The Situation in the Ukraine. #23

flamming_python wrote:Fighting with one arm tied behind your back, having to respect rules that your opponent does not is difficult, but ultimately it is what will win respect and lead to victory. If you're only able to achieve victory by fighting as dirty as your opponent and not respecting any rules or principles, then perhaps you don't deserve to win any more than the other guy - from an outside observer's point of view.

Respecting the rules does not lead to victory. Winning leads to victory.

flamming_python wrote:And let's not dramatize too much - Russia could have quite legitimately intervened in the Crimea, amid a deteriorating situation, and either set up an East Ukrainian republic with Yanuk as its (nominal) head, possibly grabbing the loyalty of other Eastern region governors too; or otherwise just stabilized the situation and forced the new authorities in Kiev to negotiation and compromise.

Why are you expecting that Kiev would negotiate and compromise rather than cry for help from the West and get it?
Minsk I + II showed what happens when Russia relies on cooperation from the Ukrainian side. It does not work.
And the willingness of Russian citizens to prop up Yanuk's East Ukrainian republic indefinitely is questionable.

You are essential asking that Russia should have done in Ukraine what the Saudis do in Yemen but without any international support.

flamming_python wrote:Acting like it did, annexing the entire peninsula into its own territory - was unprecedented in modern times. Yes Kosovo and Iraq were serious violations, but that sort of thing has happened pretty regularly since WW2.

Israel annexed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Morocco annexed the Western Sahara.

flamming_python wrote:The fact is that Lavrov spent the last 10 years talking about international law, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders in Europe. The US didn't listen, and went ahead with Kosovo, but Russia kept the same official line and kept promoting it, finding supporters amongst the BRICS, CIS and many other countries besides.
And then in the flash of a hat it has completely betrayed all its own stated principles and its course of diplomacy. And what now? Russia has been busy building up the sanctity of international law but now it turns out that it is ready to violate it if convenient, same as the US. The only major power left that respects it is China. Russia is too fixated on the US and countering it, and not fixated enough on setting a good example and establishing itself as a moral compass for other countries. Why then ultimately, should anyone want to follow its lead? What are other countries supposed to think? That international law is only a battering ram for Russia and the US to use to bash each other with whenever needed?
Yes yes, I know, cause & effect. Let me tell you something else though - in 10 years time no-one is going to remember who started what. What they're going to remember is that both are law-breakers.
No-one takes the US position of moral high-ground over Russia seriously right now. But the problem is that now Russia will have the same credibility problem in the future, when attempting to lecture the US over international law or discredit it.

This approach could have worked if there was enough support for this policy in the West.
There isn't, though.

It is like Litvinov's collective security policy in the 1930s.
A nice idea which failed thanks to the lack of support from Britain and France.

flamming_python wrote:

Neutrality wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Nice. So what are we hating on America for then?

If a treaty or promise made in earlier times is no longer looked upon favourably by the government of today - tear it up.
If international law gets in the way - just ignore it.

Yes, that's exactly what this is. Which country started to ignore international law after USSR's dissolution because it felt nothing could stop it? You know the answer very well to that. You can't expect the other guy to continue to abide by the rules when you're the one who laughs in his face and say you don't give a fuck about said rules.

I'd very much like international law to function but this is not the reality we're living in. The only way UN resolutions could work is if the UN had an independent army, navy and air force (ONLY AND ONLY LOYAL to the UN) to enforce these resolutions.

I disagree. Yes you're right, international law became a joke after 1991, and especially post 1999 and 2003. But the solution to that shouldn't be to abandon international law once and for all, but to make all effort to strengthen it back up once again.
Fighting with one arm tied behind your back, having to respect rules that your opponent does not is difficult, but ultimately it is what will win respect and lead to victory. If you're only able to achieve victory by fighting as dirty as your opponent and not respecting any rules or principles, then perhaps you don't deserve to win any more than the other guy - from an outside observer's point of view.

