Ukranian Crisis

Documentary

Ukraine on Fire: a Documentary Review Here it is: Full Video
Article about Ukrainian nationalist movement by a former silovik from W. Ukraine. Shootout in Kharkov because of the energy blockade in Donbass. IMO, what they are doing is only going to bring ruin to themselves & many others! Repeat of the Abkhazian scenario?

Quite eye-opening video! Much differs from what I've seen on mainstream news channels.

Trump- has already said cease and desist.

chrislee said:

Quite eye-opening video! Much differs from what I've seen on mainstream news channels.

Click to expand...

Just thinking Trump has probably asked Putin about Ukraine, saying lets reset here. We are more partners than enemies, we have MAD, space and ISIS to worry about. Move out of Ukraine and share Crimea like before. Russia win less Ukraine wins. OR

Lavrov has mentioned a cease fire starting Monday. I reckon that if Russia does not hold true to the Minsk agreement. There will be severe consequences. Chaos theory Trump is even more volatile than Putin, Lenin (Ha-Trump matches amount of letters). That been said Ukraine has got its act together in terms of weapons, one or two pieces of magic would make a formidable opponent.

WAtch this space for fly overs, buzzing or ships off the coast. I reckon it creates possibilities for errors ( or a false sense of security) for whom?

You need to understand one thing. Crimea is a part of Russia permanently. Permanently.

And Putin will not let the russian separatists be defeated militarily. Also, Ukraine is in dire straits. Generally I think Trump does not care about Ukraine enough to escalate. He is escalating with other countries, like China, Iran, North Korea ... I think he wants deescalation with Russia for some kind of deal against ISIS, so he can declare victory against the terrorist group that Obama created, according to him.

That would feed his ego. Not ... Donbass...

Toblerone said:

You need to understand one thing. Crimea is a part of Russia permanently. Permanently.

And Putin will not let the russian separatists be defeated militarily. Also, Ukraine is in dire straits. Generally I think Trump does not care about Ukraine enough to escalate. He is escalating with other countries, like China, Iran, North Korea ... I think he wants deescalation with Russia for some kind of deal against ISIS, so he can declare victory against the terrorist group that Obama created, according to him.

That would feed his ego. Not ... Donbass...

Click to expand...

The Crimea annexation is illegal under international law so in that case Russia has acted as an aggressor and it is skating very closely to committing a war of wanton aggression against what was a friendly neighbouring state. That's if it already hasn't crossed the threshold for that. Then there are the Russian attempts to destabilize Estonia and it's interference in elections in foreign countries. Hence in some aspects Putin is no better than Stalin or Hitler.

Thinking not many know what Trump will do

Just thinking Trump has probably asked Putin about Ukraine, saying lets reset here. We are more partners than enemies, we have MAD, space and ISIS to worry about. Move out of Ukraine and share Crimea like before. Russia win less Ukraine wins. OR

Lavrov has mentioned a cease fire starting Monday. I reckon that if Russia does not hold true to the Minsk agreement. There will be severe consequences. Chaos theory Trump is even more volatile than Putin, Lenin (Ha-Trump matches amount of letters). That been said Ukraine has got its act together in terms of weapons, one or two pieces of magic would make a formidable opponent.

WAtch this space for fly overs, buzzing or ships off the coast. I reckon it creates possibilities for errors ( or a false sense of security) for whom?

Toblerone said:

You need to understand one thing. Crimea is a part of Russia permanently. Permanently.

And Putin will not let the russian separatists be defeated militarily. Also, Ukraine is in dire straits. Generally I think Trump does not care about Ukraine enough to escalate. He is escalating with other countries, like China, Iran, North Korea ... I think he wants deescalation with Russia for some kind of deal against ISIS, so he can declare victory against the terrorist group that Obama created, according to him.

That would feed his ego. Not ... Donbass...

Click to expand...

Hey Toblerone thanks for the reply , I see you have been at this a while.The Russians have also been defeated, the separatists and Russians have also lost men and woman. Sanctions because of annexation of Crimea are hurting, and further sanctions due to election meddling in the US, Ukraine, Georgia, Brexit (small sample here) and now France will also hurt. Do'nt forget even Obama said there would be retaliation. Ukraine is not a spent force and gets stronger every day. In the US they have a friend, not sure about NATO or EU but they have been assisting. Remember Hitler and the Sudetanland - well here we go again- its not going to happen.

