Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[AmericanPride]

Both makes sense. They can set up a welfare program to help the poor if the heating costs go through the roof.

They could... but they won't. Austerity is not a humanist program. It's not even intended to salvage sinking economies; the economic literature and recent experiences in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, UK, and US all make this clear. It's meant to secure whatever remains in a dying economy for the creditors... at the expense of pensioners, the poor, the sick, workers, veterans, the unemployed, and so on. Even the IMF's own economists admit as much. Austerity will not save Ukraine.

But now that Yatseniuk has decided on this path, we're now left with the political question of who will survive to govern Ukraine after it's all said and done. Combined with Moscow's pressure on Kiev, Yatseniuk's position is untenable in the long-term. Someone will break and it won't be Putin.

[Fuchs]

They could... but they won't. Austerity is not a humanist program. It's not even intended to salvage sinking economies; the economic literature and recent experiences in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, UK, and US all make this clear. It's meant to secure whatever remains in a dying economy for the creditors... at the expense of pensioners, the poor, the sick, workers, veterans, the unemployed, and so on. Even the IMF's own economists admit as much. Austerity will not save Ukraine.

Reality is much more complicated than that, and "austerity" is a poor description of many reforms.
The IMF's admission about the multiplier of government spending is not relevant to the Ukrainian situation, as it's about a specific set of economic conditions - many of which are not met.
It's complicated.

The Ukraine, Iran, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, United States - all of them have moved into economic traps from which it's very hard if not impossible to escape without major scars. Yes, I included the bubble in Turkey even though it did not burst yet.


A long period (5+ years) of bad economic policies can create such traps, and it's not helpful to point out that a particular recipe for leaving the trap is painful while all the other recipes don't work well either. It's a trap!

[Dayuhan]

It is of course true that the policies that created the situation have to change, the gas subsidy in particular standing out as something unsustainable. Whether it's wise to simply drop them all at once, rather than phasing them out over a period of time, is another question.

I'm just recalling Manila in '86... when Marcos finally fled, the IMF came in and insisted that a Government that was barely functional had to drop a huge range of subsidies on basic goods (food, electricity, and fuel in particular) overnight. Prices soared, and the reaction on the street was not pretty. No question that the subsidies had to go, but there has to be some consideration for the need to avoid imposing massive political shocks on a government that is still trying to figure out which drawer the paper clips are in and where all the money went.

The Ukraine is of course a different place and a different situation, but I would think that the IMF might at least consider a phased reduction in subsidies rather than an outright cutoff.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan ---this goes a little to what JMA is alluding to even though I do not necessarily blame it only this WH

If Neptune invaded Uranus, JMA would find a way to blame the White House.

---it goes back to a large degree the Bush years "who looked Putin in the eyes"........

Bush may or may not have "looked Putin in the eyes", but whatever they saw didn't stop Putin from invading Georgia on Bush's watch.

There seems to be an assumption that if the US had done something different, or had different leadership, events in the Ukraine would have come out differently. Those assumptions seem to me rather tenuous at best: any "what if" scenario is inherently speculative. US reluctance to get involved in a military face-off with another nuclear power in the other guy's back yard is not something new and it is not a feature of any recent "soft power" strategy: it goes back to the beginning of the nuclear age. It is very unlikely that a Republican President or any other American leader would have responded any differently.

What worries me and it goes to this WH is a distinct lack of clarity in fully explaining the current Russia issue

What worries me is what seems like a reflexive Amercian-centric response assuming that the primary constraint on Russian action is and must be the actual or expected US response. I don't think that's consistent with reality. This is not the Cold War, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and Europe is not some frail fainting virgin that can only be rescued from inevitable ravishment at the hands of the bear by an aggressive US posture. That was another age.

If the White House, over the last few administrations, had tried to get the US public riled up over the threat Russia poses to Europe, what would have been the natural reaction? Don't you think Americans might have pointed out that Europe's combined GDP is 8 times that of Russia. Germany, France, and the UK each have a higher GDP than Russia. Combined EU defense spending is 3 times that of Russia... and the EU spends only 1.7% of GDP on defense, as opposed to well over 4% for the US and Russia, meaning that Europe can afford to spend a whole lot more if they choose to.

