
Ukraine places forces on combat alert and threatens war - ck2
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/01/crimea-crisis-deepens-as-russia-and-ukraine-ready-forces-live-updates
======
yoha
One interesting point is the agreement with Ukraine in favor of the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1]. To sum it up roughly, Ukraine
ended up with a lot of nuclear devices after the split of USSR. Since nuclear
powers wanted to avoid the spread of the deadly weapon, they convinced Ukraine
into getting rid of its nuclear arsenal. In exchange, US, Russia, UK and
France agreed to respect and help defend Ukraine's borders.

So, it would seem that Russia did violate this agreement but there remains to
see what other countries will do. One thing to underline is that they would
have to respond to a call for help from Ukraine and, with the ousting of the
Ukrainian government, it is still unclear who is to make the call.

The strategy of Russia might just have been to play on this period of
uncertainty to claim some of Ukraine's territory. Because the US-Russia
relation is still similar to the one from during the Cold War, they might
really want to avoid a direct conflict with Russia. Until the situation in
Ukraine is settled, Russia can move its troops without having to face the US.
Once it's settled, the US will probably not want to engage a fight and will
not push them back out of Ukraine.

tl;dr: Russia might be on a conquer-and-hold over Crimea

Edit: the agreement is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances [2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
The Crimea, presently, is threatening to secede from Kiev. That this appears
to largely be the work of Russian special forces is a moot point.

Russia is interpreting its obligation to protecting Ukraine's territorial
integrity as compelling it to prevent the Crimea from seceding. In its eyes,
the regime in Kiev is illegal and antagonising ethnic Russians in the Crimea.
The simplest solution, to Moscow, is fighting the illegal" regime.

This follows a similar script to Georgia - provoking the new regime into
aggression and then intervening to keep the peace (with such an intervention
not necessarily restricted to the initial separatist areas, e.g. South Ossetia
or Crimea). In Russia's defence, it is a strategy the United States has used
to great success as well.

~~~
barry-cotter
[Actually open to correction, I swear] Didn't Georgia invade South Ossetia
shortly after vague noises about it being able to join NATO one day? I
understand that under modern international law South Ossetia is part of
Georgia but it's never been actually ruled by post-Soviet Georgia. They were
invading.

On a separate note, why would any country treat the UK's guarantee as worth
anything after Cyprus?

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus)

In response to the coup, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sent Joseph
Sisco to try to mediate the conflict.[42] Turkey issued a list of demands to
Greece via a US negotiator. These demands included the immediate removal of
Nikos Sampson, the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National
Guard, the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, equal
rights for both populations, and access to the sea from the northern coast for
Turkish Cypriots.[47] These demands were rejected as they would have given
Turkey an unacceptable amount of power on the island. _Turkey, led by Prime
Minister Bülent Ecevit, then applied to Britain as a signatory of the Treaty
of Guarantee to take action to return Cyprus to its neutral status. Britain
declined this offer, and refused to let Turkey use its bases on Cyprus as part
of the operation._

~~~
lmg643
Yes, Georgia invaded South Ossetia. It's incredible how often this incident is
twisted to portray the Russians as aggressors.

~~~
jnbiche
Yes, because Russia has _never_ displayed any aggression in the Caucasus.

~~~
lostlogin
Not that others are without fault here. We commentate the day here in New
Zealand that a load of our troops went into the Caucuses. The deaths of New
Zealand troops was somehow nation forming. There are those that see glory in
killing nearly 3,000 young men and wounding nearly 5,000 on some grotty strip
of coast that is about as far from home as its possible to get.

~~~
jnbiche
Just a point of fact: Gallipoli is far from the Caucasus (indeed, Greece is
just as close to the Caucasus).

And I'm not sure I understand how the unfortunate slaughter of the ANZAC corps
in WWI plays any role in the bloody ethnic conflicts that flare up regularly
in the Caucasus, fueled by Russia's imperial ambitions.

~~~
lostlogin
It was the key part of the campaign to exert pressure on the Caucasus as there
wasn't really any other way. But your right, it isn't a great example, it was
the local connection (NZ) that got me there (we had Britain rather than the US
as the master back then). However my point was that it isn't just the Russians
who have had imperial ambitions there.

------
candl
Meanwhile Aleksei A. Navalny, Russia’s leading opposition figure, was placed
under house arrest on Friday and ordered not to use the Internet or telephone
for two months, thus removing President Vladimir V. Putin’s fiercest critic
from public life.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/aleksei-
naval...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/aleksei-
navalny.html?ref=world)

~~~
yoha
Noticed this in the flood of topics related to the Crimean invasion on
/r/worldnews. I do not think is has a lot to do with the incoming war though.
The NYT does not suggest it either.

~~~
jnbiche
Only to the extent that the "incoming war" has provided some great cover.

