It was part of the Russian Republic until Nikita Krushchev gave it to the Ukraine in 1954.
Most are ethnic Russian, speak Russian, and have always had more in common with Russia than Ukraine.
Keep in mind the original "giveaway" to Ukraine was meaningless since it was part of the USSR at that time.
If letting Russia keep Crimea allows the rest of Ukraine to join the West, its a net positive move for Western interests.
So much for the reset.
or partition if an unfriendly government stays in power. Russia will not allow a unfriendly Ukraine to control the east or Crimea. They would fight over that. We would be foolish to escalate an already bad situation.
(no message)
And I don't mean guys (and girls) with powder blue helmets.
The main difference being that Crimea is populated almost entirely by ethnic Russians, and Poland is not. Because of their cultural identity, most Crimeans would welcome being re-absorbed back into Russia.
You gotta relax.
Eastern Ukraine and Crimea are the issue as they include mostly ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. The people there want no part of the EU or the type of economic changes it will bring. No one really thinks this shit out and it's implications. The freedom seekers in the Maidan may unwittingly get change they don't like, namely the partition of their country. In some ways the EU has almost been as irresponsible as Russia in misreading this situation. What a clusterfuck.
I'm not as concerned about any supposed danger to Poland as much as I am their usefulness to the United States.
the nonsense that they are in danger over this is just that.
If the following scenario occurred....if the Soviets (that name is appropriate once again) were to invade Poland who is a member of NATO, do you think Obama would go to war with the actual troops needed to address the issue? I sure don't. And Putin doesn't either...and there lies the problem. Obama's foreign policy gaffes have removed all deterrence.
You would feel a lot differently if you lived on the Soviet border and experienced the history that Poland has by the way. They are not safe.
There is every scenario that Russia will seize the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine because of their strategic value and majority Russian speaking population rather than let them be controlled by an unfriendly Ukrainian government. If you can't see that difference, not much to talk about.
This is far more than protecting his own. The problem in the past few years is that people have been ascribing more noble motives to Putin than they should. The man is a megalomaniac with expansionism in mind. And if you think there is zero chance anymore of Poland being in danger, then I think you are just plain wrong. What there is zero chance of...is that Obama will do anything at all if Putin expands his empire....and NATO will just stand there is Obama does too.
This expansionist maniac has invaded no country since the brief, limited excursion into Georgia in 2008 (and Georgia had it coming).
He is hardly hell bent on resurrecting the USSR...which Poland was outside of anyway.
(no message)
(no message)
Putin is an expansionist at heart but the chances of him invading Poland, a NATO member to which treaty obligations are involved are zero. He does consider Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea as his own. In a way he's right as they are majority Russian speaking and stock and the populace there completely disagrees with the move to the EU. This is a much more complicated situation than your simplistic view of Russian expansion.
We may have waited too long on Turkey, but we should let them know that they have options outside the EU.
What nonsense.
I knew that mention of the Sudetenland would take you in a direction I didn't intend, so I withdrew the analogy. I wasn't trying to say that Obama is Chamberlain by allowing Russia to take the Crimea. I was just trying to say that if Russia takes a piece, they will get away with it. I reread my post, and decided I needed to go a different way.
And no one will stop them.
Eventually the UN will accept the partition of Ukraine, after the streets are filled with innocent blood.
(no message)
(no message)
"Putin, shmutin! We don't care what's going on over there. We have to pay for Obamacare!
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/25/increased-domestic-spending-may-be-behind-proposed-military-cuts-cbo-report/
I know people in Kiev. None of them support Russia. All of them crave a free society more than most Americans I know. Even though I haven't talked to them in years (although I did just follow up with a former colleague who still works with them), I'm happy for their short term victory in Kiev. I'm sad for what Russia's actions in the Crimea mean for them in the long term, though.
If Russia is satisfied with Crimea, then all my friends have is a little more time. Russia will have shrewdly and effectively regained its hand in Ukraine, having proven that the NATO, the EU and the United States have absolutely nothing to offer Ukraine (as Georgia learned not to long ago)...and having proven that the "reset" was so much bullshit perpetrated on our bumbling leaders.
Ukraine is in the shadow of Russia. Geopolitical factors dictate that they are within the Russian sphere of influence...just like we could safely "reclaim" Cuba or Panama, or even "stabilize" Venezuela without Russia doing anything other than expressing concern and talking vaguely about consequences...although Putin would be careful not to threaten anything he cannot deliver.
