Russia Discussion

BBC:
BREAKING NEWS
Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.
 
Scorpy said:
BBC:
BREAKING NEWS
Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.
Click to expand...

Have these Ukranian forces in anyway attacked or threatened the ethnic Russians in the Crimea?
 
sun_tzu said:
there would be some irony if the uk are happy to let scotland become independent in their own doorstep if it is what the people want but would try and prevent crimea becoming part of russia thousands of miles away.

They should hold a refferendum with UN observers allowed and both sides agree to abide by the results
Click to expand...

Well Ukraine did approach the UN a couple of days ago, though they probably should have sought UN help sooner. Russia certainly could have used the UN if it felt ethnic Russians were in danger. Certainly the US and the EU could also us the UN to get all sides talking on this or to seek sanctions.
 
JustAFan said:
Have these Ukranian forces in anyway attacked or threatened the ethnic Russians in the Crimea?
Click to expand...

No they haven't. Its all trumped up Bullshit by state sponsored Russian TV (RT for example) that is being used to foment nationalist hysteria in Crimea and eastern Ukraine to legitimize what is inescapably an invasion of another country. Its really no different than the nonsense that the likes of FoxNews were flogging in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. The Russian formula here is apparently to manufacture fear and paranoia that "ultra nationalists" and "fascists" are going to invade Crimea, therefore Russia must invade Ukraine to protect "its citizens". Its total trumped up Bullshit for the easily led.
 
JustAFan said:
Have these Ukranian forces in anyway attacked or threatened the ethnic Russians in the Crimea?
Click to expand...

Opportunism by the Russians. As mentioned above they are using whatever flimsy grounds they can think up to make the most of this problem.
 
Scorpy said:
BBC:
BREAKING NEWS
Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.
Click to expand...

I also read that the Russians said that NATO's criticism of their actions would do nothing to help stabilise the situation. So even putting distance between themselves and Russia, I don't see the Ukraine forces surrendering myself, as I said before they are all very proud countries out there and besides Ukraine have done nothing wrong have they?
 
Raoul said:
No they haven't. Its all trumped up Bullshit by state sponsored Russian TV (RT for example) that is being used to foment nationalist hysteria in Crimea and eastern Russia in order to legitimize what is inescapably an invasion of another country. Its really no different than the nonsense that the likes of FoxNews were flogging in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. The Russian formula here is apparently to manufacture fear and paranoia that "ultra nationalists" and "fascists" are going to invade Crimea, therefore Russia must invade Ukraine to protect "its citizens". Its total trumped up Bullshit for the easily led.
Click to expand...

I've read quite a bit of Kyev based news today, including Interfax, and they are full of horseshit. First, there is no invasion as the Russians are allowed to hold up to 25000 troops in Crimea. Second, the newly formed government is made up of members who do in fact belong to right-wing (meaning fascist, anti-semitic, not just 'conservative') parties. Posts are given away to various unelected party members and rich businessman (democracy, lol). Third, the amount of bullshit coming from the White House recently is not only utterly embarrassing but it also does nothing in order to de-escalate the current tensions. In fact the impression is that Washington is deliberately trying to create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia through the continuous demonization of the Russians.
 
Andrew~ said:
Opportunism by the Russians. As mentioned above they are using whatever flimsy grounds they can think up to make the most of this problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you really have a full grasp of the situation, I can tell.
 
Raoul said:
No they haven't. Its all trumped up Bullshit by state sponsored Russian TV (RT for example) that is being used to foment nationalist hysteria in Crimea and eastern Ukraine to legitimize what is inescapably an invasion of another country. Its really no different than the nonsense that the likes of FoxNews were flogging in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. The Russian formula here is apparently to manufacture fear and paranoia that "ultra nationalists" and "fascists" are going to invade Crimea, therefore Russia must invade Ukraine to protect "its citizens". Its total trumped up Bullshit for the easily led.
Click to expand...


I knew that, but just was curious to see what the response would be and see if anyone was buying the Russians story.

OF course the real question I guess is regardless of what other nations (IE the United States) have done in the past, recent or distant or both, in general do the posters in the CE section think the Russian invervention is legit? If yes, then fine. If no, then taking it one step further, again regardless of what other nations have done in the recent or distant past, what do you think the reponse from other nations of the world ought to be?

