

Now I do not think that is really bad for Russia because, you know, they have plenty of holes in the ground which produce some flammable fluids that they export gainfully for foreign currency. And the price for those fluids seems to be on the rise again.
 
  • #124
It's not. These posts are from a previous PF poster, who was banned for posting hate message directed towards certain ethnic groups. He is now continuing with a parade of sockpuppets.
 
  • #125
voko said:
You need to realize that the money spent by the Russian Central Bank did not just disappear. It was sold on Russian exchange markets, and bought by Russian tax residents. And there are draconian rules in Russia that make it difficult (not impossible, though) to siphon foreign currency abroad without using it to pay for imports. So a sizeable chunk of the money will be used to import more stuff into Russia.
Somehow (maybe because of all those bank accounts in Switzerland and until quite recently in Cyprus) I have rather limited belief in effectiveness of Russian currency controls. Anyway, when Russia had to intervene on foreign markets then by definition no currency controls were able to operate.

But I have to agree about increase of oil prices. Does it compensate increase of cost of servicing debt?
 
  • #126
Czcibor said:
Somehow (maybe because of all those bank accounts in Switzerland and until quite recently in Cyprus) I have rather limited belief in effectiveness of Russian currency controls.

This is not really rocket science. A huge chunk of Russian foreign currency income is from selling hydrocarbons. Those are transported primarily via state-controlled pipelines and state-controlled railways, with Putin's closest friends at the helm. So the authorities know pretty well how much stuff is sold, and how much dough that generates. Something, of course, gets stuck between the cogs but largely the system is working well. This is the source and soul of Putin's confidence in his course. There is a reason why the poor Khodorkovsky chap served what many had thought was an infinite term and then was suddenly pardoned.

But I have to agree about increase of oil prices. Does it compensate increase of cost of servicing debt?

Here is a news flash for you: Russia's debt is just 10% her GDP: http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/russia
 
  • #127
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140303-700766.html
Wheat and corn prices are rising, as Ukraine is an important supplier of this commodity.

There may be troubles in the economies of various places, but Ukraine's is being dashed upon the rocks. They need to stand up and staff a government, get it validated as a credit partner, then fix their economy and fight a war. This is a mess!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
  • #129
SteamKing said:
Russia is also saying that China is largely 'in agreement' with the Russian actions w.r.t. the Ukraine, whatever that means.

It's very easy to understand exactly why China would be in agreement with Russia. China is asserting territorial claims in the South China Sea which cut sharply across lines claimed by Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BO193A_CSHIP_G_20131201175712.jpg
 
  • #130
Dotini said:
It's very easy to understand exactly why China would be in agreement with Russia. China is asserting territorial claims...

Has Russia asserted any territorial claims? Last thing I heard from Putin was "I hereby appeal to the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the social and political situation in that country is normalised". Does not look like a territorial claim to me. He is obviously up to teaching - or being taught - a lesson, but I would be surprised if he really wanted to annex Crimea. The lesson most likely has to do with the the coup in Kiev rather than Crimea. And that's exactly where China would be in full accord with Russia.
 
  • #131
voko said:
This is not really rocket science.
No, it's not. The black and white world of rocket science is easy compared to the messy shades of gray world of politics.
 
  • #132
I discussed this mess today with my Russian friends. One said that I should not repeat anything she said, as, even though she has relatives in the Ukraine, she has no idea what is going on. This would apparently indicate that her relatives don't know what's going on.

Her husband, laid no restrictions, and had many opinions.

Interesting opinions.

Has anyone heard of Ostap Bandera?

My friend claimed this was a person's name, that was later adopted by a group after his death. But I googled it after he mentioned it, and told him later that I could find no one by that name.
He told me to ignore the first name, as perhaps he was incorrect.

Anyways, like many people, I have mixed ancestry. Many of my ancestors were from the Ukraine. All, but my great-grandparents, perished in the Holodomor.

Sorry. I think I've gone off topic. Ok to delete.
 
  • #133
OmCheeto said:
Has anyone heard of Ostap Bandera?

