Crimea

[HibeeHendo]

In 1938, Nazi Germany invaded the Sudetenland, a part of the old Czechoslovakia, because a minority of ethnic Germans lived there. Nazi Germany then went on to invade the whole of Czechoslovakia, this led to World War 2. 76 years later, Russia are invading Crimea, a part of Ukraine, 'because of the ethnic Russians who live there'. I'm not saying Russia are going to start invading Europe country by country but there are a lot of similarities.

[hibsbollah]

There are a load of parallels, probably because most wars are caused by 'great powers' fighting over their sphere of influence. Most Russians feel as if Crimea and Ukraine are rightly part of Russia, rightly or wrongly. I'd be amazed if Putin didnt invade both countries; just look at how Stalin has been culturally rehabilitated as a hero by Putin in recent times. Whatever happens, Obama needs to calm the rhetoric. It really shouldn't be an issue for American involvement.

On the other hand, similar things happened in Georgia six years ago with no outbreak of wider hostilities. Live in hope.

[Sylar]

There are a load of parallels, probably because most wars are caused by 'great powers' fighting over their sphere of influence. Most Russians feel as if Crimea and Ukraine are rightly part of Russia, rightly or wrongly. I'd be amazed if Putin didnt invade both countries; just look at how Stalin has been culturally rehabilitated as a hero by Putin in recent times. Whatever happens, Obama needs to calm the rhetoric. It really shouldn't be an issue for American involvement.

On the other hand, similar things happened in Georgia six years ago with no outbreak of wider hostilities. Live in hope.

According to the agreements outlined in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, don't the USA and UK have a duty to defend the Ukraine if it's subject to a Russian invasion?

History teaches us that it's the small events that spark large scale wars so the situation in Crimea is very worrying indeed.

I've always wondered if 'World War 3' would take place during my lifetime and if this situation isn't handled in the correct manner, it could escalate to all out war.

[hibsbollah]

According to the agreements outlined in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, don't the USA and UK have a duty to defend the Ukraine if it's subject to a Russian invasion?

History teaches us that it's the small events that spark large scale wars so the situation in Crimea is very worrying indeed.

I've always wondered if 'World War 3' would take place during my lifetime and if this situation isn't handled in the correct manner, it could escalate to all out war.

I didn't know there was a Budapest memorandum. I hope i haven't started a debate with someone who knows what they're talking about :greengrin

Ukraine is a basket case economy, was part of the historical Russian state until relatively recently and with the UNSC veto Russia holds all the diplomatic cards. If Putin wants to get Ukraine back to Mother Russia he'll get it, in my opinion, whatever the wider world say about it.

[Beefster]

Isn't Ukraine on some sort of 'track' for NATO membership?

I'll be astonished if Putin gets anything more than Crimea. Even then, I think the West will insist that a referendum is held and I was reading this morning that all recent polling indicates that Crimea wants to stay in Ukraine but with more autonomy.

PS I don't think the Budapest Memorandum obligates the US or the UK to intervene. I think they (and many more countries) may feel morally obliged to though.

[Mibbes Aye]

Isn't Ukraine on some sort of 'track' for NATO membership?

I'll be astonished if Putin gets anything more than Crimea. Even then, I think the West will insist that a referendum is held and I was reading this morning that all recent polling indicates that Crimea wants to stay in Ukraine but with more autonomy.

PS I don't think the Budapest Memorandum obligates the US or the UK to intervene. I think they (and many more countries) may feel morally obliged to though.

:agree: I don't think it does either.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the Crimean situation, John Kerry's comments raised a wry and bittersweet smile.......


You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped up pre-text.

[Sylar]

I didn't know there was a Budapest memorandum. I hope i haven't started a debate with someone who knows what they're talking about :greengrin

Ukraine is a basket case economy, was part of the historical Russian state until relatively recently and with the UNSC veto Russia holds all the diplomatic cards. If Putin wants to get Ukraine back to Mother Russia he'll get it, in my opinion, whatever the wider world say about it.