------
danbruc
_The Russian President underlined that there are real threats to the life and
health of Russian citizens and compatriots on Ukrainian territory. Vladimir
Putin stressed that if violence spread further in the eastern regions of
Ukraine and in Crimea, Russia reserves the right to protect its interests and
those of Russian speakers living there._

So if there are some English speakers or tourists from foreign countries in
Russia subject to threats to their life or health, maybe gay people,
then...the United States, Great Britain, Australia...the home countries of the
tourists...have some kind of legitimation to invade Russia? Seriously?

~~~
firstOrder
Reagan's justification for invading Grenada was that he was protecting the
hundreds of American medical students studying in Grenada.

The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. It had, and still has, a massive
Russian military base there. In 1992 Ukraine officially recognized the Crimea
as largely autonomous. So in that light, Russia has much more standing to go
into the Crimea then Reagan had to go into Grenada.

~~~
danbruc
This is completely irrelevant - a big mistake does not justify a different -
and completely unrelated - "smaller" mistake in any way.

~~~
toyg
It's not irrelevant, it just shows how governments "think". This is more or
less accepted practice in foreign affairs.

~~~
danbruc
I did not want to imply that the comment is irrelevant, it shows, as you say,
an interesting parallel in the way of thinking. I wanted to say that it is
completely irrelevant as a justification for the current actions of Russia.

------
Zenst
Half the country wants to be part of Russia's Economic market and the other
half want to be part of the EU economic market.

Are either markets in a position to take on Ukraine in the state it is in, who
knows fully.

Russia also have a vested interest in parts of the Ukraine and the EU has
none, beyond growing the members list realestate wise. The part of the country
Russia has a vested interest is also the part that wants to be apart of the
Russian market, so whilst democracy does play a part it does get down to a yes
or no type approach in choice. Which is perhaps the real issue in how it is
applied and for Ukraine I can see the country splitting into two, appeaseing
both mindsets with regards to economic market.

I just hope Ukraine has a say and allows the logicle approach that appeases
the people in a way that could appease both and place the country into a
unique position which would enable it to gain from the Russian and the EU
market. But sadly other contries will want to show face, even if not effected
and this may cause esculation and force Ukraine into a position that blinds it
from looking at all options and what might be the best choice and a slice of
each cake. But it would be nice if that chocie was enabled. We have Russia
standing by the Russian market embracing and the EU and USA in effect behind
the rest.

Either way, if the pissfest by the World leaders progresses then Ukraine will
be sadly left out of debating what happens in its own country, nomatter what
the people want and when it is near a 50/50 split then maybe that would be
better way on many levels and keep all happy. But if done wrongly then it will
be East/West Germany and a step back in progress in diplomacy for many years.

Still, however you feel, it is one news item that will rollon for a while.
Heck if Scotland can vote for independance the maybe part of Ukrain needs to
be allowed the same and save many milatary operations. Though not seen any
World leader suggest that avenue of progress as some seem stuck in the cold
war mentality or at least there advisers are.

~~~
voidlogic
>Half the country wants to be part of Russia's Economic market and the other
half want to be part of the EU economic market.

Everything I have read indicates that its more of a 80/20 split. Where is this
50/50 number from?

~~~
barry-cotter
Yanukovych was elected, not imposed. Remember, the current government is the
product of a victory of a mob, not an election. The US and EU money men had a
"powersharing" agreement set up and then some very, very brave young men won a
pitched battle against riot police backed up by heavy weaponry.

But probably the real reason the protestors/rioters won was that many of the
police went over. And that probably happened because an Interior Ministry
armory in Lviv was captured by the rebels.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/world/europe/as-his-
fortun...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/world/europe/as-his-fortunes-
fell-in-ukraine-a-president-clung-to-illusions.html)

Just remember, Yanukovych was elected, _after_ the Orange Revolution. 80/20 is
a large enough difference that they would have just gone for the EU. Obvious
propaganda.

~~~
nl
This.

Also the split is geographic. The protests are mostly in Kiev, which is in the
pro-EU area.

A split in the country is a real possibility.

------
danbruc
One of my coworkers is from the Ukraine and he predicted exactly this while
the situation at Maidan was slowly escalating a few weeks before the Olympic
Games began - once the Olympic Games are over, Russia will send tanks, he
said.

------
bonchibuji
There are protests organized in London, Paris, Berlin, Helsinki, The Hague,
Rome, SF, Riga, Krakow etc. If you wish to join one of them, please check out
here:

[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237875373062939&set=...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237875373062939&set=a.220820914768385.1073741828.220542374796239&type=1)

~~~
yoha
I don't want to sound like a downer, but what could these protests could
actually achieve? It is very unlikely that even an important mobilization of
citizens would change the decisions that each country will take, considering
the incentives driven by the diplomatic context. And that's a genuine
question, I would be interested in reading an answer.

~~~
toyg
This sort of "protests" can be useful in granting political capital to this or
that politician to come out in favour of (or refrain from adopting) this or
that position, eventually snowballing into official government policy.