Once again a situation is going on where I do not support the use of US military force. So I rule that out. Diplomacy is the only answer. though I am not sure anyone has the right leverage with all sides to make anything happen. In the end the Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine will end up part of Russia and not much anyone can do about it. Putin will be more popular then ever in Russia. He may pay some short term prices, ie the G8 Summit might get moved and might be a G7 should Putin decide not to attend in protest. Overall though it will be viewed as a win for Putin on the world stage since he will get what he wants.
 
iSparky said:
I also read that the Russians said that NATO's criticism of their actions would do nothing to help stabilise the situation. So even putting distance between themselves and Russia, I don't see the Ukraine forces surrendering myself, as I said before they are all very proud countries out there and besides Ukraine have done nothing wrong have they?
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians are right not to surrender and call up their reserves. Its really not about Crimea, but rather about the precedent. If Putin does it there, he will almost certainly manufacture similar reasons to do it in other parts of Ukraine. Just ask the Georgians if this is a one off.
 
Mihajlovic said:
I've read quite a bit of Kyev based news today, including Interfax, and they are full of horseshit. First, there is no invasion as the Russians are allowed to hold up to 25000 troops in Crimea. Second, the newly formed government is made up of members who do in fact belong to right-wing (meaning fascist, anti-semitic, not just 'conservative') parties. Posts are given away to various unelected party members and rich businessman (democracy, lol). Third, the amount of bullshit coming from the White House recently is not only utterly embarrassing but it also does nothing in order to de-escalate the current tensions. In fact the impression is that Washington is deliberately trying to create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia by the continuous demonization of the Russians.
Click to expand...

But is the greater concern not the fact that they are apparently stacking up more troops at the Russian side of the boarder? Or is that even true at all? Im not really up to full speed with politics out in those countries to be honest so Im only going by media reports but how would the white house gain anything by escalating the situation further? I thought it would have been in their best interests to get it all calmed down and dispel an atmosphere asap?
 
Scorpy said:
BBC:
BREAKING NEWS
Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.
Click to expand...

"According to the U.S. Department of State, “Russian forces now have complete operational control of the Crimean Peninsula, some 6,000-plus airborne and naval forces.” According to figures cited by the Ukraine mission at the United Nations, there were as many as 15,000 troops."

Something's not adding up..
 
There's a difference the size of the Grand Canyon between being allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea and invading Crimea, and taking complete military operational control of the entire peninsula.
 
Raoul said:
There's a difference the size of the Grand Canyon between being allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea and invading Crimea, and taking complete military operational control of the entire peninsula.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have not read the treaty that gives Russia troops the rights to certain bases, but I am guessing that the treaty doesn't give them the right to take control of the airports or eject Ukrainian troops, but then again maybe it does.
 
iSparky said:
But is the greater concern not the fact that they are apparently stacking up more troops at the Russian side of the boarder? Or is that even true at all? Im not really up to full speed with politics out in those countries to be honest so Im only going by media reports but how would the white house gain anything by escalating the situation further? I thought it would have been in their best interests to get it all calmed down and dispel an atmosphere asap?
Click to expand...

They dont have anything to gain and they wont do anything other than make comments like Kerry's. If they go through with a military intervention then they are immensely stupid. Thank god Republicans arent in power.
 
Mihajlovic said:
"According to the U.S. Department of State, “Russian forces now have complete operational control of the Crimean Peninsula, some 6,000-plus airborne and naval forces.” According to figures cited by the Ukraine mission at the United Nations, there were as many as 15,000 troops."

Something's not adding up..
Click to expand...


No it makes sense. Obviously there are Ukrainian military bases in the Crimea that are still under Ukrainian control. But Russian military forces are in control of things like the airports, seaports, etc. The Russians are now telling the Ukrainian troops they have to leave either by surrendering or by being moved out by use of force. Pretty straight-forward.
 
Raoul said:
There's a difference the size of the Grand Canyon between being allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea and invading Crimea, and taking complete military operational control of the entire peninsula.
Click to expand...

It's a signed agreement. Russia can hold up to 25000 troops in Crimea. If Russia is now moving troops over to Crimea in order to protect their fleet, for example, how exactly is that an invasion if the troops are being moved as per the agreement?

Of course, in this context I do understand your need for the repeated use of buzz-words, such as 'invasion'. They have to be repeated ad infinitum until they are firmly locked in everyone's heads. And there are many more buzz words which haven't been used yet, such as 'massacre' and 'rape', etc. I'm sure Interfax will come up with a suitable story pretty quick.
 