And let's not dramatize too much - Russia could have quite legitimately intervened in the Crimea, amid a deteriorating situation, and either set up an East Ukrainian republic with Yanuk as its (nominal) head, possibly grabbing the loyalty of other Eastern region governors too; or otherwise just stabilized the situation and forced the new authorities in Kiev to negotiation and compromise.
Acting like it did, annexing the entire peninsula into its own territory - was unprecedented in modern times. Yes Kosovo and Iraq were serious violations, but that sort of thing has happened pretty regularly since WW2.

The fact is that Lavrov spent the last 10 years talking about international law, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders in Europe. The US didn't listen, and went ahead with Kosovo, but Russia kept the same official line and kept promoting it, finding supporters amongst the BRICS, CIS and many other countries besides.
And then in the flash of a hat it has completely betrayed all its own stated principles and its course of diplomacy. And what now? Russia has been busy building up the sanctity of international law but now it turns out that it is ready to violate it if convenient, same as the US. The only major power left that respects it is China. Russia is too fixated on the US and countering it, and not fixated enough on setting a good example and establishing itself as a moral compass for other countries. Why then ultimately, should anyone want to follow its lead? What are other countries supposed to think? That international law is only a battering ram for Russia and the US to use to bash each other with whenever needed?
Yes yes, I know, cause & effect. Let me tell you something else though - in 10 years time no-one is going to remember who started what. What they're going to remember is that both are law-breakers.
No-one takes the US position of moral high-ground over Russia seriously right now. But the problem is that now Russia will have the same credibility problem in the future, when attempting to lecture the US over international law or discredit it.

Anyway, I don't really want to take this argument further. I respect the other point of view, about it being a waste of time playing by rules that others don't hold themselves to, etc... such arguments are quite valid I feel. It's just personally, I'm more inclined to another approach.

> Thinking that CIS and BRICS are allied with Russia due to her moral values and not out of necessity, is laughable.

> Russia holds to international law when possible, Crimea was an impossible situation that demanded immediate action, whether it was within international law or not was irrelevant and given that not a shot was fired, it became even more so. It was also overwhelmingly clear that this was what Crimea's residents wanted. Russian inaction would have been catastrophic, completely and utterly. To assume that surrounding nations would have been sympathetic to the Russian cause if they had simply stood by and let NATO rape Crimea while espousing International Law and languishing the US' blatant violations of these laws, is far too trusting. The Western public is abysmally stupid, they wouldn't have cared less. Your recommended solution would have landed Russia in exactly the same position as the current, except this time the MSM would have spun that Russia was forcefully keeping her crony in play, and their audience would have gobbled it up just the same. "Russian Aggression, Russian Aggression, Russian Aggression, Russian Aggression...."

> What repercussions Russia's decisions have further down the track on the international stage are completely and utterly irrelevant given that mass bloodshed was prevented. When many lives are saved and secession of a state is appreciated by a vast majority of the citizens immediately involved, "International Law" becomes a little derelict given the situation, would you not agree?

Anyway, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I feel like this is a needlessly rehashed discussion.

Neutrality wrote:

flamming_python wrote:
I disagree. Yes you're right, international law became a joke after 1991, and especially post 1999 and 2003. But the solution to that shouldn't be to abandon international law once and for all, but to make all effort to strengthen it back up once again.
Fighting with one arm tied behind your back, having to respect rules that your opponent does not is difficult, but ultimately it is what will win respect and lead to victory. If you're only able to achieve victory by fighting as dirty as your opponent and not respecting any rules or principles, then perhaps you don't deserve to win any more than the other guy - from an outside observer's point of view.

How has "respect" ever helped a country in the geopolitical sphere? Deep pockets and a powerful army is what makes you feared and respected. This "pat on the back" crap hasn't helped Russia in any way. Let me ask you a simple question. What's more important, interests or respect?

Respect for your interests.

I'm not here to call for pacifism. I have never advocated it nor do I think that Russia should have passively looked on while the US installed its people in Kiev.

The point is that Russia had options to gain control over the Crimea peninsula without having to break international law so blatantly. What's more, it could have gained more support from the Ukrainian population by taking such an alternative, than it did by evoking a comparison with Hitler's actions vis-a-vis Austria.

Yes and that would mean the Russian army would have to invade and establish order in the Eastern regions. You simply underestimate Europe's reaction that would follow.

