Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

Was LBJ weak when he let Russian tanks invade Czechoslovakia?

Sometimes you can't act. That being said I think the west should look into asset freezes and targeted sanctions (not blanket ones)

 

[ISOM]

If the new Ukraine government is anti russia do you think they would want a russian port in their country? Ukraine is very unstable atm , it could lead to civil war.

So what you are saying is that russia has invaded the ukraine's sovereignty because they are anti-russian but have yet to actually exhibit any anti-russian behavior and that is okay? Ridiculous..

 

[Nesotenso]

Perception? Obama has no teeth. His foreign policy has been a debacle. Russia called him on his shit; Putin has been testing the waters for some time now.

And the US does not have to do everything, but for years, the very perception of US strength has been enough to keep a lot of people in line. Many countries have seen the weakening position of the US and are now acting on it.

It isn't just Russia. NK, China, Russia, Iran, Syria etc....they have all been acting like little shit rats for the least few years and all Obama has done is make empty "red-line" threats and speeches that really say nothing one way or the other.

The world is changing, probably for the worse, and I think a lot of it has roots in the weakening global US position both militarily and monetarily. I fully expect to see a MAJOR war at some point before I die, and I am not that young.

This bullshit reads like something coming out of Fox news

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

If the new Ukraine government is anti russia do you think they would want a russian port in their country? Ukraine is very unstable atm , it could lead to civil war.

So no real and immediate threats?

 

[BigWeather]

What good would that do? The Black Sea Fleet isn't supposed to operate outside the Black Sea anyway anymore. The small number of ships they have is largely for defensive purposes and local engagements.

It would be a stick in Putin's eye, mainly. Not doing something (operating outside the Black Sea) is very different than not being able (or being told not to) do something.

I think that's an option, but Turkey probably wouldn't do it because they got some huge trade agreements going on with them.

Turkey may argue against it, but I have a feeling that if the majority of NATO deemed it necessary it'd happen.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Unconfirmed reports that a Russian column of armoured vehicles left the Crimean oblast and have made their way to the Zaporizhian region of Ukraine proper.

http://www.unian.ua/politics/891608...uhaetsya-teritorieyu-zaporizkoji-oblasti.html

Incredibly alarming if true. Crimea has historically been a part of Russia, so even though it's shocking for them to take it, there are historical reasons. But eastern Ukraine? The people their identify as Ukrainian, even if they speak Russian.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why cant Russia build a port in Sochi or something? Why do they need Crimea still? Is it better geographicly?

Any military buffs know?

 

[rooflapimp]

Lets see if Obama actually has some balls and is willing to do something when things are heating up, or all he is capable of is bombing farmers in the middle east.

 

[DrM]

Unconfirmed reports that a Russian column of armoured vehicles left the Crimean oblast and have made their way to the Zaporizhian region of Ukraine proper.

http://www.unian.ua/politics/891608...uhaetsya-teritorieyu-zaporizkoji-oblasti.html

Incredibly alarming if true. Crimea has historically been a part of Russia, so even though it's shocking for them to take it, there are historical reasons. But eastern Ukraine? The people their identify as Ukrainian, even if they speak Russian.

Posted several hours ago, no additional sources confirmed this news. And if Russian armored forces would enter Ukraine that would be all over media in few minutes.

 

[Atilac]

Lets see if Obama actually has some balls and is willing to do something when things are heating up, or all he is capable of is bombing farmers in the middle east.

Ya I hope Obama has some balls, cause the Europeans sure as shit won't help themselves....

 

[gutter_trash]

OMG!.......People still listen to Sarah Palin!?

sadly, one of my friends in my circle does

 

[CitizenVectron]

Lets see if Obama actually has some balls and is willing to do something when things are heating up, or all he is capable of is bombing farmers in the middle east.

For what reason would Obama want to declare war on Russia? What would the US gain? Let's drop this subject as it will veer off course quickly. This topic should be about the situation in Ukraine, not about the US foreign or dometic policies except as how it directly relates to Ukraine.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Why cant Russia build a port in Sochi or something? Why do they need Crimea still? Is it better geographicly?

Any military buffs know?

AFAIK it's a very defensible place, but that's not really important these days. The most likely practical reason is that the infrastructure is already there.

 

[twobear]

protecting it from the anti russia / pro eu revolutionaries.

So Russia is protecting their port in the Crimea from a bunch of guys with sticks by annexing part of, or perhaps the whole of, Eastern Ukraine?

 

[MacNille]

Strange how all the so-called anti-imperialists of the Hands Off Syria campaign (which was overtly pro-Assad) are all either totally silent or outright supportive of Russian military occupation of foreign territory with the most likely end goal being actual annexation and parroting the Kremlin line on the situation.

Most strange indeed.

It is because they are the biggest hypocritics we know of today.

 

[crozier]

For what reason would Obama want to declare war on Russia? What would the US gain? Let's drop this subject as it will veer off course quickly. This topic should be about the situation in Ukraine, not about the US foreign or dometic policies except as how it directly relates to Ukraine.