My friend claimed this was a person's name, that was later adopted by a group after his death. But I googled it after he mentioned it, and told him later that I could find no one by that name.
He told me to ignore the first name, as perhaps he was incorrect.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera

May be relevant, as I am pretty ignorant of the history of the area; Mostly a voluntary decision as my family came to the USA in 1989 as part of the Jewish migration out of the USSR and I have developed quite a bit of hate for anything having to do with the USSR, Russia and Belarus. The latter is where my family if from.

From everything I knew about the Ukraine (not much) prior to the latest events, I believed that Ukraine, mostly as a whole, was very pro-Ukraine independence and anti-Russia's little buddy. This whole situation is pretty confusing and I feel very bad for the people who just want to live their lives' in a decent and fair society. I'd bet this is actually the majority (conjecture).
 
  • #134
voko said:
Has Russia asserted any territorial claims? Last thing I heard from Putin was "I hereby appeal to the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the social and political situation in that country is normalised". Does not look like a territorial claim to me. He is obviously up to teaching - or being taught - a lesson, but I would be surprised if he really wanted to annex Crimea. The lesson most likely has to do with the the coup in Kiev rather than Crimea. And that's exactly where China would be in full accord with Russia.
Are you saying you believe him? Do you believe the situation in Crimea required intervention? The unrest wasn't primarily in Crimea and Crimea isn't the seat of the Ukrainian government -- seems an odd place to send troops then if that is the justification, isn't it? Do you believe the action was in accordance with international law? Shouldn't he have consulted with or otherwise notified the UN?

It appears to me that annexation is exactly what we have here.
 
  • #135
Yanick said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera

May be relevant, as I am pretty ignorant of the history of the area; Mostly a voluntary decision as my family came to the USA in 1989 as part of the Jewish migration out of the USSR and I have developed quite a bit of hate for anything having to do with the USSR, Russia and Belarus. The latter is where my family if from.

From everything I knew about the Ukraine (not much) prior to the latest events, I believed that Ukraine, mostly as a whole, was very pro-Ukraine independence and anti-Russia's little buddy. This whole situation is pretty confusing and I feel very bad for the people who just want to live their lives' in a decent and fair society. I'd bet this is actually the majority (conjecture).

Well said.

And you can edit out the "(conjecture)". I will not hold it against you.
 
  • #136
The EU and US economies together are more than triple the size of the Chinese and Russian economies combined. China and Russia can try to flex their muscle, but in reality their importance is often overestimated, where their views of importance are often distorted by visions of past empires that existed 1000 years ago. Imagine if Italy thought it was still the Roman Empire.

Russia's economy has already gotten spooked which is going to kill off any of the remaining anemic growth that Russia had.


If this twosome wants to grow in our world economically, they'd better be friendly to and with the rest of us. These sorts of unexpecteds are unsettling to the financial world, and that means investors will tend to shy from the region and involved currencies. There are very few ruble and yuan and very few ruble or yuan based investments in the world outside these involved countries. If this current scenario develops beyond a relatively simple local thrash about of power and sovereignty, I cannot imagine this helping their economic cause.


Believe it or not, the US still is a super power and when we freeze assets and suspend trade talks, it still makes economic impact.
 
  • #137
Recall the Nuland-Pyatt call which said "F**k the EU" with respect to Ukraine policy? It seems we still have not sufficiently cracked the whip on our EU allies, as Germany declines to oust Russia from the G8. Germany relies on copious quantities of Russian natural gas from Ukrainian pipelines.

http://www.dw.de/putin-agrees-to-ukraine-fact-finding-mission-after-talk-with-merkel/a-17468591
Germany against Russian exit from G8

Meanwhile on Sunday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier urged G8 members to rethink stripping Russia of its membership.

"The format of the G8 is actually the only one in which we in the West can speak directly with Russia," Steinmeier told German public broadcaster ARD. "Should we really give up this unique format?"
 
  • #138
russ_watters said:
Are you saying you believe him?

