Protesters in Ukraine remind us of the priceless benefits of being EU members

[Chelseaboy]

Pro-Russian extremists physically attacking peaceful pro-Ukraine demonstrators in Sevastopol today.

The pro-Russians then attacked journalists present at the scene.

These pro-Russians are just thugs.

[lonedrake]

1.  The majority of Krim residents are of Russian heritage.
2.  If you had polled the Krim residents on the night of Leninfall (seems to be a close enough day for the epicenter of this crisis) you would have found that the majority were against any separation with Ukraine.
3.  In the space of a single evening, the Cabinet was replaced, and a new leader emerges for Krim.  He is rabidly pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian.
4.  No one knows what happened in the regional parliament the night that the former government was displaced and the new government installed except that all press were physically removed from the building and guards were placed so that no one could ascertain what was said. 
5.  Since this time, Ukrainian legislators and Tatar legislators from Krim have not been forthcoming, leading speculators to believe that their families are threatened.

That is the basis for the Russian incursion.

Skip ahead.  The Krim Parliament invites Russia to support their move to be part of Russia.  Russian troops are invited in.  Russia denies sending troops although at last count there were over 18,000 troops present and involved a movement of troops again, in only the last 10 hours.

 This may be exactly what happened. However, the mentality about Crimea seems to be different from the rest of Ukraine. On both sides(russia and crimea)

I wonder if the Taters are a reason for this? I have no idea if the taters in Crimea run around saying Allah Akbar....but if they do.........well  I wouldn't want them in my neighborhood either.

[lonedrake]

 Russians seem to love a liar....especially a drunk one. This is to funny.

http://www.odnoklassniki.ru/video/3596092884

[JohnDearGreen]

Russian Roulette: The Invasion of Ukraine (Dispatch Five)
[/font]

[LAman]

An astute friend of mine brought up some interesting scenarios.....

If the Crimean vote goes to complete independence from Ukraine (as most people seem to be predicting), and the Kremlin endorses this secession, then interesting questions will arise.

(1) If the Tatars of Crimea (many of whom live not far from Sevastopol, and who are intensely opposed to living under the Russian boot-heel) demand a referendum on making their majority-population areas independent of Crimea (no doubt, with the intention of seeking Ukraine's protection), how will Russia explain its refusal?

(2) Majority Turkic areas of Russia -- especially Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia who have long struggled for independence -- can be expected to immediately demand referenda on secession, and that Russia must honor the voting results. What's good for the goose, after all, is good for the gander.

(3) This is much more speculative, but still fascinating: the Sakha Republic and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug in Siberia's northeast already have a partly autonomous status, with their own historical languages and cultures. In Chukotka, ethnic Russians are a bare majority; in Sakha, they are a large minority (they are very sparsely settled, so the populations are small). What if they demanded referenda on secession? Between the two territories, their territorial waters (if they became new states, or merged to form one new state) would comprise an enormous proportion of Russia's petroleum reserves. I'm sure that some nice foreign oil companies would be happy to invest tens of billions of dollars to help them set up their own organs of government, military and the like. Why should they allow Russian thieves to continue to loot the natural resources which are theirs by birthright? I think even the Russian citizens could be convinced to vote for secession: every single person would become an instant lottery winner on independence.

Note that these attacks on Russia's integrity are opened EVEN IF RUSSIA DOESN'T ANNEX CRIMEA: simple endorsement or recognition of secession, is all that's needed.

Of course, Putin's Russia will fiercely resist all of these scenarios. And when it does so, Russian deceit in claiming some "principle" will be exposed so that all can see it. Of course, the West already sees this deceit, but Russia's citizens and friends may find it a bit uncomfortable. 

[calmissile]

An astute friend of mine brought up some interesting scenarios.....

If the Crimean vote goes to complete independence from Ukraine (as most people seem to be predicting), and the Kremlin endorses this secession, then interesting questions will arise.

(1) If the Tatars of Crimea (many of whom live not far from Sevastopol, and who are intensely opposed to living under the Russian boot-heel) demand a referendum on making their majority-population areas independent of Crimea (no doubt, with the intention of seeking Ukraine's protection), how will Russia explain its refusal?

(2) Majority Turkic areas of Russia -- especially Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia who have long struggled for independence -- can be expected to immediately demand referenda on secession, and that Russia must honor the voting results. What's good for the goose, after all, is good for the gander.

(3) This is much more speculative, but still fascinating: the Sakha Republic and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug in Siberia's northeast already have a partly autonomous status, with their own historical languages and cultures. In Chukotka, ethnic Russians are a bare majority; in Sakha, they are a large minority (they are very sparsely settled, so the populations are small). What if they demanded referenda on secession? Between the two territories, their territorial waters (if they became new states, or merged to form one new state) would comprise an enormous proportion of Russia's petroleum reserves. I'm sure that some nice foreign oil companies would be happy to invest tens of billions of dollars to help them set up their own organs of government, military and the like. Why should they allow Russian thieves to continue to loot the natural resources which are theirs by birthright? I think even the Russian citizens could be convinced to vote for secession: every single person would become an instant lottery winner on independence.

Note that these attacks on Russia's integrity are opened EVEN IF RUSSIA DOESN'T ANNEX CRIMEA: simple endorsement or recognition of secession, is all that's needed.

Of course, Putin's Russia will fiercely resist all of these scenarios. And when it does so, Russian deceit in claiming some "principle" will be exposed so that all can see it. Of course, the West already sees this deceit, but Russia's citizens and friends may find it a bit uncomfortable.

Interesting scenario, however wishful thinking on his part.  We all know that Russia does not respond or endorse logical thinking.  It only thinks in terms of military power and power over their subjects.  Your friend provides a very logical argument, but probably not practical in the real world.  I wish it were!

With the UK and Germany not having the guts to even impose financial sanctions, it is unlikely they will provide anything but hot air to help Ukraine.  It is unfortunate, but when you have no real friends you are on your own!  Ukraine vs. Russia is a forgone conclusion.  Why spill the blood if you have no chance of success.  Europe will pay in the end when Russia expands further.  For once in my life, I am gravitating toward a stay at home attitude.  If the UK and Germany ever call for help, we should remind them of Ukraine and flip them the finger!

