Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[ITCC_Andrew]

Ukraine citizens ousted previous government.

New government changed legislation to move away from Russia, and move towards UN.

Unmarked troops in unmarked vehicles appeared, took over airports and things.

People suspect that Russia is to blame about the unmarked troops.

America and Australia are talking with varying levels of threats to Russia, to dissuade them from invading.

It's all just a bit of diplomatic nonsense.

@TenEightyOne, I fully agree that you can't call it "annexing" but I can't think of the correct terminology.

Edit: and I know Ukraine was independent, but it is possible that Crimea wants to become fully sovereign instead of just autonomous, once again. That's why I'm talking about the Quebecois sovereignty... The Quebecois sovereignty debates/discussions/protests are normally very peaceful. Yes, the unmarked soldiers are also peaceful, but I'm trying to demonstrate that it's possible/important that they can stay peaceful.

@haitch40 sums up the whole problem with UN/US/Western intervention.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The deadline for the reported ultimatum has passed, with no reports of violence.

Russia has defended its actions in front of the UN Security Council by saying Yanukovych asked them for support, providing a letter from him as evidence of a formal request.

I'm guessing the key to resolving this lies in the Ukrainian Constutution. One of the demands from the protesters was that the government restore the 2004 Constitution. Shortly before he was removed from power, Yanukovych agreed to that demand, but insisted on staying in office until elections were carried out. The protesters refused to accept that, so the question now would be whether the interim government is legal under the Constitution, and what status Yanukovych has.

 

[BobK]

The differences are more troubling than the similarities.

So why on Earth do you keep going on about Canada/Quebec then?

Canada is Not. Relevant. to this discussion. Everyone else sees that clearly, why can't you?

(yes I suppose that's a rhetorical question)

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

The point I'm making is that the Ukrainian constitution analysis (as @prisonermonkeys explains is probably going to happen) should happen peacefully, as it (for the most part) is happening in Canada.


There are a few countries in the world which have split apart:


-Ireland
-Yugoslavia
-Korea
-Czechoslovakia
-Austro-Hungary Empire

And a few which almost split:

-Canada
...


Do you see a pattern? Many times, when a country splits apart, the result is violence, or the cause is violence. All I'm trying to say, is that I hope that people take notice of how - mainly - Canadian sovereignty has not led to many deaths. Certainly, not nearly as many as Korea, or Yugoslavia or Ireland...


If the same peaceful discussion happens in Ukraine, I'll be very happy. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm sorry for making it seem different because I wasn't able to word it better. My point is valid, and it's not just because I'm Canadian that I'm saying that. I'm honestly worried that something like Syria could happen again, or Ireland/Korea/Yugoslavia... Especially Yugoslavia, where genocide occurred...


I don't want to see that. If you think my opinion is wrong, feel free to disagree. But, I believe in my opinion, and I know that it's a fair opinion, regardless of whether I mention Canada or not in explaining my opinion.

 

[Rage Racer]

Unmarked troops in unmarked vehicles appeared, took over airports and things.

Unmarked vehicles are so unmarked...

^See the plates

And what else army can fly a Ka-52 Alligator?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

@BobK

Because a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Read his last post again. Sound familiar? All he has done is repeat what others have said. A few pages ago, he was claiming that Russia has no nuclear arsenal, and then started panicking when he found out that they do. He has made no effort to educate himself on the subject, and has instead repeated what others have said by rote. Look at the way he talks about the Australian reaction, but doesn't mention why it is important. We are on the UN Security Council, so our understanding of the situation is somewhat important in the event a diplomatic solution is to be found. A quick Google check would reveal as much, but he does not even bother to do that.

Like I said, empty vessels make the most sound.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@Rage Racer, the US press is not hiding the fact that those unmarked "gentlemen" are Russian troops.

I don't think there is much the west can do. It seems to me that we are pretty much spectators, hoping Putin will be satisfied with just Crimea, and will not march on to Kiev.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The point I'm making is that the Ukrainian constitution analysis (as @prisonermonkeys explains is probably going to happen) should happen peacefully, as it (for the most part) is happening in Canada and in most of the world where territorial debates go on. Really though, talking about Canada is my thing, so yeah

Corrected that for you.

I rarely get cross (well, y'know..) but while nobody has disagreed with you that a Ukrainian solution should be peaceful they've also tried to educate you about the situation in that country and why tensions could be high and why things happening there are on a completely different scale, timeline and significance to the Qeubecois debate.

If you were debating it then that would be great but you aren't, just hammering the point in needlessly without any greater depth of knowledge to debate from. Don't think that just because you're from North America that no one else here has any idea about your country, they might have done their research. Now there's a thought...

EDIT: For clarity, the bold text in the quote was added by me and isn't representative of ITCC_Andrew's view.

