War in the Ukraine?

[MD]

Treaty would mean 'British war with Russia' if Putin's troops intervene in Ukraine | Mail Online

Ukraine says Russian troops take over airports in Crimea - The Washington Post

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Very unlikely. Some Russian politicians are making a lot of noise, but that's for domestic consumption: covering their embarrassment. Meanwhile, Putin (the man in charge, remember) is pointedly saying nothing and the diplomats are making reassuring noises.

 

[MD]

Very unlikely. Some Russian politicians are making a lot of noise, but that's for domestic consumption: covering their embarrassment. Meanwhile, Putin (the man in charge, remember) is pointedly saying nothing and the diplomats are making reassuring noises.

I don't know where you're getting that info from, considering how there are already 2000 Russian troops in Ukraine and possibly more if the Ukranian army retaliates. There is already a war, I guess the larger question would be whether NATO would intervene/

 

[Secret Chief]

Having just been reminded that World War One was triggered by a relatively minor (politically speaking) lone assassination, one should not dismiss the potential for unforeseen appalling conflicts spiralling out of control from seemingly local, limited developments.

 

[MD]

Russian upper house approves use of military force in Ukraine - CNN.com

 

[esmith]

I don't know where you're getting that info from, considering how there are already 2000 Russian troops in Ukraine and possibly more if the Ukranian army retaliates. There is already a war, I guess the larger question would be whether NATO would intervene/

As far as NATO, it has no treaty obligation to get involved. The Ukraine is not a member of NATO. NATO is a treaty between the various countries that basically says that if one member of NATO is attacked the others will come to their aid. There is no way that any country or countries within the EU or surrounding area will commit armed forces to counter any move by the Russian military. The only foreseeable reason that NATO would get involved is if a member of NATO went to the aid of the Ukraine and Russia retaliated by invading that country. As far as I can see this is a done deal. The Ukraine will be brought back into the Russian fold. Interesting article about this can be found here:
How Ukraine lost control over its own destiny | Fox News

 

[Mycroft]

As usual, the use of military force to protect the Rulers instead of listening to the people.

 

[esmith]

As usual, the use of military force to protect the Rulers instead of listening to the people.

And what military are you referring to, Russia, Ukraine, EU, or US?

 

[Vouthon]

The only foreseeable reason that NATO would get involved is if a member of NATO went to the aid of the Ukraine and Russia retaliated by invading that country.

They have in a sense (not that Russia will invade them but they are advocating for the Ukraine). Latvia and Lithuania have jointly invoked NATO article 4 in response to Russia's occupation of Crimea. NATO are now obligated to convene an emergency council meeting. This is only the fourth time in the entire history of NATO that this has happened. Why?

In 2008, Russia occupies parts of Georgia to defend 'Russian minorities'. In 2014, it does it again on a larger scale with a much larger Russian minority in Ukraine.

Putin essentially wants to form "customs unions" with former Soviet Republics, because as he stated once before he believes that the collapse of the USSR was "the great geopolitical disaster of the twentieth century". Putin's grand aim is to overturn the post-Cold War order largely created by NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union.

His foreign policy objective is to restore Russian national pride by reversing the 'humiliation' of 1991 when the Soviet Empire fell and thereby making Russia, with its third world economy but first world military capabilities, a superpower again. A homophobic, xenophobic superpower with a cult of personality around Putin the autocrat, that is.

Now, any post-Soviet republic in Eastern Europe with a significant Russian minority is fair game for Putin's program of military expansion through separatism.

Who will it be next?

No doubt, with weeks of Russian propaganda under what is essentially at the moment becoming a military state in the region under Moscow's control, there will be some sort of plebiscite and the Crimea will become a South Ossetia, a quasi-independent vassal state of Russia, a 'protectorate' from which Putin can defend his Sevastopol fleet and cause trouble for the new government in Kiev.

Putin wants to create a Greater Russia known as the "Eurasian Union" by piecemeal military expansionism. And he is well on his way to achieving this dream.

I wouldn't like to be a homosexual in Crimea right now, that's all I can say!

 

[esmith]

They have in a sense (not that Russia will invade them but they are advocating for the Ukraine). Latvia and Lithuania have jointly invoked NATO article 4 in response to Russia's occupation of Crimea. NATO are now obligated to convene an emergency council meeting. This is only the fourth time in the entire history of NATO that this has happened. Why?

From: What Are NATO's Articles 4 And 5?

Under Article 4, any member state can convene a meeting of NATO members to "consult" when it feels its independence or security are threatened. In practice, it has rarely been used and sends a strong political symbol to the greater world that NATO is concerned about a particular situation.

So, yes any member can request a meeting if they l "feels its independence or security are threatened." This does not bind any member of NATO to come to the aid of the Ukraine it is just a request for consultation.

 

[MD]

Ukraine mobilizes troops after Russia's 'declaration of war' - CNN.com

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Well, I was over-optimistic. But what can you expect from a man like Putin , whose career started in the KGB. With Russia declaring the right to protect Russians anywhere in the world, the Baltic States must be glad they joined Nato. I think we made a big mistake in not supporting Gerogia: that gave Russia a green light. I never thought I'd have a good word to say for Sarah Palin, but credit there it's due: she did warn of that.

