Or maybe it would just be more realistic to regonise the USSR disintegrated with some daft borders leaving lots of people living in the wrong state and see if there's a better way to correct the faults.
Border conflicts have been the thorn in the side of modern European history. However if we fail to act against a blatant aggressor nation in such overt circumstances then I dread to think what will be offered to us in the future.
As I noted last night, we must be mindful that once again we do have to swallow the words of Winston Churchill :
"We have been weighed in the measure and have been found wanting."
Well as I replied last night when I see the sons and daughters of politicians first in the front line and coming back in body bags I'll back you. However when it comes to aggression our own record isn't spotless, moralising cant springs to mind.
It's clear that Labour's lead in terms of vote share won't be particularly large at the 2015 election since it's only about 5% at the moment, which means they're depending on the system continuing to operate in their favour. If something unexpected happens to cause the system to not work as much in their favour as everyone expects they could be in trouble as far as winning a majority is concerned. One such possibility is that most of the big swings are concentrated in seats they already hold.
It's clear that Labour's lead in terms of vote share won't be particularly large at the 2015 election since it's only about 5% at the moment, which means that they're depending on the system continuing to operate in their favour. If something unexpected happens to cause the system to not work as much in their favour as everyone expects, they could be in trouble as far as winning a majority is concerned. One such possibility is that most of the big swings are concentrated in the seats they already hold.
I cannot think of any time in the last 100 years when the West might have intervened militarily over Russian military action in a place such as Ukraine, however unpalatable and dreadful it is. That is realpolitik, isn't it? Big powers have their spheres of influence and in practical terms they have a freedom of action in those places which can only be countered by diplomatic means.
That's not the case at all. Czechoslovakia and Poland could have been said to have been Germany's sphere of influence in the 1930s, and Serbia could have been said to have been Austria-Hungary's sphere of influence in the 1910s. In both situations it was considered unacceptable, due to the fact that the "sphere of influence" theory is a 19th Century imperialist one, where the smaller nations of this world would be sacrificed for the interests of the large ones. During the early 20th Century, the more moral statesmen successfully fought for a world where this concept was overturned, and instead all nations should have their territorial integrity protected, except in the rare circumstance where ethnic cleansing had been going on. Russia has been trying to bring back the 19th Century mentality, because it is a barbaric, autocratic power that seeks to bolster its own prestige at the expense of its neighbours. I am appalled that so many people in this country are willing to endorse that, and throw long standing principles of international out the window, to justify a cowardly unwillingness to stick our necks out.
What tosh.
The UK and US colluded in the biggest ethnic cleansing in European history when 14 million Germans were forcibly removed from eastern Europe post 1945. Moral my arse.
It's clear that Labour's lead in terms of vote share won't be particularly large at the 2015 election since it's only about 5% at the moment, which means that they're depending on the system continuing to operate in their favour. If something unexpected happens to cause the system to not work as much in their favour as everyone expects, they could be in trouble as far as winning a majority is concerned. One such possibility is that most of the big swings are concentrated in the seats they already hold.
You are assuming their vote won't go up. Why?
I'd be amazed if the Labour lead increases between now and the election. You usually get a swing back to the government in the last 12 months.
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation t nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
I was talking of the West, not of the UK specifically. The EU has engineered this crisis and then - not surprisingly - seen it get out of hand.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
I regret to say you're one-eyed Ukip anti-EU stance colours your whole judgement fatally. This issue shouldn't be seen though the prism of straight bananas or a multiple of other Ukip fantasies.
The simplest of simple facts is that Putin is striving to annex vast swathes of sovereign Ukraine. The Russian bear is on the march.
I regret to say 'your' grasp of the issues is about as good as your grammar.
The simplest of truths is that the West has striven to undermine Russia in its own backyard and is now in no position to complain when they play the same game.
The whole concept that Russia has its "own backyard" it shold be allowed to have free reign to dominate is an appalling one, although it is fitting with your denial of Ukrainian nationhood. Every country should be allowed to have a free democratic choice over its international associations, regardless of geographical proximity to imperial tyrants.
Out of interest, regarding the wishes of Ukrainians, why don't you tell us how the MPs from the Eastern region voted in the resolution to remove Yanukovych?
