Ukraine

[Harry Smith]

As I'm sure most of you know Ukraine is pretty much on the brink of civil war-the protesters are in control of the Capital city of Kiev and the President has fled to the east. This was all started by the people protesting about Ukraine moving away from the EU and towards Russia.

There's been reports that Russia could try and take parts of Ukraine by force in the next 48 hours, do you think this will happen? Should the EU intervene if Russia attacks Ukraine? Do the Russians have any right to do this?

[Cygnus]

It is uncertain about Russia's actions but one thing is mostly evident, Putin is not afraid of waging a war. Although I'd be against this, because, you know, war isn't good.

[Vlerchan]

I think the pro-Yanukovich, pro-Russian and majority ethnic-Russian people (read: people of Crimeria, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and Lugansk) who want to become a Russian puppet-state (as opposed to a Western puppet-state - because that's your two choices here) should be allowed to cede and do such. If that involves Russia (temporarily) militarily annexing Crimeria, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and Lugansk to allow for such then so be it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/22/us-ukraine-crisis-regions-idUSBREA1L0KH20140222

[Ethe14]

Russia could easily step in at any time they want but I'm sure that if they did the EU or United Sates would get very angry. I say let them have their president election and let them start from scratch.

[Harry Smith]

I think the pro-Yanukovich, pro-Russian and majority ethnic-Russian people (read: people of Crimeria, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and Lugansk) who want to become a Russian puppet-state (as opposed to a Western puppet-state - because that's your two choices here) should be allowed to cede and do such. If that involves Russia (temporarily) militarily annexing Crimeria, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and Lugansk to allow for such then so be it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/22/us-ukraine-crisis-regions-idUSBREA1L0KH20140222

We can't let the Russians just annex half of the Ukraine with military force, if they east wants succession then we have to go through the formal processes. We can't let Putin rebuild his soviet empire-even if the majority support succession Putin doesn't have the right invade

[Vlerchan]

[...] if they east wants succession then we have to go through the formal processes.

Sure. I never said we should skip the formal processes. I said - or at least meant - that if (or when) the formal process' fail or don't materialize then I would support Russian military intervention in order to assert the independence of the (ethnic-Russian) people of Crimeria, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and Lugansk.

If that involves Russia [...] then so be it.

I thought my repeated support of the use of diplomacy in the past would eliminate the need to specify that I'd prefer if the Eastern and Western people of Ukraine attempted to settle the issue peacefully and diplomatically first; guess not.

We can't let Putin rebuild his soviet empire.

In what way does safeguarding the succession movement of the Eastern-Ukrainian people constitute an attempt to re-build the Soviet Empire?

[...] even if the majority support succession Putin doesn't have the right invade

Putin has more of a right to invade and secure the independence of the Eastern-Ukrainian people than the new government has to force those same people to remain within a unified Ukraine against their wills.

EDIT: Just watched the news: Putin agreed with Merkel that Ukrainian territorial integrity must be preserved. (Source). (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/95038/World/International/Merkel,-Putin-agree-on-preserving-Ukraine-territor.aspx) Guess the Eastern-Ukranians are on their own.

[tovaris]

1. No coumtry has the right to atack another!
Russia has done some prety hary things in the past, so such action is not excluded, and i seriously doubt they would do something like that. They moght hovever send/be sending military units over the border in ade of the former president.
There should be militara action on no part, and i think the EU should keep out of ukranian mathers.

[Harry Smith]

Sure. I never said we should skip the formal processes. I said - or at least meant - that if (or when) the formal process' fail or don't materialize then I would support Russian military intervention in order to assert the independence of the (ethnic-Russian) people of Crimeria, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and Lugansk.



I thought my repeated support of the use of diplomacy in the past would eliminate the need to specify that I'd prefer if the Eastern and Western people of Ukraine attempted to settle the issue peacefully and diplomatically first; guess not.



In what way does safeguarding the succession movement of the Eastern-Ukrainian people constitute an attempt to re-build the Soviet Empire?



Putin has more of a right to invade and secure the independence of the Eastern-Ukrainian people than the new government has to force those same people to remain within a unified Ukraine against their wills.