[lordtiberius]

So Doug,

Are you saying we should stay at home too?

[fathertime]

I just saw that Robert Gates had a lot to say this morning.  He made a lot of sense in my opinion. 

[cc3]

So Doug,

Are you saying we should stay at home too?

Complete withdrawal of American forces from western Europe. Transfer them to Poland, Czech Republic and Baltic nations, where the real threat exists.

[JayH]

This is an example of a democracy trying to work--FatherTime please note this is a predominantly Russian speaking part of Ukraine--with zero interest in being anything but Ukrainian.
For BELVIS--despite all the issues currently creating difficulty in Ukraine--demonstrations are allowed and the expression of free speech on display-- all reported openly in Ukrainian press and covered on TV. That is in sharp contrast with Russia itself--you most probably have little idea of the treatment of protesters.Ukraine is in the process of being a real democracy.

Dnipropetrovsk residents embrace, protest Russia's invasion of Crimea in March 9 demonstrations

March 9, 2014, 6:49 p.m. | Ukraine — by Olga Rudenko

DNIPROPETROVSK, Ukraine - Some 3,000 protesters gathered on March 9 in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk to celebrate the 200th anniversary of national hero Taras Shevchenko's birth and to protest Russian military aggression in Crimea.

Just two blocks away, a pro-Russian rally thrown by Sevastopol-based Russian Block and local Alliance of Soviet Officers took place. Standing next to the grey, Soviet-style building of Opera Theater, some 1,000 people chanted "Russia!" and "Referendum!" Some 30 minutes after the rally began at noon, the cameramen and reporter of 1+1, one of the TV channels that were loyal to EuroMaidan, were brusquely chased out of the crowd.

Two weeks after Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych fled the nation and Russian soldiers invaded Crimea, a wave of pro-Russian protests occurred in the eastern regions of Ukraine. The protests are being closely watched as Putin's next pretext for a wider invasion of Ukraine and the introduction of more separatist referendums.

 
Some 3,000 protesters gathered in Dnipropetrovsk on March 9 to rally against Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The industrial city of Dnipropetrovsk has a population of one million people, almost all of them Russian-speaking, and was a strategic political, military and economic part of the Soviet Union.

After the EuroMaidan Revolution brought a new government in late February, Dnipropetrovsk's mayor and some officials quickly quit Yanukovych's Party of Regions, and a local governor was replaced with billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskiy, the third richest person in Ukraine and a Dnipropetrovsk native. Kolomoyskiy said he took the post to ease separatist tensions.

The pro-Russian rally of March 9 gathered some sincere opponents of the new government and EuroMaidan, many of them ready to seek for better circumstances in Russia.

"We call for union with Russia and for reviving the Soviet administration! Dnipropetrovsk is a southern capital of the Russian empire!" said leader of Alliance of Soviet Officers Viktor Marchenko, addressing the crowd.

At closer look, not all the rally participants supported their leaders' pro-Russian ideology, but were rather protesting against the "new-old" people in power. Protester Klavdiya Kreshchuk, 53, says she supports EuroMaidan movement, but is unhappy with its results, including the appointment of Kolomoyskiy as Dnipropetrovsk Oblast governor.

"EuroMaidan demanded lustration, but it never happened. Did all those people die so that the same old guys came to power again?" Kreshchuk says.

"We shouldn't separate from Ukraine and join Russia. But if people from the Right Sector continue helping pro-American people to come to power in Kyiv, we will have no choice but to go to Russia for protection. Russian people are Slavic too, we are one," the woman added.

Kreshchuk, like some other at the rally, supports federalization of eastern regions of Ukraine. However, some protesters think it's not enough and stand for separating from Ukraine.

"I support the idea of our (eastern) regions quitting Ukraine and joining Russia. People in Russia live better than we do, I see it looking at my relatives who live in Russia. I hope Crimea will get what it wants and we will be next (to join Russia)," said 54-year-old rally attendee Liudmila Katsapova.

Katsapova gets Hr 1,300 as monthly pension from the state, she said, while her Russian relatives get three times more. Apart from economic reasons she says she has "moral reasons" to want to be in Russia.

"The Russian mentality is closer to us than that of people in western Ukraine," she said.

Many in Dnipropetrovsk disagree.

"We are one nation, and should remain one," says Tetiana Romadanova, 43, standing at the anti-war rally in central Dnipropetrovsk and wearing a traditional Ukrainian wreath. "We go to western Ukraine for vacations and speak Russian there and people still are very friendly to us."

She is outraged with events in Crimea but doesn't believe Dnipropetrovsk is in real danger of separatist movements.

"There is no way that Russia can do to Dnipropetrovsk what it is doing to Crimea now. People here don't want Russia and will never allow any separation to happen," says Romadanova.

 
A counter demonstration of pro-Russian demonstrators rallied a short distance away on March 9 from the pro-Ukraine crowd.
Anna Ponomaryova, 22, is more pessimistic.

"If Russia follows its current course, there will be war," she said, standing at the main square holding a sign that read "Putin, get your hands away."

"Very few people in Dnipropetrovsk are pro-Russian, and the city will never willingly join Russia. Pro-EU rallies gather much more people than pro-Russian protests," added Ponomaryova, an anti-war protester.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/dnipropetrovsk-residents-embrace-protest-russias-invasion-of-crimea-in-march-9-demonstrations-338890.html

[calmissile]

Complete withdrawal of American forces from western Europe. Transfer them to Poland, Czech Republic and Baltic nations, where the real threat exists.

Works for me!

LT, as a practical matter, yes we should stay at home.  I would have liked nothing better than NATO kicking Putin's ass out of Crimea.  If we were to go it alone, we would be seen as expansionist Imperialists and rightly so.  During most of my life (cold war) nations were fighting the Communists and trying to support nations that wanted to develop democracies.  It seems that in today's world, everyone is jumping into bed with the Kremlin and are sucking at the tit of the economic benefits of supporting that government.  I guess even at my age, I have to wake up to the evolution that a bunch of whores no longer support freedom over wealth.  As I stated earlier, Americans are tired of spending money and spilling blood in places many can't even find on a map.