I don't think the American people are going to buy the notion that Russia is a direct threat to the US. To Europe, perhaps, but why should the US spend scarce resources to defend Europe when Europe is so clearly capable of defending itself? Trying to sell Americans on the idea that the US should keep troops in Europe at American expense to protect Europe from Russia is going to be a losing proposition unless Europe is willing to step up and invest in their own defense. Leadership does not mean doing everything for everyone. Sometimes it means encouraging and if necessary forcing those you lead to make use of their own capacities.

This image of mighty Russia setting up to roll over helpless Europe has got to stop. It's not real. If the Europeans want or need American assistance, we should certainly be willing to discuss that, if they ask nicely and offer to cover at least a substantial part of the cost. There is absolutely no need for the US to shove its way in and assume the role of protector of Europe.

None of this means that the US should neglect or ignore its allies, especially if those allies ask for help. It means that the US is in no economic position to provide defense for everyone, everywhere, all the time, and that allies with the capacity to provide for their own defense need to step up and do it, not expect the US taxpayer to protect them.

For way to long we as a country ignored Russian and Putin since 2000 as we literally chased the "bad guys" around the world and in the end it was a failure and a 4T USD loss.

Certainly the American habit of committing large scale military force to objectives that are neither attainable by military force nor essential to US interests has dissipated US military capacity and wasted a lot of money... but did that really affect Russian decision making in Crimea? I can't see a US administration dispatching military force to defend or retake Crimea under any circumstances.

For example--this WH dallied on calling out Russia for being in violation of the INF, for not being in compliance with the agreements they signed under the OCSE since 2001... that Russian activities in the southern hemisphere has drastically picked up to a point of matching them from 30 years ago and the list goes on.

If the US had made an issue of all these things, what would have changed? Not much, I expect. The US would still not be willing to go to war with Russia over Crimea, and there would still be a general reluctance to shove forces into Europe.

What "Russian activities in the southern hemisphere" are you referring to?

The same WH and the previous WH have failed to indicate to the American population that Russia is currently being managed by four separate organizations ie the Russian Security Services FSB/GRU/MoI, the oligarchs, the Army and especially the Russian Mob.

Are you suggesting that the White House should be positioning Russia as a threat to the US, and telling the American people ought to fear Russia? I don't see that internal balance (or imbalance) of power as something that should strike fear into the hearts of the US.

Certainly the US needs a coherent policy for dealing with Russia, and certainly (and more importantly) the US and Europe should be working together to develop joint policies. Fear and the unnecessary inflation of threat make a very poor basis for policy.

Take a map and draw in the Russian Federation then draw in the "Stans" that are under direct Russian influence

Russia has some influence in the "'Stans", but if they want to re-integrate them into a resurrected Soviet Union they will face a real challenge from another major power that is rapidly establishing itself as a dominant economic player in that region: China. The Chinese have moved into Central Asia in a big way, with lots of money to invest and long term deals to make. In the medium to long term I'd rate the likelihood of Russia and China facing off with each other over Central Asia as higher than the probability of either Russia or China facing off with the US. Both have extensive land borders with that region, and both consider it strategically critical, far more than it would be to the US.

One is looking at the former Soviet Union all over again and this in the 21st century when the Cold War was suppose to be over.

From the perspective of threat to the US, no. The Cold War was never just the Soviet Union vs the US. The Soviet Union represented an expanding ideology that the US perceived as an existential threat. That ideology took root far outside the Soviet sphere of influence and was perceived as raising the possibility of an ideologically coherent global bloc. That is simply not the case with today's Russia. The closest thing to an ideology behind Putin's moves is Russian nationalism. Ruissian nationalism is not Communism or an equicalent to Communism. We do not have to worry about Russian nationalism breaking out in Cuba or Nicaragua or Venezuela, or about Russian nationalist parties gaining a political foothold in western nations. It's a self-limiting ideology: it only appeals to Russians. Certainly it's a concern, especially in the immediate neighborhood and in countries with substantial Russian populations, but Russia is not the Soviet Union and this is not a new Cold War. That doesn't mean it's not a problem, but it needs to be placed in perspective.

So in formulating foreign policy just how does one go about it if in fact the American public is totally in the dark?

Not by trying to spread fear.

Do we have a strategy that reflects a clear end goal and what is to be achieved and or we just going to muddle through this over and over.

Putin does have a strategy and it is long term.