It doesn't have to be war. I have a hard time believing Obama pulled that comment about "costs" from nowhere, though. He had something in mind.

 

[cyberheater]

For what reason would Obama want to declare war on Russia? What would the US gain?

They might not have a choice.

Under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The US undertook to "protect the territorial integrity and security of Ukraine".

 

[Oriel]

stop, just stop this misinformation that is spreading from Reddit. US is not commited to protect anything Ukraine.

But it did, when Clinton signed the Budapest Declaration.

 

[cyberheater]

But it did, when Clinton signed the Budapest Declaration.

Indeed it did.

 

[Piecake]

For what reason would Obama want to declare war on Russia? What would the US gain? Let's drop this subject as it will veer off course quickly. This topic should be about the situation in Ukraine, not about the US foreign or dometic policies except as how it directly relates to Ukraine.

Because its important for the US president to be a bad ass, starting wars, putting upstarts in their place for some

 

[Tenrius]

So Russia is protecting their port in the Crimea from a bunch of guys with sticks by annexing part of, or perhaps the whole of, Eastern Ukraine?

They are not a bunch of guys with sticks. They are well-organized people with firearms.

That said, it is an opportunistic land grab and nothing more.

 

[DrM]

They might not have a choice.

Under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The US undertook to "protect the territorial integrity and security of Ukraine".

These are points from that Memorandum

1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
   

Point 3) is the best, probably broken few dozen times in last decade

 

[verbum]

Sounds like Russia has been planning this for a while.

It is understood that Russia has sent its elite units to Crimea, and that it now has between 6,000 and 7,000 men on the peninsula in addition to those already stationed in Russian bases there. The movement of troops started on February 23rd, the day of the closing ceremony of the Sochi Olympics. “This feels like 22nd June 1941,” the Ukrainian official said, referring to the day when Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union.

Ukraine's armed forces are much less well-equipped than the Russian army. The total number of Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea is estimated at about 14,000. But only a few thousands of those troops are ready for combat. The forces have lacked a clear chain of command since the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, who on February 28th gave a press conference in Russia in which he insisted that he was still Ukraine's president. Ukraine's new defence minister was appointed only a couple of days ago. Russia has chosen Ukraine's moment of greatest weakness to move into Crimea.

From the Economist

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/russia-and-ukraine

 

[Angst]

Why cant Russia build a port in Sochi or something? Why do they need Crimea still? Is it better geographicly?

Any military buffs know?

Because having a port on the Crimea is very effective as pressure on any Ukrainian government and gives them a good excuse to gobble up part of the Ukraine.

 

[goomba]

So Russia is protecting their port in the Crimea from a bunch of guys with sticks by annexing part of, or perhaps the whole of, Eastern Ukraine?

Where do people get this Russia annexing shit from? they didn't annex South Ossetia and they haven't annexed Crimera.

 

[ISOM]

Where do people get this Russia annexing shit from? they didn't annex South Ossetia and they haven't annexed Crimera.

They haven't yet..

 

[Mandoric]

But it did, when Clinton signed the Budapest Declaration.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Upon actually reading it, the only defense commitment is to seek a UNSC resolution in the case of use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Russia is in breach of their own commitments to Ukraine, but the US is only bound to consult the UK and Russia in that event.

If anything, there's likely more fruitful commitments in the preliminary negotiations between Ukraine and NATO.

 

[crozier]

They might not have a choice.

Under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The US undertook to "protect the territorial integrity and security of Ukraine".

This actually poses a very interesting (and important) problem. If we're going to convince countries to dismantle their weapon programs by offering them security assurances, we *have* to follow through with our promises. It seems like the treaty is incredibly specific:

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is an international treaty signed on 5 February 1994 in the Hungarian capital Budapest by Ukraine, the United States of America, Russia, and the United Kingdom concerning the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and its security relationship with the signatory countries. According to the memorandum, Russia, the USA, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:

1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

 

[raphier]

But it did, when Clinton signed the Budapest Declaration.

Indeed it did.

These are points from that Memorandum

1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
   

Point 3) is the best, probably broken few dozen times in last decade

No it didn't. Russia is part of UNSC and will veto any action chosen. Nowhere in the memorandum did it say protect/defend/fight for

 

[Angst]

Where do people get this Russia annexing shit from? they didn't annex South Ossetia and they haven't annexed Crimera.

Because South Ossetia is occupied by Russian forces and is not recognised by the international community, thus the Russian troops are effectively on Georgian soil.

 

[CitizenVectron]

The declaration itself is basically a promise to not harm Ukraine, not a promise to protect it.

 

[maquiladora]

But it did, when Clinton signed the Budapest Declaration.

But its a totally toothless agreement. There are no penalties for breaking the commitments.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used

Russia has veto power at the UN, so UNSC options are impossible.

