The Russians are on their way...why am I not shocked.

[scotty123]

Uh-oh, Russian troops have stormed a Ukranian naval base firing automatic weapons, fortunately nobody was injured, someone's going to get shot dead soon enough though

 

[m7mcfc]

This is mildly worrying.

When the USSR broke up, as I understand it some of the the former USSR's strategic nuclear weapons were stored in Ukrainian territory.

The deal struck between Russia and Ukraine was that the weapons would be retrieved by Russia, and would thereafter be part of the sovereign assets of the Russian Republic and the Ukraine would have no claim on them. The quid pro quo was that Russia would forever more respect the territorial integrity of the Ukraine.

That obligation on Russia to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity is guaranteed by two western powers - the USA and the United Kingdom.

We have, in other words, a treaty obligation to go to Ukraine's aid if Russia violates its territorial integrity - including Ukrainian airspace.

This one could go nasty, people.

Putin must be shitting it - with the prospect of the UK military might storming into the Crimea with a water pistol and a pitch fork. We have no military capability - so we can forget any kind of military action. I'm not sure the US has the stomach for this either - although they do have the military might to more than go toe to toe with Russia. The Soviet Union may have collapsed but Russia has no respect for its neighbors and will manipulate this situation for maximum benefit. Putin is dangerous and the world stood by and let him bully Georgia - he will do the same here. The British more that any race should know appeasement is a waste of time where bully's are concerned. Unfortunately without any military capability and the total ineptness of the EU we will be wholly reliant on the US to manage this.

Sad but true.

 

[m7mcfc]

So you won't be bothered when the Russians start persecuting the Muslim and Jewish minorities? They have form for doing it over the last few hundred years it's nice to see the cellar myopia is still alive and well as long as its not a western country doing it, it's all ok

It's fair enough that you have rightful and genuine concern for the minorities in the region, but I don't think that makes it ok to label me an apologist because I don't think the wishes of the majority should be ignored. The majority of the Ukraine voted for closer relations with Russia and the wishes of the democratic majority have been ignored by violent pro-western protest and unjustified and hypocritical western interference. If Russia starts forced population transfer or massacres of minorities, then of course intervention is justified (although obviously the west never felt justified in preventing this in Palestine and not only doesn't lift a finger about a nearly fifty year-old occupation of the West Bank and Gaza but in fact helps sustain it with military aid in billions per year), but there's little reason to suppose that this is a likely outcome. This is not the Stalin era Soviet Union, in fact, the post-Stalin Soviet Union was quite good at preventing ethnic conflict as the 90s outbreak of ethnic conflict proved after the Soviet Union collapsed.

There was no ethnic conflict post Stalin because Crimea was ethnically cleansed of its indiginous population by Stalin. All Crimean Tatars were deported or killed in 1944 and were only allowed to return in small numbers towards the end of the Soviet era. If you were being consistent with your Palestine analogy you would say that the Russians were occupiers of the land.

I have read the book Stalingrad and there were Crimean's fighting for the Reich, Hiwi's they called them. NKVD rounded them all up and gave them the ritual nagan neck shot.

 

[scotty123]

It's fair enough that you have rightful and genuine concern for the minorities in the region, but I don't think that makes it ok to label me an apologist because I don't think the wishes of the majority should be ignored. The majority of the Ukraine voted for closer relations with Russia and the wishes of the democratic majority have been ignored by violent pro-western protest and unjustified and hypocritical western interference. If Russia starts forced population transfer or massacres of minorities, then of course intervention is justified (although obviously the west never felt justified in preventing this in Palestine and not only doesn't lift a finger about a nearly fifty year-old occupation of the West Bank and Gaza but in fact helps sustain it with military aid in billions per year), but there's little reason to suppose that this is a likely outcome. This is not the Stalin era Soviet Union, in fact, the post-Stalin Soviet Union was quite good at preventing ethnic conflict as the 90s outbreak of ethnic conflict proved after the Soviet Union collapsed.