EDIT: Just watched the news: Putin agreed with Merkel that Ukrainian territorial integrity must be preserved. (Source). (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/95038/World/International/Merkel,-Putin-agree-on-preserving-Ukraine-territor.aspx) Guess the Eastern-Ukranians are on their own.

Russia has no right to use force to carve up the Ukraine-this is an area that the Russians have been oppressing for the last 100 years. They're more hated than the Germans. Only 58% of the population of the Crimea are ethnically Russian, they've got autonomy from the Ukraine government-that should be fine.

If Russia have the right to invade based on such weak ethnic claims that surely France have a right to invade Canada and mexico have a right to invade the border states

Putin's been trying to expand his influence-he invaded Georgia in 2008 and he's been supporting the ex Ukraine president in his extremely unpopular tenure.

[Vlerchan]

Russia has no right to use force to carve up the Ukraine-this is an area that the Russians have been oppressing for the last 100 years.

You're strawmanning my proposition.

I support Russia safeguarding any attempt at succession by the Eastern-Ukranian people. Russia wouldn't be doing any carving up. Russia would simply ensure that the Western-Ukrainians didn't attempt to undermine any succession attempt by the Eastern-Ukrainian people. Russia wouldn't be doing any carving up. (Yes. That was deliberate.)

They're more hated than the Germans.

I'd love to see a poll supporting the idea that a majority of Eastern-Ukrainian people hate Russia.

[...]they've got autonomy from the Ukraine government-that should be fine.

If they're arguing for more that just autonomy then it's clearly not enough.

If Russia have the right to invade based on such weak ethnic claims that surely France have a right to invade Canada and mexico have a right to invade the border states.

The American border states have expressed no intent to split from America. This is unlike those in Eastern-Ukraine.

You're just getting ridiculous with Canada. The Canadians already have their own state.

[...] he invaded Georgia in 2008

In defense.

[...] and he's been supporting the ex Ukraine president in his extremely unpopular tenure.

It would contradict common sense to support the people who don't want to do business with your country.

[Harry Smith]

You're strawmanning my proposition.

I support Russia safeguarding any attempt at succession by the Eastern-Ukranian people. Russia wouldn't be doing any carving up. Russia would simply ensure that the Western-Ukrainians didn't attempt to undermine any succession attempt by the Eastern-Ukrainian people. Russia wouldn't be doing any carving up. (Yes. That was deliberate.)



I'd love to see a poll supporting the idea that a majority of Eastern-Ukrainian people hate Russia.



If they're arguing for more that just autonomy then it's clearly not enough.



The American border states have expressed no intent to split from America. This is unlike those in Eastern-Ukraine.

You're just getting ridiculous with Canada. The Canadians already have their own state.



In defense.



It would contradict common sense to support the people who don't want to do business with your country.

Do you honestly think that Putin cares about the people of the Ukraine? It seems awfully convenient for him doesn't it. I don't understand how you can support Russia attacking a sovereign nation-they've got no right to do that-58% ethnic Russians isn't a good Casus Belli for war.

I wasn't referring to eastern Ukraine- but more so to the Ukraine in general and the ex soviet countries-I've talked to people there and they hate the Russians for what they did over 60 years.

Not really, there's a vocal part of French Canada such as Quebec who would want to be 'French'. Would you support France attacking a sovereign nation on these grounds?

Wasn't at all in defense, Georgia responded to attacks on peace-keepers from a nation that wasn't recognized by the UN. The Russians had been moving troops into Georgia for weeks. Putin's trying to expand his empire through force-Russia needs to respect sovereign nations. These strong arm tactics worked in the 1950's but not anymore

Have you seen how Putin treats the people in his own country? He's a ruthless,murderous, power hungry demagogue-you can try and paint him as some sort of liberator but he's to invoke Godwin he's no different to Hitler in '38 with Czechoslovakia. Is he?

[Vlerchan]

Do you honestly think that Putin cares about the people of the Ukraine?

No.

That's why he's vowed to preserve Ukrainian territorial integrity and is not going through with my proposal.

I don't understand how you can support Russia attacking a sovereign nation-they've got no right to do that-58% ethnic Russians isn't a good Casus Belli for war.

I support Russia safeguarding the succession attempt of the Eastern-Ukrainian people. Again: this would only be necessary if the Western-Ukrainians attempt to use force against the Eastern-Ukrainians in order to retain a unified Ukraine. It would be a war in defense of an oppressed people that way.