Mihajlovic said:
It's a signed agreement. Russia can hold up to 25000 troops in Crimea. If Russia is now moving troops over to Crimea in order to protect their fleet, for example, how exactly is that an invasion if the troops are being moved as per the agreement?

Of course, in this context I do understand your need for the repeated use of buzz-words, such as 'invasion'. They have to be repeated ad infinitum until they are firmly locked in everyone's heads. And there are many more buzz words which haven't been used yet, such as 'massacre' and 'rape', etc. I'm sure Interfax will come up with a suitable story pretty quick.
Click to expand...

Who issued any threats to the Black Sea fleet? ARe these movements truly allowed by the treaty? Does the treaty state that the Russians can send in 25K troops and demand the Ukrainians leave or else? Does it state they can take control of the airports? Like I said in a previous post, I have not read the treaty so I am not sure what it does or does not allow.
 
JustAFan said:
Yeah, I have not read the treaty that gives Russia troops the rights to certain bases, but I am guessing that the treaty doesn't give them the right to take control of the airports or eject Ukrainian troops, but then again maybe it does.
Click to expand...

Haven't read it myself, it's the 1999 agreement and there are at least two versions of it, from what I've read so far.
 
Mihajlovic said:
It's a signed agreement. Russia can hold up to 25000 troops in Crimea. If Russia is now moving troops over to Crimea in order to protect their fleet, for example, how exactly is that an invasion if the troops are being moved as per the agreement?

Of course, in this context I do understand your need for the repeated use of buzz-words, such as 'invasion'. They have to be repeated ad infinitum until they are firmly locked in everyone's heads. And there are many more buzz words which haven't been used yet, such as 'massacre' and 'rape', etc. I'm sure Interfax will come up with a suitable story pretty quick.
Click to expand...

This is Baghdad Bob stuff. Russian troops aren't only in Sevastopol protecting their naval assets. They've completely taken over the entire Peninsula and laid siege to Ukrainian military outposts, taken over airports, communication centers, and blocked air and road access to all of Crimea.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Putin is only trying to protect Ukraina's Russian population from an armed, right-wing mob that ousted an elected president by means of aggression and violence. The behaviour of the Ukrainian fascists over the last few weeks has been deeply disturbing. Putin has most likely prevented a massacre on the Russian civilian population.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out the use of one of those "buzzwords"
 
JustAFan said:
Who issued any threats to the Black Sea fleet? ARe these movements truly allowed by the treaty? Does the treaty state that the Russians can send in 25K troops and demand the Ukrainians leave or else? Does it state they can take control of the airports? Like I said in a previous post, I have not read the treaty so I am not sure what it does or does not allow.
Click to expand...

"According to the agreement signed between the Russia and Ukraine in 1999, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet leases a network of over 1,000 naval facilities on the Crimean Peninsula, including a naval base in Sevastopol, two airfields and a training facility in Feodosia. The bases can include up to 25,000 personnel, 22 airplanes, up to 24 artillery complexes, and 132 armored trucks.

“When the agreement was signed no one could have imagined that it would come to this. But as it is, each side can interpret the agreement in its own way, and it will be right,” said Alexei Malashenko, a security expert at Moscow’s Carnegie Center. “Russia says it’s defending its fleet, the other side says it’s violating its sovereignty.”

http://themoscownews.com/news/20140303/192276993/Crimea-crisis-Role-of-Russias-Black-Sea-Fleet.html
 
Russian state TV apparently just issued a statement saying Ukrainian forces have until Tuesday to surrender or else have their facilities taken by force. Some non-invasion this is.
 
JustAFan said:
Just pointing out the use of one of those "buzzwords"
Click to expand...

That post was in response to one of Raoul's posts and I chose the word deliberately as if was one of his very frequently used words during the Libyan civil war. The aim is simply to shout loudest. Whether it's all true or not, doesn't really matter that much in the end.
 
Mihajlovic said:
That post was in response to one of Raoul's posts and I chose the word deliberately as if was one of his very frequently used words during the Libyan civil war. The aim is simply to shout loudest. Whether it's all true or not, doesn't really matter that much in the end.
Click to expand...
You were shouting the wrong word. WMD is the right word.
 
It makes little sense to refer to a treaty between two nations when one nation is currently under the control of a non-elected group of people who have seized power through force and who does not reflect the ethnical and political landscape in Ukraine as a whole. There isnt a single person in the current government from the southern or eastern parts of Ukraine, so its a completely lopsided anti-Russian government right now whereas the actual opinion in the people is far more divided. Does anyone really expect Russia to accept the current government in Ukraine?

