Russian Federation Council Agrees to Putin's Request for military intervention in Crimea

reply to post by Agit8dChop


I think we are there to be honest. Even your interpretation of the situation mimics how WWII started.

* - The Crimea was given to Ukraine.
* - The Soviet Union relinquished all claims of the Crimea from that moment.
* - Just because there is a large portion / segment of population who speaks / identifies as Russians, does not create grounds to annex those areas. If we used that reasoning then the entire planet would be at war. Do all English speaking persons fall under the domain of the US / UK? Would that justify the US / UK invasion of countries who have large segments that speak English?
* - There is a large segment of the Crimea that does not identify with / as Russians. Why is it ok to sell them out by appeasing Russia? If the response is they can move out, the same can then be applied to ethnic Russians in Crimea.
* - Putin has not ruled out complete occupation of the Ukraine.
* - Is it acceptable for Putin to invade / annex East Ukraine?

My point was, and still is, the moment we begin to appease opens the door for further possible aggression towards former east block / soviet republics.

When Hitler reoccupied the Rheine, took Studentland, Austria, Czechoslovakia the mindset was let them take it. Its not worth going to war over. After each occupation / annexation, when no response was given by other European countries, emboldened Hitler to go further, and he did.

If Russia is willing to ignore the fact Crimea is a part of Ukraine. If Russia is willing to violate the agreement with Ukraine re: military deployment in Crimea. If Russia is willing to invade Crimea under the pretext of ethnic Russians. If his use of force allows for the invasion / occupation of all Ukraine... Putin makes these justifications while at the same time denying them to Chechnya.

Where does it stop? Exactly how far is he, and those not immediately affected, allowed to go before Russia is confronted and told to put the Charlemagne act up?

You are an extremely intelligent person and you know your topic. What I am wanting to know is why is it ok to throw a sovereign nation to the wolves in order to avoid a military conflict? At what point does military action enter the equation?

If the people of Crimea want independence, then they need to work with the Ukrainian government only.

What is the difference between Crimea and Chechnya?

andy1972
BBC REPORTS -
09:32: "Pull over and get out": Journalists report being stopped at Crimean checkpoints and having their bulletproof vests confiscated by militia armed with Kalashnikovs.

That'll be because they havn't got body armour..Kalashnikovs, yes.


BBC REPORTS -

09:02: The BBC's Daniel Sandford, who is at the Ukrainian naval headquarters in the Crimean port of Sevastopol, says pro-Russian activists are blocking sailors from coming to work. There appears to be great nervousness inside the base, with at least one machine-gunner stationed on a roof. Other armed troops are peering through windows and off rooftops.

Lets hope no one has an itchy trigger finger..all it takes is a bad case of nerves and the whole place will explode.
I think, personally, if this does start, it will be because of an accident with some "wannabe rambo pro russian militia" or "pro Kiev neo nazi"..sad.

edit on AM1Mon20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

Then maybe the activists should not interfere with Ukrainian operations. There interference and actions will trigger an incident (which my guess is the intention behind their actions as it would give Putin more support to send in more troops and continue to occupy Ukraine).. They need to back off instead of forcing an incident with Ukrainian military units / personnel.

The activists have no authority to interfere.

spurgeonatorsrevenge

andy1972

MessageforAll
So you don't call this an invasion? Russia is protecting its Assets namely it's geo-strategical possition for its Black fleet, While doing so taking Crim with it...

What are they protecting exactly?
They had the black sea ports rented until 2042 with Ukraines blessing..

Control of the port and the surrounding areas

The had an agreement signed until 2042/47. 15,000 people had worked secured at the bases. Russia had given them a 15 billion bailout (which had 5% intrest attached so no free lunch there) and a 33% reduction (a 7 billion dollar saving in the long run) on their natural gas bill..everything was fine and dandy.

What I am wanting to know is why is it ok to throw a sovereign nation to the wolves in order to avoid a military conflict? At what point does military action enter the equation?

because we aren't throwing ''Ukraine'' to the Russians, we are throwing Crimea, which was Russian as recently as WW2.

Also, Russia hasnt made a move on UKRAINE, they have put troops into Crimea and told the soldiers to leave without a fight.

The Russians realized once Kiev fell, the Ukranians would march on Crimea and eventually take the Black Sea Fleet,

All Russia is doing is protecting its interests in Crimea, it could have gone in a destroyed the Ukrainian army but it didn't, it went in peacefully, setup shop and told them to leave.

The best option here is for Ukraine to give Crimea back to Russia.

If Russia then attempts to go further and move on Kiev or mainland Ukraine, then I believe it will be time for NATO!



to add, Germany took the Rhineland, Danzig and the corridor to test the allies resolve. He did it under the guise that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. The Allies gave up the Rhineland in hope it would avert another major European war.

