Ukraine, Russia and Crimea situation

[j1979]

There wouldn't be a reason to Invade the rest of Ukraine as you know from statements it would only be a last resort.

Yep. but Putin only said that today. When I said what I did, he had not made this statement.

The 3am deadline whether true or not Putin was calling Ukraine's bluff to strike first so he would have a reason to take Ukraine as well.

He denied the 5am deadline yesterday, whether it happened or not I have no idea. But it was a good move by Ukraine if they did make it up.

Showing restraint in these times is also pertinent. If Russia took the first shot and invaded the rest of Ukraine where there are less 'Russian interests' he risks alienating his own people.

Don't believe the propaganda. Would it be OK for Pakistani troops to Occupy Bradford and Birmingham or Leicester, in the event of a new government in London?

I am not surprised about the tactics of Russia bussing in people for pro Russian protests, it's common practice to discredit your opponents first through propaganda and then move in.

Yes it's what they did in Georgia, It's not working as well as intended in Ukraine! They are making some monumental blunders. More people have the internet these day. The truth will emerge from the FUD.

What ever happens There will not be a world war, perhaps a civil war between Ukrainians and hard core Crimeans.

I hope not!

But advocating a fire first policy because of your own interests will also have devastating consequences outweighing any benefit gained.

What is the worst that can happen if Crimea joins Russia? It's citizens being fed Russian TV? Of course not forgetting support to Syria. But once he has finished his other naval base that will no longer be needed.

Well the worst thing that will happen if Russia take it, is Crimea could become a terrorist hot spot! Muslims are happy under Ukrainian society, they were deported under Starlin, they have long memories and if it's proven Putin is suppling Al-Assad from there then, it will become a major problem.

The best scenario is Ukrainian forces are allowed back to their base. Putin, admits the counrty is under control, he takes his troops home slowly and Crimea can be given full autonomy, not Ukrainian, Russian or Turkish but have open visa rights for all 3 nations and the black sea fleet is shrunk and the majority moved to Novorossiysk in Russia. Problem solved!

[j1979]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZolXrjGIBJs

She's either going to get the sack or it's truly the best indication yet that Putin is backing off slowly.. Hoping for option 2

Looks like she's in deep **** and is being taken to Crimea for "education" soviet style.

Even Crimean ethnic Russian soldiers are staying loyal!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looks like she's in deep **** and is being taken to Crimea for "education" soviet style.

Even Crimean ethnic Russian soldiers are staying loyal!

AFAIK,that is RT America which is based in Washington DC and she is American. If it was Russian RT with a Russian reporter it would have had more impact TBH.

http://consciouslifenews.com/world-h...s-abby-martin/



Seems she had a go at the WHO too about the Iraq war(a side swipe at the US).

Here is what RT said:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...ganda-20140304

In the past few days Russian media outlets, particularly the Kremlin-funded English language outlet RT, have been widely mocked for their rosy portrayal of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (including in a story by me). Examples include a dispatch about how Crimea has "actually become more stable," some highly suspect chyrons, and an interview with Aikido black belt Steven Seagal about the Western media's coverage of the crisis in Ukraine.

Then last night one of its leading hosts, Abby Martin, took to the airwaves to denounce Russia's action in Ukraine and proclaim her "journalistic independence." Though she said she doesn't "know as much as I should about Ukraine's history or the cultural dynamics of the region," Martin said, "military intervention is never the answer" and "what Russia did is wrong." She added that her "heart goes out to the Ukrainian people, who are now wedged as pawns in the middle of a global power chess game."

While it's clear the network maintains a strong pro-Russian bias, Glenn Greenwald on Tuesday defended RT's coverage, saying it isn't so different from what we saw on American media outlets in the lead up to the Iraq War. "For all the self-celebrating American journalists and political commentators: Was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?" he wrote. Of course the American hypocrisy charge doesn't make RT's coverage better, just more familiar.

So how does RT possibly defend itself? We sent a query to the head of RT's D.C. bureau, who forwarded the request to headquarters in Russia. In a Q&A conducted over email, RT's Moscow-based press office backed up Martin's assertions of editorial independence and promised to dispatch the D.C.-based host to Crimea to help her learn more about the conflict.

The following exchange has been lightly edited for clarity.

Some worry Abby Martin will suffer recriminations for her public denunciation of Russia's actions. Does RT stand behind Martin's statement?

Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn't beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air. This is the case with Abby's commentary on the Ukraine.

We respect her views, and the views of all our journalists, presenters and program hosts, and there will be absolutely no reprimands made against Ms. Martin.

In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea. As such we'll be sending her to Crimea to give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicenter of the story.

How will you cover the unfolding story in Crimea and Ukraine?