'Knows what they're talking about' is pushing it a bit - I've been hooked by the story and have read quite a bit on the events and historical background in the past week or so :greengrin

It was part of the conditions of the Ukraine denuclearizing, that the UK and USA would look after Ukrainian interests - 2 of the conditions were resisting from the use of threat/force against Ukraine and protection of Ukrainian sovereignty and it's Independence from the Soviet Union within its borders, which has certainly been violated by Putin and Russia.

As Beefster points out, there's question as to how legally binding it is and how much obligation it places for the UK or USA to act - I would imagine the answer is not a lot. I'm pretty sure, however, that they're also violating an international UN charter, where Russia vowed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and Independence.

[Just Alf]

I wonder... If Ukraine still had their nuclear weapons would this be happening?

[greenlex]

There is no oil or terrorist angle here. USA are just sabre rattling.

[Betty Boop]

Did anybody hear the taped conversation, between Victoria Nuland (assistant Secretary of State} and US ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt ? Sounds like they were planning regime change. :wink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg&src_vid=CL_GShyGv3o&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_2612647377

[Glory Lurker]

News saying that Russia has given Ukraine military til 0300 GMT tomorrow to give up in Crimea or "face storm"

[HibeeHendo]

With the latest update, does anyone think that this could escalate into an all out war? Ukraine would get decimated.

[Killiehibbie]

With the latest update, does anyone think that this could escalate into an all out war? Ukraine would get decimated.
It might well do. Russia has got previous for trying to wipe them out.

[JimBHibees]

News saying that Russia has given Ukraine military til 0300 GMT tomorrow to give up in Crimea or "face storm"

Putin really is ****.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

There is no oil or terrorist angle here. USA are just sabre rattling.

What about the numerous gas pipelines?

[hibsbollah]

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/ten-things-to-remember-about-the-crisis-in-ukraine-and-the-crimea#.UxT1-qMYbJv

The stop the war coalition, as Billy Bragg pointed out this evening, is really talking a load of ***** about the whole situation. You'd think Putin was a model of left wing governance and is standing up to the bad old capitalists, or something.

[RyeSloan]

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/ten-things-to-remember-about-the-crisis-in-ukraine-and-the-crimea#.UxT1-qMYbJv The stop the war coalition, as Billy Bragg pointed out this evening, is really talking a load of ***** about the whole situation. You'd think Putin was a model of left wing governance and is standing up to the bad old capitalists, or something.

Wow. Where do you start with that statement!?

[Hibrandenburg]

Wow. Where do you start with that statement!?

Taken as a whole that is a load of tosh, however to be fair there are a few valid points. There's always two sides to every story.

[hibsbollah]

Taken as a whole that is a load of tosh, however to be fair there are a few valid points. There's always two sides to every story.

The 'facts' as laid out by the Stop The War Coalition are broadly accurate. But you read it and the obvious question is 'okay, granted. But so what?' Its a clear attempt to use it as a justification for supporting Putin. Your enemy's enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

[heretoday]

Putin is a bad guy. This is precisely why we have Trident. It reminds him and others of his ilk that he and his people could get vaporized if he messes about.

[Future17]

Putin is a bad guy. This is precisely why we have Trident. It reminds him and others of his ilk that he and his people could get vaporized if he messes about.

Not quite. MAD means it reminds him he could be vaporised if he messes about with us or another nuclear-armed country. Unfortunately for Ukraine, he can mess with them as much as he likes as they surrendered their nuclear weapons for a worthless piece of paper.

Of course, the role of the UK and US in this situation will set worldwide nuclear disarmament back another 100 years.

[steakbake]

Putin is a bad guy. This is precisely why we have Trident. It reminds him and others of his ilk that he and his people could get vaporized if he messes about.

Trident is largely useless. It's a bargaining chip to ensure we're on an ineffectual security council which constantly gets vetoed by Russia and China.