 

[Furinkazen]

What is Canada to do with anything? I don't see any bloody clashes or military clashes there.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What is Canada to do with anything?

Nothing. ITCC_Andrew has no idea what he is talking about, and at the same time, he is trying to sound knowledgeable.

 

[Touring Mars]

Would someone be willing to explain this whole situation to me? I'm interested to know what it's all about as it seems to be in the news a bit, but I don't really know what is happening.
Also, does this really involve the UN, America or whoever else is involved?

An explanation would be really appreciated 👍

The BBC have a crisis timeline here which is pretty good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26248275 - scroll to the end and work your way to the top.

Essentially, protests began after the Ukrainian government abandoned plans for a trade agreement with the EU in favour of stronger links with Russia. The elected government have since been ousted after weeks of protests, and a new 'unity government' has been installed, comprising of more pro-EU people.

The issue is complicated by a number of factors, not least the point that @Rage Racer has made about corruption and general dissatisfaction with the government, but also that the protests/protesters themselves are not all after the same thing - while the West is keen to support the pro-EU stance, they seem less willing to accept the Russian view that elements of the far right are using the protests to further their own agenda and to seize power illegitimately.

The Crimea situation is almost a separate thing - Crimea is a semi-autonomous state with a very high percentage of ethnic Russians (~60%) and Russia and Ukraine have an agreement about the presence of Russian troops in the region - although it is unclear about what happens to that agreement in the event of a coup or the Ukrainian government being in such turmoil.

The Russians are claiming that their intervention in Crimea is about protecting ethnic Russians (as well as Russia's own interests) - the West view the Russian intervention in Crimea as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The Russians have countered that claim by pointing out that the deposed Ukrainian leader (who was, after all, elected by the Ukrainian people) asked for Russian help, and that the Crimean government also requested Russian assistance.

The 'West' (specifically NATO and the EU) are limited as to what they can do because Ukraine is not a member of either, and as far as I understand it anyway, there are historic agreements/assurances that have been made with Russia about not extending NATO up to Russia's borders. NATO, the US and the EU can only really threaten to ostracize Russia politically and economically, but it is questionable if they'd have a legitimate basis for doing that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Ryanswannell

Touring Mars' explanation is excellent, so I don't have much to add... and check the BBC timelines, they're quite good. Early BBC coverage was lopsided but they've improved a lot in the last week

There is, in my opinion, a legitimate basis for the UK and US to act, I disagree with @Touring Mars on that. That's not to say that the UK or US will act militarily, but if they choose to do so then the Budapest Memorandum provides a legal basis for doing so.

As I said, the existence of that agreement doesn't mean that they will act but if they chose to do so then it's my opinion that it offers the most expedient route to the ground.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Putin has publicly commented on the situation. He called the events in Kiev an armed coup that was unconstitutional, and that the movement of soldiers in Crimea was in response to a plea for help from Yanukovych. The world isn't impressed, but leaders seem to have accepted this as his word Russia will not move against the rest of the Ukraine.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's a difficult precedent to allow; the world seems to be accepting that Russia will retain de facto control of Crimea as a separate state.

Part of me says that's better than a ground-war across the Ukraine, but then another part says that's exactly how bullying works.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yanukovych was seen as being in Moscow's pocket because he chose a closer relationship with Russia over integration with the EU. It is conceivable that the more-extreme elements opposed to Yanukovych might see any Russian influence within the country as fair game. In that case, they might do something stupid.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Putin just said (to paraphrase) that his actions are no more internationally-illegal than those of the US, UK and others in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arguable for the most part.

Says there is "No one in Kiev for him to talk to, there is no legitimate government". There's a parliament, he could try phoning them? There'll be someone in.

EDIT: Some shooting as Ukrainian troops march (singing, clearly making a statement) towards Russian-friendly troops. The 'Russian' troops are firing warning shots over the Ukrainian's heads. About 80 people involved all together, not quite Armageddon, and the singing was a bit flat.

EDIT EDIT: BBC saying that the 'Ukrainian' troops in the clip are demanding their jobs back at the base

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They appear to be a pro-Russia militia. The Russian military presence might be there to reign those militia in as much as they are trying to protect the Russians from anti-Russian supporters.

 

[SMfan]

Putin just said (to paraphrase) that his actions are no more internationally-illegal than those of the US, UK and others in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arguable for the most part.

Gotta love the "but they did it!" explanation.

Says there is "No one in Kiev for him to talk to, there is no legitimate government". There's a parliament, he could try phoning them? There'll be someone in.

Just as I thought. The dude just repeats the mantra started in the Russian media about a week ago. Also, when one side refuses any and all negotiation, it has to tell something. Especially when that side is on the offensive.