Believing him is one thing. Assuming he will do unnecessarily stupid things is quite another.

The unrest wasn't primarily in Crimea and Crimea isn't the seat of the Ukrainian government -- seems an odd place to send troops then if that is the justification, isn't it?

It does not seem that way to me. The troops were already there, and the locals were pretty much in support. Plus the peninsular convenience coupled with established bases and, importantly, guaranteed support at home. And yes, the anti-coup unrest was, if not primarily, then in a major way, in Crimea.

Imagine now him sending troops directly to Kiev instead.

To be fair, though, that can still happen, given the verbiage of his request for the use of force.

Do you believe the action was in accordance with international law? Shouldn't he have consulted with or otherwise notified the UN?

I do not think I wanted to or did make any implications regarding this.
 
  • #139
Putin just held a major press conference dedicated to Ukraine. He seems to have made a few interesting statements. Let's hope a transcript will be published shortly.
 
  • #140
voko said:
Believing him is one thing. Assuming he will do unnecessarily stupid things is quite another.
You are being evasive. It sounds like you are saying you don't believe his reasons or believe he wants to annex Crimea but won't because it would be stupid.
It does not seem that way to me. The troops were already there...
Except for the troops that weren't there.
...and the locals were pretty much in support.
The Russian majority is only 60/40 -- as if that were a justification for an invasion, Pennsylvania's German population is probably higher than that. And as far as I'm aware, no one took any polls/votes.
Plus the peninsular convenience coupled with established bases and, importantly, guaranteed support at home.
Yes!
And yes, the anti-coup unrest was, if not primarily, then in a major way, in Crimea.
Ahem, again, you are being evasive. The revolution/coup happened in Kiev, not Crimea. There were some minor demonstrations in Crimea afterwards, but little or no violence.

Still, Putin is now suggesting he wants to reinstall the previous regime in Ukraine. I see him attempting to keep the rest of Ukraine as a puppet state while annexing Crimea.
Imagine now him sending troops directly to Kiev instead.

To be fair, though, that can still happen, given the verbiage of his request for the use of force.
Seems to be one of his goals, yes.
I do not think I wanted to or did make any implications regarding this.
I didn't say you did. I'm asking.
 
  • #141
russ_watters said:
You are being evasive. It sounds like you are saying you don't believe his reasons or believe he wants to annex Crimea but won't because it would be stupid.

I do not see any rational reason for him to want to annex Crimea. I cannot say if he really wants to, I cannot read his mind. I believe annexing Crimea would be a very stupid idea both for Putin and for Russia in general.

Except for the troops that weren't there.

Putin seems to have denied sending any troops to Crimea or elsewhere (but I may have misinterpreted that - let's wait for the transcript).

The Russian majority is only 60/40 -- as if that were a justification for an invasion, Pennsylvania's German population is probably higher than that. And as far as I'm aware, no one took any polls/votes.

I am not sure why you are talking about justifications in the first place. I did say that in my opinion his act has a clear focus on Kiev, not on Crimea. Crimea is just a fantastic opportunity.

Ahem, again, you are being evasive. The revolution/coup happened in Kiev, not Crimea. There were some minor demonstrations in Crimea afterwards, but little or no violence.

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. Probably because you have "annexation" firmly established in your perception. I hope the previous paragraph clarifies my opinion.

Still, Putin is now suggesting he wants to reinstall the previous regime in Ukraine. I see him attempting to keep the rest of Ukraine as a puppet state while annexing Crimea.

He just said very clearly that there was no political future for Yanukovich and that he is interested just as everybody else is that the new election be held transparently and that he is ready to work with any legitimate government. He views Ukraine's Acting President as illegitimate, the Parliament as partly legitimate so it is not entirely impossible for Russia to have some state-level dialogue with the current regime. This of course can all be smoke and mirrors, but such are his statements.

I didn't say you did. I'm asking.

Given Putin's denial of having sent any troops anywhere to begin with, I must say I am confused. I need to read that transcript to understand his position better.

