Russia and the Ukraine

[Maharg67]

The important matter here is what does Putin intend to do next? What does Russia really want and by that I mean those Russians who support Putin and the Russian Nationalist cause. As for Ukraine, perhaps the solution is to divide it into a smaller part as joint controlled by both Ukraine and Russia while the larger part remains Ukraine. Russia gets to look strong and to have a strong hold on the Crimean while Ukraine reinforces its sovereignty.

 

Perhaps Russia could be pressured into buying the Crimean which would mean it is seen to gain but at a cost, the money going to Ukraine.

 

Perhaps a three way international agreement could sooth national pride, ambitions and greed. That is one between Ukraine, the EU and Russia. Ukraine becomes an economic hub between the EU and Russia.

 

As for the internal events of Ukraine, the people of Ukraine need to be left alone by all powerful international forces and be allowed to work things out as the world quietly observes through the UN.

 

Perhaps I am being overly hopeful that any of this would happen.

[MajKrAzAm]

What continues to strike me about this whole debate is how Russia is portrayed as a bogeyman, and its people as either oppressed or as tools of a new Hitler. Such disaffection has gone quite far enough already, thanks to the weird, selective anti-Russian prejudices of so many in the USA. What exactly does the West see as its concrete reason for its hostility to Russia? What is it actually about?

 

The past 20 years of Western policy towards Russia has been a complete failure. The West has consistently tried to humiliate and undermine Russia in its own backyard and sphere of influence. Even though the Cold War is over, the West continued to expand NATO membership eastward, encroaching closer towards Russia. The US also lobbied for missile defense systems in Czech Republic and Poland, with the pathetic excuse that these were aimed at countering Iran. The West humiliated the Russians in Serbia, the Eastern frontier of Orthodox Slavic civilization, where they could not help their compatriots who were under siege from both the West and Balkan Muslims. The West gave tacit approval to Georgia to invade South Ossettia and Abkazia. Just one week before the invasion, over 1,000 US troops staged war-games in Georgia.

 

After the Cold War ended, the Russians believed there was an unspoken agreement that, in return for the break-up of the USSR, they would be allowed their dignity. They Russians believe that agreement has been broken. And now the West feigns surprise, and outrage, when Russia eventually takes the opportunity to stand up for its interests, certainly no more aggressively than the West has acted in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya.

Edited March 6, 2014 by MajKrAzAm

[HeyYou]

Keep in mind, a rather significant percentage of the leadership here in the US, were also in place DURING the cold war. Personally, I don't see Putin as the Hitler-wannabe that some politicians are trying to paint him as. Considering that Crimea held a vote, and apparently, WANT the Russians there..... I don't see that we have an issue to take up any longer.

[Maharg67]

Perhaps the cold war did not really end at all but continued in a newer, more hidden form?

[Harbringe]

What continues to strike me about this whole debate is how Russia is portrayed as a bogeyman, and its people as either oppressed or as tools of a new Hitler. Such disaffection has gone quite far enough already, thanks to the weird, selective anti-Russian prejudices of so many in the USA. What exactly does the West see as its concrete reason for its hostility to Russia? What is it actually about?

 

The past 20 years of Western policy towards Russia has been a complete failure. The West has consistently tried to humiliate and undermine Russia in its own backyard and sphere of influence. Even though the Cold War is over, the West continued to expand NATO membership eastward, encroaching closer towards Russia. The US also lobbied for missile defense systems in Czech Republic and Poland, with the pathetic excuse that these were aimed at countering Iran. The West humiliated the Russians in Serbia, the Eastern frontier of Orthodox Slavic civilization, where they could not help their compatriots who were under siege from both the West and Balkan Muslims. The West gave tacit approval to Georgia to invade South Ossettia and Abkazia. Just one week before the invasion, over 1,000 US troops staged war-games in Georgia.

 

After the Cold War ended, the Russians believed there was an unspoken agreement that, in return for the break-up of the USSR, they would be allowed their dignity. They Russians believe that agreement has been broken. And now the West feigns surprise, and outrage, when Russia eventually takes the opportunity to stand up for its interests, certainly no more aggressively than the West has acted in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya.

 

Before I get into a little to correction to your post have to say "well done" so bang on .

 

The little correction is this , its not an unspoken agreement , its actually codified in an agreement called the Budapest Memorandum that was negotiated by Russia and all the major powers of Western Europe and the US . Since then there have been other bilaterial agreements that have been negotiated among various nations in the region, but all having to do with the original intent of the Budapest Memorandum.

 

So what is it and why is it important.

 

Firstly why is it important , well ask yourself what is international law , basically its contractual law between nations , its when two or more nations agree on certain principles , protocols , agreements , etc , etc, by which they will abide. Without these sorts of agreements and the willingness to abide by them there is no such thing as international law . (Remember this)

 

What is it , basically its an agreement on the political and military disposition of various assets both Russian and NATO in Eastern Europe . Now some would say the Russians had to agree to this because the USSR was collapsing but that's not totally true . Eastern Europe is a mix of many ethnicity's and the Russians could have assumed what is called a bunker military posture where in they maintain what they perceive as necessary and let the region around them descend into social chaos of competing ethnicity's and factions , likely involving some form of civil conflict and the Western Europeans were well aware of this and desperately wanted to avoid it. So the agreements they came to with the Russians were also in their interests.

 

Now there is a whole spectrum that could be detailed about the nature of the agreements that were made but the most basic idea behind it was that Russia would agree to pull back its forces to Russia proper (Crimea being an exception) and NATO would refrain from moving their military capabilities eastward . Basically creating a buffer between the two . (Which actually is a good idea)

 

Anyway Russia kept their end of the bargain , NATO on the other hand as pointed out by MajKrazam has been steadily creeping eastward ignoring the agreements they have made and as I have said International law doesn't exist if your not willing to abide by the agreements you have made.

