Russia Discussion

It's getting tense here because Poland look like they want to get involved for some reason. I hope we stay clear, we have a history of standing up to Russia but this isn't the moment - very little to gain and everything to lose if it breaks. Even though they aren't as powerful as they used to be Russians could sweep us aside with ease.

There is way too much panic around here though. The chances of Russia invading Poland are non-existent yet people think they might try that - this goes to show how much media influence people.
 
It's getting tense here because Poland look like they want to get involved for some reason. I hope we stay clear, we have a history of standing up to Russia but this isn't the moment - very little to gain and everything to lose if it breaks. Even though they aren't as powerful as they used to be Russians could sweep us aside with ease.

There is way too much panic around here though. The chances of Russia invading Poland are non-existent yet people think they might try that - this goes to show how much media influence people.

Could be a bit of historical paranoia also?
 
Could be a bit of historical paranoia also?

Possibly. There is no way Russia will want to have anything to do with Poland now though, we are a part of NATO and have a pretty strong army ourselves without anyone's helping hand. Russia have no interest here either, we have been a free country for a few decades already and all their influences have vanished by now, we don't have anything valuable to them.
 
Raoul, hopefully I don't come across as ABU (Anyone but US) as I actually have a lot of time for US policies and however misguided they are, they are in essense for a common and needed purpose. You seem to conveniently overlook a few things. First, the ground reality is that Crimean population wants Russian intervention (in the near or long term) and yet you dismiss this just some sort of Agenda by the Russian media. Secondly, Putin or Russia has given no inclination yet that on what their long standing resolution for Crimea is. If US did the same thing against Syria, it'll be lauded for acting on humanitarian grounds. Third, annexing Crimea at the cost of pissing off major trade partners seems like a big cost to pay, especially with all the Russian effort to build relations with countries (FIFA World cup, Winter olympics etc etc)

Of course, this my opinion and they could very well be wrong.

Whatever the origins of this situation I think the main thing is to avoid a nasty civil war with civilians of both sides being treated abominably. If Russia's solution prevents that, and at the same time leaves the majority of citizens, Ukrainian or Russian, living in the nation they would choose, then this seems like a step forward to me. Maybe the US should be offering the Russians help instead giving the usual knee-jerk reaction.
 
There is way too much panic around here though. The chances of Russia invading Poland are non-existent yet people think they might try that - this goes to show how much media influence people.

Considering Poland is a member state of NATO, an attack on Poland will invoke the collective defence agreement so basically It'll kick off Russia vs NATO. The Americans will be quick to react to any military action against Poland as well, considering it's part of it's missle shield is based in Poland.
 
I haven't been following the news that closely, why are people discussing Russia attacking Poland? Are there any new developments?
 
Yeah, he was talking about chances of Russia invading Poland. Where did that come from? Any new developments?

Nope, Crimea is the only region that's under threat right now.

People panic here too, they have no reason to IMO. Nothing to discuss here, if anyone's going to war with Russia it'll be the Ukraine and I even doubt it will come to that. Most likely scenario is they get Crimea and bugger off.
 
According to Spiegel 6,000 Ukr. troops in total defected to the Crimean/Russian side incl. a base stationing 45 MIGs.
 
Nope, Crimea is the only region that's under threat right now.

People panic here too, they have no reason to IMO. Nothing to discuss here, if anyone's going to war with Russia it'll be the Ukraine and I even doubt it will come to that. Most likely scenario is they get Crimea and bugger off.
Ah, thanks.

If the people in Crimea want to take Russia's side, then there is nothing anybody can do imo.
 
Respecting the sovereignty = respecting the treaties between the two countries. The US has a lot of forces and bases in many countries. Nobody is calling that an invasion or not respecting their sovereignty, because it follows treaties between the two countries.

If Russia has a treaty with Ukraine that allows it to mobilize some forces in Crimea, then that definitely changes a few things imo.

