Ukraine Presidential Crackdown Violence. Russia Invades Ukraine

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Meanwhile, China sits on the sidelines?

Don't misunderstand my post. I know the repercussions of such a war, and the mess it will grow into.

As I said the parts if me that wants this to happen stays stuffed away in the corner of my mind.

That being said maybe Patton was right.

I have a pretty good understanding of the costs of military action.

[killer_carlson]

Obama no longer has any credibility in his threats.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Ukraine. It's not "The Ukraine" its just "Ukraine".

Also, they gave up their nukes under the promise of defense and respect of their borders. That's not something we should turn our backs to (NATO). Ukraine is a west leaning country being shaken down by the Russians. They're our friends and allies and America made a deal with them. The west should stand with Ukraine and help them out.

I don't disagree, but the cost of helping them out could be unacceptable to the public of NATO countries. NATO has some wiggle room because Ukraine is not a member nation.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Ukraine. It's not "The Ukraine" its just "Ukraine".

Also, they gave up their nukes under the promise of defense and respect of their borders. That's not something we should turn our backs to (NATO). Ukraine is a west leaning country being shaken down by the Russians. They're our friends and allies and America made a deal with them. The west should stand with Ukraine and help them out.

How much are you willing to personally sacrifice in order to protect Ukraine though? I'm not saying the U.S. and Britain should or shouldn't, but if they do, it will be at a great cost and probably wouldn't result in anything other than a stalemate at best.

Personally, I think this is an impossible situation and is all about damage control at this point. Is there a way to contain Russian interests without an armed conflict?

They U.S. should try to agitate separatist forces within Russian to keep them busy within their own borders, so they simply can't project power like they would like. The downside of this of course would be funneling arms to some groups connected to Islamic radicals (wouldn't be the first time though). Russia has a very big weak spot there.

[Itse]

Hmm. De-stabilize a country and move in with decisive military force, annex areas without needing to fire a shot. It's a good system. I wonder who they're targeting next.

Kidding? I'm not sure.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hmm. De-stabilize a country and move in with decisive military force, annex areas without needing to fire a shot. It's a good system. I wonder who they're targeting next.

Kazakhstan is my guess.

25% of the population is Russian, the area is strategically important to the ME, and the West is even less likely to care about a conflict there than in Europe.

I think the worry is that Ukraine is just the testing ground for building a Greater Russia.

Azerbaijan would be another country that should be holding its breath.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Obama no longer has any credibility in his threats.

He lost it over the Syria red line.

[worth]

No kidding there. If it works flawlessly with Ukraine, why wouldn't Putin do it to other surrounding areas of strategic importance to grow his sphere of influence. Especially if it goes unchecked by NATO.

I think a lot of this hinges on whether Ukraine can actually form a cohesive unified government backed by the majority of their population. The west could not deploy troops without having the backing of the unified population and government. NATO will not go into Ukraine unless legitimately invited.

How would western troops be welcomed in Kyiv? How about in Odesa? Likely poorly in Kharkiv.

At this point in time, if Russia does plan to annex Crimea, there is not much anyone can do about it, unless the Ukrainians want to go to war over it. Stop the blood loss without looking like a sissy, there needs to be a hard line so the Russians second guess themselves in the future.

[Locke]

No one is going to Ukraine's aid.

It isnt a unified country at the moment which is all the excuse anyone needs to not come to their aid.

[PsYcNeT]

It's happening.

https://vine.co/v/MKPUve5hl5I

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/src/1393691492519.jpg

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How much are you willing to personally sacrifice in order to protect Ukraine though? I'm not saying the U.S. and Britain should or shouldn't, but if they do, it will be at a great cost and probably wouldn't result in anything other than a stalemate at best.

Personally, I think this is an impossible situation and is all about damage control at this point. Is there a way to contain Russian interests without an armed conflict?

They U.S. should try to agitate separatist forces within Russian to keep them busy within their own borders, so they simply can't project power like they would like. The downside of this of course would be funneling arms to some groups connected to Islamic radicals (wouldn't be the first time though). Russia has a very big weak spot there.

It's not just about doing the right thing though, it's about fulfilling an agreement. The country is in a bit of chaos right now but that's Putin and Russia's doing. Allowing them to orchestrate this chaos to annex a sovereign nation is unacceptable. It's a tough situation tho I agree

[FlameOn]

I really wonder how far in advanced Putin and planned this. The coordination, planning and communications for these can't have just been written overnight. Maybe part of his grim mood during the entire Olympic games.

Putin's placed his closest political opponent under house arrest
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/wo...ref=world&_r=0

[worth]

Ukraine's boxer turned politician Vitali Klitschko on Saturday urged parliament to mobilise the army, after Russia's upper house approved the use of troops on Ukrainian territory.


"Parliament must ask the army's commander-in-chief to declare national mobilisation after the start of Russian aggression against Ukraine," Klitschko said in a statement.

He also asked for the UN Security Council to gather urgently for talks on the crisis. [AFP]

Emphasis added.

http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Ukra...blog/107723267

Edit: Flame on beat me.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

It's not just about doing the right thing though, it's about fulfilling an agreement. The country is in a bit of chaos right now but that's Putin and Russia's doing. Allowing them to orchestrate this chaos to annex a sovereign nation is unacceptable. It's a tough situation tho I agree

Who was the agreement made with? Yanukovych? His government? They're gone and even if they werent the current opposition are claiming his governement was illegitimate. Who do they have an agreement with? Is that agreement even still valid?

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by Locke

Who was the agreement made with? Yanukovych? His government? They're gone and even if they werent the current opposition are claiming his governement was illegitimate. Who do they have an agreement with? Is that agreement even still valid?

Many native leaders and tribes are long gone, sounds like you're giving the green light on tearing up our treaties?

[Brannigans Law]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...going-war.html

The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Many native leaders and tribes are long gone, sounds like you're giving the green light on tearing up our treaties?

Those are not even remotely the same things.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by Locke

Those are not even remotely the same things.

In 1994 Ukraine's government was legitimate and signed this treaty with Russia Britain and America. It's the exact same thing just not seperated by as many years.

[FlameOn]

Given Russia violated the treaty already and Russia can veto any action pushed through the security council, the treaty can be considered useless at this point. Bad thing is it opens the doors for other nations to build nuclear weapons.

Excerpt from the treaty

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukrain...ity_Assurances

[worth]

Dareen Abughaida
@DareenAG
#ukraine amb to UN Yuriy Sergeyev tells me on @AJEnglish Ukraine & Russia are "close" to all out war, hopes situation does not escalate.

http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Ukra...blog/107739540