He probably does, but whether recent events in the Ukraine were part of that strategy is another question. I do not for a moment believe that the Ukrainian revolution was provoked by Moscow as a pretext for seizing the Crimea. I don't think that revolution was planned or expected by Russia, or that it was initially welcome. It did eventually provide an opportunity that Putin seized. That looks less piece of a long term strategy than an act of opportunism.

Realistically: Putin has Crimea, and he's not going to let it go. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong, it's just what is. Nobody's going to take it away from him, and given the emotional and ego factors it's not likely that sanctions will force him to release it. If sanctions can impose enough pain on Russia's economic elite, whose support Putin needs, it might (or might not) discourage any further Russian moves. In any event it's a regional crisis that involves primarily Europe with the US in a supporting role, not an existential threat to the US.

If all this convinces Europe that a threat exists, and persuades them to raise defense spending to a more credible level, this could actually be a long-term gain for the US. The idea that "leader of the free world" translates to "sole supplier of defense to the free world" is long overdue for retirement. Freedom ain't free, and all who enjoy it need to invest in maintaining it, not just Americans. If the Ukraine has to lose Crimea to deliver that message, that is not a critical loss to the US. The message is a good deal more critical.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---you did see the article written by a former internal Russian political type who in fact alluded to fact that long term plans existed, did exist and were just taken out and implemented.

Come on Dayuhan---you write like mirhond did---what is actually your own personal uninhibited opinion?---taking apart anyone's comments is actually easy---writing and defending one's opinion is actually tougher.

So what do you think Putin is doing , will do and what his future is to be?

Two points stand out over the last three weeks;

1. he wants to rebuild the greater Soviet Union---that is a given
2. in a Interfax PR released last night he definitely as I alluded to a couple of times fears the "street" breaking into the Russian population---and that is definitely a given

[OUTLAW 09]

wm---even the NATO Senior Commander an American used the same word---charge across to Moldavia---would run along the southern border after merging with the Crimea forces which by the way are still being increased.

Question would be if the Crimea is secure then why the increase in armored forces being photographed really near the border when the Ukrainian forces are just using personnel carries minus tanks?

If the Russian ground forces have the airborne capability that was exercised and they are still by the way on alert status then bridges and major rod intersections are never an issue for the Russian Army.

The Daily Beast article would be a good place to read about the open window they have due to the weather---they no longer need roads.

[OUTLAW 09]

American Pride---just curious so in all your comments I hear you saying that a democratically elected president who together with his cronies stole over 70B then fled ---even his dentist son went to billionaire status in under three years---how is that possible---is far better than the street tossing out the former crook and installing an interim individual who seems to have some support from somewhere.

And the 42kilos of gold bars and $5M in cash left behind was what the average earned Ukrainian blue collar working class individual salary for say one week?

How can that be good?---if in fact the Maidan was not an outburst against the rule of law and good goveranance what was it? ---the neo Nazi nationalist takeover that Putin and Co. claim it was or was it an undercover Western land grab to takeover the raw resources of the country?

Come on AP you are sliding back into the political debate I went through on the FU Berlin in the 60/70s between world communist dominance and the evils of capitalism---the world has moved on and it is now all about the rule of law and good governance and along the way if a country can get an economy moving along that is accepted by the population regardless of how it looks then so be it.

The Maidan regardless of what one thinks was an expression of the population and we at a distance should accept that simple fact and provide them any support in getting their economy and country moving again all the while an invasion army sits on their borders, the Russian special forces and GRU are in the country and the Russian backed President raped the country.

Remember even in some of the Arab countries that have had a color revolution they have at least moved further along than some of the former Soviet Union empire countries since 1994.

One can say this is a "colored" view of the current Russian military situation but it is probably as close as one will get without reading the classified reports.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukra...ar-341161.html

[JMA]

Ok you have finally seen through Dayuhan.

I warned you.

You really expect a comprehensive response?

Dayuhan---you did see the article written by a former internal Russian political type who in fact alluded to fact that long term plans existed, did exist and were just taken out and implemented.

Come on Dayuhan---you write like mirhond did---what is actually your own personal uninhibited opinion?---taking apart anyone's comments is actually easy---writing and defending one's opinion is actually tougher.

So what do you think Putin is doing , will do and what his future is to be?

Two points stand out over the last three weeks;

1. he wants to rebuild the greater Soviet Union---that is a given
2. in a Interfax PR released last night he definitely as I alluded to a couple of times fears the "street" breaking into the Russian population---and that is definitely a given

[mirhond]

@Dayuhan

The closest thing to an ideology behind Putin's moves is Russian nationalism.