We will continue to provide the most comprehensive picture of events there as we have been doing all along--from Kiev, from Crimea, the Ukraine in general. Some outlets chose to highlight just one story on Crimea, but for months RT has been covering the protests, violent clashes, political maneuverings, and opinions of common people on both sides of the conflict in the Ukraine as we did here.

How do you respond to charges of propaganda?

The charges of propaganda tend to pop up every time a news outlet, particularly RT, dares to show the side of events that does not fit the mainstream narrative, regardless of the realities on the ground. This happened in Georgia, this is happening in Ukraine. Some of the most striking facts about the actions of the opposition, such as its extreme right wing and anti-Semitic leanings, were being glazed over by most of the Western press. The fact that the protesters were receiving significant aid from abroad in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty was also ignored. Ditto how violent the protesters were, how they attacked the security personnel and refused injured policemen access to medical aid. No, the story across the Western mainstream media was all about peaceful, democracy-loving opposition being brutalized by the police. This was simply not the case, and it is our duty to show the truth on the ground.

Does RT have a point of view on the unfolding news cycle? If so, what is it?

RT's point of view is based on the facts and developments on the ground, and we will stick to that as the news cycle unfolds.

Martin's full statement, which aired last night as part of her Breaking the Set program, is here.

I don't see an re-education here??

She can make up her own mind if she wants,and she is located in the US,as is the studio.

I doubt she will be sent to a gulag anytime soon!

Glenn Greenwald was formerly with The Guardian US:

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

He is American too. I doubt he would be permitting some torture of a fellow US citizen,would he, in the USA??

Greenwald has received awards including the first Izzy Award for independent journalism, in 2009, and the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary.

[roachcoach]

What is the worst that can happen if Crimea joins Russia? It's citizens being fed Russian TV? Of course not forgetting support to Syria. But once he has finished his other naval base that will no longer be needed.

The message is then loud and clear that the Russians can then pitch up and annex bits of nations with little more impunity/harsh words/hand wringing from the international community. Of course it makes little difference, though, it's done. It's all over barring the shouting (unless someone has a negligent discharge, then it might all explode) and will play out like the other actions in the past. A lot of international moaning, condemning...but doing absolutely nothing material.


If you really think the Russians will walk away from their warm water naval base, I fear you are sorely mistaken.

[OilSheikh]

Tthen yes we should (threaten) go to war with Russia,

Our army has been greatly reduced in size, we don't even have an aircraft carrier, and you want to go to war ?

[j1979]

AFAIK,that is RT America which is based in Washington DC and she is American. If it was Russian RT with a Russian reporter it would have had more impact TBH.

http://consciouslifenews.com/world-h...s-abby-martin/



Seems she had a go at the WHO too about the Iraq war(a side swipe at the US).

Here is what RT said:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...ganda-20140304



I don't see an re-education here??

She can make up her own mind if she wants,and she is located in the US,as is the studio.

I doubt she will be sent to a gulag anytime soon!

Glenn Greenwald was formerly with The Guardian US:

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

He is American too. I doubt he would be permitting some torture of a fellow US citizen,would he, in the USA??

And what? I was going on what was reported on Channel 4 news.
https://twitter.com/krishgm

"it's not big deal" so RT make a statement explaining her actions! jokers. another Putin fail in the proganda war.


edit: sorry if that came across harsh

[j1979]

Our army has been greatly reduced in size, we don't even have an aircraft carrier, and you want to go to war ?

So lets just cancel the deal we made shall we? As long as we give them the nukes back.. seems fair to me.

[flearider]

the thing is the usa and the eu are skint could they afford a war no .. so theres going to be a trade off .. Russia will keep crimea and there sub bases .. and the usa will prob get something else ..
do you really think they hav'nt talked about this already ?? as the usa went into Afghanistan and Iraq the Russians go into crimea ..

the only winners are those supplying the weapons .. and those companys picked to rebuild ..

[j1979]

the thing is the usa and the eu are skint could they afford a war no .. so theres going to be a trade off .. Russia will keep crimea and there sub bases .. and the usa will prob get something else ..
do you really think they hav'nt talked about this already ?? as the usa went into Afghanistan and Iraq the Russians go into crimea ..

the only winners are those supplying the weapons .. and those companys picked to rebuild ..

well it doesn't look like it will come to war at the moment. Here how i hope it is for Vova Putin!

1. Russia's economy is in a lot worse position than you may realise. Gas and Oil and thats about it. growth predictions in 2014 of 1%. this move will also damage that estimate. national debt is $200 billion with a credit rating of BBB. If Russia loses just 10% of trade from this intervention they could go back into recession.

2. there are about a million Ukrainians in USA, and almost 10 million people of polish decent. There are stil the nutters that haven't forgot the cold war and some of them in congress no doubt. I suspect there is enough of a Ukrainian sympathetic voice in the USA push the lethargic Europeans into stronger action against Russia.