 

[SMfan]

They appear to be a pro-Russia militia. The Russian military presence might be there to reign those militia in as much as they are trying to protect the Russians from anti-Russian supporters.

Who appears to be what exactly? That post of yours seems like a response to something, but I don't know to what.

 

[DustDriver]

Says there is "No one in Kiev for him to talk to, there is no legitimate government". There's a parliament, he could try phoning them? There'll be someone in.

He doesn't consider the current parliament as legitimate. The former president is still the legitimate head of state according to them, and he is the one that wrote Russia for help.

 

[TenEightyOne]

He doesn't consider the current parliament as legitimate. The former president is still the legitimate head of state according to them, and he is the one that wrote Russia for help.

I understand what he's saying, however it seems that the rest of the world recognise the votes of the sitting parliament (as I know you know). I was just pointing out what he'd said, certainly not agreeing with him.

Less reverent story on The Daily Mash, this stuff is less funny than it was a week ago of course...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Who appears to be what exactly? That post of yours seems like a response to something, but I don't know to what.

Someone opened fire on a group of Ukrainian soldiers. That someone has been reported to be a pro-Russian militia. No-one was injured, but both the soldiers and militia appear to have been provoking one another; the Ukrainians by singing patriotic songs, and the militia by shooting back.

 

[DustDriver]

I understand what he's saying, however it seems that the rest of the world recognise the votes of the sitting parliament (as I know you know). I was just pointing out what he'd said, certainly not agreeing with him.

But is he wrong?
The Western media is perhaps too one-sided in this conflict.
I could be wrong, but from what I understood, most of the pro-Russia politicians weren't present when the parliament voted.
Purely looking at constitution and laws, the current government could be illegal.

(And not supporting any side, only trying to look at it from both sides)

 

[SMfan]

Someone opened fire on a group of Ukrainian soldiers. That someone has been reported to be a pro-Russian militia. No-one was injured, but both the soldiers and militia appear to have been provoking one another; the Ukrainians by singing patriotic songs, and the militia by shooting back.

I wonder if "militia" truns out to be Russian soldiers. Cause I am yet to see actual militia there.
Heard a couple reports like that before and in no case shooters were actually spotted.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I can only go by what is reported.

 

[SMfan]

But is he wrong?
The Western media is perhaps too one-sided in this conflict.

Sometimes one-sided media happens to showcase the more-or-less real picture. Also, I'm not sure how one-sided is every single Western info source, so it'd be interesting to have a quick perspective on their representations.
The most I've seen was from BBC, and whilst they mostly focused on the pro-EU or pro-united-Ukraine people, I at least didn't see any blatant lies, like we got here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But is he wrong?
The Western media is perhaps too one-sided in this conflict.
I could be wrong, but from what I understood, most of the pro-Russia politicians weren't present when the parliament voted.
Purely looking at constitution and laws, the current government could be illegal.

(And not supporting any side, only trying to look at it from both sides)

He's partly right in that the current government needs to be ratified by election as quickly as possible. I read reports earlier in the week that Crimean members of parliament had been voting as normal, I don't know if that's at all accurate though.

The worry is that there will now be two elections; one in Ukraine, one in the independent state of Crimea. Russian-sponsored elections are distrusted by much of the world although the EU has more on its agenda than just holding the region's democracy to account.

I'm trying to look at both sides too, maybe there are three, four or five sides even... certainly some of the politicians seem to be in a different team from the people

 

[Dotini]

But is he wrong?
The Western media is perhaps too one-sided in this conflict.
I could be wrong, but from what I understood, most of the pro-Russia politicians weren't present when the parliament voted.
Purely looking at constitution and laws, the current government could be illegal.

(And not supporting any side, only trying to look at it from both sides)

Yeah, after the coup, the parliament was reformed without the two previous biggest parties included - the parties who represented people from the east and the south. The remaining parties attempting to stop the revolution, form up, staff, and fund a new government, acquire ratification, foreign credit to the tune of billions, are suddenly needing to go from revolutionaries to fixers of the economy and fighters of a war against Russia. Fat chance. The government currently installed in Kiev is packed with too many oligarchs, fascists and dreamers to be anything other than the "suiciders" they claim to be.

They also are seeking maximum support from the West and EU. But recall the Nuland-Pyatt call which said "**** the EU" with respect to Ukraine policy? If the US is to have the best chance of consolidating this revolution in its favor, we will have to crack the whip more sharply over the EU allies, as key player Germany has bailed on ousting Russia from the G8 in favor of maintaining talks and trade ties with Russia. http://www.dw.de/putin-agrees-to-ukraine-fact-finding-mission-after-talk-with-merkel/a-17468591

 

[TenEightyOne]

There's a perfectly sensible reason for this, but it still looks amusing

Ukraine crisis: Sevastopol ships 'defended' with mattresses