No, it is not. There is no "Russian nationalism" in Russian politics because there is no concept of "nation" in Russian politics. The wery term "nation", especially in the form of "Russian nation" is banned in political vocabulary - you'll not find it in any official document ever. There are some vague terms like "Russian people" or "Russians" in use, but it correspond more with ethnicity, not with nationality.
So, there are no ideology behind Putin's moves, only sheer lust for power.

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan---reference the article where he talks about a government building taken---from today in eastern Ukraine there was a proRussian demo supporting the Berkut who were arrested---they seized a building and Ukrainian riot police are moving in.

As being reported today in Russia by TASS.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/726699

[Stan]

Outlaw,
A very familiar setting just a few years back in little Tallinn

From Russia, ‘Tourists’ Stir the Protests

DONETSK, Ukraine — Around the south and east of Ukraine, in vital cities in the country’s industrial heartland, ethnic Russians have staged demonstrations and stormed buildings demanding a wider invasion of their country by Moscow.

But some of the people here calling for Russian intervention are themselves Russian — “protest tourists” from across the border.

More at the link

Stan---reference the article where he talks about a government building taken---from today in eastern Ukraine there was a proRussian demo supporting the Berkut who were arrested---they seized a building and Ukrainian riot police are moving in.

As being reported today in Russia by TASS.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/726699

[OUTLAW 09]

@Dayuhan



No, it is not. There is no "Russian nationalism" in Russian politics because there is no concept of "nation" in Russian politics. The wery term "nation", especially in the form of "Russian nation" is banned in political vocabulary - you'll not find it in any official document ever. There are some vague terms like "Russian people" or "Russians" in use, but it correspond more with ethnicity, not with nationality.
So, there are no ideology behind Putin's moves, only sheer lust for power.

mirhond---this might to a tad beg to differ with your idea that the term nationalism is not being used when in fact "nationalism" has driven Russia since Czarist days---yes it might not be an actual word in the language which I beg to differ but in actual reality Russia has always been driven by nationalism.

This article below goes against what you are alluding to with your comment---Putin has no "lust for power" he is in fact driven to power as he is deep into Russian nationalism as that is what anchored his KGB training and his growing up in the Soviet Union---one could argue he is simply a product of the former Soviet Union trying to transition to a Czarist view of "greater Russia".


"There are two ways to talk about a Russian person or thing in the Russian language. One way, “Rossisskii,” refers to Russian citizens and the Russian state. Someone who is ethnically Chechen, Tatar, or Ukrainian can be “Rossisskii” if they carry a Russian passport and live on Russian territory.

Up until now that is how Russian President Vladimir Putin has always referred to the Russian people. Even the rather aggressive pro-Putin Russian youth movement of a few years back, Nashi (or “ours”) — with its summer camps, mass calisthenics rallies, and ugly jeering at opposition politicians — was always careful to use the word “Rossisskii.” While some critics like Valeria Novodvorskaya portrayed Nashi as if it were some kind of updated version of the Hitler youth, the group in fact never took on an ethnic slant.

That all changed on Tuesday. In his Kremlin speech to the two houses of the Russian parliament, Putin made a fateful choice. Instead of sticking to the word “Rossisskii,” he slipped into using “Russkii,” the way to refer in the Russian language to someone who is ethnically Russian. Putin said, “Crimea is primordial “Russkaya” land, and Sevastapol is a “Russkii” city.” He went on to say, “Kiev is the mother of “Russkie” cities,” in a reference to the ancient city of Kievan Rus’. (This reference must have grated on the ears of Ukrainian nationalists; as scholar Andrew Wilson points out, the historiography of Rus’ is fraught with the question of contested national origins.)

When speaking of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin added, “Millions of ‘Russkii’ went to sleep in one country and woke up in another, instantly finding themselves ethnic minorities in former Soviet republics, and the ‘Russkii’ people became one of the largest, if not the largest, divided nation in the world.”

Putin thereby signaled a crucial turning point in his regime. He is no longer simply a Russian statist, an old KGB man who wants to recapture Soviet glory, as Brookings analysts Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy argued in their fascinating 2013 biography.

Instead Putin has become a Russian ethnic nationalist."