3. The Ukrainians in Crimea are not bowing out to the Russians, They are standing firm, Russia will run out of bull **** propaganda as a reason to occupy soon.

4. Russia and Russians see Ukrainians as their poor relative, and that they gave them their country, and it's their's to take back. Many Ukrainians (Russian speaking too) are tired of this attitude.

5. Putin has pretty much already lost. He's alienated millions more. Not just Ukraine but all ex soviet states. If he annexes Crimea, and no one stops him, he is storing up massive problems for the future. All Russia's neighbors will likely ramp up there security now. Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO eventually.

[Saracen]

The thread moves pretty quick. as does Putin.

At the moment, don't advocate war but if Ukraine is attacked, unprovoked on it's own soil. then yes we should (threaten) go to war with Russia, as we promised to protect Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons. Russia likely would not dream of invading Ukraine should the still have the weapons. What is the point of offering protection and then denying this when needed. A man is his word, a country should be too.

At the time I said we should (threaten) to declare war there were reports on the BBC of Russia giving Ukraine a 5am deadline to surrender, or face an all out assault.

Where did we agree to go to war, or for that matter, to "protect" Ukraine, in exchange for giving up nukes?

If you mean the Budapest Memorandum, I'd suggest reading it, because it assuredly does not say that.

Yes, Russia have clearly broken their commitments, but that Memorandum is a very long way short of some mutual defence pact, requiring the West to take military action.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Russian economy is stagnating,but so are many economies worldwide as its the worst global recession in a 100 years,but anyhow there was this article from the BBC in late 2013:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24541140







So there are possible issues in the future,but we are still technically worse off for quite a while,especially the US.

It seems Australia,Germany,China are the only countries which will really buck the trend.

Australia has a booming economy based a lot on its exports of raw materials to countries like China and Germany and China are the worlds leading exporters of manufactured goods AFAIK.

Edit!!

Another article from 2013 from The Spectator:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...e-debt-burden/



Second Edit!!

Another article from 2013:

http://ckmurray.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...-hysteria.html

[jimborae]

.....

[j1979]

Where did we agree to go to war, or for that matter, to "protect" Ukraine, in exchange for giving up nukes?

If you mean the Budapest Memorandum, I'd suggest reading it, because it assuredly does not say that.

Yes, Russia have clearly broken their commitments, but that Memorandum is a very long way short of some mutual defence pact, requiring the West to take military action.

It doesn't mention a defensive pact and the UK doesn't have the balls to stick up to Putin, but the US will be putting pressure on us to do a lot more. The agreement is to protect Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and its existing borders, in return for Ukraines nuclear disarmament.

I suggest if we are not going to help in the event of war we should very least provide some kind of help. NATO membership for Ukraine was on course until Viktor Yanukovych pulled out in 2010.

But what message does this send to Kim Jong Un or Iran?

[j1979]

As HalloweenJack has already pointed out, Russia are not fooling anyone.

Who actually buys Russia's account of the latest events in Crimea?

They say they came to Crimea to stop Ukrainian nationalists from attacking ethnic Russians in Crimea and provide security to the region . Yet they can provide no evidence any Ukrainian nationalists were on the way, other than a comment from Dimitry Yarush. Russian nationalists are coming in from Russia and causing trouble in mainly Russian cities in eastern Ukraine. If they want to calm the situation they should be advising against aggravation.

Russia says it came to calm conditions in Crimea and stablise the situation. It dresses solders up as civilians, and claims they are Ultra nationalists that it has no control over. These have been used when they army have no legitimate excuses to attack. But an Ultra nationalist does not need to abide to the rules of engagement . Does anyone buy this, and believe what Russia is saying?



from the Kremlin ^^ NOT RUSSIAN ^^


from the Kremlin ^^ NOT RUSSIAN ^^


If you trust the Kremlin, and truly believe these are nationalists in Crimea, then why aren't Russians arresting them? If they are there to provide security.

I think Russia is losing the propaganda war! But Russian nationalism is so strong, that even with all the PR fails they still have support. The truth is many Russians in Russia still see Ukraine as there poor cousins and that they gave them Independence, and they should be grateful. The longer this goes on the more the tide is turning in Crimea.


Crimean Tatars providing the Ukrainian soldiers with hot soup and bread.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=618663294849115

He says about 4 or 5 times "don't give up. the people are with you"

[j1979]

It's interesting to read the Russian bias at http://rt.com/ , as well as the Western bias at the BBC, Guardian, etc. If anyone knows where you can get unbiased news, let me know!

The BBC is pretty unbiased on this when reporting. having said that I have not seen one, interview with a Crimean Tartar though, it's all been in Sevastopol, which is where the Russian fleet is and very very close ties to Moscow. Moscow give presents to Sevastopol every year. This year they got a free trolly bus or 2, really! The BBC are under some kind of Russian influence though while in Sevastopol.

