Will Ukraine Be Partitioned?

ASIP · March 12, 2014

What? They've been begging for Russia to help for several years. The independence movement has been going on since the early 90's. Being tacked on to Ukraine is not something they ever wanted.

Ok. Do you admit that before 1992 (collapse of the USSR), Crimeans had no problems being within Ukraine? Emergence of separatist movements is absolutely common thing in the ex-USSR. Every thug saw an opportunity to become a king in a small kingdom. Don't mix that with wishes of ordinary people.

The Crimean separation found some ground among population after year 2000, when oil prices jumped and Russia was able to recover from default of 1998. Economically, Ukraine lags oil-reach Russia. This is the only reason general population would consider joining Russia. This only reason was non-existent before 1992 (actually, the situation was reversed). Your "ever" is utterly false.

Edited March 12, 2014 by ASIP

Argus · March 12, 2014

What? They've been begging for Russia to help for several years. The independence movement has been going on since the early 90's. Being tacked on to Ukraine is not something they ever wanted.

There's been an indepedance movement going on in Alberta for years, too. That hardly suggest it commands broad support.

There's been an independance movement going on in Quebec for decades, and they're nowhere near a majority.

Let's see the polls or surveys you have about a desire to seperate as of last year.

Rue · March 13, 2014

The Crimean separation found some ground among population after year 2000, when oil prices jumped and Russia was able to recover from default of 1998.

The above is a fact anyone can find. The bottom line is Russia is in Crimea because it feels a need to protect its exporting of natural gas and the potential of the Ukraine to offer a competitive alternative supply of natural gas from Crimea. I defer to ASIP on the actual sites of natural has in the Ukraine and why Russia wants to control the Ukrainian economy and prevent it from operating as a potential competitor to Russia.

This is about gas no.1, response to NATO for expanding to Warsaw Pact nations, no.2, taking advantage of the vacuum being left behind by the receding US presence/influence in the Middle East and with the European Union.

GostHacked · March 13, 2014

This is about gas no.1, response to NATO for expanding to Warsaw Pact nations, no.2, taking advantage of the vacuum being left behind by the receding US presence/influence in the Middle East and with the European Union.

That is how I am viewing it. This is about oil/gas. As was the war in Iraq (resources) and Afghanistan (pipelines).

ASIP · March 13, 2014

No, gentlemen, money issues are secondary here.

The most important goals for Putin are:

1. Building an Empire, keeping Ukraine as a subject.

2. Crush the Ukrainian example of overthrowing a dictator to prevent its occurrence in Russia.

In terms of nat. gas supply, Russia has no problems with Ukraine. Before this crisis, joining NATO was out of consideration for Ukraine.

Rue · March 14, 2014

That is how I am viewing it. This is about oil/gas. As was the war in Iraq (resources) and Afghanistan (pipelines).

Lol it was bound to happen. We had to agree on something. :lol:

-TSS- · March 14, 2014

It's not always easy to be a super-power. The US would probably love to stay clear of this dispute but the US-credibility as a super-power requires them to take a stand; not least because of the treaty they signed 20 years ago.

GostHacked · March 14, 2014

Lol it was bound to happen. We had to agree on something.

You'll find that we agree on quite a lot of things. There are just some we passionately disagree on.

jbg · March 15, 2014

Actually it was Ukraine not being allowed to engage in a closer economic association with the European Union.

Well Russia today on cue is now creating a crisis in the Eastern Ukraine to justify invading there as well. It clearly intends to annex the Eastern Ukraine as well as Crimea and use ethnic unrest as an excuse.

Putin has illegally seized Ukrainian gas to prevent a gas competition war and maintain a monopoly on natural gas supplies to Europe as well as give Europe the message he is the new boss on the block running Europe now the US is no longer there to cover their butt as it did after WW2.

I suspect with fracking and other increases in production of natural gas and oil, the Russians see their days of being able to bully the rest of Europe numbered. They are acting aggressively while they still can.

What next? Do people really think Putin will stop at the Ukraine? Did Stalin and Hitler? How much history from the past do we need to show when a dictator goes on a military expansion, it does not stop.

********************

The EU and United Nations where have they been? To no surprise, they do nothing. Where are they? Where is Germany right now? Merkel is trying to act as mediator but she is far more powerful economically than she is militarily. Where are the economic sanctions?