That's a good point. Although, I think that at least in such a case - international law would be more on Russia's side, Yanukovich was the legitimate authority at that stage after all. The West's reaction would be very serious, especially as they'd be the ones left backing an illegitimate government, but it's not their reaction that I'm worried about or ever was worried about, it's about Russia betraying what it stands for or claims to stand for in the eyes of the world (which is far bigger than just the West, and everyone of course is watching the show).

Please do elaborate because again, Russian forces would have to intervene (officially).

Yes, intervene in the Crimea, at least for an interim period before the two sides agree to negotiate. I never was against Russian intervention; because I recognize that there weren't any likely alternatives.

Yes, Moscow took a very direct decision: protect Crimeans and protect its interests. No matter how you look at it, the Russian army would have to ultimately intervene at some point and Moscow took the most effective decision. Kosovo was blatantly ripped off from Serbia and you don't mind because "hey, this was normal since WW2". Well I say bullshit to that. Imagine what would have happened if there were no peacekeepers in Kosovo at that time. Serbian army would have invaded.

Yes I can understand the argument, and like I said - I was never against intervening and protecting the Crimeans. The question is what to do after.
Russia also brokered a ceasefire between the Abkhaz, Ossetians on the one side and Georgians on the other, after covertly intervening in order to make sure that the former didn't simply get genocided from their lands. But Russia didn't recognize either seperatist republic as independent states (not until Saaka anyway), much less annex them into its own territory; no matter how much the South Ossetians wanted (and continue) to want it.

I can understand that social pressure became immense from both sides; the Crimean and the Russian, once Russia took over the peninsula. Was annexation inevitable by then? Well, there's a good case for that too, I suppose.

And no one in the world gave a fuck when Kosovo happened. Sure, some countries condemned it and nothing after that.

Well what did you want them to do?
That still doesn't make it right for everyone else to behave that way, just because someone did it first and got away with it.

I'd love to see you get beaten up by someone and still continue preaching peace and prosperity.

Ain't that what Jesus taught? If you get struck on one cheek, turn the other cheek to them? Show courage in your convictions even in the face of setbacks and adversity?

Yes it's not easy. Doing the right thing is often the hardest thing to do.

No you'll fight for your life because your basic instincts will kick in. Now regard all this in the geopolitical spectrum. That's exactly what happened. Russia's basic instincts kicked in because it regards Ukraine as its backyeard.

If it was a matter of survival with no alternatives, e.g. Hitler's invasion of the USSR - then yeah, do what you have to do and fuck what everyone thinks. Completely agree.

But in this case I think Russia had alternatives, and never was it about survival. Just a chess game with America. And in this game, you must not only think about the short-term consequences of moves but their long-term consequences too.
Russia has raptured trust at some level with some of its close CIS allies, Kazakhstan in particular - who will now be more wary of Moscow's intentions and about Russia's basic instincts and how they will manifest and under what conditions.

And Russia simply won't give a fuck about someone's feelings. Actions speak louder than words. In 10 years time somewhere we'll see European and Russian interests come together again and no one else will give a crap about Crimea.

You're probably right, but although it sounds funny, it's not Russia's relations with Europe that will ultimately be affected by this episode, but perhaps with other countries of the world; whose eyes are upon it now.

Precisely and I'm mad myself that this is the way the world works though you and I are in it.

It is us who make the world work as it does.

TheArmenian wrote:It is up the people of Crimea to decide what's right for them. Whatever 96% of them agreed upon is right and legal. That's it.

Apparently, it wasn't up to them until 2014.
Let us be honest.
They only got a choice because the Kremlin lost Kiev('s cooperation) and needed to save face.

TheArmenian wrote:Anybody disputing legality of the move is knowingly or unknowingly playing in the hands of the enemy.

The formal legality can be questioned.
What should not be questioned is the rightness of the move.

flamming_python wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Yeltsin was a traitor though and a scumbag.  Agreements are worth as much as the paper they are written on and this havs been evident for years.  No, there really isnt anything binding in that Crimea belonged to Ukraine.  No matter though, as Kosovo ordeal has proven that none of this international laws actually matter.  UK and US holds Russian criminals that are wanted, and they decide who has a righ to self determination by the looks of it.  Yet apparently Russia does not.  Oh, and they dont need approval to bomb another country like France or US bombings in Syria.  But that is all right....right?