I wasn't referring to eastern Ukraine- but more so to the Ukraine in general and the ex soviet countries-I've talked to people there and they hate the Russians for what they did over 60 years.

So you've absolutely no proof that the Eastern-Ukrainians hate the Russians?

Not really, there's a vocal part of French Canada such as Quebec who would want to be 'French'.

You said Canada. Not Qúebec.

The separatists in Qúebec are also in the minority at the moment.

Would you support France attacking a sovereign nation on these grounds?

You'll find that the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that if the Qúebecois vote in favor of succession then they're legally entitled to it. There would be no need for French intervention.

Wasn't at all in defense [...]

Take it up with the EU. (Source) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eu-report-independent-experts-blame-georgia-for-south-ossetia-war-a-650228.html)


Georgia responded to attacks on peace-keepers from a nation that wasn't recognized by the UN.

Yes. Russia was protecting the minorities (again!) in South Ossetia. The same ones that Georgia had committed genocide against before.

[I'll address the rest when I get time tomorrow.]

[Harry Smith]

No.

That's why he's vowed to preserve Ukrainian territorial integrity and is not going through with my proposal. I support Russia safeguarding the succession attempt of the Eastern-Ukrainian people. Again: this would only be necessary if the Western-Ukrainians attempt to use force against the Eastern-Ukrainians in order to retain a unified Ukraine. It would be a war in defense of an oppressed people that way. So you've absolutely no proof that the Eastern-Ukrainians hate the Russians? You said Canada. Not Qúebec.The separatists in Qúebec are also in the minority at the moment.You'll find that the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that if the Qúebecois vote in favor of succession then they're legally entitled to it. There would be no need for French intervention.
Take it up with the EU. (Source) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eu-report-independent-experts-blame-georgia-for-south-ossetia-war-a-650228.html)
Yes. Russia was protecting the minorities (again!) in South Ossetia. The same ones that Georgia had committed genocide against before.

[I'll address the rest when I get time tomorrow.]

The Russians don't understand the meaning of safeguarding-by going in all they'd do is undermine the current Ukrainian government, steal half the government and then install the deposed president back on his pseudo throne.

Opprssed people? That's a pretty loosely used phrase. I don't understand how they're being oppressed-it's a single issue of them not being happy that Putin's buddy is being kicked off. Only 58% is ethnically Russian and I'm pretty certain that not all of the 58 would support joining Russia. As I said above Russia wouldn't be fighting with or for the oppressed people-Putin would use it as an excuse.

I never said that EASTERN Ukraine had the Russians did it? Please find a quote of that because you seem to be trying to draw me into something I didn't say. Russia have raped Ukraine for the last 80 years-I'm glad that the people of Ukraine are finally standing up for their sovereign right

statistics released October 21, 2010, according to the Institute of Sociology of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, positive attitudes towards Russians have continued to decrease since 1994. In response to a question gauging tolerance of Russians, 15% of Western Ukrainians responded positively. In Central Ukraine, 30% responded positively (from 60% in 1994);

A vote for succession does't have to be legally binding. In my eyes the 2008 war was Russia trying to exert influence over a former soviet state- can't you see the trend? First Georgia, then Ukraine, where next? Poland?

[Vlerchan]

-Russia needs to respect sovereign nations.

And I'm sure the Russians will continue to do such if Ukraine respect the wishes of its minorities.

Have you seen how Putin treats the people in his own country? He's a ruthless,murderous, power hungry demagogue [...]

Irrelevant.

Russian domestic policies have nothing to do with this.

you can try and paint him as some sort of liberator but he's to invoke Godwin he's no different to Hitler in '38 with Czechoslovakia. Is he?

There's a number of differences (- I'm presuming you're talking about the annexation of the Sudtenland and not the entirety of Czechoslovakia here too). Though I think the more important point to make here is that just because Hitler did something (not-all-that) similar in the past doesn't make it inherently wrong.

The Russians don't understand the meaning of safeguarding-by going in all they'd do is undermine the current Ukrainian government[1], steal half the government[2] and then install the deposed president back on his pseudo throne[3].

This is called an argument to adverse consequences. I'll address it anyway though:

[1]: The whole point of an intervention would be to undermine the Western-Ukrainian government and thus end their dominion over Eastern-Ukraine.