The allies knew full well the terms inflicted on Germany after WW1 were unfair and very debilitating.

This situation is entirely different, because it was Russia who gave up Crimea voluntarily, Russia hasn't gone in with force and murdered anyone and lastly, Russia is not stupid enough to try and Claim Ukraine as a whole.

Right now, I believe Kerry is going to the Ukraine telling them

1. Give up Crimea, its pro Russian anyway
2. If Russia tries to encroach on mainland Ukraine or Kiev, NATO and the US will get involved.

This is the best answer to this problem, unfortunately majority on this board will again use it as a means to criticize Obama for not taking the world to war over the Crimea.

fingers crossed, I hope I am right.

From the Wall Street Journal -

" without Ukraine, the EU's Eastern Partnership program, a push to strengthen ties with former Soviet territories, would come under further question. Armenia, which had been expected to sign a deal with the EU, abruptly changed course in September and announced it was aligning with Russia instead. Georgia and Moldova are still expected to initial agreements with the EU in Vilnius, but Ukraine is by far the largest economy targeted by the EU program."


From Kiev Ukraine News Blog -

"The economy continues to stagnate, the rise of the right-wing and neo-Nazi parties is well documented and political mishaps in countries such as Italy illustrate the inefficiency of the EU machine."

Thats why they choose Russia. Russia alone buy 7 billion a year in helicopter parts..while the Ukraines agricultural trade with the west is only 5 billion.
They offered a better deal then the west...it was a difficult choice that he had to take.

reply to post by andy1972


The article you are citing is from 2013.

Agit8dChop
because we aren't throwing ''Ukraine'' to the Russians, we are throwing Crimea, which was Russian as recently as WW2.

And was given to Ukraine by the Soviet Union in the 1950's.

that is key to this entire mess. Crimea was given to Ukraine. It is a part of Ukraine, regardless of how people try to spin titles in the region.

Agit8dChop
Also, Russia hasnt made a move on UKRAINE, they have put troops into Crimea and told the soldiers to leave without a fight.

Russia has made a move on Ukraine. It occurred when Russia illegally entered the Crimea. Secondly, Putin has not ruled out sending troops into the Eastern Ukraine, and the use of force given to him allows that force to be used anywhere in Ukraine. It does not restrict their actions to just the Crimea.

Agit8dChop
The Russians realized once Kiev fell, the Ukranians would march on Crimea and eventually take the Black Sea Fleet,

So Putin claims however we have not seen that. All the protests occurred in Kiev, not the Crimea. The government opened fire on Ukrainians in Kiev at the orders of the former President (which is why he was removed from office). The fleet belongs to Ukraine per the agreement made with the former Soviet Union when it collapsed. It does not belong to the Crimea. Prior to Russia interference, there was no march on the Crimea from Kiev.

Agit8dChop
All Russia is doing is protecting its interests in Crimea, it could have gone in a destroyed the Ukrainian army but it didn't, it went in peacefully, setup shop and told them to leave.

No - Russia has invaded a sovereign nation. They are demanding Ukrainian forces vacate Ukrainian territory. The Ukrainian army has been told not to attack Russian forces. However, the moment Russia opens fire, Ukraine can respond.

Agit8dChop
The best option here is for Ukraine to give Crimea back to Russia.

The best option would be for Russia to leave sovereign Ukrainian territory given to Ukraine in the 1950's. Appeasement does not work and should not be an option.

Agit8dChop
If Russia then attempts to go further and move on Kiev or mainland Ukraine, then I believe it will be time for NATO!

What about East Ukraine?

Why is Kiev / mainland Ukraine the red line? Especially since Russia has no valid legal claim on Crimea? Secondly, the agreements between Ukraine and Russia can be voided by either country per the agreement. Apparently Russia never saw that as a possibility.

Agit8dChop
to add, Germany took the Rhineland, Danzig and the corridor to test the allies resolve. He did it under the guise that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. The Allies gave up the Rhineland in hope it would avert another major European war.

Correct - appeasement did not work. It only emboldened Hitler, causing him to take more and more. In that process, the western nations are guilty of the "they came for the jews, they came for the communists, they came for pitfall"...

Whether the treaty was fair or unfair is not relevant since Germany signed it. Just as the Soviet Union gave Crimea to Ukraine.

Agit8dChop
The allies knew full well the terms inflicted on Germany after WW1 were unfair and very debilitating.

Germany lost the war. Its like the argument Japan made at the end of the war. They wanted to stop the war under the conditions they keep what they have. Again, a non starter.

Agit8dChop
This situation is entirely different, because it was Russia who gave up Crimea voluntarily, Russia hasn't gone in with force and murdered anyone and lastly, Russia is not stupid enough to try and Claim Ukraine as a whole.