~~~
yoha
Yes, that's the purpose of a demonstration (it's a way to _demonstrate_ the
political power lent by the people to an opinion). However, I just don't see
how this would change anything in the current situation since the incentives
of avoiding a war already seems the predominant objective.

~~~
toyg
I wouldn't be so sure. Drawing the Russian military in a lengthy and expensive
campaign to pacify a huge country is actually a _very_ compelling scenario
from a certain point of view. Yes, Europe would be short on gas for a while,
but quoting one Ms. Nuland, "F*ck the EU", right?

There are a lot of incentives on all sides, at this point.

------
aaronsnoswell
I've been following these developments closely. One question that I was hoping
someone here could comment on; what are the international law ramifications of
the Russian soldiers not wearing insignia? I was under the impression that the
lack of displayed insignia during a conflict strips them of many rights to
protection if captured etc.

~~~
IgorPartola
This. Except, there is no armed conflict currently, they are not getting
captured, and Putin likely does not give two shits about what happens to them.

Speaking as a Ukrainian-American, the US and the rest of the world are
responding way too slowly to this.

------
ChuckMcM
I guess Putin really does want the old days back, including the Cold War. I
cannot imagine any scenario where this comes out well for the Russians, and a
number of scenarios where a lot of innocent people die. Going to be one of
those 'turning points in history' either way.

~~~
allochthon
> I cannot imagine any scenario where this comes out well for the Russians

I'm not so sure there will be immediate repercussions. Something similar
happened with Georgia, and although this has further tarnished Putin's
reputation internationally, the Russian government seems to have shrugged off
the diplomatic difficulties.

------
jeveloper
Take a look at the annexation of Crimea to Ukraine in 1950s , that was a
ridiculous and at this point an illegal move. Time to bring it back. i
definitely would not want to see a war of any kind and there is no reason to
take what's not Russias.

------
X4
Seriously, why the hell does Ukraine want to join the EU? They don't meet the
criteria to be even allowed to join the EU afaik and why would the EU allow a
country in inflation to join? Except to suck up all of their Oil reservoirs
for _free_ , that means giving them a huge credit (which of course won't help
them). Just like the German credit didn't help Greece.

Albeit I believe I might be terribly wrong on some of this, I think that I
better have a picture, than none. My own answers are like this:

The USA avoids a direct conflict with the Russians, by subverting the country
to join the EU, which then will allow US troops to be placed near Russia. I
would think that this could give the USA a win at first-strike chance in a
possible WW3 scenario. They don't even need to ship an atom bomb over from the
USA, but can use the ones already placed in the Ukraine. Germany and Ukraine
seem to be critical to the US's WW3 strategic scenerio superiority. It could
also just be the massive amounts of Oil in the Ukraine, which the US or the EU
(which currently means Germany) could tap on. I wish I could know the truth
about all this. Yes it's surely just about power and money again, but such an
oversimplification removes a lot colors and nuances from the grand picture.

~~~
eloff
No, there can be no win in a WW3, for anybody.

------
patrickg_zill
One thing that I have found, is the limit of English language media to address
Russian language events.

You really have to be careful to cross-check things as much as possible.

I chalk it up simply to there not being enough Eng/Rus bilingual speakers in
the media to reach a critical mass.

I am not criticizing this particular article, just making a general
observation.

------
ommunist
Ukraine has Mickey Mouse Army. 24 planes, of which only 4 can fly. Everything
shootable was sold to Africa long time ago. Artillery is very obsolete, but
there ae mo troop capable to operate it. I kid you not.

And most of the 'army' are ethnic Russians. Guess, shall they shoot east or
west?

------
ChristianMarks
It's not a great win for Russia to annex the Ukraine. If they do, they're
stuck with an expensive mess.

------
dharma1
doesn't look good does it. hope it doesn't escalate

~~~
pekk
Russia invading Ukraine was the escalation you are worried about

------
osipov
I for one feel better that we didn't let Ukraine into NATO.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Russia wouldn't send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine was in NATO. And then
Ukraine wouldn't be threatening war over it.

~~~
toyg
Russia would have sent troops to Ukraine a minute before they officially
joined NATO. "Claiming" Crimea for NATO is something that Russia will never
allow, like the US will never allow Panama to fall in Russian or Chinese
hands.

~~~
kiiski
Indeed. According to wikipedia (source was written in ukrainian, so can't
checĸ), Putin said in 2008 that Russia would attempt to annex Crimea and East
Ukraine if they were to join NATO.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Russian_resistance_to_Ukrainian_NATO_membership)