Werewolf wrote:Ohh spare me this bullshit FP.

The only rule that has always mattered and will still matter Might makes right in the entire universe and in each parallel universe that is the highest LAW.

Nice. So what are we hating on America for then?

If a treaty or promise made in earlier times is no longer looked upon favourably by the government of today - tear it up.
If international law gets in the way - just ignore it.

Welcome to the real world kid, it is harsh but unfair place so better get used to it fast.

I had front row seat to mercies of international ''law'' and trust me only law is FORCE.

Sucks big time but I do prefer harsh honesty to gentle bullish*t...

flamming_python wrote:Russia also brokered a ceasefire between the Abkhaz, Ossetians on the one side and Georgians on the other, after covertly intervening in order to make sure that the former didn't simply get genocided from their lands. But Russia didn't recognize either seperatist republic as independent states (not until Saaka anyway), much less annex them into its own territory; no matter how much the South Ossetians wanted (and continue) to want it.

They were not recognized because the Kremlin cared more for Georgia's cooperation than the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.
Also, neither Abkahzia nor South Ossetia controlled all their claimed territory until 2008. Understandably, the Kremlin did not want to support these claims until Georgia declared war on Russia.

They are not annexed, but they are very closely associated with Russia to the point that Georgians call it an annexation.
They are not completely wrong.

Stop the inanity with this mythical "international law".  Clearly you do not know what it is, FP.

The International Court of Justice at the Hague has ruled that self-determination overrides internationally recognized
borders.   This was the Kosovo case.   Ukraine's Soviet borders were not even properly identified by these f*cking
"international recognizers" in 1991 since they willy nilly deleted the Autonomous Republic of Crimea borders.   They and Kiev
do not have this right under any international law.   The ICJ ruling confirms my argument.   Political pronouncements of
recognition by any collection of countries do not have any legal weight.   They may have the weight of realpolitik but not
of any law.    BTW, autonomous republics are not mere provinces or some token administrative districts, so that argument
does not fly.  

According to international law, Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991 and some collection of countries decided to recognize
this annexation.   The pattern of deletion of autonomous republics on the whim of some pack of foreign states has spawned
mass tragedies and genocide in Yugoslavia and the USSR.  This applies to Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia,
and of course Chechnya, and would have happened in Crimea if Russia did not take swift action to support the indigenous
population.   After the ICJ ruling, which clarifies the status of autonomous republics (i.e. ones that correspond to local ethnic
composition and thus conform to self determination) there is no room for flatulent discussion such as the one in this thread.

Chechnya is in an interesting limbo like Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia does not act like Turkey vis a vis Kurds and
denies the existence of Chechens. Chechnya has been given de facto independence as an incorporated protectorate.
Kiev has not intention of making any such concession to Crimea and the Donbas.

This debate will go on forever. No point to it really. I can see how both sides make sense - Python says that Russia should have taken the higher ground and simply used politics over Crimea, while we view that the option of the friendly green men and allowing the Crimeans to decide was the right idea. Problem is, as much as Python's view is also correct, it would have actually not gained anything for Russia. Russia would still be sanctioned, Russia would have lost Crimea altogether (strategic failure and a huge issue for itself in the future) and well, there would still be the cultural issues as well. This was evident when they were wanting to pull the same crap as they did in Kiev and Odessa in Crimea, but that failed due to the people themselves, and bless them for that.

I view that the people have a say, since it is their land they live on.

flamming_python wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:What say you about the referendum that Crimea held in 1991 then?

The same as what I'm about to say about the referendum Crimea held in 2014 - telling, but not legally binding in any way, shape or form.