The authorization of force does not restrict Russia to the Crimea. Putin has stated he is willing to use force should more ethnic Russians come under "attack" - IE East Ukraine. He has also stated the possibility of moving into Kiev.

Russia has no legitimate claim to the territory. The Soviet Union, and by your own admission here Russia, gave up the Crimea to Ukraine. To allow Russia to invade a country and annex portions of it simply because people speak Russian sets a very dangerous precedent.

Agit8dChop
Right now, I believe Kerry is going to the Ukraine telling them

1. Give up Crimea, its pro Russian anyway
2. If Russia tries to encroach on mainland Ukraine or Kiev, NATO and the US will get involved.

And Kerry would be an idiot to present the issue in that manner since the Crimea is not all pro Russian. 54% is not 100% and 54% insinuates that all 54% of that population want Russia intervention. Since Russia clamped on the media, trying to find out who wants what in that area is now impossible. Since pro Russian people are attacking pro Kiev people, the situation Putin used to justify action in Crimea is now being committed against the other half of the people there.

The US / UK signed an agreement with Ukraine to protect their territorial integrity. The EU / West / NATO are already involved and should honor treaty obligations if Putin refuses to return the situation to normal by removing all forces not specifically covered under the Russia-Ukraine agreement.

Agit8dChop
This is the best answer to this problem, unfortunately majority on this board will again use it as a means to criticize Obama for not taking the world to war over the Crimea.

I don't care for Obama and I am not a fan of war. In this case, we should protect Ukraine, up to and including the use of military force to remove Russia from sovereign Ukrainian territory.

Secondly, Obama would not be the one taking us to war. That distinction falls squarely in Russia's lap since they are the aggressors and invaded a sovereign nation. The Ukraine has a right to self defense and has a legitimate request of the UN / West / NATO.

Agit8dChop
fingers crossed, I hope I am right.

edit on 3-3-2014 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

I am hoping Putin sees the huge mistake he made and decides to exercise common sense and remove his forces. To claim its an internal Ukrainian problem that should be resolved by them and then sending in military forces while lying to the world about those forces speaks volumes.

I refuse to accept appeasement / selling out the Ukrainian people because Putin is throwing a hissy fit over Crimea.


Did Putin ask Kiev about the supposed use of force against ethnic Russians in Crimea?
Did Putin provide evidence those incidents were occurring?
Did Putin ask the government in Ukraine to look into the allegations?
Did Putin ask the government in Ukraine to safeguard the lives of Ukrainians who speak Russian?

If the east / Crimea are all pro Russia, and the protests occurred in Kiev / West, is Putin lying about the situation?
If the government in Kiev followed their laws / constitution, why is Putin ignoring that?
Russia is the head of 2 councils dealing with issues like this. did Putin request to put monitors into the area to get the info he needed from an unbiased source?


Nope - Je just sent in the military.
Why? Because anything else would reveal the info he is using to justify the invasion of Ukraine is not true.

10:33: Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone, he is quoted as saying by Interfax.

10:17: Still speaking in Geneva, Mr Lavrov says "radicals" control some of Ukraine's towns, AP reports.

09:49: Russia's state gas producer Gazprom has warned Ukraine that it may increase the gas price for Kiev after the first quarter, Reuters reports. "The situation with payments is worrying. Ukraine is paying but not as well as we would like it to... We are still thinking about whether to extend the pricing contract into the next quarter based on current prices," said Andrei Kruglov, Gazprom's chief financial officer.

08:26: Speaking to BBC Radio 4, Mr Hague said it was the "biggest crisis in Europe of the 21st Century", adding: "This is not an acceptable way to conduct international relations, there will be significant costs to that."

10:47: Armed men in military fatigues without insignia are blocking the Ukrainian navy's operational provisioning centre in Bakhchysaray and the naval intelligence centre on Cape Fiolent in Sevastopol, Ukraine's main news agency UNIAN reports, as seen by BBC Monitoring. It says the Ukrainian servicemen are refusing to surrender.

10:46: Russia's upper house - the Federation Council - asks President Vladimir Putin to recall Russia's ambassador to Washington, because of US President Barack Obama's speech on Ukraine on Friday, Itar-Tass news agency reports. President Obama warned that "there will be costs" for any military intervention in Ukraine.

interesting to watch the markets

Russia down %10.5
London and Paris down %2
USA pre-markets down 120pts
Gold up $15.20 (1.1%)

indexq.org...

Xcathdra
reply to post by andy1972

 

The article you are citing is from 2013.