Nationalism--and it does not exist in Russia?---come on mirhond ----and by the way nationalism is in fact a form of ideology. Last time I checked there are roughly 11 different forms of nationalism of which four fit Russia perfectly from the Czarist days to Stalin to Putin.

Poet Pavel Kogan described his feelings of the Soviet patriotism just before the World War II:

I am a patriot.
I love Russian air and Russian soil.
But we will reach the Ganges River, and we will die in fights, to make our Motherland shine from Japan to England

mirhond---this Russian poem mirrors to a degree many English nationalist comments that stated "the sun never sets on England".

And there is no nationalism in Russia?

[kaur]

Outlaw, you must read this text and you see how Putin plays with word Russkii. This is Putin's 2012 presidential election manifesto that covers ethinicity question.

http://www.ng.ru/politics/2012-01-23/1_national.html

Try to translate this. I would be very glad, if mirhond could help.

Русский народ является государствообразующим – по факту существования России. Великая миссия русских – объединять, скреплять цивилизацию. Языком, культурой, «всемирной отзывчивостью», по определению Федора Достоевского, скреплять русских армян, русских азербайджанцев, русских немцев, русских татар┘ Скреплять в такой тип государства-цивилизации, где нет «нацменов», а принцип распознания «свой–чужой» определяется общей культурой и общими ценностями.
Такая цивилизационная идентичность основана на сохранении русской культурной доминанты, носителем которой выступают не только этнические русские, но и все носители такой идентичности независимо от национальности. Это тот культурный код, который подвергся в последние годы серьезным испытаниям, который пытались и пытаются взломать. И тем не менее он, безусловно, сохранился. Вместе с тем его надо питать, укреплять и беречь.

In Georgia 2008 Russia used compatriots argument.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/russian-...0Justification

[mirhond]

That all changed on Tuesday. In his Kremlin speech to the two houses of the Russian parliament, Putin made a fateful choice. Instead of sticking to the word “Rossisskii,” he slipped into using “Russkii,” the way to refer in the Russian language to someone who is ethnically Russian. Putin said, “Crimea is primordial “Russkaya” land, and Sevastapol is a “Russkii” city.” He went on to say, “Kiev is the mother of “Russkie” cities,” in a reference to the ancient city of Kievan Rus’. (This reference must have grated on the ears of Ukrainian nationalists; as scholar Andrew Wilson points out, the historiography of Rus’ is fraught with the question of contested national origins.)

When speaking of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin added, “Millions of ‘Russkii’ went to sleep in one country and woke up in another, instantly finding themselves ethnic minorities in former Soviet republics, and the ‘Russkii’ people became one of the largest, if not the largest, divided nation in the world.”

Putin thereby signaled a crucial turning point in his regime. He is no longer simply a Russian statist, an old KGB man who wants to recapture Soviet glory, as Brookings analysts Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy argued in their fascinating 2013 biography.

Instead Putin has become a Russian ethnic nationalist."

Nationalism--and it does not exist in Russia?---come on mirhond ----and by the way nationalism is in fact a form of ideology. Last time I checked there are roughly 11 different forms of nationalism of which four fit Russia perfectly from the Czarist days to Stalin to Putin.

And there is no nationalism in Russia?

1. As far as you obviously don't know Russian it's OK that you don't understand Putin's references. I'll try to make it clear for you. Sevastopol is "Russkii" city in historical and linguistic sence (even Ukrainian naval officers didn't use Ukrainian language in their natural habitats), after Anschluss it also became "Rossiyskii" city because now it belongs to Russian state.
Term "Rossiyskii" is a bureaucratic schwonk, term "Rossiyanin" (Russian citizen) is strongly associated with ever drunk and blabbering Yeltzin, so Putin just does a most sensible thing - he speaks to public in natural language.
In general you are right - there are some minor changes in political rethoric, even the term "nation" is becoming legitimate, but calling Putin Russian ethnic nationalist means giving him too much credit.

2. Please, abstain from using term "nationalism" in profane way, use it scientifically. Nationalism, in the broadest sence is the mean to create a nation, not just some ideology.

[JMA]

I note with some interest that where you have been a loud and vocal champion of International Law when it came to US / NATO involvement on Libya, Syria etc you are quiet on the Russian invasion of Crimea.

Also of course what comes to mind is your earlier defence of the German strategic decision to accept energy reliance on Russian oil/gas.

Have you changed your position on these issues?