Does the treaty allow Russia to besiege Ukrainian bases in Crimea? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
 
Does the treaty allow Russia to besiege Ukrainian bases in Crimea? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
While we try to figure out if that's even true or not, that is still not the issue we're debating here. We're talking about the principle of "invading another country", and comparing it to the US invasion of Iraq. IMO they are not even comparable, for the reasons I mentioned.

What you're discussing is the details of how they acted, not the principle of having Russian troops in Crimea.
 
While we try to figure out if that's even true or not, that is still not the issue we're debating here. We're talking about the principle of "invading another country", and comparing it to the US invasion of Iraq. IMO they are not even comparable, for the reasons I mentioned.

What you're discussing is the details of how they acted, not the principle of having Russian troops in Crimea.

There's a difference in having troops in Crimea, in their bases, and troops moving around and surrounding Ukrainian bases demanding that they surrender their weapons (as has been reported by Reuters, the Guardian, and basically every other non-Russian media outlet).
 
You have to listen to the Tea Party nut cases. Mark Levin just compared Crimea - Russia to Mexico California and said America should not tolerate Russia invading Crimea like it should not tolerate Mexico occupying California. The arrogance and cheek of certain rural Americans sitting in Utah thinking they can decide the World politics is ridiculous.
 
While we try to figure out if that's even true or not, that is still not the issue we're debating here. We're talking about the principle of "invading another country", and comparing it to the US invasion of Iraq. IMO they are not even comparable, for the reasons I mentioned.

What you're discussing is the details of how they acted, not the principle of having Russian troops in Crimea.

Well I'm not sure that is even relevant, if Russia was occupying Alaska then may be but it isn't.
The Russians signed an agreement to recognise the borders of the Ukraine. They have now decided they don’t like that agreement and have moved troops into Crimea and decided it isn’t part of the Ukraine anymore. I don’t see any likeness between Iraq and the Ukraine other than perhaps a fondness for facial hair?
 
You have to listen to the Tea Party nut cases. Mark Levin just compared Crimea - Russia to Mexico California and said America should not tolerate Russia invading Crimea like it should not tolerate Mexico occupying California. The arrogance and cheek of certain rural Americans sitting in Utah thinking they can decide the World politics is ridiculous.


no worries. these inbreds are morons....they will never be anywhere near the Presidency.
 
Putin isn’t stupid and I’m sure he has thought about the probable reactions to this and factored in the price he will pay as far as that is foreseeable. The thing that bites you in this type of move is the unintended consequence.
The Baltic States will be uneasy as will the other breakaway former Soviet Republics. Without Crimea a now pro western govt in the Ukraine will move swiftly away from Russia and who could argue with them following Putin’s move.
Will the Ukraine want to pipe Russian gas across it following this annexation (are the pipe lines safe?) and what happens if fighting breaks out between the Ukrainian and Russian forces or Russia moves to annex more Ukrainian territory?
 
With the Russian military having effectively taken control of Crimea, a permanent division of Ukraine is becoming increasingly likely. Russian President Vladimir Putin's request to the Russian Senate to approve military intervention in Ukraine in order to "protect citizens of Russia" highlights how once seemingly innocuous "compatriot policies" are being used by Moscow to justify military efforts to regain Crimea for Russia.

Russia's compatriot policies are officially meant to protect ethnic Russians living in nearby countries, but have served Russia's territorial expansionism in the past.

In fact these compatriot policies can be viewed as part of Putin's new military doctrine that seeks territorial gains in the former Soviet republics, particularly where there is a receptive population of Russian speakers.

The compatriot policies, outlined in Russia's "National Security Strategy to 2020," were introduced in 2000 during Putin's first presidential term. They call for the political, economic and, potentially, military protection of the rights and interests of Russian citizens and ethnic Russians living abroad.