If we attempt to draw our crumbling Trident missiles into it, he in turn will no doubt consider that Russia, too, has magical weapons on a far grander scale that could vapourise us many times over. We might land a hit on a city or two, but if you think Putin lies awake at night worried about mighty Britannia's nuclear fleet, you're dreaming.

MAD has ensured that as it goes, no-one, not even Mad Vlad himself, would pursue a nuclear war. I reckon he'll pretty much do whatever he wants and America/UK will just have to suck it up.

[brian6-2]

the sooner someone steps in to sort it out the better.

[barcahibs]

MAD has kept the peace for 60 years. It has meant my generation never HAD to go to war (we chose to go to war in some places but it was never an existential threat). Trident today is far from useless, it still keeps the peace, as long as we have it then nemo me impune lacessit as they say :greengrin

The problem with Trident is that we have become very reliant on it as the ultimate guarantor of our security.
As long as we have Trident we are secure, but it is not a tool that can be used to influence people who are not attacking us directly. We will never use Trident to defend the Ukraine, we won't trade British cities for Kiev (and the US won't trade American cities either).
Unfortunately we no longer have a 'middle ground' conventional military option that we could use to credibly threaten someone who is doing things we don't like (we currently have 29 warships, circa 200 combat aircraft and approximately 300 tanks.) I personally think this is a mistake but I suspect I'm in a minority.
The parallels with the 1930s do seem very striking, though I don't think it'll end up quite the same way :greengrin. IMO I think defence cuts have now gone far enough and should perhaps be beginning to be nudged the other way.

The big loser out of this is nuclear non proliferation.
The West convinced the Libyan government to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of security and non-interference. A few years later Western aircraft were bombarding the country and the government was gone. Would we have done that had they kept their nukes?

The West convinced Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees on its security and non-interference from other powers. A few years later a hostile power is occupying parts of the country and the West won't lift a finger to stop it. Would Russia be doing this if Ukraine had kept their nukes?

Were I North Korea, Iran or any country with a larger or potentially threatening neighbour I'd be on Ebay looking for WMDs right about now - and I wouldn't give them up for anything.

The other noticeable thing is the lack of European unity on the issue. As Europeans we talk a good game but we don't follow through. Everyone would like Russia to leave the Ukraine but not if it means higher gas prices in Germany, or less Russian money in London. France is in the midst of selling $2 billion worth of warships to Russia (ships which could easily be used in the Black Sea) and would rather nothing endangered that deal.

[snooky]

the sooner someone steps in to sort it out the better.

Move along, there's no crime 'ere .......... yet :worried:
.

[Future17]

MAD has kept the peace for 60 years. It has meant my generation never HAD to go to war (we chose to go to war in some places but it was never an existential threat). Trident today is far from useless, it still keeps the peace, as long as we have it then nemo me impune lacessit as they say :greengrin

The problem with Trident is that we have become very reliant on it as the ultimate guarantor of our security.
As long as we have Trident we are secure, but it is not a tool that can be used to influence people who are not attacking us directly. We will never use Trident to defend the Ukraine, we won't trade British cities for Kiev (and the US won't trade American cities either).
Unfortunately we no longer have a 'middle ground' conventional military option that we could use to credibly threaten someone who is doing things we don't like (we currently have 29 warships, circa 200 combat aircraft and approximately 300 tanks.) I personally think this is a mistake but I suspect I'm in a minority.
The parallels with the 1930s do seem very striking, though I don't think it'll end up quite the same way :greengrin. IMO I think defence cuts have now gone far enough and should perhaps be beginning to be nudged the other way.

The big loser out of this is nuclear non proliferation.
The West convinced the Libyan government to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of security and non-interference. A few years later Western aircraft were bombarding the country and the government was gone. Would we have done that had they kept their nukes?

The West convinced Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees on its security and non-interference from other powers. A few years later a hostile power is occupying parts of the country and the West won't lift a finger to stop it. Would Russia be doing this if Ukraine had kept their nukes?