What evidence, anyway, do we have that (1) more Russian troops were sent to Crimea; (2) Russian troops intervened in any way?
 
  • #142
*blink* What evidence? Have you read or watched ANY news on this issue?
 
  • #143
I can't remember now if I have heard about Russians sending additional troops to Crimea - they have quite a force there since collapse of Soviet Union, in the naval base in Sevastopol. I recall hearing about troops being relocated to the Ukrainian borders near Kharkiv and Donetsk.

For sure their forces were moving around Crimea outside of the base.
 
  • #144
Yeah, SOME. Here is a recent bit: http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/04/stop-or-we-ll-shoot-standoff-at-ukraine-s-belbek-base/

"... attempted to speak with the pro-Russian troops guarding the base."

"Ukraine has accused the Kremlin of seizing key border posts and deploying 16,000 Russian troops in the region since last Friday."

"Russia has so far denied their troops are on the ground saying local forces are securing the area."

What do you make of that?
 
  • #145
voko said:
Yeah, SOME. Here is a recent bit: http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/04/stop-or-we-ll-shoot-standoff-at-ukraine-s-belbek-base/

"... attempted to speak with the pro-Russian troops guarding the base."

"Ukraine has accused the Kremlin of seizing key border posts and deploying 16,000 Russian troops in the region since last Friday."

"Russia has so far denied their troops are on the ground saying local forces are securing the area."

What do you make of that?
That Putin as usual lying, this time about troops that he has sent there? Including those that he asked first to take off Russian uniforms?

By occasion one of Polish newspapers made a list of 9 best (out of reality) quotations from Putin speech, sorry, in Polish, so only for Borek:
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomo...ali_w_Kijowie_byli_szkoleni.html#BoxSlotI3img

Inlcuding the best: "People, who were shoting, had been trained in Poland".
 
  • #146
Looking at some of their gear, the uniformed gunmen without insignia do appear to be of the Russian military. I was not checking that thoroughly when the original news came, assuming there was reason to lie about that, but after Putin's statement I felt some more scrutiny was necessary.

So, according to him, they then must be from the original Black Sea Fleet contingent in Crimea, implementing extended security measures for Russian military assets there. I think this still does not quite square with some reports, but may be plausible enough for a détente.
 
Last edited:
  • #147
Czcibor said:
That Putin as usual lying, this time about troops that he has sent there?

That still remains to be demonstrated. There were Russian troops before the whole thing started.
 
  • #148
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26429659
Today appears to be a day of calm and hope. Russian forces wargaming along the border have returned to barracks. Negotiations have broken out. Remarkably, Gazprom continues gas deliveries for which Ukraine is unable to pay, and further extends credit.
 
  • #149
voko said:
Yeah, SOME. Here is a recent bit: http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/04/stop-or-we-ll-shoot-standoff-at-ukraine-s-belbek-base/

"... attempted to speak with the pro-Russian troops guarding the base."

"Ukraine has accused the Kremlin of seizing key border posts and deploying 16,000 Russian troops in the region since last Friday."

"Russia has so far denied their troops are on the ground saying local forces are securing the area."

What do you make of that?

It would seem that some Ukrainians like the fact that the Russians have come to visit.

Simferopol, Ukraine - In the Crimean capital, an uneasy calm pervades much of the city, where Russian troops are positioned along some of the main streets and local residents attempt to carry on with their daily lives.

Support for the Russian "invasion" appears widespread in the city, with Russian flags on display throughout the capital. There are also small but daily rallies held in a show of support for the Russian presence and as a declaration for disdain for the protesters in Kiev and for Ukraine's new government.

Beneath one of the images:
Members of a "self defence force" guard masked gunmen, who are widely understood to be Russian soldiers.

(ref)
 
  • #150
cnn-russians_tanks_in_ukraine.png

I couldn't find the original video on CNN, but I watched it on TV. Those aren't tanks. Those are self-propelled artillery which is definitely a bigger deal than tanks. It implies an expectation of land battle against land armies at a distance.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top