An effective tactic associated with the policies is to give Russian citizenship to ethnic Russians in foreign states so as to better protect their interests. Tellingly, Russia's national security strategy emphasizes that compatriots are an important tool for achieving Russia's foreign policy aims.

Looking at Russia's neighborhood, one can already see how compatriot policy has assisted Russia's foreign policy and territorial expansion. Prior to the Georgian-Russian war in 2008, Georgia was seeking closer relations with the West and distancing itself from Russia (in a very similar vein to Ukraine today).

Meanwhile Moscow was handing out citizenship to the inhabitants of the separatist Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Thus the "protection of Russian citizens" became one of Russia's main motives for going to war with Georgia in 2008 and securing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Russian protectorates.

But Ukraine does not have to look to the Caucasus to see compatriot policy in action. On Ukraine's southwestern border, Transnistria is a separatist territory of Moldova which has also become effectively a Russian military-controlled territory as the Kremlin sought to "protect" the Russian speakers and eventually Russian citizens.

Farther afield, Russia has also taken great pains to cultivate the loyalty of its compatriots in the Baltic states, particularly in Estonia and Latvia. Well aware of Russia's compatriot tactics, Lithuania, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council, called an urgent meeting and also invoked the NATO treaty on Ukraine.

For Moscow, Crimea is much more important than South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Transnistria. First, Crimea became Ukrainian territory only in 1954 when the Soviet Union's leader Nikita Khrushchev gave it to Kiev under the overall authority of the Soviet Union. Its loss after the disintegration of the Soviet Union was a major blow to leaders in Moscow.

Second, Sevastopol, one of Crimea's major cities, serves as the naval base for Russia's Black Sea fleet. It is a prized territory that allows the Russian navy direct access to the Mediterranean.

Crimea is a particularly soft target for Russia's compatriot policies. Unlike Western Ukraine, where people speak Ukrainian, or even Eastern Ukraine, which is Russian speaking, Crimea is predominantly ethnically Russian.

With Crimea's Russians protesting the turn of events in Kiev's Independence Square and expressing their solidarity with Moscow, a secessionist movement is almost inevitable. Already, the Crimean parliament announced that it would hold a referendum to increase the peninsula's autonomy from Ukraine and installed a pro-Russian prime minister.
While Crimea's fate seems almost certain to follow those of South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Transnistria, other states near Russia that also have significant populations of Russian speakers should be vigilant.

[Putin's compatriot doctrine is here to stay. Thus it is no wonder Georgia will likely be urgently seeking integration with NATO and the EU. Ukraine should stabilize its government and consider following suit.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/02/opinion/grigas-putin-compatriot-policy-crimea/index.html
 
Well I'm not sure that is even relevant, if Russia was occupying Alaska then may be but it isn't.
The Russians signed an agreement to recognise the borders of the Ukraine. They have now decided they don’t like that agreement and have moved troops into Crimea and decided it isn’t part of the Ukraine anymore. I don’t see any likeness between Iraq and the Ukraine other than perhaps a fondness for facial hair?
I actually agree that it's totally different. The US invasion of Iraq was much worse, and way more difficult to justify.

Now the problem with your post is the vague definition of "Ukraine". What we have is both the last elected president of Ukraine, and the elected local authorities of Crimea asking Russia to deploy forces to help protect the people and maintain security.

I know you'd like to side with the current (pro-West) government in Kiev, but there is no convincing reason why we should think that that government actually represents "Ukraine". Add to that, Russia already has a treaty with Ukraine that allows them to deploy troops in Crimea to protect the Russian interests. So it's not like it happened out of the blue.

Here are a couple of examples to make it easier for you..

In Egypt, when the last elected president (Morsi) was overthrown through "non-democratic ways", the US called it a coup and was not happy about it. How come this logic doesn't apply in Ukraine now?

In Bahrain when the Bahraini government asked the Saudi army to intervene to crush the peaceful protests, the world saw no problem with Saudi Arabia mobilizing their army in another country, merely to crush peaceful protests. How come nobody sanctioned Saudi Arabia?