Were I North Korea, Iran or any country with a larger or potentially threatening neighbour I'd be on Ebay looking for WMDs right about now - and I wouldn't give them up for anything.

The other noticeable thing is the lack of European unity on the issue. As Europeans we talk a good game but we don't follow through. Everyone would like Russia to leave the Ukraine but not if it means higher gas prices in Germany, or less Russian money in London. France is in the midst of selling $2 billion worth of warships to Russia (ships which could easily be used in the Black Sea) and would rather nothing endangered that deal.

Good post, but I disagree on a couple of points.

1) In terms of being able to influence nations who are not attacking us directly, there are fewer and fewer nations who would be influenced by warships, aircraft, tanks or "conventional forces". Most nations who are likely to engage in the type of action we are seeing from Russia have armed forces at least on a par with our own in that regard. We will never be able to sustain armed forces at a level which would be anywhere near comparable to a nation like Russia (I know it is an extreme example, but it's also a current one). :greengrin

The key to viable and affordable defence now is to invest in new technologies rather than conventional forces. As bad a press as drones get (mainly for good reason), the technology is increasingly invaluable to us. Staying ahead of the curve in this regard will keep us ahead of most nations outside China and our allies.

2) I don't think it's as simple as Europe wanting Russia to leave Ukraine alone. Ukraine itself is not a united nation as the last 5-10 years (and the rest) has shown. The history of Crimea itself isn't simple enough for such a simple solution.

[barcahibs]

Good post, but I disagree on a couple of points.

1) In terms of being able to influence nations who are not attacking us directly, there are fewer and fewer nations who would be influenced by warships, aircraft, tanks or "conventional forces". Most nations who are likely to engage in the type of action we are seeing from Russia have armed forces at least on a par with our own in that regard. We will never be able to sustain armed forces at a level which would be anywhere near comparable to a nation like Russia (I know it is an extreme example, but it's also a current one). :greengrin

The key to viable and affordable defence now is to invest in new technologies rather than conventional forces. As bad a press as drones get (mainly for good reason), the technology is increasingly invaluable to us. Staying ahead of the curve in this regard will keep us ahead of most nations outside China and our allies.

2) I don't think it's as simple as Europe wanting Russia to leave Ukraine alone. Ukraine itself is not a united nation as the last 5-10 years (and the rest) has shown. The history of Crimea itself isn't simple enough for such a simple solution.

Oh agreed on point 1 - going back to the 1930/40s again you don't want to be spending all your resources on battleships just as aircraft carriers make them obsolete. Keeping ahead of the game technologically is still the key - especially as such research usually has significant benefits to the non-military economy. Britain incidentally only owns something in the region of 10 armed drones.

However as Stalin probably didn't say (and as the Russians are showing right now), quantity has a quality all of its own. Barring nuclear weapons, boots on the ground and the ability to put them there and sustain them is still the ultimate goal and the final deciding factor.

Going way off topic now, but I'm not convinced about the drone revolution (at least the way drones are popularly envisaged at the moment).
Drones are fine for surveillance or bombing guerillas/terrorists (depending on your point of view) in conditions of complete air superiority but they're not so much use against an enemy who can actually fight back at the moment. I wouldn't expect a 'Reaper' type drone to last five minutes over Ukraine/Russia right now.

On your point 2, again I agree. Ukraine's 'right' to the Crimea is complicated to say the very least. Frankly I don't know what solution is in Europe's (and the UK's) best interests which is why I'm not allowed to be Prime Minister :boo hoo:

I do think however that Putin's Russia at the moment is a little scary and future Western historians might one day be arguing that it would have been a good idea to oppose it now. There's also the fact that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that doesn't appear to 'deserve' to be dismembered. I firmly believe that "might makes right" is THE overarching principle in international law - but that doesn't mean I have to like it. (Incidentally if Russia gets away with this I'd be expecting the new Eastern NATO states - particularly the Baltics - to be looking about themselves nervously.)