If you want very anti Russian look at the Polish Press, they sound like me at the moment!

Al-jazeera are slightly tilted towards reporting pro-ukrainian.

If you want unbiased the BBC are almost there. They need to get a different opinions to the norm in Kiev (difficult) and a different opinions in Crimea from other communities (not just Sevastopol). There are some genuine pro-Russians in Kiev. There are Turkish and Tartar areas in Crimea that I would like to see the BBC talk about.

You will struggle to find Pro-russian outside of Russia. China or Belarus and some slav states in the former Yugoslavian states but thats it! Spain are said to not be too bothered about what Russia is doing.

The Russian press are really a joke. not bias but outright lies. The RT presenter I think wanted to point this out. Also Russia24 has been showing video footage from the Kiev riots and telling people it's scenes from Crimea. They have been reporting deaths in Crimea.

[Saracen]

It doesn't mention a defensive pact and the UK doesn't have the balls to stick up to Putin, but the US will be putting pressure on us to do a lot more. The agreement is to protect Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and its existing borders, in return for Ukraines nuclear disarmament.

I suggest if we are not going to help in the event of war we should very least provide some kind of help. NATO membership for Ukraine was on course until Viktor Yanukovych pulled out in 2010.

But what message does this send to Kim Jong Un or Iran?

The UK is standing up to Putin, but the issue is when, and how. There is no point in the UK telling putting to get out of Crimea of we'll go to war, because he'd know it for the empty threat it is. There is also a very real danger in the UK threatening things it either isn't prepared to, or simply can't, actually do. If we do, and he thinks it's a bluff and calls it, then any other threatened action immeduately loses credibility. Consider Obama's "red line" threats against Assad.

So, the UK has to consider what response to take in a measured way, trying to assess what stands the best chance of having an impact on Putin. That means, first of all, not going on a rant that will either be ignored, or worse, risk making him dig his heels in, or even make further incursions. It's a case of trying to get the best result we can, using whatever strategy is most likely to work, without making things worse, and recognising that we simply might nit get what we want, which is Russia out of Crimea.

The first thing to recognise, therefore, is that the UK speaking alone has a small voice, with Putin. It's naive to think he really cares much what we think, or do. He cares more about, for instance, Germany. So, there are limited thinfs ths UK can do unilaterally, and even fewer than will have any effect. The EU, speaking as a whole, would have much more credibility for threats, for instance, of trade sanctions BUT that requires a unified stance from the EU, and that consists of 28 separate nations, all of whom will be looking to their national interests as well. Germany, in particular, imports and exports extensively to Russia, and any trade war threatens to have potentially large damaging effects on Germany's economy.

So .... any EU unified stance is going to reqiire a LOT of negotiation, and even if UK, Germany and France were to go it alone as a tri-partite agreement, even that needs to three to agree on a common position, and even that won't be easy.

So, all told, we have probkems getting a cohesive position together, and even within that, a posture that should change over time.

Stage 1 - don't inflame things by ranting immediately.

Stage 2 - try low-level disapproval and pressure.

Stage 3 - if some time passes, and no result, only then start to escalate pressure, like serious trade or other sanctions, and even then, trade sanctions are unlikely.


Remember, the objective us not to vent, to rant and rage, but to TRY to get the required outcome, and you won't do it by jumping upvand down, screaming at and threatening Putin.

So, we've seen shuttle diplomacy. We've seen some boycotting of Sochi games, we've seen some boycotting of preparatory G8 talks, and mutterings about the G8 becoming a G7, and so on.

And, as time goes on and immediate tensions dissipate, then we see stepping up of rhetoric, and/or implementation of measures.

As for Budapest, the problem is that the agreement isn't to "protect" Ukraine. It's to respect it's sovereignty, borders, etc. And Russia has clearly broken that.

But what the UK and US agreed to do was a "commitment" to "seek" UN Security Council "assistance" to Ulraine in the event of a action, or threat of action against Ukraine involving nuclear weapons.

Has Russia used, or threatened to use, nukes against Ukraine? No.

Russia has clearly breached it's para 1 and para 2 commitments, but there is NO commitment from either the UK or US to "protect" Ukraine in the event of a breach. Merely to seek UNSC action, if one party uses or threatens to use nukes.

In other words, a very, VERY loose assurance, emphatically broken by Russia, but not by the UK or US, with no commitment AT ALL to protect, or defend, merely to "seek" UNSC action to assist. And given that the US, UK or Russia (and as permanent members) could each, alone on in conjunction with others, veto any UNSC resolutions, it's pretty meaningless if the UK, US or Russia (or France, or China) is the one action is being sought against, don't you think?