Ukraine is of no strategic or economic importance to Americans.  The only reason we would support sending troops to a conflict like this is to support merging democracies and struggles for freedom. While most of us here have a vested interest due to wives and girlfriends, the rest of America could care less.  It's just a fact of life.   If Ukraine were to have had military help when Putin first invaded, it might have ended rather quickly.  Even at that we would have sustained a  lot of criticism if we were alone.  Since we and Western Europe (particularly the UK and Germany) have offered nothing but hot air, there is not much sense of wishing for something different.  It's a done deal.  Putin has conquered Crimea and soon will overrun the Ukraine mainland.   A very sad time indeed.  Western Europe may have to pay the price in the future.

Also, I have noticed a lot of distortions in the media, including the western media.  Since the time Crimea was given to Ukraine there are many, many Ukrainians and other nationalities that have settled and bought property in Crimea.  The media seems to be portraying this like a horse race.  Because ethnic Russians hold a majority, the media is treating it as though the rest of the population is not important and should have no say in the matter.  The Putin inspired referendum is a joke and the whole world knows it, yet they will probably line up like sheep to accept it.

As a side note.... we vacationed in Crimea, including Sevastopol and Balaclava and all of the population was getting along just fine with each other.

As to whether Putin will overrun the Ukraine mainland, lets look at the facts.  The Russian army is not going to be defeated with throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails.  If no major military power is going to intercede on Ukraine's behalf, Putin has clear sailing headed West.  He will take every opportunity to create internal strife among other nations and no doubt already has the plans on the drawing board.

As much as some Americans and Canadians would like our governments to provide military support, it does not look like it will happen.

As far as the Tatars in Crimea, I am somewhat confused about what I read in the news.  In some reports, the Tatars are very much against Russia because they were deported many years ago from Crimea.  Yet we are now seeing video clips of Tatars supporting Russia as though they were always on their side.  Very confusing and no doubt a subject of propaganda from either side.

Predicting whether Putin will invade the mainland is dicey.  I don't really know, however my wife in Kiev is concerned.  We own property in both the mainland and Crimea.  She is much more worried about the property in Crimea.  Of course the Russian troops are not yet in Kiev.

She has a very wealthy girlfriend married to an American in Seattle.   They own many properties in both Crimea and the mainland.  She indicated that they expect the mainland to be taken by Russia and are worried about their properties in both places.  I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens once the hot air is expended.

[JayH]

I salute a major change of direction towards new standards. If it turns so the success in Ukraine will boost a change in Russia as well. 
What I observe now are :
1) Rape of Constitution, authority of baseball bits in Kiev;
2) The same faces in government as 10 years ago;
3) Direct political rule of oligarchy in regions supported by new regime.

We'll see.

1/  What happened was a vote of the parliament-- no rape there.It does not suit Russia to see the will of the people  accepted and the democratic process in action.The sad part is it took so many lives  to create the environment in the government to achieve that
It is strange to see you use the word "rape" in that context--but are saying nothing about a military invasion of another country by Russia!! why not condemn it?
2/  So what? Some think that is a good thing-- but the fact is you are incorrect anyway.Soon there will be a new election-- with some prospects of it being free and fair ( Note --something that is not happening in Moscow dominated Crimean "vote")
3/Once again-incorrect. But it is certainly true in Moscow of Putin and his crooked mates.

There is no doubt that Ukraine is in a great deal of pain on many fronts right now--but it is a time when we all need to support and encourage this process- and do what we can to help-- not kick them in the guts as Russia has done.

For those of you here that keep flogging the idea that the previous close relationship overides other issues--you are not seeing and hearing the anger of Ukrainians towards Russia--or at least towards Putin  and Moscow.

[Shadow]

1/  What happened was a vote of the parliament-- no rape there.It does not suit Russia to see the will of the people  accepted and the democratic process in action.The sad part is it took so many lives  to create the environment in the government to achieve that
It is strange to see you use the word "rape" in that context--but are saying nothing about a military invasion of another country by Russia!! why not condemn it?
2/  So what? Some think that is a good thing-- but the fact is you are incorrect anyway.Soon there will be a new election-- with some prospects of it being free and fair ( Note --something that is not happening in Moscow dominated Crimean "vote")
3/Once again-incorrect. But it is certainly true in Moscow of Putin and his crooked mates.

There is no doubt that Ukraine is in a great deal of pain on many fronts right now--but it is a time when we all need to support and encourage this process- and do what we can to help-- not kick them in the guts as Russia has done.

For those of you here that keep flogging the idea that the previous close relationship overides other issues--you are not seeing and hearing the anger of Ukrainians towards Russia--or at least towards Putin  and Moscow.

The problem is that those who close their eyes to the reality of neonazis ruling in Kiev have forgotten that in 2010 those people who are now cheered were voted out because they let down the people after the Orange revolution.
They also forget that among many who support the change there is already hatred towards the USA and EU, something I dout will disappear once they understand that the translation of promises was optimistic to say the best.

Democracy does not mean that the side you support has to win for it to happen. Democracy means that the people themselves decide who will lead them, without any outside interference from any country. Ukraine wishes to have this, but it seems it is being made impossible by those who seek to polarize.

Right now you have a situation that reminds me more of an African state where the tribe in power tries to kill as many opponents as possible and grab as much money as they can. And let me make this clear, it goes for ALL politicians regardless which side they are on.

As for America staying home, as soon as you pay off your debt you can.

[missAmeno]

What I observe now are :
1) Rape of Constitution, authority of baseball bits in Kiev;
2) The same faces in government as 10 years ago;
3) Direct political rule of oligarchy in regions supported by new regime.