Reality is much more complicated than that, and "austerity" is a poor description of many reforms.
The IMF's admission about the multiplier of government spending is not relevant to the Ukrainian situation, as it's about a specific set of economic conditions - many of which are not met.
It's complicated.

The Ukraine, Iran, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, United States - all of them have moved into economic traps from which it's very hard if not impossible to escape without major scars. Yes, I included the bubble in Turkey even though it did not burst yet.


A long period (5+ years) of bad economic policies can create such traps, and it's not helpful to point out that a particular recipe for leaving the trap is painful while all the other recipes don't work well either. It's a trap!

[JMA]

I've been rather quiet on SWC for months actually.

There was a recent text on my blog equating the Western and Russian violations of IL and pointing out the recent hypocrisy. Legally the Russians have a pretty good case when they compare Western behaviour against Yugoslavia with their behaviour against Ukraine, except the violated guarantees. But treaties were violated by Western countries as well, so they can construct equivalent Western evilness by adding a few violations.
The West clearly was lacking self-discipline, and now it sees what happens when other great powers lose respect for rules, too.

That was no answer... unless you are OK with the Russian action on the grounds of previous US actions elsewhere.

Are you OK ... without reservation... with the Russian action?

The gas supply thing is still the same; Russians are even more dependent than Germans on the pipeline, and we've had natural gas trade with them since well into the Cold War. It's largely a non-issue. Even a complete cut-off would merely be a nuisance when compared to historical embargoes.
The "energy reliance" on natural gas makes up only 22.5% Germany's energy 'consumption' and the minority of its natural gas consumption is from Russia: 38%

8.5%: Anybody who thinks Germany - the people whose parents and grandparents waged two world wars under total naval blockade - couldn't cope with a loss of this is a fool.
It would be painful, but more like a paper cut pain than like the pain of a submission technique.

Yes... Germany can cope with an abrupt termination of supply... but are they prepared to expose themselves to the disruption... as a reaction to the Russian invasion of Crimea?

My guess is no. The Germans are too fat and comfortable to act in support of international Law and the self determination of a fellow European people if they have to take some 'pain' in the process.

But the original strategic decision to place themselves in a position of dependency for energy from Russia was clearly an error and damaging to the German ability to act according to - what one would believe is - their conscience.

This decision must rank along with the decision to invade Russia in June 1941. It seems when the Germans screw up they screw up big.

[Fuchs]

But the original strategic decision to place themselves in a position of dependency for energy from Russia was clearly an error and damaging to the German ability to act according to - what one would believe is - their conscience.

This decision must rank along with the decision to invade Russia in June 1941.

This only confirms what I already thought of you.


Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

[AmericanPride]

Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

I'm in agreement with you. People seem too caught up in their own propaganda. What has happened in Crimea (and South Ossetia) is not very different from similar actions by the West in Yugoslavia and to some extent even Libya and Iraq. There should not be any surprise that other states, particular ones with perceived injustices done against them, are equally dismissive of international law. Putin used the same Kosovo precedent in 2008 in Georgia as he did in 2014 in Ukraine, and six years later people are still shocked and surprised that he's using it? That ranks high in negligence in my book.

Unfortunately, Washington is very short-sighted in its policymaking, and that has been the case for some time. The short-sightedness is very destructive in building international norms and functional mulitlateral mechanisms to solve international problems, especially with states that do not have close economic or social linkages with the United States. There was no strategic forethought exercised in Washington about Ukraine in the Russian context.

[JMA]

Not a smart response Fuchs.

Thought you would understand the need to define just who is a Crimean and therefore qualifies for a vote in any election or referendum.

Seems you accept that anyone - in this case read Russians - who happen to be in town at the time can vote. Including all manner of thousands of Russian servicemen, base maintenance support staff and any wives etc. So if US NATO servicemen happened to be in Germany at election time could just show up and vote in any German election? Please now, lets show a little intellectual clarity on this matter.

Then the question is when did these people - who you seem to accept as Crimeans - actually arrive in Crimea? Where they transported in by Stalin or later to fill the gap created by the Tartars who were shipped out?

Now - I know this is painful for one so willingly dependent on mother Russia for energy - what do you think about the legality of the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea?

Seems strange to have to remind you of all people of this quote:

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston Churchill

This only confirms what I already thought of you.

Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan----article is in German but has better details----


http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...d_3727795.html


Also---

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukra...er-341257.html