[2]: It's somewhat less than half though I get that this was largely for effect.

[3]: You mean the deposed president that the Eastern-Ukrainians largely support?

Opprssed people? That's a pretty loosely used phrase. I don't understand how they're being oppressed

What's not oppressive about forcing a group of people to remain within your country against their wills?

it's a single issue of them not being happy that Putin's buddy is being kicked off.

Irrelevant.

If the people of Eastern-Ukraine want independence then they should be heard regardless of how minor you believe their issues to be.

Only 58% is ethnically Russian and I'm pretty certain that not all of the 58 would support joining Russia.

Of course I'll be supporting a referendum before any action is taken. If it turns out that a majority of Eastern-Ukrainians don't want independence then so be it. This entire argument only applies in the case that they actually do.

I never said that EASTERN Ukraine had the Russians did it?

I never said you did.

I'm simply only interested with the opinion of the Eastern-Ukranians because that's the people who this entire argument concerns.
Russia have raped Ukraine for the last 80 years-I'm glad that the people of Ukraine are finally standing up for their sovereign right.

I'm also happy that Kiev is making a move towards further integration with the Eurozone and as an extension of that the West.

I simply like to see the rights of dissenting minorities respected too.

In my eyes the 2008 war was Russia trying to exert influence over a former soviet state- can't you see the trend? First Georgia, then Ukraine, where next? Poland?

Could you expand on this? I want to see where such accusations are heading before I begin any form of critique.

News: Eastern-Ukranians refusing to recognise the new transition-government. Not shocked here. (Source). (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/russia-refuses-to-recognise-ukraine-government/5284182) Russia have also stated that they're willing to go to war over Crimeria and have begun deploying troops. I'm somewhat shocked here. (Source) (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-deploys-ships-troops-ukraines-crimea-raising-tensions-1437762)

[Harry Smith]

And I'm sure the Russians will continue to do such if Ukraine respect the wishes of its minorities.



Irrelevant.

Russian domestic policies have nothing to do with this.



There's a number of differences (- I'm presuming you're talking about the annexation of the Sudtenland and not the entirety of Czechoslovakia here too). Though I think the more important point to make here is that just because Hitler did something (not-all-that) similar in the past doesn't make it inherently wrong.



This is called an argument to adverse consequences. I'll address it anyway though:

[1]: The whole point of an intervention would be to undermine the Western-Ukrainian government and thus end their dominion over Eastern-Ukraine.

[2]: It's somewhat less than half though I get that this was largely for effect.

[3]: You mean the deposed president that the Eastern-Ukrainians largely support?



What's not oppressive about forcing a group of people to remain within your country against their wills?



Irrelevant.

If the people of Eastern-Ukraine want independence then they should be heard regardless of how minor you believe their issues to be.



Of course I'll be supporting a referendum before any action is taken. If it turns out that a majority of Eastern-Ukrainians don't want independence then so be it. This entire argument only applies in the case that they actually do.



I never said you did.

I'm simply only interested with the opinion of the Eastern-Ukranians because that's the people who this entire argument concerns.


I'm also happy that Kiev is making a move towards further integration with the Eurozone and as an extension of that the West.

I simply like to see the rights of dissenting minorities respected too.



Could you expand on this? I want to see where such accusations are heading before I begin any form of critique.

News: Eastern-Ukranians refusing to recognise the new transition-government. Not shocked here. (Source). (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/russia-refuses-to-recognise-ukraine-government/5284182) Russia have also stated that they're willing to go to war over Crimeria and have begun deploying troops. I'm somewhat shocked here. (Source) (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-deploys-ships-troops-ukraines-crimea-raising-tensions-1437762)

The problem is that there is no formal process- have a referendum, go through the formal stages and let the people vote on the issue. Just because a vocal part of east Ukraine wants to join Russia doesn't mean that the whole region should join Russia, any change needs to be done at the table-not at the barrel of a Russian Tank.

The current Ukrainian govt have done everything possible for the ethnic Russians-they've given them a devolved parliament.

The only comparison with Nazism is that it's showing how the break up of one empire (Imperial germany) can lead to the next force of imperialism (nazis) to grabbing land that was previously owned by them.