Regarding military cuts: The announcement of military cuts is the culmination of a bumbling foreign policy that has clearly communicated weakness (read: lack of motivation to act). The cuts are an explanation point on the sentence stating our weakness that has been the Obama administration.
But, I think we do need to cut. We can still cut our military and fight Russia if we have to. Indeed, we could even cut without displaying weakness (although not while Hagel is the Secretary of Defense -- his appointment sent a message to the world that we do not intend to use our military under Obama).
I would support military cuts to the extent such cuts are made across the board to all government spending. The military is the first task of government, generally speaking. The courts and police are the second task of government. Both of those expenses fundamental to the very existence of government, fending off anarchy and other governments. All other government spending is of lesser priority. We should cut the military, but we need to cut all other less important spending. That is not what this adminstration is doing, though. They are increasing secondary spending while cutting primary spending.
...cutting the F-35 albatross instead?
And as far as albatrosses, I can think of a few government departments we could abolish substantially in their entirety.
Of course, you and I likely agree on what we would cut first were it up to us. I've decided I'm willing to see my favorite programs cut...and I'm waiting to meet my counterpart on the left who is willing to see his favorite programs cut. I wonder how long I will have to wait.
...and by "work" they mean give up the GOP programs while not touching any of their own. That's what they are referring to as "compromise". You just have to speak their language. :) I think you are going to have a very long wait.
(no message)
(no message)
I am sure they are regretting that deal about now. How would you feel if you were Poland right now? Putin considers their territory part of the original Motherland also, and they also have little more than the word of the US to protect them as well. BUt Putin is a vicious, empire-rebuilding dictator, and he has seen that the former leader of the Western World now has a president who has tipped his hand that he is impotent. He drew a "red line" against little Syria regarding their use of chemical weapons and backed down over the potential political repercussions when Syria called his bluff. He has also shown weakness and ineptitude at almost every turn in the foreign arena. Putin has to know at this point that Obama has no stomach for a fight, and that he can take what he wants.
We have to all pray that their is a different western leader who can stand up and take the reigns of leadership that Obama has abdicated.
Putin would not have dared such a bold move under the threat of repercussions from a stronger US president. Poland is in grave danger, and they are next.
All acts against the Ukraine are to be handled by the UN.
The Ukraine sent their arsenal back to Russia for dismantling where they were forgiven debts they had with Russia.
It now turns out that Obama & the libs are going to hide behind a legal technicality regarding the Memorandum that it was not technically binding. The problem is that we gave them our word & now we are retracting it. No matter how much you want to argue this, it is clear to the rest of the world that the US is no longer willing to stand behind it's commitments. Poland is in grave danger because Putin knows Obama has no steel.
The stage for this whole debacle has been in the set over the past 6 years. Ineptitude combined with a tip of the hand by Obama with his "red line" bluff have given Putin the green light to rebuild his soviet empire.
Link: http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-explainer-budapest-memorandum/25280502.html
You didn't read your little link did you?
"It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union."
That was sentence No.2.
Next time please, in the least, read the material you post first.
Reading the link with insight finds this:
"Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises.
In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. They did so by applying the principles of territorial integrity and nonintervention in 1975 Helsinki Final Act"
The application of the Helsinki principles is the twist. We signed that Treaty unequivocally, and have commitment based on that treaty. By signing the Memorandum, there is the same inferred commitment. Ahh, but now it comes to light that the Ukraine was duped. The Memorandum was taken seriously enough by the Ukrainians for them to give up their nuclear protection, but on the other side, we are willing to embrace the technicality that it is nothing more than a political document. This document has much more credibility than you lend it (not surprising), but still not enough to push us to defend the Ukraine.
But let's be honest Jim, even if it was a signed treaty without debate, do you think Obama would ever go to war? The answer is no. Both you and I know this...and so does Putin. And we both know that Obama would back down if the Russians grabbed Poland or more. He has shown his hand. Thus, we are left with you and his other defenders parsing legal terms while Putin invades a sovereign country without concern of repercussion.
