I don't know how much choice the Ukraine had. If they ever actually did nuke Russia they would get it much worse. Further any nuke attack on Russia would lead to fallout on Ukraine. Also keeping an active nuke program maintained and in condition to deploy is very costly. I doubt the Ukrainians at the time wanted to spend the resources to do so.
The win is The Ukraine, not Crimea. But all despots need a manageable war. It is a great cover for strong-handed control over dissent from within; tyranny under the guise of patriotism. Foes of America in Russia Crave Rupture in Ties http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/w...keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article&_r=3
One problem I am having with this whole situation is that it does appear that the majority of those living in Crimea legitimately want to be with Russia. I agree that Russian forces are there in violation of international law but from everything I am reading it's not like the people in Crimea being forced to vote for splitting from the Ukraine at the point of a gun but actually want to leave. This situation seems very similar to what happened Kosovo where Albanians there wanted to leave Serbia. At the time the West came firmly down on the part of the Albanians even though Kosovo had traditionally been Serbian. I am wondering if an acceptable path to all sides would be to have an agreement to pull out all Russian troops while making sure Ukranian troops stay in there barracks. Have another referendum with foreign observers to make sure it is clean and let that decide the fate of Crimea.
It isn't that easy. In the United States the South wanted to be Independent, and it didn't happen. Hell, if you went into some states like MISS or ALA and did public polling, a majority of the citizenry would vote to leave the Union. Further, it opens pandora's box, at what point does it stop?
The point is the US and EU want to support independence based on how they like the country/region in question, and not on some set rules. Which is fine because they have the economic and military power. If other power have the same capability, they could do exactly the same thing.
Agree, republics/states don't get to just leave their country because they want to. For example, imagine if the Texas population took a vote and decided they want to secede from the USA and become part of Mexico. There would be American troops there almost immediately and there's no way in hell they'd let it stand.
You would be surprised to know how many people in this country think we support these points because of freedom, democracy or some other noble ideals instead of self interest.
I'm not surprised at all. All countries, including the US, and maybe especially the US, brainwash their own people into believing in the supposed moral basis of their international politics. If you look at history and the world, the Nazi propaganda did it, the Communist propaganda did it, the Japanese imperial propaganda did it... EVERYONE did it. Also, we as people want to and crave to believe we are more moral than everyone else. We justify what we do by claiming it is the right thing to do. There is no morality in international politics, there is only interests, both national and personal. It is as machiavellian as it gets.
Very Well Written Article. Putin's Orwellian theft of Crimea (CNN) -- The spectacle of Russia swallowing pieces of a neighboring country while claiming to defend its people would make George Orwell grimace with recognition. This weekend's charade, a "referendum" in which we're told more than 96% voted to join Russia, fits perfectly with the Orwellian narrative. In this twilight zone of make-believe, Russian troops invade after removing the insignias from their uniforms and Putin explains, "You can go to a store and buy a uniform," claiming they are local "self-defense forces." Maybe Crimean shops also sell machine guns and armored personnel carriers. In this world of double-speak and misinformation, Moscow is manipulating the message, intimidating, twisting facts and lying -- the more absurd the propaganda the better. My personal favorite is the branding of Crimea's independence push as the "Russian Spring." The most famous independence "spring" was the 1968 "Prague Spring," a push to expand freedoms in Czechoslovakia that was crushed by Soviet tanks. On second thought, maybe Ukrainians should embrace irony and call this charade a Russian Spring. Do not believe those who say the result is fair or an accurate reflection of the popular will. Sure, the Russian speakers in Crimea are intoxicated with Russian nationalism right now. So are millions in the motherland, who have heard the persistent false claims about grave threats, even warning of genocide against Russia's "brothers" in Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine. The more you hear about threats to ethnic Russians, the closer Putin is getting to launching an expanded invasion. Look for claims of "requests for protection" from Moscow. After all, how can Moscow not help. And ignore the Russian agents sowing unrest. The unrest is the required pretext. Russia will come and "pacify." This tactic was not invented