ISIS was created by Bush and Blair not Obama. Obama tried diplomatically with restrictions and the lack of will to put infidels or invaders back in the lands in question. Putin however saw the gap which was there in Syria in the first place, its just that he backed the wrong side ethically/morally.

The Iraqi's (not to be seen as Kurds/PKK )need to work with the Turks and then form an alliance with the Rebels- US backed even if it involves Al Quaeda (whatever) . Like they collaborated with the Iraqi's. Split Syria, Bashar can have his murderous country down south. Which will probably be invaded by the north like Sudan and Korea.

OR Russia withdraws from Ukraine, welcomes trade and Bashar.

ngatimozart said:

The Crimea annexation is illegal under international law so in that case Russia has acted as an aggressor and it is skating very closely to committing a war of wanton aggression against what was a friendly neighbouring state. That's if it already hasn't crossed the threshold for that. Then there are the Russian attempts to destabilize Estonia and it's interference in elections in foreign countries. Hence in some aspects Putin is no better than Stalin or Hitler.

Click to expand...

Yet the US is allowed carte blanch to interfere in elections in foreign countries without censure, in recent times Haiti and Honduras? Or even invade them without cause, hello Iraq!

What attempts are those in Estonia? I think you'll find that was more in Estonian peoples heads than an actual series of events. If they really thought they were at risk they would spend more on defence.

Crimea should never have been part of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union; the Crimean’s didn't want it and have been trying to leave since 91.

ISIS was created by Bush and Blair not Obama.

Click to expand...

Poor G.W.Bush, he will be guilty in anything forever. It is nothing that

1. Obama betrayed the anti-Asad forces after scratching his "red lines" (even the USA ambassador in Syria resigned after that).

2. When Iraqi PM said Obama that he would start de facto terror campaign against Sunni Muslims, Obama only mumbled something like " it is your own business".

I do not know much what Obama had done inside USA, considering international affairs, he destroyed almost all American positions.

Biggest global protests ever could not stop the 2nd Iraq War.

vldbzh said:

Poor G.W.Bush, he will be guilty in anything forever. It is nothing that

1. Obama betrayed the anti-Asad forces after scratching his "red lines" (even the USA ambassador in Syria resigned after that).

2. When Iraqi PM said Obama that he would start de facto terror campaign against Sunni Muslims, Obama only mumbled something like " it is your own business".

I do not know much what Obama had done inside USA, considering international affairs, he destroyed almost all American positions.

Click to expand...

-Just remember Bush came before Obama
-Were you there when Obama issued those quotes- Fake news
-proof of the betrayal? -Fake news

KiwiRob said:

Crimea should never have been part of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union; the Crimean’s didn't want it and have been trying to leave since 91.

Click to expand...

Crimea and Russia should have negotiated that with Ukraine back in 1991. Can't remember the breakup details of the Soviet Union with regards to Ukraine but I am guessing they lacked the will and capability to have a major confrontation over Crimea while Ukraine still had nuclear weapons on its soil. Let's face it, with more or less rational parties involved, MAD is pretty effective at preventing ugly behaviour.

ngatimozart said:

The Crimea annexation is illegal under international law so in that case Russia has acted as an aggressor and it is skating very closely to committing a war of wanton aggression against what was a friendly neighbouring state. That's if it already hasn't crossed the threshold for that. Then there are the Russian attempts to destabilize Estonia and it's interference in elections in foreign countries. Hence in some aspects Putin is no better than Stalin or Hitler.

Click to expand...

The government that the Crimeans had voted for got toppled by neonazis and "activists". The new government was dangerous for them and western powers sat on the negotiating table with Baderas supporters, I would also be *very* angry at this turn of events, I don't want to be in a country where people that dream of ethnic cleansing are appeased, hold power, bust into meetings holding AK-47s etc. So I would want a referendum and for the people to decide, demographics matter.

Noone's opinions or sentimental cries about "illegal war crimes" will change the facts on the ground. Crimea is part of Russia now and this seems like the natural way of things.

I don't know about Estonia or elections meddling. Aren't these actions par for the course? For all big powers?

ngatimozart said:

The Crimea annexation is illegal under international law

Click to expand...

It gets tricky. The UN charter has a self-determination clause. And while Russia invoking this clause is highly hypocritical given their own stances on Kosovo and the Chechnya, unfortunately international law is far from clear on this. They held a referendum specifically because of this.

While personally I think the referendum was rigged, part of the problem is that no western country would ever send observers to such a referendum to begin with. Especially given that even if the referendum wasn't rigged, the outcome was likely to be similar though with a smaller margin.