Is this some kind of joke? You observe this aka 'rape of constitution' because people got fed up from a thief you want Ukraine to have as president. If you ever wished well to Ukraine and Ukrainians you wouldn't want Ukraine to be robed, you wouldn't try destabilize Ukrainian economy in order once again to control it.
Short memory? No trouble to remember in what year Crimea became part of Ukraine but forgot how Ukrainian nationalism was handled in 1932 and 1933?
What you all so scared of Ukrainian nationalism? What the thought of truly independent Ukraine disturbing you that much?

[missAmeno]

The problem is that those who close their eyes to the reality of neonazis ruling in Kiev have forgotten that ...

The reality is that some have no ability to think independently and rely on cheap propaganda fed to them.



By the way I find offensive any connection between desire of many Ukrainians live in independent state and political movements seeking to revive Nazism.

[jone]

missA,

Pardon the ignorance on display here by anti-Americans.  The simple fact is that no new members of the Rada were elected before, during or after EuroMaidan.   So that means that the make up of the ruling body is the SAME as it was before Yanukovych left. 

I, as well, would agree with you that any acting government is only temporary until new elections can be held.  The greatest risk to Ukraine, currently, is that it will revert to the politics of the extreme that have fluctuated first one way and then the other.  The good news is that the emerging party leaders are not those that previously had power.  Tymoshenko, most likely, is NOT going to be President.  I am impressed by the government officials put in place in Kharkiv, Dnepropetrovsk and Donetsk.

In spite of the Russian apologists who claim that America or Europe is leading Ukraine, those of us who care enough to sort through the sound bites realize that aside from economic aid, there have been no overtures to the new Ukrainian government by the Western powers.  This aid was only sufficient to run the country while the new government gets up and running.

Belvis has claimed he has an inside track to how Ukrainians are thinking through social media.  Well, he certainly doesn't know how the preponderance of people are feeling right now towards those advocating Russian hegemony or he would be much less outspoken.

As for America staying home, Shadow, your homeland would still be under the Nazi boot if America 'just stayed home'. 

I advocate no intervention by America.  It is easy to see how foolishly the Russians have played their hand.  They have acted like the year is 1968 and that they stand astride all of Eastern Europe.    Instead, the whiplash effect in Ukrainian politics for hijacking Crimea will be felt by every Russian diplomat long after we are all dead and gone. 

America doesn't have to do anything.  Western Europe doesn't have to do anything.  Ukrainians are pissed off right now and Russia is going to feel the brunt of it.  Putin's new economic trade alliance just went down the big hole in the privy.   All he has to show for it is the military occupation of Crimea.  I hope that keeps him warm at night.  Because the future response he will get when courting Ukraine will be quite frigid and nights in Moscow can be awfully cold.

[jone]

[JayH]

The repeated calls on Russia to withdraw from  Ukrainian territory in the Crimea will be ignored  unless drastic action is taken. Some say sanctions alone will not work and I tend to agree with that-but- combined with a maximun military build up to make it clear that Russia will be pushed out one way or another-- will help sanctions work.
Personally--- I would freeze every Russian passport to deny entry to any and every country possible.I would freeze every asset- put it on a confiscation list in due course. That would have the immediate effect of driving the issues to Putin's doorstep--not much point in being an oligarch and stuck in Russia!! Even less if all the ill gotten wealth is about to evaporate. Seriously-how long does anyone think Putin will last if his fellow thieves are put under that type of pressure?If Crimea came to a military battle with Ukraine having western support-Russia is going to be a big,big loser.What needs to be done is that Putin understands-and quickly-- that he can choose between losing- and losing everything!!

Russia will bow to economic pressure over Ukraine, so the EU must impose it
The crisis in Ukraine presents Europe with an opportunity to broker a solution and live up to its high ideals as a peacemaker

Guy Verhofstadt, president of the Liberal and Democrat Group in the European parliament
theguardian.com, Thursday 6 March 2014 21.15 AEST

They say you have to learn from the mistakes of the past to be prepared for the future. So the west should not be surprised that, six years after the war in Georgia, Russia has returned to the use of military force in its neighbourhood.

Putin's playbook, "Frozen conflicts for beginners", consists of the invasion of a sovereign country on false pretences, propping up Russophile regional authorities, making plans for a referendum on self-determination, and scaremongering Russian speakers into thinking that they face an existential threat. This strategy has been rightly denounced as unacceptable and provocative, and is rapidly turning Putin into an international pariah, only days after the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics where he spent tens of billions of dollars trying to bolster his global reputation. But if Putin has his way, the referendum due by the end of the month – under the watchful gaze of Russian troops – will be a forgone conclusion. Crimea will declare its allegiance to mother Russia.

This will be the pretext for Russia to install "peacekeepers" and the international community will soon find itself on the back foot. Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh are further examples of this type of Russian geopolitical strategy, aimed at keeping neighbouring countries on a short leash and doing Moscow's bidding. The case of Ukraine is no different, with the exception that it is Russia's biggest neighbour and strategically it was supposed to form the core of Putin's push for a parallel economic and political union to rival the EU (albeit stitched together under duress rather than free will).

The window of opportunity for the west to protect the democratic outpouring from Maidan is therefore small. Failure to show clear and decisive vision in the coming days would be to betray the courage and determination of those who stood up to Viktor Yanukovych's corrupt and incompetent regime. Countless western politicians have visited Kiev since last November to show support and solidarity for the people who want nothing more than to be better governed. Inability to turn our words into deeds when it is our turn to take action would be unforgiveable and a grave historical error.

EU heads of government are meeting today in an emergency summit on the evolving situation in Ukraine and will be expected to come up with a convincing game plan. But what steps should the EU take now that the use of force against Russia has been all but ruled out?

First and foremost, the international community cannot allow a military incursion of a sovereign state, of the kind undertaken by Russia, to be rewarded. Any outcome must involve Russian forces being withdrawn to pre-conflict levels.