 

[Oriel]

Also can't (NATO member) Turkey deny Russia's navy the use of the strait? Russia has their precious naval base but a lot of good it'll do them.

No, an international treaty prohibits Turkey from limiting or preventing military naval traffic of any Black Sea nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

 

[Captain Tuttle]

That's what's so hilarious when you think about it. It's the US population that has no teeth anymore. Our appetite for any conflict, no matter how justified, is at zero. You can't expect the President and Congress to ignore that completely.

Yeah, the American people are tired of foreign wars, I think they see this as Europe's problem (it's in there backyard afterall).

 

[Oriel]

Why cant Russia build a port in Sochi or something? Why do they need Crimea still? Is it better geographicly?

Any military buffs know?

Yes, the Russians are building a naval port in Abkhazia as well, but it will complement their existing base at Sevastopol. However Abkhazia is a self proclaimed republic that is internationally regarded as part of Georgia so of course nothing can possibly go wrong there in the future.

 

[BigWeather]

No, an international treaty prohibits Turkey from limiting or preventing military naval traffic of any Black Sea nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

Very interesting, thanks for posting that.

Interesting (from linked article): In April 1982, the Convention was amended to allow Turkey to close the Straits at its discretion in peacetime as well as during wartime.

 

[Moral Panic]

Do the people in the Crimera WANT the Russians there?

 

[Captain Tuttle]

AFAIK it's a very defensible place, but that's not really important these days. The most likely practical reason is that the infrastructure is already there.

Does Sochi even have a deep water port? Honest question

 

[cebri.one]

Do the people in the Crimera WANT the Russians there?

Crimea is Russia, and has always been. Only in 1954 it was given to the ukrainians by Krushev.

 

[maquiladora]

Do the people in the Crimera WANT the Russians there?

58% ethnic Russian. So quite a large minority are not pro-Russian.

 

[Ormberg]

It's probably been posted already, but the EU is rapidly responding, our foreign ministers will hold a meeting. On Monday.

 

[kess]

No, an international treaty prohibits Turkey from limiting or preventing military naval traffic of any Black Sea nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

I could totally see the West ignoring this treaty the same way Russia has ignored the Budapest one, if need be.

 

[damisa]

Technically it kind of is since the US has a security agreement with the ukraine.

No it doesn't. This is not America's problem. We are not the world police. Let Europe deal with it.

 

[Sviatoslav]

I never got why countries never deal with the minorities in a peaceful way. They could have given high paid jobs to the Russians in the multiple areas of the country in order to spread them out.

Russians are already concentrated in the prosperous parts of the country (the east).

 

[Oriel]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Upon actually reading it, the only defense commitment is to seek a UNSC resolution in the case of use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Russia is in breach of their own commitments to Ukraine, but the US is only bound to consult the UK and Russia in that event.

If anything, there's likely more fruitful commitments in the preliminary negotiations between Ukraine and NATO.

No it didn't. Russia is part of UNSC and will veto any action chosen. Nowhere in the memorandum did it say protect/defend/fight for

But its a totally toothless agreement. There are no penalties for breaking the commitments.



Russia has veto power at the UN, so UNSC options are impossible.

The agreement could be interpreted in a way that places an obligation on signatories to ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine is maintained. Now it doesn't specify what methods there are to ensure the Budapest Declaration is maintained, but there's no real way to prevent the territorial disintegration of the country, whether through civil war or armed external invasion without a corresponding counter force by the UK or US.

Of course Russia may argue it is adhering to the memorandum to ensure civil war doesn't break out, but their very actions will be seen as quite the opposite by most Western leaders. Again it's all about interpretation, though I doubt the Ukrainian people will care if the west intervened mind you.

 

[Kinyou]

It's probably been posted already, but the EU is rapidly responding, our foreign ministers will hold a meeting. On Monday.

Bureaucracy moving at lightning speed

 

[cyberheater]

These are points from that Memorandum

1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
   

Point 3) is the best, probably broken few dozen times in last decade

Thanks for that.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

I never got why countries never deal with the minorities in a peaceful way. They could have given high paid jobs to the Russians in multiple areas of the country in order to spread them out.



We should not be mixing countries with nations though. 58% Russians does not mean they all want to be a part of Russia.

In this case it does.

 

[Oriel]

I could totally see the West ignoring this treaty the same way Russia has ignored the Budapest one, if need be.

US naval traffic may be barred from entering, but not Greek or Turkish vessels under NATO command.

 

[Mandoric]

Sounds like Russia has been planning this for a while.

It's probably a fair bet that the initial logic behind leaving Crimea as part of Ukraine following the fall of the Soviet Union was that it would politically dominate Ukraine and maintain it as a close Russian ally. Following the second overthrow in a row of a pro-Russian government, that option's off the table, and a plan B apparently goes into play instead - and precisely because it's been so long in the oven, every t is crossed and every i dotted to make it both a fait accompli and impossible for the West to oppose without rejecting the past few decades of their own diplomatic rhetoric.