Fair enough. But what country would willingly give up its territory even if it was in the will of the people in that territory? Especially when that country has gotten overrun by evil.

sepheronx wrote:This debate will go on forever. No point to it really. I can see how both sides make sense - Python says that Russia should have taken the higher ground and simply used politics over Crimea, while we view that the option of the friendly green men and allowing the Crimeans to decide was the right idea. Problem is, as much as Python's view is also correct, it would have actually not gained anything for Russia. Russia would still be sanctioned, Russia would have lost Crimea altogether (strategic failure and a huge issue for itself in the future) and well, there would still be the cultural issues as well. This was evident when they were wanting to pull the same crap as they did in Kiev and Odessa in Crimea, but that failed due to the people themselves, and bless them for that.

I view that the people have a say, since it is their land they live on.

Fully agree with this. Shame Russia would not retake the historic lands on the mainland including the Donbass and Odessa even though it could easily. Rather Russia is more interested in letting those regions stay as buffers (which makes sense from a strategic standpoint). Russia nowadays has transcended to a point where they are above international law along with the US. If it was up to me, I would have taken those regions as well, nobody would go to war just for Ukraine.

My understanding is that Russia was pressed by time to annex Crimea and couldn't play politics in a land with no laws. Say whatever about now self-entitled posh crimeans, but BSF guys were the ones who were saved:) Strategic importance and all that. Not that 99% population support didn't help, but protecting russians came as a bonus.

flamming_python wrote:
Ain't that what Jesus taught? If you get struck on one cheek, turn the other cheek to them? Show courage in your convictions even in the face of setbacks and adversity?

Yes it's not easy. Doing the right thing is often the hardest thing to do.

Jesus got crucified. If that is the end result you want then I'm afraid I can't agree with that one. Also, don't forget that the majority of the Ukrainian soldiers from the navy and the army simply switched sides after what happened. That alone should tell you enough.

Maidan goverment just wants to shorten its own life span.

https://www.rt.com/business/327534-gazprom-ukraine-russia-gas/

Ukraine’s state gas company Naftogaz has announced a “radical” increase in transit fees for Russia’s Gazprom.

"Ukraine has finally radically hiked transit fees for Gazprom (in full compliance with European principles)," said the head of business development of Naftogaz Yury Vitrenko on his Facebook page.

“Gazprom's long-term efforts to bypass Ukraine have found an appropriate response," he added.

Vitrenko didn’t specify the new prices for Gazprom. Previously, the fee was $2.70 for the transportation of a thousand of cubic meters of gas per 100 kilometers.

higurashihougi wrote:Maidan goverment just wants to shorten its own life span.

Trying to get more money/pandering to the anti-Russian crowd/decreasing Gazprom's revenue does not shorten its life span.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:Maidan goverment just wants to shorten its own life span.

Trying to get more money/pandering to the anti-Russian crowd/decreasing Gazprom's revenue does not shorten its life span.

Maybe, but pissing off all the counties in the EU who transit their gas through the Ukraine and will therefore probably be liable for the increased charges will not do their cause much good in Brussels, which may indeed cause Kiev money problems in the future which could shorten the Governments life.

JohninMK wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:Maidan goverment just wants to shorten its own life span.

Trying to get more money/pandering to the anti-Russian crowd/decreasing Gazprom's revenue does not shorten its life span.

Maybe, but pissing off all the counties in the EU who transit their gas through the Ukraine and will therefore probably be liable for the increased charges will not do their cause much good in Brussels, which may indeed cause Kiev money problems in the future which could shorten the Governments life.

Ukraine is Washington's client which means the EU has to support Kiev against Gazprom and Russia and cannot be allowed to drop Maidan.
Increased costs can be easily used as an argument against importing Russian gas.

JohninMK wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:Maidan goverment just wants to shorten its own life span.

Trying to get more money/pandering to the anti-Russian crowd/decreasing Gazprom's revenue does not shorten its life span.

Maybe, but pissing off all the counties in the EU who transit their gas through the Ukraine and will therefore probably be liable for the increased charges will not do their cause much good in Brussels, which may indeed cause Kiev money problems in the future which could shorten the Governments life.

Maybe it is New Year gift for Russia?

PapaDragon wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:Maidan goverment just wants to shorten its own life span.

Trying to get more money/pandering to the anti-Russian crowd/decreasing Gazprom's revenue does not shorten its life span.