So far western governments have been threatening to suspend co-operation on preparations for June's G8 meeting, to be hosted by Putin in Sochi; expanding the list of persona non grata; and proposing asset freezes and trade sanctions. The regime in the Kremlin may show less inclination to consider the views of voters than western democracies, but it is not deaf to economic pressure, especially given the slide in the exchange rate of the rouble against the dollar and the potential loss of foreign direct investment as investors clamour to protect or sell their Russian-based assets. This is where EU and US soft power can be as effective (and less dangerous) than the blunt use of force and sabre-rattling that characterised the cold war. However, we have to be prepared to see such threats through if we are to be credible in the eyes of the Kremlin.

Second, the EU urgently needs a political strategy, and not just a diplomatic mediation effort. Putin has accepted the suggestion of participating in a contact group, possibly under the auspices of the UN or OSCE. The EU should show it is serious by appointing a senior politician with a strong mandate and toolkit to make a difference. A formula that offers explicit protection for the Russian-speaking community in Ukraine, including reinstating the recently repealed law that allows regional governments to make Russian a second official language, would seem a key element of any political solution.

Our ability to show there is substance behind the strong words coming from EU capitals will determine the course of events in the coming weeks, but it can also determine the future of relations between Russia and the EU. Are we going to relive a new version of the cold war and a re-invented USSR – or reach an understanding about Russia's faltering quest for a place in the new world order? The US under Obama has shown great reluctance to get involved in distant conflicts that are not perceived to be in the country's vital strategic interest. So the EU is presented with an opportunity to step in, broker a solution and live up to its high ideals as a peacemaker and forum for conflict resolution. Is it up for the challenge?



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/06/russia-economic-pressure-ukraine-eu-crimea

[JayH]

The biggest issue I see right now is that  sanctions and a military build up are urgent-- as in it needs immediate action. Putins gambit is multi-pronged-if his provocateurs all over Ukraine had acheived the intended disruptions the chances are he would have rolled into all of Ukraine. If the situation is allowed to stand at it is-- at the very least it will cast a long shadow over the scheduled elections-- and who knows how much trouble Russia can cause in the lead up to the elections in May.It has been a considerable attempt to set the agenda in Ukraine-and control the outcome. What we have seen is that the spirit of Ukraine is far greater than Russia realised.

Vladimir Putin must do more to reduce Ukraine tensions, says David Cameron

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
theguardian.com, Monday 10 March 2014 02.15 AEST
David Cameron has told Vladimir Putin he must do more to reduce tensions in Ukraine as he called on the Russian president to agree to the creation of a contact group that could lead to direct talks between Kiev and Moscow.

As William Hague warned of a "great danger of a real shooting conflict" if Russian forces moved beyond Crimea to enter the main part of eastern Ukraine, the prime minister told Putin that Britain and the EU wanted to work towards a diplomatic solution.

The prime minister spoke to Putin by phone before a working dinner on Sunday night with Angela Merkel in Hanover and a tech conference on Monday. Ukraine is expected to dominate their talks after the foreign secretary warned of another "frozen conflict" in Europe.

A No 10 spokesperson said of the prime minister's call with Putin: "The prime minister called President Putin this morning to urge him to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine and to support the formation of a contact group that could lead to direct talks between the governments of Russia and Ukraine. The PM made clear that we, along with our European and American partners, want to work with Russia to find a diplomatic solution to the situation in Ukraine, including Crimea.

"The PM emphasised that we recognise the right of all Ukrainian people to choose their future and that the elections, currently scheduled for the end of May, provide the best way to do this. The international community should work together to ensure the elections are free, fair and inclusive.

"President Putin agreed that it is in all our interests to have a stable Ukraine. He said that Russia did want to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis and that he would discuss the proposals on the contact group with Foreign Minister Lavrov tomorrow.

"The PM and President Putin also discussed the serious economic challenges facing Ukraine and agreed that the international community would need to provide financial support in the months ahead. Both leaders agreed to stay in touch on the issue in the coming days."

David Cameron and Angela Merkel were expected to agree in talks in Hanover on Sunday night that a strict timeline needs to be drawn up to ensure that Vladimir Putin cannot use a "contact group" to drag out negotiations on the future of Ukraine.

The EU's 28 leaders agreed at their summit on Thursday that Moscow needs to agree to a dialogue, to be established through the "contact group", with Kiev if it is to avoid a round of sanctions. It is understood that London and Berlin fear that Putin will use his current strategy - to sound reasonable in telephone conversations while Russian forces tighten their grip on Crimea - to stall any negotiations if a "contact group" is established. Merkel and Cameron are keen to let Putin know that they are not "naive" and have clocked his strategy.

The two leaders also agree that Putin has days, rather than weeks, to sign up to the "contact group". The unofficial deadline is Thursday next week when EU leaders are due to hold another summit. Foreign ministers will discuss the crisis a week on Monday.END NEW

The prime minister's call came after the foreign secretary said Putin had implemented carefully prepared plans to assume control of Crimea. But Hague acknowledged none of the options on the table – diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions – would be able to remove Russian forces from the Black Sea peninsula.

Asked by the BBC's Europe editor, Gavin Hewitt, what would happen if Russian troops went beyond the Black Sea peninsula to enter "mainland" eastern Ukraine, Hague said: "There would be far reaching trade, economic and financial consequences. It would bring the great danger of a real shooting conflict. There is no doubt about that."

Asked whether Britain and the EU would advise the Ukrainians not to take up arms against the Russians, Hague said: "We have commended all of their restraint so far. It is not really possible to go through different scenarios with the Ukrainians and say: in these circumstances you shoot and in these you don't. We have commended their restraint. They have not risen to any provocation from Russia."

The warning from Hague came shortly after Ed Davey told Britain's energy companies not to seek to make profits from the Ukraine crisis, though he acknowledged gas prices would increase if the crisis escalated. The energy secretary told the Andrew Marr Show: "We use Norwegian gas and we have a lot of gas imported on ships – liquefied natural gas. So our security of supply on gas – people shouldn't be worried about that.

"The companies who supply gas and electricity tend to buy their gas forwardly. They buy it 18 months in advance so they shouldn't be using it as an excuse to put up people's prices. They hedged quite rightly. But we have seen that when this crisis broke there was a spike in oil and gas prices. They have now come down.