 

BTW in the agreement it was explicitly spelled out that Ukraine , Belarus and the Baltic States (Lith,Lat,Est) would never be offered NATO membership and that's exactly what their talking about in regard to the Ukraine. A country Russia considers strategically vital to their overall defense posture .

Edited March 7, 2014 by Harbringe

[Maharg67]

As I wrote before, old fears die hard! What is the real drive behind EU and NATO actions? Are they encroaching on old Soviet controlled territories to take advantage of Russia's decrease of influence since the collapse of the USSR? I suspect it is more that there is real fear that modern Russia is no less dangerous than the former USSR was and efforts have been made to make Russia less threatening. If so the moves have back fired and allowed Russia to claim that it is a victim of a kind of 'creeping invasion' that would end with Russia facing NATO on its very western borders. The USSR feared the West as much as the West feared it and now those fears are being 'triggered'.

 

This is just an idea of what has taken place, is taking place; in the sheer complexity of international politics, of world history, it has always been very hard to clarify what is 'really going on' and the current situation is no different. Mostly there is more than one cause and the causes flow into one another. Finding easy answers, to complicated problems, is an easy mistake and one I have made too often.

[MajKrAzAm]

As I wrote before, old fears die hard! What is the real drive behind EU and NATO actions? Are they encroaching on old Soviet controlled territories to take advantage of Russia's decrease of influence since the collapse of the USSR? I suspect it is more that there is real fear that modern Russia is no less dangerous than the former USSR was and efforts have been made to make Russia less threatening. If so the moves have back fired and allowed Russia to claim that it is a victim of a kind of 'creeping invasion' that would end with Russia facing NATO on its very western borders. The USSR feared the West as much as the West feared it and now those fears are being 'triggered'.

 

Putin believes his country was humiliated and shabbily treated after the Cold War, and sees himself as protector of the ethnic Russians left behind when the Soviet Union came apart. Between 1989 and 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev had freed the captive nations of Eastern Europe, allowed the USSR to dissolve into dozens of nations, and had held out a hand of friendship to the West.

 

What did we do? Moved NATO right onto Russia’s front porch. We brought all the liberated nations of Eastern Europe into our military alliance, along with three former Soviet republics. The West tried to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, which was established to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia. Had they succeeded, we could have been at war with Russia in 2008 over Georgia and South Ossetia, and today over Crimea.

 

Up until recently, we heard calls for Ukraine and Georgia to be brought into NATO. Are these people sane?

[RGMage2]

NATO needs to be dissolved. Had the west been a serious partner for peace at the time of the collapse of the USSR NATO would no longer exist. The purpose of NATO was supposed to be to protect us from the communists advance and prevent the Red Army and Warsaw Pact from marching across Europe. So Russia gives up communism, gives up Empire, dissolves Warsaw Pact and basically surrenders, but we kept NATO and Kept the sword hanging over their heads.

 

Western strategists continue to see Russia as a long term threat. There is a school of thought that says Russia with Ukraine could one day rise again to true superpower status and threaten Europe, but a Russia without Ukraine is permanently neutered and will never again rise to such heights. I don’t know if they are right or wrong, but I do know that when it comes to predicting the future, human strategists have a long record of failure.

 

What I find amusing in the present situation is the idea that Russia needs a face saving way out. I think they’ve got it wrong, it’s not the Russians who need the face saving way out.

[Harbringe]

Here's something I don't get.

 

In Crimea their talking about holding a referendum as to staying in or out of the Ukraine and the Crimean parliament has already voted to do so. Now you can argue that the Crimean parliament only voted that way cause of the pressure of Russian troops all over the place and is thus illegitimate and I could get behind that but their also saying that about the referendum itself . Now assuming the referendum was a simple yes/no in/out kinda thing and observers (both Russian and Non Russian) were there to verify that it was open and fair vote. I don't see how you can say it's illegitimate if a clear majority of Crimeans voted to secede.

 

The Russians are saying the Kyiv government is illegitimate because it was achieved thru violence , yet Obama , Kerry and others say they are just exercising their democratic right of self determination and are legitimate , yet at same time saying a vote of self determination by the Crimeans is illegitimate .

 

So I guess the violent overthrow of a government your unhappy with is the new expression of democracy , everybody remember that the next time they go to vote.(Yes Mr NSA overseer I actually said that)

 

Disclaimer: Don't assume I think Yanakovich was some kind of good leader , truth be told he was and is an absolute crook that led an utterly corrupt government , but there was an election due next year and they just could've waited him out , threw him out of office , then investigate and throw him in jail for the next 20 years. Like here in the West when a Government doesn't do their jobs by providing oversight to bankers who completely (almost) destroy the economy by risky and fraudulent behaviour , we throw the bums out of office , investigate and throw the guilty ones in jail. Ok so we don't do that. Oo how about a government who launches a war of aggression in pusuit of weapons of mass destruction , that don't exist and where hundreds of thousands of people lose their lives , obviously we do something about that , after all were the experts of democracy and good governance . OK so we don't do that either . Maybe the whole violent overthrow thing is a better idea.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Harbringe

[Harbringe]

Well it just came down these are the questions that will be asked on the referendum.

 

There are just two questions on the referendum ballot paper. The first: do you like Crimea to become a constituent territory of the Russian Federation. And the second: Are you in favor of restoring Crimea’s 1992 constitution. The 1992 Constitution proclaims that the autonomous republic is part of Ukraine but has relations with Kiev as defined on the basis of mutual agreements.

 

Seems pretty straight forward.