John Fedup said:

Crimea and Russia should have negotiated that with Ukraine back in 1991. Can't remember the breakup details of the Soviet Union with regards to Ukraine but I am guessing they lacked the will and capability to have a major confrontation over Crimea while Ukraine still had nuclear weapons on its soil. Let's face it, with more or less rational parties involved, MAD is pretty effective at preventing ugly behaviour.

Click to expand...

Crimea almost seceded from Ukraine back then but it was a very different situation and Russian and Ukrainian governments behaved less like governments of separate countries and more like representatives of the same late-Soviet era elite that they were. The breakup of the Soviet Union was not well executed and has spawned a number of conflicts.

EDIT: But I think the point Toblerone is (correctly) making is that this entire discussion is purely academic. Anyone who wants to have serious negotiations with Russia needs to begin by accepting that Russia is not going to return Crimea. There is nothing, no sanctions, no incentives, that the US or anyone really could offer that would convince Russia to return Crimea. So if it's diplomacy you're interested in, then this is the starting point.

Feanor said:

It gets tricky. The UN charter has a self-determination clause. And while Russia invoking this clause is highly hypocritical given their own stances on Kosovo and the Chechnya, unfortunately international law is far from clear on this. They held a referendum specifically because of this.

Click to expand...

While we're on the subject, let's not forget that the precedent was pretty much set with Kosovo where a separatist minority was in conflict with central government and as we know the final outcome was set by foreign intervention. Russia is clearly following the same pattern. Once in place, bad habits in international affairs tend to persist.
Chechnya of course is a different story due to obvious reasons.

John Fedup said:

Crimea and Russia should have negotiated that with Ukraine back in 1991. Can't remember the breakup details of the Soviet Union with regards to Ukraine but I am guessing they lacked the will and capability to have a major confrontation over Crimea while Ukraine still had nuclear weapons on its soil. Let's face it, with more or less rational parties involved, MAD is pretty effective at preventing ugly behaviour.

Click to expand...

Yeltsin screwed it up, Leonid Kravchuk (Ukraines President) was prepared to hand it back.

In an interview with the Russian online newspaper Lenta.ru, Meshkov recalled what the first President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, said to him once about the status of the peninsula.

Back in December 1991, while signing the Belovezhskaya accord on the dissolution of the USSR and creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Kravchuk was ready to give up Crimea with “all its Tatar problems”.

Then-president Yeltsin, however did not care much about the area, and did not move a finger to accept the gift.

Moreover, in May 1992 the Supreme Soviet of Russia declared the 1954 transfer of Crimea had "no legal force", because it was adopted "in violation of the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Russian SFSR and legislative process".

However, Yeltsin once again showed no interest in the event.

Yuri Meshkov also recalled that Crimea had wanted to be part of Russia ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Click to expand...

KiwiRob said:

Yeltsin screwed it up, Leonid Kravchuk (Ukraines President) was prepared to hand it back.

Click to expand...

Might explain Trump's reluctance, anyway as we stand and Vladimir signing new documents which make a mockery of whatever gone before. Basically saying Crimea is Mine, Mine, Mine- Kampf said like Robert Mugabe.

Anyway all these insights smells like fake news, and Politburo trolls. So best of luck

Russia recognizes passports from Ukrainian separatists, stoking annexation fears
If they didn't do anything to get Crimea back, NATO would have access to bases there & build new ones. Then Russia would soon need to fight a 2nd Crimean War to restore her lost strategic position on the Black Sea. So, it can be argued that many lives were saved, & that they didn't sacrifice so many past lives in wars with Tartars, Turks, British, French & Germans to leave ~2M Crimeans at the mercy of Ukrainian nationalists & their backers. Crimea to RF is what Hawaii & Florida are to USA, if not more. Together with Kola in the North & Kamchatka peninsulas in the East it guards the perimeter of Russia. The West better get used to the Fait Accompli.

Tsavo Lion said:

Russia recognizes passports from Ukrainian separatists, stoking annexation fears
If they didn't do anything to get Crimea back, NATO would have access to bases there & build new ones. Then Russia would soon need to fight a 2nd Crimean War to restore her lost strategic position on the Black Sea. So, it can be argued that many lives were saved, & that they didn't sacrifice so many past lives in wars with Tartars, Turks, British, French & Germans to leave ~2M Crimeans at the mercy of Ukrainian nationalists & their backers. Crimea to RF is what Hawaii & Florida are to USA, if not more. Together with Kola in the North & Kamchatka peninsulas in the East it guards the perimeter of Russia. The West better get used to the Fait Accompli.