Maybe, but pissing off all the counties in the EU who transit their gas through the Ukraine and will therefore probably be liable for the increased charges will not do their cause much good in Brussels, which may indeed cause Kiev money problems in the future which could shorten the Governments life.

Maybe it is New Year gift for Russia?

How is that supposed to be a gift for Russia?
The only good effect it could have for Russia is strengthened support in Europe for North Stream II.

Jesus fucking christ, there was no fucking annexation. Annexation is the seazing of soil by military FORCE, there was no force, not a single person has been killed. By no definition that qualifies as annexation especially when people could Vote and have done so with over 90% supporting the sezession.

just seen online that according to German Media that Ukraine has cut off all electricity supplies to Crimea again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35204304

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:Maidan goverment just wants to shorten its own life span.

Trying to get more money/pandering to the anti-Russian crowd/decreasing Gazprom's revenue does not shorten its life span.

Maybe, but pissing off all the counties in the EU who transit their gas through the Ukraine and will therefore probably be liable for the increased charges will not do their cause much good in Brussels, which may indeed cause Kiev money problems in the future which could shorten the Governments life.

Maybe it is New Year gift for Russia?

How is that supposed to be a gift for Russia?
The only good effect it could have for Russia is strengthened support in Europe for North Stream II.

You just answered your own question.

Also, I am sure EU will be ecstatic to hear about the price hike, who doesn't love those...

Werewolf wrote:Jesus fucking christ, there was no fucking annexation. Annexation is the seazing of soil by military FORCE, there was no force, not a single person has been killed. By no definition that qualifies as annexation especially when people could Vote and have done so with over 90% supporting the sezession.

Combined with the fact that the troop deployment (and agreement with Ukraine) in Crimea predates the referendum by approximately 17 years. It definitely was NOT a annexation, and WAS in fact a accession. People who keep whining about 'annexation' should look up the legal definition of 'accession', before their arguments look any more laughably embarrassing.

About Crimea. Article published 28 Feb 2014 about what was about to happen 18 days before it actually did, and using the phrase "Крымский аншлюс" - "Crimean anschluss", but not using the phrase with negative context like for Austria 1938, but simply a useful description for a union, or in case of Crimea, re-union, of one people who had been seperated. http://www.colta.ru/articles/society/2243 The phrase used in Russian to describe what happened is "Воссоединение Крыма с Россией" - The reunification of Crimea with Russia.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Jesus fucking christ, there was no fucking annexation. Annexation is the seazing of soil by military FORCE, there was no force, not a single person has been killed. By no definition that qualifies as annexation especially when people could Vote and have done so with over 90% supporting the sezession.

Combined with the fact that the troop deployment (and agreement with Ukraine) in Crimea predates the referendum by approximately 17 years. It definitely was NOT a annexation, and WAS in fact a accession. People who keep whining about 'annexation' should look up the legal definition of 'accession', before their arguments look any more laughably embarrassing.

Accession... annexation...
It is the same thing in this case.

Relevant here too.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:Happy New Year everyone!

Here are some pictures of the Russian Military circa August 2014. Y'all can probably guess where.

Werewolf wrote:Jesus fucking christ, there was no fucking annexation. Annexation is the seazing of soil by military FORCE, there was no force, not a single person has been killed. By no definition that qualifies as annexation especially when people could Vote and have done so with over 90% supporting the sezession.

Call it as You want, annexation shouldn't carry negative connotations as this was good for locals.
Voting was just an icing on a cake. A political cherry on a top of total military victory.

Btw, actually few guys died. But because of trigger happy idiots in opolchenya and ukrops if it was to Russian military results would be far worse for Ukrainians.

Russia used military in such way You would expect special forces to act. Everything was so well coordinated. Guys with gucci gear, coms and OMG11 D3LTA training managed to contain and take over military bases in a matter of weeks.. Even ships were "confiscated" from Ukrainian navy.
The way it was done looks like best military operarions in this fricking decade. Minimal loss of life is what it makes so impressive.
Russia could pull this off in any neighbouring country if they wanted. That's why midget NATO countries are shitting themselves.