I wonder how the situation would be viewed by the west if a western-friendly government who decided to sever ties with Russia had been toppled by pro-Russian opposition who refused to follow a signed agreement to cease confrontations and created a completely russian friendly new government. No doubt the narrative would be that Kreml had supported the opposition financially and politically and it would have been labelled an illegitimate coup d'etat.
 
Bross said:
It makes little sense to refer to a treaty between two nations when one nation is currently under the control of a non-elected group of people who have seized power through force and who does not reflect the ethnical and political landscape in Ukraine as a whole. There isnt a single person in the current government from the southern or eastern parts of Ukraine, so its a completely lopsided anti-Russian government right now whereas the actual opinion in the people is far more divided. Does anyone really expect Russia to accept the current government in Ukraine?

I wonder how the situation would be viewed by the west if a western-friendly government who decided to sever ties with Russia had been toppled by pro-Russian opposition who refused to follow a signed agreement to cease confrontations and created a completely russian friendly new government. No doubt the narrative would be that Kreml had supported the opposition financially and politically and it would have been labelled an illegitimate coup d'etat.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Ukraine will have an election soon and probably reelect Tymoshenko who bridges the gap between north/west and east/south, and is actually from a Russian part of those daft maps people seem to be posting all over the place.
 
Mihajlovic said:
"According to the agreement signed between the Russia and Ukraine in 1999, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet leases a network of over 1,000 naval facilities on the Crimean Peninsula, including a naval base in Sevastopol, two airfields and a training facility in Feodosia. The bases can include up to 25,000 personnel, 22 airplanes, up to 24 artillery complexes, and 132 armored trucks.

“When the agreement was signed no one could have imagined that it would come to this. But as it is, each side can interpret the agreement in its own way, and it will be right,” said Alexei Malashenko, a security expert at Moscow’s Carnegie Center. “Russia says it’s defending its fleet, the other side says it’s violating its sovereignty.”

http://themoscownews.com/news/20140303/192276993/Crimea-crisis-Role-of-Russias-Black-Sea-Fleet.html
Click to expand...

Ah so the agreement says it can have those troops on the bases, it also says they can act in self-defense beyond those bases , but surely the agreement assumes there has to be a legitimate threat to the Black Sea Fleet. At this time, there really does not seem to be one.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Well, if everything fails, Russia only has to accuse Ukraine of possessing WMD and then invade them. There is previous for this.
Click to expand...
Except Ukraine handed over their 2000 wmds to Russia in 1994

Russia only wants Crimea as it is their only warm water port left
 
Sir Matt said:
Why not? The only reason Russia's economy is in good shape is that Europe imports oil and natural gas from Russia. If the EU were to cut off or limit those imports and supplement from elsewhere, Russia's economy would take a major hit.
Click to expand...

Interesting that western Ukraine has seen a lot of fracking research by the US and UK recently - potentially huge gas reserves - reducing dependence on Russia

Oh look it is the oil again
 
Mihajlovic said:
That post was in response to one of Raoul's posts and I chose the word deliberately as if was one of his very frequently used words during the Libyan civil war. The aim is simply to shout loudest. Whether it's all true or not, doesn't really matter that much in the end.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. But at least it is nice to know that basically there is no point reading anything you say since it is all being controlled by Raoul, even if the post you quoted when you made your massacre statement was not Raoul's.
 
That'sHernandez said:
Pretty much, it's happened before in Georgia so it will happen again. The pro-EU Ukrainians will have the last laugh.
Click to expand...
Err what happened in Georgia? The Georgian government invaded an autonomous region first and Russia retaliated

Wikipedia should be a good place to start reading

Let's not get facts mixed up please
 
Mihajlovic said:
It's a signed agreement. Russia can hold up to 25000 troops in Crimea. If Russia is now moving troops over to Crimea in order to protect their fleet, for example, how exactly is that an invasion if the troops are being moved as per the agreement?

Of course, in this context I do understand your need for the repeated use of buzz-words, such as 'invasion'. They have to be repeated ad infinitum until they are firmly locked in everyone's heads. And there are many more buzz words which haven't been used yet, such as 'massacre' and 'rape', etc. I'm sure Interfax will come up with a suitable story pretty quick.
Click to expand...

Hello Mr Putin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.