Click to expand...

There isn't much evidence of any NATO desires to build bases in Ukraine, lord knows they could've done it by now. And there certainly isn't any pressing necessity for a "Second Crimean War" in the scenario you present. Russian leadership wanted Crimea not for the sake of the population that inhabits it but for the sake of the geo-strategic advantages it offers. The fact that the locals are ethnic Russians and have rocky relations with Kiev made outright annexation a possible and in fact easy route to go. But as far as losing its position on the Black Sea, that occurred when the USSR collapse.

Shortly before the USSR collapsed, it was promised that "NATO won't expand to the East". Not only it did, but new BMD bases appeared there. Crimea had enough old Soviet bases to install new gear & infrastructure at, while formally remaining under Ukraine's control, even if she hadn't become a NATO member herself. And Russia would certainly loose access to bases she was leasing, as per agreements with previous administrations, till 2017. Even the communist China hosted CIA listening posts in Sinkiang monitoring Soviet nuclear tests! IMO, this is relevant here:

During his speech, the minister spoke about the problem of "colour revolutions." According to Shoigu, Russia's operations in Syria interrupted the chain of such events in the Middle East and Africa. "A wave of" color revolutions has caused major changes in world politics, as well as in the balance of forces ..in regions of the world. Yugoslavia, Georgia, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria - this is.. where the "color revolutions" scenario was tested," Shoigu said. "In the West, they are seen as a way to spread democracy by toppling "non-democratic" regimes in a non-violent way. However, a military analysis..suggests otherwise: the factor of military force is an integral part of "colour revolutions,".. Sergei Shoigu also commented on the recent statement from his British counterpart Michael Fallon, who did not want the Russian "bear to stick its paws in Libya." "Well, if we continue the animal theme ... What do they have on their emblem - a lion, I think? There's an old saying: all lions are cats, but not all cats are lions. Let everyone understand their business themselves. We do not think that they have an animal in their zoo that can tell the bear what to do," the minister said.

Click to expand...

Russia will never give away either Crimea or Kuril Islands

Tsavo Lion said:

Shortly before the USSR collapsed, it was promised that "NATO won't expand to the East".

Click to expand...

NATO spent the early years trying to ease russian angst - it never ceases to amaze me that when nearly all of the Warsaw Pact countries wanted nothing to do with post cold war Russia that it was a clue in its own right

you can't make countries subscribe to your strategic vision, they do it of their own accord.

thats something that seems to be oblivious to the frantic defenders of russia accusing the west of encirclement.

even more telling is how vociferous those ex girded warpac countries are in now regarding russia as a latent threat

I guess things weren't as kumbayah as made out to be.

russia - nor the US, nor NATO has the ability to tell any of those ex warpac states how to run their countries or their strategic vision

the sense of russian victimhood is a bit tiring and tedious.

gf0012-aust said:

NATO spent the early years trying to ease russian angst - it never ceases to amaze me that when nearly all of the Warsaw Pact countries wanted nothing to do with post cold war Russia that it was a clue in its own right

you can't make countries subscribe to your strategic vision, they do it of their own accord.

thats something that seems to be oblivious to the frantic defenders of russia accusing the west of encirclement.

even more telling is how vociferous those ex girded warpac countries are in now regarding russia as a latent threat

I guess things weren't as kumbayah as made out to be.

russia - nor the US, nor NATO has the ability to tell any of those ex warpac states how to run their countries or their strategic vision

Click to expand...

NATO does have the ability to deny them membership though. Maybe don't make promises you don't intend to deliver on?

And if you do make promises, and then blatantly go back on them, not be so surprised at the latent hostility for years to come.

Honestly Russia has spent the first half of the 2000's trying to come to some sort of arrangement with the west about being included in the global architecture. However nobody was interested. Consequently Russia went out and pursued their own perceived geo-political goals by means similar to those they saw the USA and other major powers using. Imagine the shock and surprise when America can invade countries without a UN sanction, but Russia is demonized for doing the same. When America can support ethnic-based independence movements to create a new country (Kosovo) but Russia is ostracized for similar actions in Georgia. When the west builds a BMD on which they claim they want dialogue and partnership with Russia but then isn't really willing to do anything more then make promises. Again.

If you want to understand the Russian perspective, this is it. If you don't and simply expect Russia to start doing what the west thinks they ought to be doing, you will be surprised and likely angry by the outcome. And if you think Russian treatment of Eastern Europe is in principle different then US behavior in Latin America...