Remember the last time aroiund Churchill was the only leader who had the stomach to urge effective action, i.e. all out war. The Russians have acculturated us to believe that all humanity dies in a nuclear exchange for a reason; nukes work against Russia but not real well against the West.

eyeball · March 16, 2014

Remember the last time aroiund Churchill was the only leader who had the stomach to urge effective action, i.e. all out war. The Russians have acculturated us to believe that all humanity dies in a nuclear exchange for a reason; nukes work against Russia but not real well against the West.

Like I said, General Ripper is spinning in his grave.

bleeding heart · March 16, 2014

So jbg summons the Nazis again, this time by summoning the name of Saint Churchill, in the old formulation.

The two scenarios share nothing in common.

And I'm wondering who is the "Churchill" this time?

The little losers who are hoping for all-out war against Russia?

Because let's not forget that such folks are, without exception, intellectual weaklings and moral cowards. And that's a key difference; while Churchill was certainly a moral degenerate (the "stopped clock right once a day" syndrome notwithstanding), he was no slouch intellectually.

jbg · March 16, 2014

Because let's not forget that such folks are, without exception, intellectual weaklings and moral cowards. And that's a key difference; while Churchill was certainly a moral degenerate (the "stopped clock right once a day" syndrome notwithstanding), he was no slouch intellectually.

Threatening the use of intermediate range missiles would be quite sufficient.

bleeding heart · March 16, 2014

Or maybe more than sufficient. Maybe escalation, irresponsible and murderous.

I understand that killin' gets some people...well, a little moist. (Churchill found the idea of "spreading lively terror" among Afghans and Kurds to be rather bracing, as we know from his own words.) But let's take an extremist radical approach and try to determine if there ain't some other way to go about things.

-TSS- · March 16, 2014

Kerry called the Crimean referendum as being against the international law. Look who's talking now but however he is right on that one.

GostHacked · March 16, 2014

Kerry called the Crimean referendum as being against the international law. Look who's talking now but however he is right on that one.

You have to roll your eyes when Kerry speaks. Talking about 19 century thinking and using false pretexts for an invasion. Where have we heard that one before.

-TSS- · March 17, 2014

Surprise surprise, 95% of the Crimeans voted in favour of joining Russia.

Topaz · March 17, 2014

There must be more Russians living in there than thought, or was there a Pierre Poutine there too? I've heard many Canadians say, that Harper not believing the results, its a double-standard when it comes to democracy and THIS government,they have only one view...theirs. IF the voting was honest and fair, then Russia wins and if not fair, civil war? I hope not.

GostHacked · March 17, 2014

Political rap done quite well.

Rue · March 18, 2014

Say TSS that vote did surprise me. 5% did not vote in favour of joining Russia. Wow! I mean who would have thought there would be any such people.

I mean Putin really needs to learn from his counter part in North Korea how to get that 100% vote score.

TSS I am very disappointed in the weak response. The alleged sanctions are not sanctions at all. Its a watch list they created against certain individualswho were already on a watch list for suspected international shenanigans with currency trading and laundering of money.

Putin is right now operating without fear. There is no push back from anyone. Will that change with the next US President or is the US so banged up financially it is turning inward big time and permanently? Russia emerging as the no 1 military power on the planet is not something I relish. Maybe Ghost does and has no problem with Putin but I do. I think he is a dangerous sociopath and with no one to limit his behaviour will just keep going like the Energizer Bunny. All Putins understand is brute force. You don't butt your head right back against his, he will keep moving.

He is like my stomach. With no girdle to restrain him there is no telling where he will keep spreading.

Big Guy · March 18, 2014

There has been much discussion in this thread as to the “nationality” of the people in any particular part of Europe or which country “owns” a particular area. I submit that it depends on what point in history one decides to use as a reference point. There have been many, many changes as can be seen in either of the two following presentations;

History of Europe - 6013 years in 3 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxDyJ_6N-6A

Epic Time-Lapse of Europe --HistoricalAtlas.com

http://www.worldology.com/Europe/europe_history_md.htm

tinydancer · March 20, 2014

The above is a fact anyone can find. The bottom line is Russia is in Crimea because it feels a need to protect its exporting of natural gas and the potential of the Ukraine to offer a competitive alternative supply of natural gas from Crimea. I defer to ASIP on the actual sites of natural has in the Ukraine and why Russia wants to control the Ukrainian economy and prevent it from operating as a potential competitor to Russia.