Yeah....2 months ago....
The world has changed sooo much since then....

reply to post by Xcathdra

And was given to Ukraine by the Soviet Union in the 1950's. that is key to this entire mess. Crimea was given to Ukraine. It is a part of Ukraine, regardless of how people try to spin titles in the region.

It wasn't quite 'given' to Ukraine..it was amalgamated into Ukraine as a semi-autonomous region during the Soviet period.

Since the USSR disbanded, Crimea ought to have been allowed to follow the international rules of political succession from it's almalgamation, since the country that created a Ukraine that included Crimea as a autonomous entity, the Soviet Union, no longer exists.

MysterX
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

And was given to Ukraine by the Soviet Union in the 1950's. that is key to this entire mess. Crimea was given to Ukraine. It is a part of Ukraine, regardless of how people try to spin titles in the region.

It wasn't quite 'given' to Ukraine..it was amalgamated into Ukraine as a semi-autonomous region during the Soviet period.

Since the USSR disbanded, Crimea ought to have been allowed to follow the international rules of political succession from it's almalgamation, since the country that created a Ukraine that included Crimea as a autonomous entity, the Soviet Union, no longer exists.

Can you cite an historical precedent for this? An agreed upon point of International Law?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well said bud, seems that good information and common sense have been made victims in the rush to jump on the "hate the west" bandwagon.

I am at a loss as to why or how anyone could defend Russia's actions here. There was no threat whatsoever to either the Russian people or it's base in the Crimea. This is a "crisis" entirely of Russia's own making and smacks of pure opportunism to make good a situation that was getting out of Russia's hands.

reply to post by DJW001


I doubt it as there isn't one.

In fact, the precedent is quite the opposite. The world is full of examples of claims, counter-claims and treaties signed by former powers or nations that no longer exist, yet are still in force. In fact, Argentina's claims on the Falklands lie solely on the fact that Spain had the claim and they think they inherited it.

reply to post by DJW001


It's also worth pointing out, with regards to the Crimea, the Russians conquered it themselves in the 18th century and they didn't have a population majority until the 20th century with Soviet colonisation and forced migrations of the Tartars who lived there, so any argument it is a "part of Russia" is somewhat weak.

Everyone's shouting WW3...

This is just Russia showing America and the EU they can't always get what they want.

The US is a spoilt child. If it can't have the toy it wants, it prefers to smash the toy to bits so nobody eslse can play with it.

They can't have the Ukraine, so, they'd sooner smash it into bits before anyone else can have her.

The US is taking over the worlds resources, be it oil, gas, minerals or drinking water because they've known since long ago there is'nt enough to go around and everything is running out.

Now they wanted the Ukraine and its stragtic bases and maybe even it's wheat fields.

Well, for once someone said NO..and look what happened.

The last government that said no to the US and it's corporate muscle were the Taliban..

reply to post by andy1972


They "smash it to bits" do they? Who have they "smashed to bits" then?

As for gobbling up the worlds resources, I think you'll find that China has been far more active in this regard than any of the Western nations combined.

Why is the obvious so hard to understand? The Ukrainian people have, for the better part of a decade now, been trying to free themselves from the corrupt, Russian dominated political classes. They got close after 2004, but one of their guys was poisoned and the other PM was thrown in jail by the recent ousted, pro-Russian President on trumped up charges, who then went and rolled back the constitution agreed in 2004 and pissing the Ukrainians off big time.

I also find it quite hard to understand that while the West get's flack for "being the worlds policemen" or what have you, when countries like Russia behave in a far worse fashion they are allowed to not only get off scot free, but are defended on ATS.

I assume from the defence of Russia's actions here on this board that they would be happy with Canada going back on the Treaty of 1818 and taking lands from the USA? It is the same thing.

stumason
reply to post by DJW001

 

It's also worth pointing out, with regards to the Crimea, the Russians conquered it themselves in the 18th century and they didn't have a population majority until the 20th century with Soviet colonisation and forced migrations of the Tartars who lived there, so any argument it is a "part of Russia" is somewhat weak.

Speaking of the Tatars, they and the Jews are the only groups in the region that actually have to be afraid of "ethnic cleansing."

11:58: The Ukrainian State Border Service says two Russian assault landing ships arrived illegally in the port of Sevastopol, Crimea, on Sunday. It named the ships as the Olenegorskiy Gornyak from the Northern Fleet and the Georgy Pobedonosets of the Baltic Fleet. Russia's Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol.


11:46: French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has condemned Russia's actions as unacceptable: "The Russians consider that countries which belonged to their empire at one point or another should not be outside a certain amount of their control. In the Crimea case, they already have a base in Sevastopol and considering what happened in Ukraine - the overthrow, or at least the departure of Yanukovych - they want to get their hands back on Crimea. Obviously, as far as international law is concerned, it is unacceptable," he told French radio.