General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUkraine says Russia follows pre-Georgia war scenario in Crimea
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/ukraine-crisis-turchinov-idUSL6N0LX4JU20140228Feb 28 (Reuters) - Ukraine's acting president accused Russia of open aggression on Friday and said it was provoking his country in the same way as it had Georgia before going to war in 2008.
Urging President Vladimir Putin to stop "provocations" in Ukraine's Russian-speaking Crimea, Oleksander Turchinov recalled Russia's intervention in Georgia over breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which have large ethnic Russian populations.
Russia's Black Sea fleet has a base in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol.
"Russia has sent forces into Crimea ... they are working on scenarios which are fully analogous with Abkhazia, when having initiated a military conflict, they started to annex the territory," Turchinov said in televised comments.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)except maybe Ukraine, and they're not really in that position--plus the population there seems pro-Russian, most of them. Putin appears to be losing the majority of the country to Europe, when he had hoped to make it part of a bloc of Eurasian partners, so the world might let him have it as sort of a consolation prize. We'll see. Not saying it's right, mind you.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I hope that the world would care if the US took the Cuban province around Guantanamo.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)YEEEHAAWWW!!!!
Yes, that joke is older than most Posters, including me, on this site.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Many of the borders as they are defined today are simply wrong - especially in the Slavic part of the world.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)To then say they can just take it back because they previously had it is just plain ridiculous. The same argument could apply to Alaska.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Because I hate to break it to you, but history did NOT begin 238 years ago.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)survey in 2011 by Razumkov Center 71.3% consider Ukraine their motherland. 77% speak Russian (many are bilingual) , but the Crimean Tatars speak Russian and their loyalties are definitely not with Russia. IMHO, the Crimean residents are being used as pawns to accomplish Putin's end game of taking Crimea back.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)So if a majority of the population of Crimea want to disassociate from Ukraine and either be independent or associate with Russia, we should support them.
Same for the Flemings, Scots, Basques, Catalonians, etc.
What point is served by keeping people who don't want to be together in the same country? The Czechs and Slovaks did the split the right way. Denmark, Norway and Sweden seem happier than they were as fewer countries. The Serbs and Croats are amiable in their own countries, while Bosnia is still miserable.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)DU's Pampango posted this:
In 1994 Russia, the US and the UK guaranteed Ukraine's "existing borders, sovereignty
THIS, most importantly:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024581758
So there is one reason to care.
Not to mention it is a key country in the on-going Grand Chessboard of oil/currency wars.
kiranon
(1,727 posts)They could swap land. Like that could happen. Sarcasm alert. It is an armed takeover clear and simple of an ethnically Russian area. Austria was a German speaking and culturally Germanic area when Germany took it over in a so called arrangement. Won't go to war over it but US and NATO should do something - remove Russia from something. Immediately bring the Ukraine into the EU or other trade group. Something that will make the Russians reconsider their actions.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Completely.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... as part of a treaty whereby agreed Ukraine to give up it's old Soviet Nukes.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Legal Memorandum Prepared by Leonard C. Meeker, State Department Legal Advisor, for Submission to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 4, 1966, "The Legality of United States Participation in the Defense of Viet-Nam"; Department of State Bulletin, March 28, 1966, pp. 15-16
* * *
"V. CONCLUSION
"South Viet-Nam is being subjected to armed attack by Communist North Viet-Nam, through the infiltration of armed personnel, military equipment, and
regular combat units. International law recognizes the right of individual and collective self-defense against armed attack. South Viet-Nam, and the United States upon the request of South Viet-Nam, are engaged in such collective defense of the South. Their actions are in conformity with international law and with the Charter of the United Nations. The fact that South Viet-Nam has been precluded by Soviet veto from becoming a member of the United Nations and the fact that South Viet-Nam is a zone of a temporarily divided state in no way diminish the right of collective defense of South Viet-Nam.
"The United States has commitments to assist South Viet-Nam in defending itself against Communist aggression from the North. The United States gave undertakings to this effect at the conclusion of the Geneva conference in 1954. Later that year the United States undertook an international obligation in the SEATO treaty to defend South Viet-Nam against Communist armed aggression. And during the past decade the United States has given additional assurances to the South Vietnamese Government.
"The Geneva accords of 1954 provided for a cease-fire and regroupment of contending forces, a division of Viet-Nam into two zones, and a prohibition on the use of either zone for the resumption of hostilities or to 'further an aggressive policy.' From the beginning, North Viet-Nam violated the Geneva accords through a systematic effort to gain control of South Viet-Nam by force. In the light of these progressive North Vietnamese violations, the introduction into South Viet-Nam beginning in late 1961 of substantial United States military equipment and personnel, to assist in the defense of the South, was fully justified; substantial breach of an international agreement by one side permits the other side to suspend performance of corresponding obligations under the agreement. South Viet-Nam was justified in refusing to implement the provisions of the Geneva accords calling for reunification through free elections throughout Viet-Nam since the Communist regime in North Viet-Nam created conditions in the North that made free elections entirely impossible.
"The President of the United States has full authority to commit United States forces in the collective defense of South Viet-Nam. This authority stems from the constitutional powers of the President. However, it is not necessary to rely on the Constitution alone as the source of the President's authority, since the SEATO treaty-advised and consented to by the Senate and forming part of the law of the land-sets forth a United States commitment to defend South Viet-Nam against armed attack, and since the Congress--in the joint resolution of August 10, 1964, and in authorization and appropriations acts for support of the U.S. military effort in Viet-Nam--has given its approval and support to the President's actions. United States actions in Viet-Nam, taken by the President and approved by the Congress, do not require any declaration of war, as shown by a long line of precedents for the use of United States armed forces abroad in the absence of any congressional declaration of war."
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Self-determinism is most important here. If it wants to be part of Russia, that's fine with me.
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)I can't sympathize with hard rightists who overthrew a president that balked at the EU's demands for "reforms" (read: austerity) and then packed the cabinet with members of a far right party founded by Neo-Nazis.
The EU has a perverse fetish for austerity so I can understand turning toward Russia.