At least the piece didn't include that sure sign of idiocy, 'Braveheart', not far off it though. Not sure which day I'll be able to fit in tossing a couple of cabers this week.
'having been ruled by Nordic kings until the late 15th century, Shetland and Orkney share little of the Celtic culture that defines much Scottish nationalism. They do not wear kilts or toss the caber. They also lack much sense of Scottish nationhood. Scottish saltires are almost as hard to find on the islands as the union flag—rather it is their own flags, Scandinavian-style crosses on blue and red backgrounds, that billow from trawlers and flagstaffs. Begrudgingly, the SNP suggested the islanders should be free to set their own course—and this has fuelled a fresh debate about devolution which could have great consequences for them and other local communities, however the referendum turns out.'
Interestingly the Shetland flag which I assume they're referring to was designed by a Scottish Nationalist.
Interestingly Shetland Islanders rejected the Nat creation at plebiscite. It was later imposed on them by decree.
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
Of course, if that is what they want. And if they want that, it can be done via a democratic process of organizing a political movement inside Ukraine and then pushing it through due process and a referendum, as the Scottish nationalists have done. But, strangely enough, that's never happened in a quarter century of independence. During which time, Russia has endorsed the borders you claim are an "artificial relic" three times.
While the EU in general (and Baroness Ashton in particular) has been far from blameless, the Ukranians who filled Maidan Nezalezhnosti every night for the past year or so, did so for their own purposes, not at the behest of shadowy foreign figures.
I cannot think of any time in the last 100 years when the West might have intervened militarily over Russian military action in a place such as Ukraine, however unpalatable and dreadful it is. That is realpolitik, isn't it? Big powers have their spheres of influence and in practical terms they have a freedom of action in those places which can only be countered by diplomatic means.
That's not the case at all. Czechoslovakia and Poland could have been said to have been Germany's sphere of influence in the 1930s, and Serbia could have been said to have been Austria-Hungary's sphere of influence in the 1910s. In both situations it was considered unacceptable, due to the fact that the "sphere of influence" theory is a 19th Century imperialist one, where the smaller nations of this world would be sacrificed for the interests of the large ones. During the early 20th Century, the more moral statesmen successfully fought for a world where this concept was overturned, and instead all nations should have their territorial integrity protected, except in the rare circumstance where ethnic cleansing had been going on. Russia has been trying to bring back the 19th Century mentality, because it is a barbaric, autocratic power that seeks to bolster its own prestige at the expense of its neighbours. I am appalled that so many people in this country are willing to endorse that, and throw long standing principles of international out the window, to justify a cowardly unwillingness to stick our necks out.
What tosh.
The UK and US colluded in the biggest ethnic cleansing in European history when 14 million Germans were forcibly removed from eastern Europe post 1945. Moral my arse.
Probably Putin has dissipated the goodwill that emanated from Sochi, but does he really care as the EU is dependent on Russia for about a third of its oil and gas and a quarter of its coal.
Will the anti-frackers still support Putin?
Russia is dependent on gas and oil for 70% of it's income. Energy flows out, cash flows in (lots via Swiss based commodity brokers, such as Gunvor). If they turn off the taps, to whom else can they sell?
At least the piece didn't include that sure sign of idiocy, 'Braveheart', not far off it though. Not sure which day I'll be able to fit in tossing a couple of cabers this week.
'having been ruled by Nordic kings until the late 15th century, Shetland and Orkney share little of the Celtic culture that defines much Scottish nationalism. They do not wear kilts or toss the caber. They also lack much sense of Scottish nationhood. Scottish saltires are almost as hard to find on the islands as the union flag—rather it is their own flags, Scandinavian-style crosses on blue and red backgrounds, that billow from trawlers and flagstaffs. Begrudgingly, the SNP suggested the islanders should be free to set their own course—and this has fuelled a fresh debate about devolution which could have great consequences for them and other local communities, however the referendum turns out.'
Interestingly the Shetland flag which I assume they're referring to was designed by a Scottish Nationalist.
Interestingly Shetland Islanders rejected the Nat creation at plebiscite. It was later imposed on them by decree.
It's well known that the Lord Lyon King of Arms has always been a Nat stooge. Still, now we have numpty London hacks telling us that it's a symbol of Shetland independence; funny ole world.