I guess 4 wrongs don't make a right, eh?
 
So, what's Putin up to this morning then?
 
So, what's Putin up to this morning then?

I heard he's got Russian warships off the coast of the UK and Ireland after Zarlak wrote him a letter asking him to crush the Silent Running rebellion.
 
In Egypt, when the last elected president (Morsi) was overthrown through "non-democratic ways", the US called it a coup and was not happy about it. How come this logic doesn't apply in Ukraine now?

In Bahrain when the Bahraini government asked the Saudi army to intervene to crush the peaceful protests, the world saw no problem with Saudi Arabia mobilizing their army in another country, merely to crush peaceful protests. How come nobody sanctioned Saudi Arabia?

I guess 4 wrongs don't make a right, eh?

Egypt, it was a coup, It's Military leaders removed the president. Ukraine, he president was voted out by elected members of parliament, i don't see how being voted out by elected representatives of the people could be described as non-democratic.

Difference is that in Bahrain, most of the world see the King as legitimate ruler, so him asking another country to step in is OK as far as the world sees.. Not to mention opposition in Bahrain is suspected to have links with Iran. Where as most of the Western world views the interim government in Ukraine as legitimate leaders, these leaders do not want Russia on there land. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia has no intentions of annexing any part of Bahrain. Where Russia seems to have used the situation in Ukraine as an excuse for a land grab.
 
I heard he's got Russian warships off the coast of the UK and Ireland after Zarlak wrote him a letter asking him to crush the Silent Running rebellion.

:lol:

Just turned on sky, what's all this about militia?
 
No idea about militia. Although Putin has ordered all those troops on exercises near the Ukraine border back to their normal bases, which has eased fears of a full scale assault for now.
 
Apparently shots have been fired in a standoff between Russians and Ukraine soldiers over a military base the Ukrainians are trying to re enter.
 
Egypt, it was a coup, It's Military leaders removed the president. Ukraine, he president was voted out by elected members of parliament, i don't see how being voted out by elected representatives of the people could be described as non-democratic.
Re that first sentence, Google tahrir square protests please - calling Egypt a coup and Ukraine a revolution is not done - both were the fall of existing leadership (in Egypts case a one party country while in Ukraine's case an elected albeit incompetent government) through mass uprisings

Also Ukraine's president was not voted out, he absconded following mass protests which led to violence and then the opposition occupying the parliament. If anything, he was voted out AFTER absconding
 
Egypt, it was a coup, It's Military leaders removed the president. Ukraine, he president was voted out by elected members of parliament, i don't see how being voted out by elected representatives of the people could be described as non-democratic.

Difference is that in Bahrain, most of the world see the King as legitimate ruler, so him asking another country to step in is OK as far as the world sees.. Not to mention opposition in Bahrain is suspected to have links with Iran. Where as most of the Western world views the interim government in Ukraine as legitimate leaders, these leaders do not want Russia on there land. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia has no intentions of annexing any part of Bahrain. Where Russia seems to have used the situation in Ukraine as an excuse for a land grab.
Egypt: Wrong. All the parties wanted Morsi to step down, even the Muslim Brotherhood's allies in the parliament (Alnoor party) following mass (albeit peaceful) protests. So it's pretty much the exact same situation.

Bahrain: "suspected to have links with Iran"?! What does that have anything to do with the people's right to protest? And what does that have anything to do with legitimacy of invasions by a foreign country? And by the way, the percentage of people who went out to protest in Bahrain (out of the whole population) is bigger than the percentage of any other protest at any other part of the world. Thank you though for admitting that you're not really looking at things objectively here, but rather "who is our friend" and "who is our enemy".

As for "Saudi Arabia has no intentions to annex Bahrain"...

Saudi Arabia Seeks Union of Monarchies in Region

It's the exact same situation with Crimea now, except that the people of Bahrain actually don't want to merge with Saudi Arabia.