There was no ethnic conflict post Stalin because Crimea was ethnically cleansed of its indiginous population by Stalin. All Crimean Tatars were deported or killed in 1944 and were only allowed to return in small numbers towards the end of the Soviet era. If you were being consistent with your Palestine analogy you would say that the Russians were occupiers of the land.

I have read the book Stalingrad and there were Crimean's fighting for the Reich, Hiwi's they called them. NKVD rounded them all up and gave them the ritual nagan neck shot.

They fought for Germany for a reason, they were persecuted by that utter twat Stalin, they are Ukranians not Russians and didn't want to live under the communist yolk and who can blame them, this may come as a shock to some people on here I know but it actually happened

 

[OnlyOneUweRosler]

This is all the EU's fault. They wanted an Association Agreement with the Ukraine, which would undermine Russian security

 

[wayne71]

Let it go mate, its fairly common knowledge that a couple of the biggest wankers on the forum are in fact mods.

I'd like to apologise for this remark, no need for it really.

 

[ElanJo]

So what's your point exactly?

Is OK for another country to annex a part of another? A yes or no answer will suffice

Stop going around the houses and pointing out other cases, I don't want to know what other countries have done I simply want to know if you think it's right for another country to annex another

Is it ok for a part of a country to vote to secede in a referendum?

Yes it is, however things are not that simple are they otherwise we would have an independent country known as Catalonia and perhaps even Kurdistan, it can't be a unilateral declaration

Anyway that's not the answer to the question I just want to know if it's right or wrong for another country to annex apart of another, yes or no

Why not?

It's not a voluntary relationship if one party can stop the other from leaving. It's a master-slave 'relationship'. We tend to frown on such things!

As for your question, annexation is wrong but aren't you saying it's right by dismissing the right of voluntary association with regards to secession?

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

US drone intercepted in Crimean airspace - Russia's state corporation


<a class="postlink" href="http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_14/US-drone-intercepted-in-Crimean-airspace-Russias-state-corporation-2994/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_1 ... tion-2994/</a>

Russia is preparing to invade East Ukraine

 

[Gelsons Dad]

This is not good.

The Russians have taken out a US military asset over Crimean airspace. Given that the sovereignty of that airspace is in dispute (they've annexed Crimea) this could easily be described as an act of war.

 

[Balti]

So you won't be bothered when the Russians start persecuting the Muslim and Jewish minorities? They have form for doing it over the last few hundred years it's nice to see the cellar myopia is still alive and well as long as its not a western country doing it, it's all ok

It's fair enough that you have rightful and genuine concern for the minorities in the region, but I don't think that makes it ok to label me an apologist because I don't think the wishes of the majority should be ignored. The majority of the Ukraine voted for closer relations with Russia and the wishes of the democratic majority have been ignored by violent pro-western protest and unjustified and hypocritical western interference. If Russia starts forced population transfer or massacres of minorities, then of course intervention is justified (although obviously the west never felt justified in preventing this in Palestine and not only doesn't lift a finger about a nearly fifty year-old occupation of the West Bank and Gaza but in fact helps sustain it with military aid in billions per year), but there's little reason to suppose that this is a likely outcome. This is not the Stalin era Soviet Union, in fact, the post-Stalin Soviet Union was quite good at preventing ethnic conflict as the 90s outbreak of ethnic conflict proved after the Soviet Union collapsed.

There was no ethnic conflict post Stalin because Crimea was ethnically cleansed of its indiginous population by Stalin. All Crimean Tatars were deported or killed in 1944 and were only allowed to return in small numbers towards the end of the Soviet era. If you were being consistent with your Palestine analogy you would say that the Russians were occupiers of the land.

most nations of the world are occupying land once owned by someone else

and many wars are still being fought and justified on ancient historical bollox as a result

do we fight forever for historical reasons? if so do we fight for the 7th, 10th, 12, 14th 15th or 18 century status ?

or do we rmove on and recognise the current situation with regard to people and base our decisions on that?

