News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Borek
  • Start date Start date
Click For 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.
  • #91
AlephZero said:
Somewhat effective to what end?

Because, in general, American policy historically adhere's to the following

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. ...

And in times of war weariness the end-note especially applies:

"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

John Quincy Adams, Independence Day address (1821)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Vanadium 50 said:
Today Mr. Putin received permission to send troops to Ukraine. All of Ukraine, not just Crimea. Russian troops were requested by newly-elected (at gunpoint) Crimean Prime Mininster Aksyonov, and Mr. Putin has agreed to send them.

Yes, as long as he asks permission from a wise and deliberative body, must be ok.

You know, the census says more than three million Russian diaspora live in the US, another half million in Canada, a population second only to Ukraine outside Asia. Maybe Putin will also ask permission some day to send troops to protect those poor hapless oppressed Russians in America under threat by fascist radicals and gays.
 
Last edited:
  • #93
mheslep said:
On the subject of non-violent actions the US *could* take:

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

Plenty, but this is not one of them. The odds of something stupid happening are pretty high judging from past events.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/w...ck&contentCollection=Home Page&pgtype=article

Making Russia Pay? It’s Not So Simple
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
Does Ukraine have any defensive capabilities or will they just let Russia roll the tanks in?
 
  • #95
  • #96
nsaspook said:
Plenty, ...
Such as?
 
  • #97
AlephZero said:
But what is there to interest the USA here, except for those who want to carry on fighting the Cold War?

One interest is that countries keep to their agreements. As part of the 1994 Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is short enough to reproduce in its entirety:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

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

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, 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.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 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.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon 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.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.
 
  • #98
Czcibor said:
I see here one interesting solution. Turkey wants to protect ethnically related Crimean Tatars (who neither love Russians for mass Stalin deportation, nor for recent anti-Muslim policy). Well, if Russians now blatantly violated "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" (in which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for promise of territorial integrity), I see one more agreement that can be cancel - Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, which allows Russian military ships to cross Bosphorus.
That is interesting. Thanks.
 
  • #99
Czcibor said:
... And in bad scenario we could in relation for no natural gas could cut access to Kaliningrad Zone (both by land and Gulf of Finland). Now the winter ends so such negotiations are imaginable from our perspective.
Cut access? The Russian Baltic fleet there is reported as having some 75 ships. Who has the Naval/air power in the area to keep them bottled up?
 
  • #100
mheslep said:
Cut access? The Russian Baltic fleet there is reported as having some 75 ships. Who has the Naval/air power in the area to keep them bottled up?
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.
 
  • #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
 
  • #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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 235 ·
8
Replies
235
Views
23K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K