I'd hope and expect that Ukraine respond in full force to any Russian attack on Ukrainian land-I'd also hope that the EU provide full support for the the new Ukrainian government and if possible provide an armed response.

Putin is trying to exert his influence over nations that we under soviet rule for the last 80 years, he isn't even being subtle about it. When I look at Ukraine I'm happy that people have managed to take a form of direct action to depose an extremely corrupt government-people see it as West VS East in Ukraine but the people aren't protesting about the EU alone-it's about the corrupt Russian backed government.

It's purely reactionary by Putin-he's going threw the various nations that his friends in the KGB use to rule and he's trying to scare them.If Putin attacks now it will be an attack on another sovereign nation with a very weak CB

[Vlerchan]

The problem is that there is no formal process- have a referendum, go through the formal stages and let the people vote on the issue.

A referendum is the formal processes I was referring to.

Just because a vocal part of east Ukraine wants to join Russia doesn't mean that the whole region should join Russia [...]

The vocal part is the Eastern-Ukrainian people's legally-elected representatives; legally-elected representatives who as far as I'm aware are going unchallenged by their constituents. It seems to me like Eastern-Ukraine has spoken; you just don't seem to want to hear it.

I agree that that referendum would be preferable however; I'd rather we all be sure of the wants of the Eastern-Ukrainian people before attempting any action that could be permanent.

The current Ukrainian govt have done everything possible for the ethnic Russians-they've given them a devolved parliament.

And? I'm failing to see why giving the Eastern-Ukrainian people their own devolved-parliament matter at this stage: the Eastern-Ukrainian people clearly want more that a devolved-parliament.

The only comparison with Nazism is that it's showing how the break up of one empire (Imperial germany) can lead to the next force of imperialism (nazis) to grabbing land that was previously owned by them.

Russia didn't claim any land for the Georgian conflict and in the proposed Ukrainian conflict they wouldn't be claiming any land for themselves there either.

I'd hope and expect that Ukraine respond in full force to any Russian attack on Ukrainian land[1]-I'd also hope that the EU provide full support for the the new Ukrainian government[2] and if possible provide an armed response[3].

[1]: The Ukraine will be crushed.

[2]: They pretty-much already have.

[3]: The EU won't for a variety of reasons.

Putin is trying to exert his influence over nations that we under soviet rule for the last 80 years, he isn't even being subtle about it. When I look at Ukraine I'm happy that people have managed to take a form of direct action to depose an extremely corrupt government-people see it as West VS East in Ukraine but the people aren't protesting about the EU alone-it's about the corrupt Russian backed government.

The point that you continuously seem to miss is that the Eastern-Ukrainians a) largely support the previous government and b) largely support Russia.

It's purely reactionary by Putin-he's going threw the various nations that his friends in the KGB use to rule and he's trying to scare them.

Not for the malicious purposes you believe though.

If Putin attacks now it will be an attack on another sovereign nation with a very weak CB

Putin had a perfectly good reason to attack Georgia. I've already explained this.

[Harry Smith]

A referendum is the formal processes I was referring to.



The vocal part is the Eastern-Ukrainian people's legally-elected representatives; legally-elected representatives who as far as I'm aware are going unchallenged by their constituents. It seems to me like Eastern-Ukraine has spoken; you just don't seem to want to hear it.

I agree that that referendum would be preferable however; I'd rather we all be sure of the wants of the Eastern-Ukrainian people before attempting any action that could be permanent.



And? I'm failing to see why giving the Eastern-Ukrainian people their own devolved-parliament matter at this stage: the Eastern-Ukrainian people clearly want more that a devolved-parliament.



Russia didn't claim any land for the Georgian conflict and in the proposed Ukrainian conflict they wouldn't be claiming any land for themselves there either.



[1]: The Ukraine will be crushed.

[2]: They pretty-much already have.

[3]: The EU won't for a variety of reasons.



The point that you continuously seem to miss is that the Eastern-Ukrainians a) largely support the previous government and b) largely support Russia.



Not for the malicious purposes you believe though.



Putin had a perfectly good reason to attack Georgia. I've already explained this.

I'm glad that we can agree that a referendum is needed-the most important thing is getting a government for the whole of Ukraine and then solving the issue in the east.