What should we do? well, given the mess Obama has created with his red line bluff, etc.....i think the best answer possible is steep economic sanctions & boycotts. Lead the western countries in a boycott of russian oil & natural gas for example (start pumping our own prodigious deposits to replace the void & put a few of our own people back to work in the bargain). Make it as uncomfortable as possible for Putin so that he feels the effects strongly enough to make him think twice before taking on his next target. Also. speak out strongly for Poland now & make it clear that there really is a red line there not to be crossed without war (admittedly, this is a problem for Obama and I would accept the idea of him stepping down so that someone with authority could take over....but).
a whole host of other political events from across the globe and now you're trying for more with the Ukraine.
Obama created no "red-line bluff".
You're making it all up as you go along.
Do I think Obama would ever go to war? - More important - Should Obama go to war will you be joining US forces for military combat if he does?
seriously - that is one of the more brain-dead comments you've come up with and you have some doozies out there.
(no message)
You treat us like we haven't a brain in our heads, as though we couldn't possibly have lived more than a few hours, are incapable of looking up World history, Political events of today, yesterday and we'll just believe whatever you print. Heck you can't even get right what you copy/paste onto this board.
I'm now screaming out my window - "Obama's a chickshit and won't go to war. He's afraid of Putin" "Save us oh save us".
Gee, you're the male Sarah Palin.
I treat you like you don't have a brain in your head because you have yet to display one. Obama's weakness has facilitated Putin greatly and your rationalizations don't cover that fact. Go ahead now, and get in the last post like you always feel the need to do...but it doesn't help your case.
No such treaty exists, I promise you.
And Poland is in no danger.
Meanwhile, Poland moves to DEFCON 5 upon hearing that you have given reassurances of their safety. DO you try for any better accuracy in your academic endeavors?
Undoubtedly, you will take the angle that it is not technically a binding treaty.......even though we signed it (Clinton) with the direct intent of convincing the Ukraine to give up it's ability to defend itself from Russia. We promised them protection. They trusted us, and they were duped. I am sure Poland feels real comfortable with this. Especially with a president & staff who have show such an ability to rationalize so easily. Putin has also noticed this. He will invade while Obama et al are trying to split legal hairs.
I will agree on one point. They never, ever should have trusted a democrat. Especially a guy who argues what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html
It is an executive agreement that pledges the US to go to the Security Council in the event of aggression. There is absolutely no chance that any president would fight the Russians over the Crimea, which, as I have said, means squat to the United States.
As an aside, the Ukraine could not have used those weapons. The launch codes were always in moscow's hands.
Putin knows this too, which is why he will continue to rebuild and expand his empire until we get a new leader with credibility.
The Memorandum applied the principles of the Helsinki Accord which was enough to fool the Ukraine into thinking they had a real treaty, and while we debate the merits of it's validity, the rest of the world loses further trust in us as a leader. The blame for this goes back to Clinton for his deception in signing this treaty, and to Obama showing the world he is an empty bluffer.
For now, steep economic sanctions are the best we could do until we get a better leader in the WH. I am betting Obama won't do even that however, and will first weigh every decision based on it's political impact rather than the impact on the free world.
The Amateur set the stage for this.
You apparently think you know something here that the rest of us don't.
But we are under no obligation to come to the aid of Ukraine. And thank god.
That's stupid talk. We have limited options there for a variety of reasons.
I do not believe in going to war over the Ukraine. Nobody does. I do believe in very steep economic sanctions including lobbying Europe to cut off the purchase of Soviet (let's call them what they are again) oil & natural gas as well as other commodities. We could easily ramp up and fill the void with our own untapped reserves and not feel a thing. It would make Putin more hesitant to take other action in re-absorbing his forme Soviet Union which is the key. You see, Putin has come to realize that Obama is all hat and no cattle. He makes empty threats, and calculates EVERYTHING politically. Before Obama, Putin knew he could invade the Ukraine without war, but he knew it wouldn't be worth the headache. With Obama, he knows there is no more headache.
I would be perfectly satisfied with Obama if he instituted the kind of steep sanctions that this incursion deserves. I think it would also fulfill our promise of the "treaty that technically isn't a treaty" which would very importantly preserve our credibility in the world's view. Countries cannot be worried that they cannot trust the US when it gives it's word, or we can no longer be a legitimate world leader. I would definitely do more than Obama's first response to the crisis.....release a statement that he "may" not attend the G8 summit in Sochi in April. That is just pathetic.
You implied a better leader would do something stronger. You have now backed off of that.
Surely that will prevent any problems.
(no message)
This was actually pretty good.
The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook
(no message)
So mission accomplished, at least for me. And for the record I don't really care what is going on in Ukraine.