"But if there was an escalation, if we saw military conflict, if that conflict went on for months and months and months, there could be an impact on prices."

Hague said he believed Putin would eventually be seen to have made a "big miscalculation" as the EU pivots away from Russia, particularly in the energy sphere. But he admitted that none of the proposed EU measures against Russia, to be introduced on a graduated basis if Moscow refuses to change tack, would remove Russian forces from Crimea.

The foreign secretary said: "None of these things force a Russian withdrawal from Crimea. That is well understood. But they will raise the cost to Russia over time."

But Hague, who rejected next Sunday's planned referendum in Crimea, said there was no "tacit acceptance" of the Russian occupation of Crimea. Some of the sanctions identified in the first phase of the EU's action will be triggered if Moscow refuses to discuss the long-term future of Crimea with Ukraine.

"This is the creation of another frozen conflict in Europe like Abkhazia, that is part of Georgia, like Transnistria, that is part of Moldova. There absolutely isn't a tacit acceptance."

Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "The priority in Ukraine must be a de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution to the crisis.

"So I welcome that the foreign secretary made this clear to the BBC this morning when he confirmed that all economic and diplomatic options should remain on the table in seeking to achieve that.

"It is also vital that the UK, along with EU allies, sets out a clear timetable for taking further economic and financial measures if Russia fails to change course in the days ahead.

"The UK should also work with the group of the worlds seven largest economies to agree to suspend Russia from the G8 if it refuses to agree a diplomatic resolution to the crisis."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/09/vladimir-putin-ukraine-tensions-david-cameron

[JayH]

Some thoughts  here on why it is in all our interests .This article covers a lot of relevant ground.

Why The World Has A Stake In Ukraine

The Russian incursion into Crimea has created a geopolitical crises.  We are now embroiled in a full-scale standoff with Russia not seen since the Cold war.

Some are beginning to question our involvement.  Why should we care about a bankrupt nation thousands of miles away with a trouble ridden history?  Don’t we have our own problems?  One particularly confused analyst at a big consulting firm even suggested that Ukraine’s demographics doom it to economic decline and that we should leave it to the Russians.


Some of these sentiments the result of Putin’s relentless propaganda campaign, which has been so egregious that a news anchor for the Kremlin-backed channel Russia Today resigned in protest.  Others are “armchair realists”, with little understanding of the history, politics and economics of the region.

Yet anyone with any knowledge and experience in Eastern Europe would see that these arguments are deeply flawed and, in fact, irresponsible.  We and our allies have real and important stakes in Ukraine and the recent Russian actions there should be met with vigorous and sustained action to impose serious costs on Putin and his regime.

First, the Russian incursion in Crimea is not only deeply destabilizing, but the continuation of a pattern of behavior that must be stopped in its tracks.  First came the wars in Chechnya and the Russian backed separatist movement in Transnistria.  More recently, Russia invaded the Georgian Republic.

Each time Putin has acted under the guise of protecting his people.  As Hillary Clinton and others have pointed out, this is the same rationale Hitler used to justify his own incursion into the Sudetenland.

To understand just how bankrupt Putin’s logic is, you don’t have to take the word of western governments, you can look to the few allies Russia has left.  Kazakhstan issued a statement critical of Russian actions and so has Armenia.  Even China has doesn’t support Russia’s invasion.

The reason that Putin’s allies don’t support him is that they understand how destabilizing Putin’s actions—and his logic—are.  Many countries have sizeable Russian minorities that date back to Stalin’s mass relocations.  If he can do it in Ukraine, he can do it anywhere, undermining the system of international law that we’ve built since World War II.

Second, the argument that Ukraine is doomed to be a basket case is deeply flawed.  It is, in fact, Russian interference that has stood in its way.  After the Orange Revolution in 2004, Putin shut off the gas twice to impose his will.  Yanukovych’s kleptocratic regime ruled with Russia’s backing and looted the country, greatly contributing to its present financial woes.


What would Ukraine look like if it wasn’t under Putin’s yoke?  You only have to look to Poland, the next door neighbor which also shares deep cultural, historical and economic ties with Ukraine to see its enormous potential.

I lived in Poland during the late 90’s and many of the same arguments were hurled against it then that are being applied to Ukraine now.  Poland was thought of as too corrupt and incapable of reform.”  It had too many problems, lacked western values and on and on.

Yet those who made those arguments have now been unmasked for the fools that they were.  Poland is now a leading member of the EU, with the union’s 6th largest economy.  In fact, as the only EU country not to fall into recession during the financial crises, it now plays a crucial role as an engine of growth.  It’s a tremendous asset.

Could Ukraine do the same?  I think recent history clearly shows that it can.  In the early 2000’s, the country was an economic juggernaut, one of the fastest growing economies in the world.  It has a highly capable workforce, Elance ranks it third in the world for high skilled outsourcing.  Ukraine has an enormous amount to offer.

And while it’s true that Ukraine has enormous problems, they are far overblown.  Daft analysis of its demographics confuse correlation and causality.  When I ran a large business in Ukraine, I would lose some of my best young employees to emigration each and every month.  Silicon Valley is full of Ukrainian transplants.

Corruption as well is a very fixable problem.  All of the EU expansion countries had similar issues, yet now have highly capable governance.  We have successfully dealt with these challenges before and we will be even better equipped to solve them in Ukraine with the Poles, who bring their own experience, leading the way.

Make no mistake.  Putin will not stop in Crimea.  He is already busing in his own citizens to Eastern Ukraine.  As Time earlier reported, many of the so-called supporters at pro-Russian rallies are paid by the Kremlin.


So its important that we understand the stakes in Ukraine and act accordingly.  First, we should work with our European allies to strengthen economic sanctions, including visa bans, asset freezes and trade restrictions.  Russia shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy the benefits of the same free societies it is actively working to undermine and destabilize.

Second, we should build up military resources in the region. Secretary of Defense Hagel has already announced expanded military exercises in the region.  This should lead to a further action in Poland, the Black Sea and the Baltics, including the insertion of advanced missile defense systems and other next generation equipment.