Ukraine could stand up to Russia, to at least give time for the UN or NATO to get involved which is really the only thing we should do at this time. Russia can't invade a country just because a vocal group want to join it.

It would very much be a land grab for Russia-they Ukraine would be in direct union with the Federation which increases it's land mass

[britishboy]

As I'm sure most of you know Ukraine is pretty much on the brink of civil war-the protesters are in control of the Capital city of Kiev and the President has fled to the east. This was all started by the people protesting about Ukraine moving away from the EU and towards Russia.

There's been reports that Russia could try and take parts of Ukraine by force in the next 48 hours, do you think this will happen? Should the EU intervene if Russia attacks Ukraine? Do the Russians have any right to do this?

They could invade the east but in the east they want Russia so I don't think that would cause any problems.

They can invade all of Ukraine if they want, Ukraine is not an ally of ours so why should we protect them from mother Russia? Also I would hate for all our progress with Russia to be lost and we really could do without fighting Russia.

If Russia does invade Ukraine, which I do doubt, all anyone will do is talk, nobody would attack Russia.

[Harry Smith]

They could invade the east but in the east they want Russia so I don't think that would cause any problems.

They can invade all of Ukraine if they want, Ukraine is not an ally of ours so why should we protect them from mother Russia? Also I would hate for all our progress with Russia to be lost and we really could do without fighting Russia.

If Russia does invade Ukraine, which I do doubt, all anyone will do is talk, nobody would attack Russia.

What Progress do you talk about? Fuck all's improved in Russian-NATO relations

The UN has a right to protect sovereign nations from attacks by another. How would you feel if the Republic of Ireland attacked northern Ireland to claim Londonderry? Would you simply stand back then?

[charlize2]

I think that Russia is too influential and it may cause real trouble.
The EU won't do anything, I guess, and there's a great possibility that the civil war will start soon.

[Vlerchan]

Ukraine could stand up to Russia, to at least give time for the UN[1] or NATO to get involved which is really the only thing we should do at this time.

[1]: The UN can't sanction anything without a Russian mandate. I'm sure you realize how unlikely that is.

[2]: It's unlikely that NATO will move in. I could be wrong though.

It would very much be a land grab for Russia-they Ukraine would be in direct union with the Federation which increases it's land mass

No.

Eastern-Ukraine would cede and form its own independent state. Russia would gain no land.

[...] Derry [...]

Fix'd.

[Harry Smith]

[1]: The UN can't sanction anything without a Russian mandate. I'm sure you realize how unlikely that is.

[2]: It's unlikely that NATO will move in. I could be wrong though.



No.

Eastern-Ukraine would cede and form its own independent state. Russia would gain no land.



Fix'd.

The idea I've always had was that the people wanted to join into a union with Russia.

awww I thought you'd bring up Londonderry, I've already had about 10 arguments about that with my Irish mate

[Vlerchan]

The idea I've always had was that the people wanted to join into a union with Russia.

From what I've gathered it's an independent-state the Eastern-Ukrainians want. Though the more I read into it the more I'm beginning to think that these demands may be slowly shifting towards a union with Russia. The recent seizure of the Crimerian parliament buildings by masked-gunmen was in the name of Russia and not Ukraine.

I'm not sure where I'd stand on A EasternUkranian-Russian union. I suppose it's up to the people.

awww I thought you'd bring up Londonderry, I've already had about 10 arguments about that with my Irish mate

I'm actually not an Irish nationalist. I'm cool with Northern-Ireland choosing to remain apart of Great Britain.

Calling Derry LondonDerry always seems to get to me though :/ It's just not LondonDerry.

[Harry Smith]

From what I've gathered it's an independent-state the Eastern-Ukrainians want. Though the more I read into it the more I'm beginning to think that these demands may be slowly shifting towards a union with Russia. The recent seizure of the Crimerian parliament buildings by masked-gunmen was in the name of Russia and not Ukraine.

I'm not sure where I'd stand on A EasternUkranian-Russian union. I suppose it's up to the people.



I'm actually not an Irish nationalist. I'm cool with Northern-Ireland choosing to remain apart of Great Britain.

Calling Derry LondonDerry always seems to get to me though :/ It's just not LondonDerry.