by Putin; it left a fetid track in the history of European empire-building, ethnic cleansing and warfare. Before the propaganda campaign, a poll reported in The Washington Post found a majority of Crimeans were not exactly yearning to join Russia. More than half said their homeland was Crimea, and 35% said Ukraine. About 12 % of Crimeans are Muslim Tatars who despise Russia. About one-quarter are ethnic Ukrainians. You can bet they feel absolutely no affection for Russia today. The referendum process was a travesty. Thousands of invading soldiers, no campaigning to hear differing views, no choice on the ballot for the status quo, intimidation of opponents, and a lightning-fast schedule after the local government is overthrown under the watch of armed men in unmarked camouflage fatigues. Democracy? You tell me. McCain: Russia a 'gas station' Ukraine protests turn deadly Ukraine analysis The referendum was not just a violation of democratic norms and Ukrainian law, it was a clear violation of international law. A Kremlin statement said Putin told U.S. President Barack Obama that Crimean independence echoes the "Kosovo experience." He may come to regret bringing up the former Yugoslavia, which unraveled in an orgy of ethnic and nationalism-driven bloodshed in the 1990s. No country annexed Kosovo, and that experience has little in common with Crimea. No one has accused the new Ukrainian government of persecuting Crimea's Russians the way Serbian forces ever did. The new Ukrainian government does contain an element of extreme right-wingers, who should be isolated and removed. The large mainstream of Ukraine's government, including its prime minister, is moderate, liberal, democratic and peaceful. Moscow's false narrative that fascists control Kiev is a ploy, a pretext. Already Putin has reserved the right to "defend" Russians in other parts of Ukraine. So-called self-defense forces captured a gas terminal close to Crimea, just inside Ukraine. What comes next -- and what should the West do? There are clear signs that Putin has designs on eastern Ukraine. He may not have decided yet. And what if he orders an invasion there? What if he goes for the rest of Ukraine? After all, Russia has close ties to Crimea, but it also has strong emotional ties to Kiev. And then? Many neighboring republics are getting nervous. Their history books are replete with stories of conquest. Would Moscow dare? We just don't know. NATO will not go to war against Russia over Ukraine. Putin knows that. The West should set up a dual track response. First, help the new Ukraine succeed. Ukrainian prosperity, democracy, anti-corruption reform, everything the Ukrainians say they want. Many in Russia want it too. At the same time, impose sanctions and set up trip wires -- escalating sanctions that will go into effect if Russia makes more military moves. If Moscow makes a move to seize more of Ukraine, tell the Republic of Georgia, which yearns to join NATO and already lost territory to a similar Russian move, that its request will go on an approval track. The U.S. and Europe need to work together and speak with one voice. Obama is traveling to Europe in the next few days. Meetings with NATO allies should produce more than statements. They should produce more than threats. Real sanctions will make Putin rethink his next move, especially if they affect his oligarch friends, who enjoy homes in London and ski trips in the Alps. Sanctions require full European participation. Much has been made of Europe's need for Russian natural gas. But gas sales are a double-edged sword. Russia needs its European customers. America's newfound gas riches could help Europe gain independence from Moscow. The long-term goal is to convince Russia that the use of force is counterproductive, that the costs outweigh the benefits. Ukraine will always be Russia's neighbor. One country's prosperity will benefit the other. For now, however, Putin views Ukraine's dash for an independent, pro-Western future as a challenge to his worldview; to his goal of a Eurasian future dominated by Moscow. He has shown he is prepared to use force. He has also shown that he wants a veneer of legitimacy for his actions. That's why he is taking the trouble of placing Orwellian labels and going through faux-democratic moves. If Putin believes each region should have the right to choose in what country it belongs, he has just smashed a hornet's nest. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/opinion/ghitis-crimea-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
The threat alone would have been enough to keep Russia from invading. As long as they had nukes, they were safe.
To be honest. I'm glad Ukraine no longer possess nuclear weapons. Just looking at the sorry state of maintenance of the current Ukrainian armed forces, I doubt they'd be able to properly maintain or safeguard what was than the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile at the time.
The West and USA can easily win this stalemate, but it will require a genuine desire to stick to harsh sanctions, and I don't think it is worth it to the USA. Simply stated, it is more important to Putin and Russia than the USA and Putin knows it.