''Ukraine'' ''Russia''

fuck that

lets worry about the people who live in those lands and not the governments that only want to exploit the people and tax them and their resources

 

[buzzer1]

It's fair enough that you have rightful and genuine concern for the minorities in the region, but I don't think that makes it ok to label me an apologist because I don't think the wishes of the majority should be ignored. The majority of the Ukraine voted for closer relations with Russia and the wishes of the democratic majority have been ignored by violent pro-western protest and unjustified and hypocritical western interference. If Russia starts forced population transfer or massacres of minorities, then of course intervention is justified (although obviously the west never felt justified in preventing this in Palestine and not only doesn't lift a finger about a nearly fifty year-old occupation of the West Bank and Gaza but in fact helps sustain it with military aid in billions per year), but there's little reason to suppose that this is a likely outcome. This is not the Stalin era Soviet Union, in fact, the post-Stalin Soviet Union was quite good at preventing ethnic conflict as the 90s outbreak of ethnic conflict proved after the Soviet Union collapsed.

There was no ethnic conflict post Stalin because Crimea was ethnically cleansed of its indiginous population by Stalin. All Crimean Tatars were deported or killed in 1944 and were only allowed to return in small numbers towards the end of the Soviet era. If you were being consistent with your Palestine analogy you would say that the Russians were occupiers of the land.

most nations of the world are occupying land once owned by someone else

and many wars are still being fought and justified on ancient historical bollox as a result

do we fight forever for historical reasons? if so do we fight for the 7th, 10th, 12, 14th 15th or 18 century status ?

or do we rmove on and recognise the current situation with regard to people and base our decisions on that?

''Ukraine'' ''Russia''

fuck that

lets worry about the people who live in those lands and not the governments that only want to exploit the people and tax them and their resources

We need a world uprising of the common people.

 

[SWP's back]

There was no ethnic conflict post Stalin because Crimea was ethnically cleansed of its indiginous population by Stalin. All Crimean Tatars were deported or killed in 1944 and were only allowed to return in small numbers towards the end of the Soviet era. If you were being consistent with your Palestine analogy you would say that the Russians were occupiers of the land.

most nations of the world are occupying land once owned by someone else

and many wars are still being fought and justified on ancient historical bollox as a result

do we fight forever for historical reasons? if so do we fight for the 7th, 10th, 12, 14th 15th or 18 century status ?

or do we rmove on and recognise the current situation with regard to people and base our decisions on that?

''Ukraine'' ''Russia''

fuck that

lets worry about the people who live in those lands and not the governments that only want to exploit the people and tax them and their resources

We need a world uprising of the common people.

What would be the point? Uprising are usually led by people exactly the same as those in power or if not, then worse.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

The Russians vetoed a UN vote to not accept the new Crimean government.

Not really a surprise.

 

[Barcon]

Don'r worry, Canada are about to deploy a couple of row boats to the area.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Pedalos would be a better military option

 

[BlueHammer85]

Find it hard to believe 96% of Crimea wants to be Russian ,,,

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Find it hard to believe 96% of Crimea wants to be Russian ,,,

Why do you find it hard to believe, Mark?

 

[west didsblue]

Find it hard to believe 96% of Crimea wants to be Russian ,,,

The Tatar population mostly boycotted the poll. Even if they had taken part, I suspect the result would still have been at least 75% in favour of becoming part of Russia. The main thing wrong with the poll was that there was no option to remain as a full part of Ukraine (the second option was for autonomy within Ukraine). If this option was there, I don't think the outcome would have been any different but it would have added more legitimacy to the result.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Find it hard to believe 96% of Crimea wants to be Russian ,,,

Why do you find it hard to believe, Mark?

Just wouldn't believe it would be that high considering some of the protests within Crimea that was seen, surely fixed.

 

[dazdon]

It doesn't really matter what % the referendum had in favour of the pro-Russian voters....the BBC and other like minded news sources would have suggested that it was an iffy ballot.

The narrative behind this vote is being misconstrued because this is a result of Yanukovych being deposed who was elected in in a 'Democratic' election. He was deposed in an illegal way but some news sources seem to just want to airbrush that fact out.