It's definitely looking interesting, as it stands at the moment the Russians don't need to get involved-they can just keep pumping money and arms to the militia's in the crimea

[Vlerchan]

It's definitely looking interesting, as it stands at the moment the Russians don't need to get involved-they can just keep pumping money and arms to the militia's in the crimea

Russia admits that is has had its troops enter Crimea there a few hours ago:

15.50 BREAKING: The Russian foreign ministry has admitted that armoured units from the Black Sea Fleet base near Sevastopol had entered Crimea in order to protect fleet positions.

“The Ukrainian side was also passed a note regarding the movement of armoured vehicles of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, which is happening in full accordance with the foundation Russian-Ukrainian agreements on the Black Sea Fleet,” the ministry said in a statement posted on its website on Friday afternoon.

In the same note the Russian foreign ministry said it had declined a Ukrainian request for “bilateral consultations” on events in Crimea because they are “the result of recent internal political processes in Ukraine.”

The Telegraph might be right-wing thrash but it's running a good minute-by-minute article on the whole crises - I suggest giving it a look: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10666893/Ukraine-crisis-live-UN-Security-Council-to-hold-emergency-meeting-on-Ukraine-crisis.html

[tovaris]

Russia admits that is has had its troops enter Crimea there a few hours ago:



The Telegraph might be right-wing thrash but it's running a good minute-by-minute article on the whole crises - I suggest giving it a look: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10666893/Ukraine-crisis-live-UN-Security-Council-to-hold-emergency-meeting-on-Ukraine-crisis.html

Yust at 19.00 they were saing that russia admited nothing...

Dont read the torygraph my friend, they willl try and pure poison in your head.

[Harry Smith]

Russia admits that is has had its troops enter Crimea there a few hours ago:



The Telegraph might be right-wing thrash but it's running a good minute-by-minute article on the whole crises - I suggest giving it a look: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10666893/Ukraine-crisis-live-UN-Security-Council-to-hold-emergency-meeting-on-Ukraine-crisis.html

ahaha I'll stick to my guardian timeline.

It's weird because Russia have troops stationed in the Crimea normally so it's impossible to tell whether it's an invasion or simply them defending their ships

[Jean Poutine]

Not really, there's a vocal part of French Canada such as Quebec who would want to be 'French'. Would you support France attacking a sovereign nation on these grounds?

We don't want to be French, because we aren't French. We want to be Québécois, because that's what we are. France is as foreign to us as any other country is, including English Canada.

The separatists in Qúebec are also in the minority at the moment.

Québec, and at the risk of sounding a little bitter, not in the part of the population that actually matters.

You'll find that the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that if the Qúebecois vote in favor of succession then they're legally entitled to it. There would be no need for French intervention.

Everyone thought it was going to rule the other way too (Canadians because they thought that with the US forbidding secession from the Union, the Court would find something to that effect inside the unwritten principle of federalism, and Québécois because we're accustomed to the SCC ruling always to the same side - meaning not for us).

[Star Wolf]

They could invade the east but in the east they want Russia so I don't think that would cause any problems.

They can invade all of Ukraine if they want, Ukraine is not an ally of ours so why should we protect them from mother Russia? Also I would hate for all our progress with Russia to be lost and we really could do without fighting Russia.

If Russia does invade Ukraine, which I do doubt, all anyone will do is talk, nobody would attack Russia.

Are you talking about the UK? I don't know what America would do...

[Vlerchan]

ahaha I'll stick to my guardian timeline.
I didn't even know one existed. Link?

It's weird because Russia have troops stationed in the Crimea normally so it's impossible to tell whether it's an invasion or simply them defending their ships

From what I gathered they've moved troops into securing other strategic locations in the province - notably: the airport.

Québec
I knew there was a dash (accent-egrave - or something?) somewhere in Québec ...

[Harry Smith]

I didn't even know one existed. Link?



From what I gathered they've moved troops into securing other strategic locations in the province - notably: the airport.

They're trying to provoke the Ukrainians to attack first, the problem is that if Ukraine doesn't attack then they're going to look weak with Russians going around their country doing what they want.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/01/crimea-crisis-deepens-as-russia-and-ukraine-ready-forces-live-updates

[britishboy]

They're trying to provoke the Ukrainians to attack first, the problem is that if Ukraine doesn't attack then they're going to look weak with Russians going around their country doing what they want.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/01/crimea-crisis-deepens-as-russia-and-ukraine-ready-forces-live-updates

I agree, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Don't attack and Russia can do as they want. They simply can't attack Russia, they have no hope.