Third, the US needs to accelerate plans to export liquid natural gas to Europe, taking away Putin’s ability to wreak havoc with gas politics and help Ukraine to develop its own substantial energy resources.

We have crucial interests at stake in Ukraine.  Putin, with his weakened economy and decrepit military, finds himself at the helm of a second rate power.  It is only through jingoist adventures in his crusade for a “greater Russia” that he can appear strong at home.  If unopposed, he will surely continue to destabilize Europe.

Yet we can stop him.  As the last week has shown, Russia is extremely vulnerable.  Its markets tumbled last week even as US stocks rose to record highs.  By continuing strong action against Russia, it will likely fall into recession and restrain Putin’s ability to cause further mischief.

The choice is clear.  We must stop Putin now.

Update 1: CNN reports on the continued military agitation in Crimea and The New York Times gives a great overview of Russia’s economic weakness.  Among other things, it says “Europe can replace this gas with liquefied natural gas, gas from Norway and shale gas. If the European Union sanctioned Russia’s gas supply to Europe, Russia would lose $100 billion or one-fifth of its export revenues, and the Russian economy would be in rampant crisis.”

Update 2: US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that additional warships and aircraft were being sent to the region and refused to rule out US military involvement

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/08/who-needs-ukraine/

[JayH]

I keep finding articles that deal with parts of this crisis that go into a lot of detail of potential consequences to Russia and Russians in general. There are also some interesting links worth reading if you want to make a bigger attempt to understand this crisis better.
To often on the forums guys comment and parrot some piece of nonsensical propaganda out of ignorance-on such an important issue  with so much material available- it is inexcusable. This is not a football match where a side is chosen-there are millions of peoples lives at stake-- and the simple fact is that it is totally unneccesary.

Why Russia Can’t Afford Another Cold War
MARCH 7, 2014


By JAMES B. STEWART


Russian troops pour over a border. An autocratic Russian leader blames the United States and unspecified “radicals and nationalists” for meddling. A puppet leader pledges fealty to Moscow.

It’s no wonder the crisis in Ukraine this week drew comparisons to Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 or that a chorus of pundits proclaimed the re-emergence of the Cold War.

But there’s at least one major difference between then and now: Moscow has a stock market.

Under the autocratic grip of President Vladimir Putin, Russia may be a democracy in name only, but the gyrations of the Moscow stock exchange provided a minute-by-minute referendum on his military and diplomatic actions. On Monday, the Russian stock market index, the RTSI, fell more than 12 percent, in what a Russian official called panic selling. The plunge wiped out nearly $60 billion in asset value — more than the exorbitant cost of the Sochi Olympics. The ruble plunged on currency markets, forcing the Russian central bank to raise interest rates by one and a half percentage points to defend the currency.

Mr. Putin “seems to have stopped a potential invasion of Eastern Ukraine because the RTS index slumped by 12 percent” on Monday, said Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

On Tuesday, as soon as Mr. Putin said he saw no need for further Russian military intervention, the Russian market rebounded by 6 percent. With tensions on the rise once more on Friday, the Russian market may again gyrate when it opens on Monday.

Mr. Putin seems to be “following the old Soviet playbook,” in Ukraine, Strobe Talbott, an expert on the history of the Cold War, told me this week. “But back then, there was no concern about what would happen to the Soviet stock market. If, in fact, Putin is cooling his jets and might even blink, it’s probably because of rising concern about the price Russia would have to pay.” Mr. Talbott is the president of the Brookings Institution, a former ambassador at large who oversaw the breakup of the former Soviet Union during the Clinton administration and the author of “The Russia Hand.”

Russia is far more exposed to market fluctuations than many countries, since it owns a majority stake in a number of the country’s largest companies. Gazprom, the energy concern that is Russia’s largest company by market capitalization, is majority-owned by the Russian Federation. At the same time, Gazprom’s shares are listed on the London stock exchange and are traded over the counter as American depositary receipts in the United States as well as on the Berlin and Paris exchanges. Over half of its shareholders are American, according to J. P. Morgan Securities. And the custodian bank for its depository receipts is the Bank of New York Mellon.

Many Russian companies and banks are fully integrated into the global financial system. This week, Glencore Xstrata, the mining giant based in Switzerland, was in the middle of a roughly $1 billion debt-to-equity refinancing deal with the Russian oil company Russneft. Glencore said it expected to complete the deal despite the crisis. Glencore’s revenue last year was substantially larger than the entire gross domestic product of Ukraine, which was $176 billion, according to the World Bank.

The old Soviet Union, in stark contrast, was all but impervious to foreign economic or business pressure, thanks in part to an ideological commitment to self-sufficiency. As recently as 1985, foreign trade amounted to just 4 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, and nearly all that was with the communist satellite countries of Eastern Europe. But the Soviet Union’s economic insularity and resulting economic stagnation was a major cause of the Soviet Union’s collapse. According to Mr. Talbott, the Soviet Union’s president at the time, Mikhail Gorbachev, was heavily influenced by Soviet economists and other academics who warned that by the turn of the century in 2000, the Soviet economy would be smaller than South Korea’s if it did not introduce major economic reforms and participate in the global economy.

To attract investment capital, Mr. Gorbachev created the Moscow stock exchange in 1990 and issued an order permitting Soviet citizens to own and trade stocks, bonds and other securities for the first time since the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. (Before then, Russia had a flourishing stock exchange in St. Petersburg, established by order of Peter the Great. It was housed in an elegant neoclassical building directly across the waterfront from the Winter Palace. As a symbol of wealth and capitalism, it was one of the earliest casualties of the revolution.)

Even before this week’s gyrations, the Russian stock market index had dropped near 8 percent last year, and it and the Russian economy have been suffering from low commodity prices and investor concerns about the Federal Reserve’s tapering of bond purchases — factors of little significance during the Cold War.