Finally, to overthrow a president democratically you need to go through the whole legal process, including the process of electing the new president democratically. They didn't follow that legal/democratic path. They just seized power by force, and then made crucial changes (like changing the whole juridical system) without consulting the people. Actually the local authorities in many Ukrainian cities don't recognize the new government.
 
The American government are huge hypocrites!!

They went to invade Iraq for non-existent reasons and were so minuscule. Now they are saying why are Russia going to invade Ukraine for such petty 19th century reason? Come on, give me a break.

America has set a precedent to invade any country that is weaker than you and if there is a little argument between both of you, you're getting invaded.
 
The American government are huge hypocrites!!

They went to invade Iraq for non-existent reasons and were so minuscule. Now they are saying why are Russia going to invade Ukraine for such petty 19th century reason? Come on, give me a break.

America has set a precedent to invade any country that is weaker than you and if there is a little argument between both of you, you're getting invaded.

By that logic, all invasions are ok are they ?
 
The American government are huge hypocrites!!

They went to invade Iraq for non-existent reasons and were so minuscule. Now they are saying why are Russia going to invade Ukraine for such petty 19th century reason? Come on, give me a break.

America has set a precedent to invade any country that is weaker than you and if there is a little argument between both of you, you're getting invaded.

It hasn't. There are plenty of countries that US hasn't ever invaded and countries invaded each other since the existense of countries. So, basically US hasn't set a precedent at all. Saying that, what Kerry said is obviously true but on the other side as hypocritical as you get. As you said they invaded Iraw for non-existent reasons (or better saying, money/oil reasons) and Russia is invading Crimea (and possibly will invade a big part of Ukraine) for the same money/gas reasons. What US did with Iraq doesn't make what Russia is doing with Ukraine right, but anyway, this is the way that has been always, stronger countries for their selfish interests invade weaker countries.

Saying that, it looks that there won't be a point of return. And frankly speaking, considering that the majority of Crimea people are Russians, I don't see the wrong of Crimea either becoming indipendent or joining Russia.
 
Hypocrisy is just a by product of the pursuit of power. States do what they need to in order to get ahead, consolidate their power, territory, and capabilities. Its the central mechanism of the international system. For all those barking about hypocrisy - this is how the system works, get over it.
 
It hasn't. There are plenty of countries that US hasn't ever invaded and countries invaded each other since the existense of countries. So, basically US hasn't set a precedent at all. Saying that, what Kerry said is obviously true but on the other side as hypocritical as you get. As you said they invaded Iraw for non-existent reasons (or better saying, money/oil reasons) and Russia is invading Crimea (and possibly will invade a big part of Ukraine) for the same money/gas reasons. What US did with Iraq doesn't make what Russia is doing with Ukraine right, but anyway, this is the way that has been always, stronger countries for their selfish interests invade weaker countries.
Sorry but like I said, you can't compare the Russian "invasion" of Ukraine to the US invasion of Iraq.

So many differences like: There are no US citizens in Iraq. There is no treaty between Iraq and the US allowing them to have troops on Iraqi ground. The Russian forces aren't trying to topple a government and change the regime. Iraq was never part of the US in the past...etc.

Besides, at least wait for a bullet to be shot before comparing the Russian "invasion" to a conflict that left 100,000+ civilians dead.
 
Sorry but like I said, you can't compare the Russian "invasion" of Ukraine to the US invasion of Iraq.

So many differences like: There are no US citizens in Iraq. There is no treaty between Iraq and the US allowing them to have troops on Iraqi ground. The Russian forces aren't trying to topple a government and change the regime. Iraq was never part of the US in the past...etc.

Besides, at least wait for a bullet to be shot before comparing the Russian "invasion" to a conflict that left 100,000+ civilians dead.

I'm pretty sure you are the one comparing the situations. All he is saying is that