Is Ukraine our ally? If we are we should protect them but if not we should stick to diplomatic pressure because nobody wants to fight Russia.

[Harry Smith]

I agree, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Don't attack and Russia can do as they want. They simply can't attack Russia, they have no hope.

Is Ukraine our ally? If we are we should protect them but if not we should stick to diplomatic pressure because nobody wants to fight Russia.

Yes-they want closer links with the EU. It also shouldn't matter if were allies or not

[Stronk Serb]

They could invade the east but in the east they want Russia so I don't think that would cause any problems.

They can invade all of Ukraine if they want, Ukraine is not an ally of ours so why should we protect them from mother Russia? Also I would hate for all our progress with Russia to be lost and we really could do without fighting Russia.

If Russia does invade Ukraine, which I do doubt, all anyone will do is talk, nobody would attack Russia.

In the nineties, in order to resolve the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal crisis, the UK, the US and Germany signed a treaty that they will protect Ukraine's sovereignty, in return Russia got the nuclear warheads. They guaranteed the independence of Ukraine.

[britishboy]

In the nineties, in order to resolve the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal crisis, the UK, the US and Germany signed a treaty that they will protect Ukraine's sovereignty, in return Russia got the nuclear warheads. They guaranteed the independence of Ukraine.

Thats what I wanted to know thank you! Then we should fight Russia, if Ukraine is our ally or we have agreed to protect them, we must protect them. No matter the odds, just like we did for Poland.

[Harry Smith]

Thats what I wanted to know thank you! Then we should fight Russia, if Ukraine is our ally or we have agreed to protect them, we must protect them. No matter the odds, just like we did for Poland.

Here's your parachute and gun-have fun

[Stronk Serb]

Thats what I wanted to know thank you! Then we should fight Russia, if Ukraine is our ally or we have agreed to protect them, we must protect them. No matter the odds, just like we did for Poland.

First try talking to the Russians. Try to evade an all-out war. You know what happened to the Whermacht when they went against thebSoviets.

[britishboy]

First try talking to the Russians. Try to evade an all-out war. You know what happened to the Whermacht when they went against thebSoviets.

Of course sorry I worded that badly, always avoid war if you can! What I mant was we can't turn a blind eye or ignore them.

[tovaris]

New development:
http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2714918#post2714918

[Zenos]

You are all getting hyper over nothing,this is posturing on both sides because Russia can not open conflict with the West and the West cannot risk open conflict with Russia either,a war over the Ukraine would be a sure bet on one thing the destruction of Russia and the west,via the collapse of their economies,and the over through of governments across the board not just In Russia but throughout the EU and North America as well.

Yes I think the economies of the West and Russia are just that fragile

[DarkOmega]

Budapest Memorandum look this up

__________________________________________________________________
What exactly is the "Budapest Memorandum"?

The "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" is a diplomatic memorandum that was signed in December 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises.

In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. They did so by applying the principles of territorial integrity and nonintervention in 1975 Helsinki Final Act -- a Cold War-era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union -- to an independent post-Soviet Ukraine.

Which principles in the Helsinki Final Act, reiterated in the "Budapest Memorandum," are relevant to the current situation in the Crimea?

In the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged that none of them would ever use economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine to their own interest.

They specifically pledged they would refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or engage in other uses of force in violation of international law.

All sides agreed that no such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal and that the signatories would "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments."

Is there anything legally binding about the "Budapest Memorandum" regarding Russia's obligations to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity?

"That's actually a much more complex question than it may sound. It is binding in international law, but that doesn't mean it has any means of enforcement," says Barry Kellman, a professor of law and director of the International Weapons Control Center at DePaul University's College of Law.

"The 'Budapest Memorandum' follows the Helsinki Final Act and essentially reiterates its provisions. There are confidence building measures and then a host of other broader obligations – primarily negative obligations. Don't interfere."

Kellman concludes that there are a host of other sources of international law that oblige Russia to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity -- including the provisions of the CSCE treaty and the UN Charter.