By contrast, today “Russia is too weak and vulnerable economically to go to war,” Mr. Aslund said. “The Kremlin’s fundamental mistake has been to ignore its economic weakness and dependence on Europe. Almost half of Russia’s exports go to Europe, and three-quarters of its total exports consist of oil and gas. The energy boom is over, and Europe can turn the tables on Russia after its prior gas supply cuts in 2006 and 2009. Europe can replace this gas with liquefied natural gas, gas from Norway and shale gas. If the European Union sanctioned Russia’s gas supply to Europe, Russia would lose $100 billion or one-fifth of its export revenues, and the Russian economy would be in rampant crisis.”

Mr. Putin may be “living in another world,” as the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, put it this week, but surely even he recognizes that the world has changed drastically since 1956 or 1968. He has no doubt been getting an earful from his wealthy oligarch friends, many of whom run Russia’s largest companies and have stashed their personal assets in places like London and New York. The oligarchs “would not dare to challenge him,” a prominent Russian economist told me. (He asked not to be named for fear of retribution.) “But they would say something like they would have to lay off workers and reduce tax payments.”

During the Cold War, there were few, if any, Russian billionaires. Today, there are 111, according to Forbes magazine’s latest rankings, and Russia ranks third in the number of billionaires, behind the United States and China. The economist noted that the billionaire Russian elite — who are pretty much synonymous with Mr. Putin’s friends and allies — are the ones who would be severely affected by visa bans, which were imposed by President Obama on Thursday. Other penalties might include asset freezes. Many Russian oligarchs have real estate and other assets in Europe and the United States, like the Central Park West penthouse a trust set up by the Russian tycoon Dmitry Rybolovlev bought for $88 million. “This is what may have already forced Putin to retreat,” the Russian economist said.

And while the Cold War was a global contest between Marxism and capitalism, there is today “no real ideological component to the conflict except that Putin has become the personification of rejecting the West as a model,” Mr. Talbott said. “He wants to promote a Eurasian community dominated by Moscow, but that’s not an ideology. Russia’s economy may be an example of crony capitalism, but it is capitalism. There’s not even a shadow of Marxism-Leninism now.”

What brought down the old Soviet Union and ended the Cold War “was the economic imperative to make Russia into a modern, efficient, normal state, a player in the international economy, not because of military power but because of a strong economy,” Mr. Talbott continued. But “to have a modern economy, you need the rule of law and a free press.” Mr. Putin, he said, “isn’t advancing Russia’s progress.”

 
The Russian economist agreed. “The pre-2008 social compact was that Putin would rule Russia while Russians would see growing incomes,” he said. “Now, the growth has stalled, and he needs ideology, coupled with propaganda and repressions. Apparently, the Soviet restoration is the only ideology he can come up with.”

Russia does have uniquely strong ties to Ukraine. “Of all the former provinces of the old Soviet Union, it’s the most painful to have lost and the one many Russians would most want to have back,” Mr. Talbott said. “The ties between Kiev and Moscow go back over 300 years. Ukraine is the heart of Russian culture.” With Russian troops entrenched in the Crimean peninsula and some Russian Ukrainians clamoring for annexation, there may be little the United States or its allies can do to restore the status quo. “Containment, in a muted and modified way, will once again be the strategy of the West and the mission of NATO,” Mr. Talbott predicted.

But not another Cold War, which is surely a good thing. “A propaganda war is completely feasible,” the Russian economist said. “The recent events were completely irrational, angering the West for no reason. This is what is most scary, especially for businesses. Instead of reforming the stagnating economy, Putin scared everybody for no reason and with no gain in sight. So it is hard to predict his next actions. But I think a real Cold War is unlikely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/business/why-russia-cant-afford-another-cold-war.html

[JayH]

Note to mod/mods--the title and subject matter of the thread is different direction to previous threads-- it is general to the many issues involved and not specific.
Do I humbly request that it be left as stand alone thread and not incorporated-- it has a more appropriate title to the overall discussion.
Previous amalgamations have merged some quite different topics of the crisis.
Fell fre to delet THIS post-- but please leave thread and title.

[Belvis]

Is this some kind of joke? You observe this aka 'rape of constitution' because people got fed up from a thief you want Ukraine to have as president. If you ever wished well to Ukraine and Ukrainians you wouldn't want Ukraine to be robed, you wouldn't try destabilize Ukrainian economy in order once again to control it.
Short memory? No trouble to remember in what year Crimea became part of Ukraine but forgot how Ukrainian nationalism was handled in 1932 and 1933?
What you all so scared of Ukrainian nationalism? What the thought of truly independent Ukraine disturbing you that much?

No, I did not joke, I red Constitution of Ukraine and know the legal wayS to transfer power. Specially for you I remind them:
1) Election. Opposition prefered to hire snipers than wait a few months  to remove Yanukovich
2) Voluntary resignation. Very likely way if opposition stopped casting threats to president.
2) Impeachment. Procedure was not done as written in Constitution.
3) Death. Easiest way to settle legal problems but Yanukovich seems to not agree.

I would like to see truly independent Ukraine, and Russian leaders claimed it many times. Russia is interested to have economically strong partner who is able to pay his debts.  I saw no russian troops in Ukraine for the last  23 years to prevent people from the path they choose. 

I also hope you're not expecting Putin should suppress these meetings. Enough, that he does not support them:

Donetsk, 9 March 2014



Lugansk, 9 March 2014



Kharkov, 8 March 2014

[fathertime]

No, I did not joke, I red Constitution of Ukraine and know the legal wayS to transfer power. Specially for you I remind them:
1) Election. Opposition prefered to hire snipers than wait a few months  to remove Yanukovich
 

In some of the reading I was doing, I read that the snipers targeted both the protesters and the police.  It would be interesting if any forensics testing was done to see if those bullets matched. If that were the case, one would have to wonder exactly who it was firing those shots.  If the snipers were really thinking ahead, they would have had 2 rifles...one for the protesters and one for the police to make detection more difficult.


Fathertime! 

[Muzh]

In response to this petition I want to remind about recent talk in Congress when one US official sweared there is no Al Qaeda in Syria. Oh, wait, better I show one picture:

Ah, I see. And that makes it so right. Monkey see, monkey do.