Crimea is not Scotland: [rquoter]Why Is Crimea Different From Scotland Or Kosovo? March 13, 2014 Russians have accused the West of hypocrisy in its refusal to accept the legitimacy of Crimea's March 16 referendum. Politicians and Russian media have pointed to both the West's support for Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008 and an upcoming referendum in Scotland that could see the country break away from the United Kingdom. "If some people aren't happy with the Crimean parliament, it's their taste," said Valentina Matvienko, the chairman of Russia's Federation Council. "How come no one has said that Scotland's independence referendum that is taking place in September is a priori illegitimate? In another report, on Russian state-run television, an anchor remarks sarcastically that in Western opinion "Kosovo has the right to self-determination but Crimea does not." The comparisons are not surprising -- especially given Russia's outrage when Kosovo did declare independence -- but a careful look shows that both cases have occurred under considerably different circumstances than those taking place in Crimea. Let's address Scotland first: As outlined in "The Washington Post," it was a series of democratic events that led to the decision to put leaving the United Kingdom to a vote. In 2011, the Scottish National Party, which was created on the basis of campaigning for independence from the United Kingdom, earned a majority in the country's parliament. The Scottish parliament then approved legislation authorizing a referendum on secession. This was followed in 2012 by negotiations between ministers from the Scottish and British government, who reached agreement on holding a referendum in 2014. In other words, legally viable bodies at both the local (Scotland) and national (United Kingdom) level approved of the referendum in tandem. The referendum choice is simple: Remain a part of the United Kingdom or break off. Now Kosovo. When Kosovo's assembly unanimously approved independence in 2008, Russia was outraged. Moscow claimed it had violated a 1999 agreement that would put the territory under UN control until a negotiated settlement could be reached. To some it may seem like the only difference between the events of six years ago and those taking place today is that the aggrieved parties have switched sides. While the comparison holds up better than the Scotland one, there were a range of important factors at play in Kosovo that do not exist in Crimea. Moscow claims that ethnic Russians in Crimea face the threat of persecution from Ukraine's ethnic-Ukrainian majority but there has been no evidence of this so far. The same could not be said for Kosovo. A brutal crackdown on ethnic Albanians by Yugoslav army forces in 1999 led to a three month NATO bombing campaign, which Russia adamantly opposed. Unable to get help from Moscow, then-President Slobodan Milosevic -- who had skillfully and ruthlessly played off ethnic divisions in the region throughout the 1990s -- was forced to approve an international peace plan. Final status negotiations with ethnic-Albanians, who represent 90 percent of Kosovo's population had gone nowhere since, with Serbia unwilling to sacrifice further autonomy to the region. So, almost a decade after the brutal ethnic conflict, Kosovo's democratically elected parliament voted to break off officially from Serbia. Now let's contrast the above two cases with the current situation in Crimea: * The Crimean parliament was taken over by heavily armed soldiers. The sitting prime minister was forced to resign and replaced by Sergei Aksyonov. The latter's separatist party had received just 4 percent of the vote in Crimea's most recent elections. As many as 14,000 Russian soldiers have occupied Crimea since late February. Neither the Kosovo declaration or the upcoming Scotland vote involved military pressure nor a government overthrow. * The Crimea referendum provides for either joining with Russia or becoming a de-facto independent state. There is no status quo option. The Scottish referendum provides a simple yes or no for separation from the United Kingdom. * Ethnic Russians make up the majority of Crimea's population but ethnic-Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars together make up nearly 40 percent of the remainder. While Russians do not appear to be under threat, the Crimean Tatar minority has legitimate cause for concern. Hundreds of thousands were deported from the region by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in 1944. Albanians made up 88 percent of the population of Kosovo around the time of the independence vote. (Still, several enclaves are majority Serbs.) * Rather than seeking independence, Crimea's de-facto leaders seek to join Russia. Kosovo and Scotland separatists have both sought independence, rather than union with another state. * Less than a month has passed between Kyiv's change of government and Crimea's declaration of independence and referendum on union with Russia. Scotland's referendum was the result of a rigorous legal process that included input from both the Scottish government and London. Kosovo declared independence almost a decade after gaining autonomy. -- Glenn Kates [/rquoter] http://www.rferl.org/content/why-is-crimea-different-from-scotland-or-kosovo/25296187.html
The equivalent of what has happened to Mr. Putin would be if Canada joined the Warsaw Pact. Maybe you can't tell the difference in strength and desperation.
Yes. But the equivalent of what he is doing with Crimea could backfire on him. What if Dagestan (mainly Muslim) wants to hold a referendum to secede from Russia? All the arguments in favor of Crimea doing the referendum could work in reverse against him.
With Putin it is simple... He will not allow a referendum Dagestan and use military force if necessary. Putin is banking on the USA and the West not willing to do what it takes to stop him.
Let's not lose our minds with Russia's power under the leadership of Putin -- Russia's GDP is about the same as Texas and their military is decades behind the west. Russia will be exposed soon enough once the sanctions take effect.