This is about gas no.1, response to NATO for expanding to Warsaw Pact nations, no.2, taking advantage of the vacuum being left behind by the receding US presence/influence in the Middle East and with the European Union.

Russia is in Crimea because they are allowed to be in Crimea for heavens sake. Their port for their Black Sea Fleet has a license to remain until the year 2042. And by a treaty signed between the Ukraine and Russia in 1997 Russia is allowed up to 25,000 troops at any given time.

And it is about gas. It is about two major oil companies who have been attempting to get rights from the Ukraine. And those companies happen to be US Exxon Mobil and UK Dutch Shell.

Why do you think the Americans and the Brits have been screaming so loudly over Crimea? Really why would America be involved in this insane game of "global chicken" over the EU? Follow the money.

tinydancer · March 20, 2014

Surprise surprise, 95% of the Crimeans voted in favour of joining Russia.

Only the Tartars boycotted the vote. And demographically Crimea is 60% ethnic Russian. Even the minorities voted to join Russia.

Why? Because they know that the individuals who participated in the coup and now hold several very key positions in the new government are from Svoboda.

Right in Svoboda's party platform is the promise to strip Crimea of her autonomy. To strip certain Russians of Ukrainian citizenship. To criminalize "Ukrainaphobia" aka you criticize the new government you are a criminal. To ban the Russian language. Oh and that was one of the first bills they passed. Now the bill banning the Russian language was vetoed by the new interim President under pressure from the EU, but how long before another bill would be presented and passed?

So all in all Crimeans knowing that their autonomy was going to be stripped and they would be marked individuals for being "ethnic Russians" and not "ethnically pure Ukrainian" voted for joining Russia. No brainer.

I know that if I was faced with a choice between Russia who would welcome me with open arms vs the uber Ukrainian whack jobs that have seized power in Kieve, I'm running straight into Russia's arms.

By the way. I'm third generation Ukrainian with a hint of Irish thrown in and happen to be living in Uk central out here in Manitoba. For me to take a stand with Russia on this issue is not easy. I grew up hating the USSR and Stalin just part of my DNA for the horrors inflicted on my people.

But I'm a big believer in the truth and I just want to bazooka barf every time I hear all the lies being spun about the "new government in Kiev" being pro democracy and how wonderful they are. All you have to do is to read up on Svoboda and the Right Sector and your hair will be standing on end.

This was a coup. The government in Kiev is illegitimate. And I have no idea why my government and my Conservative party are backing this crew in Kiev.

Argus · March 20, 2014

So jbg summons the Nazis again, this time by summoning the name of Saint Churchill, in the old formulation.

The two scenarios share nothing in common.

And I'm wondering who is the "Churchill" this time?

The little losers who are hoping for all-out war against Russia?

Because let's not forget that such folks are, without exception, intellectual weaklings and moral cowards. And that's a key difference; while Churchill was certainly a moral degenerate (the "stopped clock right once a day" syndrome notwithstanding), he was no slouch intellectually.

Just who are you ranting against? Who is "hoping for an all-out war against Russia?" I've seen no one even advocating ANY military action against Russia. Names and examples please.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Argus

Argus · March 20, 2014

Only the Tartars boycotted the vote. And demographically Crimea is 60% ethnic Russian. Even the minorities voted to join Russia.

Why do you continue to spout gross ignorance like this? First of all, the Ukrainians boycotted it, as well. Second, there were only two options available in the referendum. There was no option which said "I want to stay a part of Ukraine". They could choose to join Russia, or they could choose to leave Ukraine and be independant. That was it.

Gee, you'd think with the "overhwelming support" for independance, not to mention the ability to fix the vote, they would have allowed that third choice, but nope.

As for the rest of your Russian propaganda, which is all it is. There is a temporary government in Ukraine until elections in May. The government was appointed by the elected parliament. One wonders why you worship the ex Russian president as the product of the people's choice, but give the back of your hand to the elected parliament as nothing but criminals and rogues.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Argus

Big Guy · March 20, 2014

Various media sources have condemned this referendum and its results as "unconstitutional", "Illegitimate" and "illegal". None appear to label it as "inaccurate". No one seems to doubt that a majority, certainly not 95% but still a majority, of people in the Crimea did not want to continue as part of the "new" Ukraine - the only question is what other options should have been available. Not everybody in that area wears either a black hat or a white hat - quite a few seem to have grey hats.