 

[Copernicus]

It is true that Russia has occupied Crimea, which never was a part of Ukraine until Khrushchev transferred it to that Soviet republic. Right now, about 60% of its inhabitants are ethnic Russian, and a plebiscite will likely vote for union with Russia. Under Russian control now, the puppet government is referring to itself as an "autonomous" territory, and it is true that Crimea had a great degree of autonomy when it was part of Ukraine. My expectation is that it will not return to Ukraine.

Putin's move has stirred up passions in the Russian-dominant areas of eastern Ukraine, and, whether he originally intended to or not, Putin will likely send his military to occupy those regions. And plebiscites there will likely demand union with Russia or complete autonomy from Kiev.

Right now, the ethnic Ukrainian side of the country is treating Russia's behavior as an act of war, and fighting could break out. If that happens, Putin may be forced to occupy it. He may have miscalculated in terms of how all of this is going to play out, because he has inflamed ethnic tensions in Ukraine. If he fully occupies the country, it will probably cause him more political and economic isolation down the road than he thought he would face.

At present, Putin probably expects the West to complain loudly and pretty much let him have his way in his own "backyard". He does control a considerable portion of Europe's energy supply, so Europeans are less likely to want to take serious action on the economic and political front. He may think that he can drive a wedge between Europe and the US--split NATO, in effect.

The Baltic countries--Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania--and many other countries formerly under Soviet domination--Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria--are all members of NATO. Ukraine wanted to join the EU and NATO. To an old cold warrior like Putin, this looks like too much encirclement by hostile powers. He is not going to let Ukraine go in that direction, but he will have a problem with nationalist Ukrainians, who will not willingly become vassals of Russia again.

 

[MD]

Hey Copernicus any chance NATO will get involved against Russia?

If so are there any European countries strong enough to really challenge Russia or would this have to boil down once again to America stepping in?

 

[LuisDantas]

As usual, the use of military force to protect the Rulers instead of listening to the people.

Well, yes. But is it reasonable to expect anything else from any military force?

 

[Mycroft]

Well, yes. But is it reasonable to expect anything else from any military force?

Actually, I think Putin has simply seen an opportunity to annexe the Ukraine and is moving to do so.

 

[Penumbra]

Treaty would mean 'British war with Russia' if Putin's troops intervene in Ukraine | Mail Online

Ukraine says Russian troops take over airports in Crimea - The Washington Post

I read the treaty that the article refers to. Britain and the US are under no obligation according to the treaty to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.

Here's the text of the Budapest Memo, the 1994 treaty they're talking about:

1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. 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.

5. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

So, Russia violated the treaty, but there's nothing in the treaty about US or Britain going to war if Russia breaks the treaty. The US and Britain held up their end of the treaty by not violating it themselves. The only close thing is item 4, which talks about if Ukraine is threatened by nuclear aggression, the countries only have to go to the extent of bringing up the issue at the UN Security Council.

So the UN can direct action, or countries can choose to act unilaterally, but there's no treaty obligation to do so it seems. And the incentive for countries to go to war about this seems pretty low- Crimea is mostly ethnic Russians and if they want independence or closer ties with Russia, there doesn't seem a lot of virtue for external countries to go to war to keep a Russian-ethnic chunk of Ukraine in the sovereignty of Ukraine. They'd be risking lives of their citizens for what, exactly?

It seems like if people were rational, there would be diplomatic ways to handle this. If the people of Crimea were to vote with its majority ethnic Russian population to either be independent and/or have closer ties with Russia, then that's the will of the people, but then they'd have to work out what happens to people living there that still want to be part of Ukraine. It's messy. But for Russia to invade their sovereignty with force is an act of unreasonable aggression. Let Crimea and the rest of Ukraine work out what they want between themselves; Russia has been making very problematic decisions lately.

There is already a war, I guess the larger question would be whether NATO would intervene/

If so, they'd be intervening to defend a non-member of NATO.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, I think Putin has simply seen an opportunity to annexe the Ukraine and is moving to do so.

Of course. But that does not mean that some other Russian leader would not, nor that the opportunity was avoidable.

 

[Vouthon]

From the Telegraph:

10.45 Vladimir Putin has been compared to Adolf Hitler by a former Czech foreign minister who says he is repeating history by acting in Crimea much like the Nazi leader did in central and eastern Europe in the late 1930s.
"What's happening in Ukraine is history repeating itself," Karel Schwarzenberg said in an interview with Austrian daily Osterreich.
"Putin is acting along the same principle as Adolf Hitler" did during his invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1938 and 1939, he said.
"Since he wanted to invade Crimea, he needed a pretext and said that his compatriots were oppressed," the 76-year-old Schwarzenberg said, adding that Russians in Crimea, where they are a majority, were not facing any discrimination"
"When Hitler wanted to annex Austria, he said that Germans there were oppressed," he said.
Europe should "clearly tell him that this is a violation of law that will not pass," said Schwarzenberg, who served as Czech foreign minister from 2007-2009 and 2010-2013.

Ukraine live - Telegraph

 

[Vouthon]

This is encouraging :

0947: Putin has lost touch with reality...

Ouch - damaging line here in that New York Times article.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr.Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said.

Ukraine live - Telegraph