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/ukraine-government-troops-move-against-pro-russian-separatists-live-updates

Its all happening today. Ukrainian troops moving into the rebel held areas, five rebels reported dead, Putin warning of 'consequences'. Its looking very grim.

[RyeSloan]

Don't see any chance of Putin stopping what he has started here...the chance of full blown civil war in Ukraine must be rising by the day.

I'm amazed that we are still seeing 'gunmen with no insignia' quotes in the press...it's obvious to everyone that these are either Russian special forces or Russian backed militia and it's about time they were reported as such.

The wests response to this is increasingly pathetic. It's time to call Putins bluff and impose full and proper economic sanctions or stop pretending we are actually going to do anything and agree on a formal separation of Ukraine...there is no middle way as Russia will just continue to provoke and meddle until it gets it's way as clearly they are confident that any of the proposed current measures to stop them are easily a price worth paying to get their hands on the significant natural resources in East Ukraine.

[(((Fergus)))]

Don't see any chance of Putin stopping what he has started here...the chance of full blown civil war in Ukraine must be rising by the day.

I'm amazed that we are still seeing 'gunmen with no insignia' quotes in the press...it's obvious to everyone that these are either Russian special forces or Russian backed militia and it's about time they were reported as such.

The wests response to this is increasingly pathetic. It's time to call Putins bluff and impose full and proper economic sanctions or stop pretending we are actually going to do anything and agree on a formal separation of Ukraine...there is no middle way as Russia will just continue to provoke and meddle until it gets it's way as clearly they are confident that any of the proposed current measures to stop them are easily a price worth paying to get their hands on the significant natural resources in East Ukraine.

They obviously are unable to confirm the identities of these gunmen. Pretty sure it's been alluded to that they are/may be Russian special forces but they can't say so categorically.

On sanctions, nice touch from the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who "has been more blunt saying even the International Space Station is fair game:“We have warned our American friends that we will answer declarations with declarations and actions with actions. They say – don’t touch the International Space Station. Okay, then let’s do it like this. If they want to hit the economic potential of Russian space engineering, they may have to use a trampoline to deliver their own astronauts to the ISS.”" :greengrin

http://www.euronews.com/2014/04/30/putin-no-retaliatory-sanctions-but-western-firms-in-russia-could-be-under-threat/

[HKhibby]

What about the numerous gas pipelines?

Exactly! which everyone in Europe relies on!, if anyone thinks for one minute that the good old U.S. would dare attack Russia!...they are even stupider than the yanks themselves!, i dont particularly like Putin or his type of politics...which ever that is nowadays!...but i do admire him in a way...he just plays games with the yanks and Europe!

He holds the Ace card, they can put as many sanctions on him as they like....but the Gas will just get more and more expensive!

[hibsbollah]

They obviously are unable to confirm the identities of these gunmen. Pretty sure it's been alluded to that they are/may be Russian special forces but they can't say so categorically.

On sanctions, nice touch from the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who "has been more blunt saying even the International Space Station is fair game:“We have warned our American friends that we will answer declarations with declarations and actions with actions. They say – don’t touch the International Space Station. Okay, then let’s do it like this. If they want to hit the economic potential of Russian space engineering, they may have to use a trampoline to deliver their own astronauts to the ISS.”" :greengrin

http://www.euronews.com/2014/04/30/putin-no-retaliatory-sanctions-but-western-firms-in-russia-could-be-under-threat/

The BBC correspondent Gabriel Gatehouse in Eastern Ukraine was saying on FOOC that a lot of the militia seemed to be exactly what they were claiming to be; concerned Ukrainian civilians who feel ethnically and culturally Russian. So its a bit simplistic to assume the militia are all Russian army in disguise...(Which doesnt validate their actions or Putin's, of course).

Theres plenty of commentators out there who want to let Putin off the hook, see Seamus Milne today...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict