I read that^ and there's likely a more-detailed version out there, but for the gist of it, Ukraine feels that the Russian force's actions in the Crimean region is a full-on invasion and the government is asking for the two countries' help. Help as in military action. If either of these two countries agree and decides to send their military to deal with Russia, this could end up being very, very ugly in the future. Let's get some more History/Foreign Policy-savvy people in here for discussion.
It's a rhetorical question, that doesn't need answering.
Moonfairy, your previous exasperation hadn't escaped me.
[quote=MoonFairy]It's quite infuriating, isn't it? I mean what are we supposed to do? ...
sigh. This is why I try to stay out of the world affairs and such but I'm trying to get over that. I just feel so helpless about it all.[/quote]
I dunno, what indeed is one to say. I guess start organizing at home, if it doesn't help far-off peoples and nations, people taking control of their own lives may always help others doing the same.
Whether that's a recipe for success & happiness I'll refrain from commenting on, but maybe the good news is if it's in your nature, the answer to that question doesn't matter a great deal. And hey, one always has to start somewhere. Doesn't one.
Russia was always bound to start flexing its muscles; I can see some of the European nations being cowed slightly due to its giant oil and gas pipelines. And Russia has always seen the Crimea as part of its backyard, the so called ''near-abroad'', a bit like America and Latin America, and I don't think they're really going to take too kindly in the next couple of months to any perceived interference.
From a Russian point of view, Ukraine is part of Russia. Kievan-Rus is the starting point of Russia in the first place, so they do not see Ukraine as something separate. They will never be a foreign country, because their histories are so deeply intertwined.
Please do not think that Russia is going to start killing people just to get more land. This isn't about land grabbing. Russia is already they largest country in the world, I really doubt they are looking for more. They can't even handle what they have right now. Russia is flexing their muscles, yes, because they realize that the international community is just a house of cards.
I recently attended a lecture where there were a number of native Russians and native Ukrainians, and one of the professors there was born and raised in Crimea, and still visits. It was extremely interesting. The Ukrainian families there were obviously from the Western side of Ukraine. They started shouting at both the Crimean professor and our Russian professor and the other Russian family. They were very emotional about the entire thing, and that's understandable. But it made it very difficult to take their arguments seriously.
The Russian family was simply thankful to the professors for trying to give us unbiased details and such, but the Ukrainians kept telling the professors that everything they told us was wrong. The Russians were invading, and the US should come in and stop them. But they never said WHY we should get involved. But I'm not asking everyday average people to construct logical arguments and such.
The Crimean professor tried to explain that his opinion was that Ukraine denied their autonomy, so why not go back to Russia who will grant them greater autonomy? Ukraine started outlawing Russian, so for example: movies in Crimea where most people spoke Russian, would instead be showed dubbed in Ukrainian. Even if it was originally in Russian. That started isolating Crimea, so you can see why they would rather be a part of a country where they can freely speak their language.
I too see this not as a war (yet). Russia looked at what the US has done. Including some European countries, the US decided to invade and start wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya because they wanted to get rid of the resistance against the US foreign affairs or to support the citizens against terrible things done to them, which means interfering in internal conflicts in another country. Of course this is not their main reason, the oil supplies were in danger. After all, the big countries need that oil and will do anything to get it. Just like drugs addicted people are with drugs. Russia knows what Israel is doing on daily basis to the Palestinians. The international community accepted (or decided to look away from) the horrible acts Israel does to the Palestinians, so it thought to do the same. When what Israel does to the Palestinians is accepted, their intervention is accepted as well (although it is not as cruel and cause less deaths, if any). It is after all justified to defend their national interests (just like the US gave as 'valid' reason to start mentioned wars... or is it called retaliation that caused millions to die?).
Although I'm against all kinds of war, violence, torture, rape, gun ownership, mutilation, spying or fighting in common, I think this could be label as a 'valid' reason for Russia to invade the land which was theirs in the past. But I detest it, just as I detest US invasions in other countries and the massive act of spying on civilians!
After all, the big countries need that oil and will do anything to get it. Just like drugs addicted people are with drugs.
What?
Russia knows what Israel is doing on daily basis to the Palestinians.
Not really, no. Not even the Palestinians know exactly what is happening. Nor is Israel doing anything in particular to anyone. Like all nations, Israel is an inanimate legal and political entity. It is not the same thing as its citizens.
The international community accepted (or decided to look away from) the horrible acts Israel does to the Palestinians, so it thought to do the same.
No, it didn't.
It is after all justified to defend their national interests (just like the US gave as 'valid' reason to start mentioned wars... or is it called retaliation that caused millions to die?).
Does anyone here even know about the Budapest Memorandum of 1994? I mean, Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons because we (the USA) promised to protect them if Russia invaded. And yes, moving troops in and annexing a region IS invasion...
Does anyone here even know about the Budapest Memorandum of 1994? I mean, Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons because we (the USA) promised to protect them if Russia invaded. And yes, moving troops in and annexing a region IS invasion...
Sometimes, people lie (Correct me, don't slam me with derogatory comments if I'm wrong)
If you are implying that I am lying, look up "Budapest Memorandum"....it's right there....I take this as you being misinformed not as a person who doesn't listen to facts; please prove me right.
Does anyone here even know about the Budapest Memorandum of 1994? I mean, Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons because we (the USA) promised to protect them if Russia invaded. And yes, moving troops in and annexing a region IS invasion...
It isn't so much a bluff as it is Obama's usual foreign policy of broken promises.
Quoting a security agreement is one thing, but crouching it in terms of a grossly misinformed political attack on an administration's actions is another matter and just conflates the situation erroneously.
The Budapest Memorandum does not affirm that the United States will protect Ukraine in the event of external aggression. It merely reaffirms that the nations involved would refrain from the threat or use of force against the integrity of Ukraine's borders, and that they would reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate UNSC action to assist Ukraine should it be threatened or become a victim of a nuclear attack. (''seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine''....in the event ''in which nuclear weapons are used.'' To be specific, on of the only obligations that the three nuclear states (the US, Russia, and the UK) took was that they would ''consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.'' China's and France's commitments were even more vague. Furthermore, the English-language copies of the Memorandum use the term ''security assurances'' which is far weaker than ''security guarantees.''.
In a nutshell, the Memorandum was merely a more Ukrainian specific affirmative of what is ''guaranteed'' to nations in current international treaties, such as the UN Charter, and NPT. It is not a document to certify that the United States or any nation will use military force to protect the Ukraine, nor were any promises broken on part of the current Obama Administration. Whilst Russia's actions have certainly flown in the face of the Memorandum it signed, it does not mean the US actually has an obligation on the ground. If you want to read more on the Memorandum, you could do worse than read this.
I think the more pressing issue is whether the referendum should be considered legal, because that was the basis ultimately for the Russian deployment. According to Ukrainian law, secession needs to be voted on by the entire country, and not just individual regions. That means, the Crimean vote is illegal in the eyes of the Ukrainian constitution. Furthermore, such a criteria is largely consistent with existing international law, which does not recognize a right of secession by a group or region in a country unless the right to ''internal self determination'' has been denied and curbed by the central government or has been subject to grave human rights violations by the central government. It doesn't seem to be such the case in Ukraine where there's no official anti-Russian discrimination. On the other hand, would it be right to deny a population over close to two million strong the right to secede?
Situation with Crimea from Russian point of view (basically, most of media controlled by US, even russian federal canals are under US control): Sevastopol went under Ukrainian control as symbolical gift during USSR time. When USSR felt (interesting fact - people, which disbanded USSR didn't have legal rights to do so, also, 89% of USSR people voted for saving it on referendum), it tried to return under Russian jurisdiction 3-5 times (this is mirrored even on english wiki in its page). They were calmed down with threat about its special status. What happened in western Ukraine then... USA sponsored racists from "Right sector", trained them, gave them weapon, organized revolution. Confirmed by Nuland - they spent $15 billions on it. These racists started from banning Russian language. For russian people in Crimea this was last drop - basically, eastern part is a money donor for western part, but they are treated very poorly. No legitimate power in country (Yanukovich fled), racists in government, why stay in Ukraine? What USA wanted to get from revolution? They wanted to get access to Ukrainian pipelines. Most of Russian gas and oil goes through them. Owner of ukrainian pipelines can blackmail both EU and Russia by prohibiting transfer of gas and oil.