Divided countries (divided along ethnic/religious/cultural lines) always struggle.
Other than Switzerland.
Canada, the United States...
I considered putting the US in there but decided it muddied the point I was making. I completely forgot about Canada.
One could also, realistically, put China in there on the basis of its lack of a shared language. Belgium would be easy, too - although one can debate how successful that country is :-)
Probably Putin has dissipated the goodwill that emanated from Sochi, but does he really care as the EU is dependent on Russia for about a third of its oil and gas and a quarter of its coal.
Will the anti-frackers still support Putin?
Russia is dependent on gas and oil for 70% of it's income. Energy flows out, cash flows in. If they turn off the taps, to whom else can they sell?
Only to the places where the gas pipelines flow. They can liquify it, but that's an expensive process.
The best idea in all this was Yokel's. Turkey is a member of NATO and has fallen out with Russia since Russia backed the tyrant to their south mass murdering his own people. If we get them to close the Bosphorus to Russian shipping, Moscow's deep desire for a warm water port will be lost. It would be a response both practical and clearly related to the occupation of Crimea.
Divided countries (divided along ethnic/religious/cultural lines) always struggle.
Other than Switzerland.
Canada, the United States...
I considered putting the US in there but decided it muddied the point I was making. I completely forgot about Canada.
One could also, realistically, put China in there on the basis of its lack of a shared language. Belgium would be easy, too - although one can debate how successful that country is :-)
The UK, certainly in its 1800 form (and its 1707 form was pretty ghastly for the Jacobites and Gaels).
Probably Putin has dissipated the goodwill that emanated from Sochi, but does he really care as the EU is dependent on Russia for about a third of its oil and gas and a quarter of its coal.
Will the anti-frackers still support Putin?
Russia is dependent on gas and oil for 70% of it's income. Energy flows out, cash flows in. If they turn off the taps, to whom else can they sell?
Only to the places where the gas pipelines flow. They can liquify it, but that's an expensive process.
The best idea in all this was Yokel's. Turkey is a member of NATO and has fallen out with Russia since Russia backed the tyrant to their south mass murdering his own people. If we get them to close the Bosphorus to Russian shipping, Moscow's deep desire for a warm water port will be lost. It would be a response both practical and clearly related to the occupation of Crimea.
Russia has only one working LNG terminal, on Sakhalin island in the Far East of the country. There is no gas pipeline into China. New terminals cost tens of billions of dollars and would take the best part of a decade to build.
Russia is - to all intents and purposes - 100% dependent on the European market for its gas exports.
"On March 24, well-known Russian astrologists, shamans and parapsychologists gathered to discuss forecasts for near and distant future...
...The participants of the meeting also unveiled the date for the beginning of Third World War. The new war is said to begin in March of 2014, during the Olympic Games in Sochi. It is also possible that the war may start five days after the Games end. Globa did not say in which country exactly the war would begin. He only said that the African revolutions would slowly be moving towards Russia."
The biggest force in the world is now beginning to hit back at Russia .. The Markets...the rouble is plummeting and interest rates are near 7%
If someone's going to ignore treaties made between superpowers, why would they baulk at not repaying sovereign debt? Or seizing foreign-owned assets? Etc.
Because in the end, as UK politicians have found, you can't buck the markets.
True, but by the time that happens, you may have defaulted on a lot of debt. See also: Argentina.
Probably Putin has dissipated the goodwill that emanated from Sochi, but does he really care as the EU is dependent on Russia for about a third of its oil and gas and a quarter of its coal.
Will the anti-frackers still support Putin?
Russia is dependent on gas and oil for 70% of it's income. Energy flows out, cash flows in. If they turn off the taps, to whom else can they sell?
Only to the places where the gas pipelines flow. They can liquify it, but that's an expensive process.
The best idea in all this was Yokel's. Turkey is a member of NATO and has fallen out with Russia since Russia backed the tyrant to their south mass murdering his own people. If we get them to close the Bosphorus to Russian shipping, Moscow's deep desire for a warm water port will be lost. It would be a response both practical and clearly related to the occupation of Crimea.
A potentially messy option of course. They could try and fight their way through; a couple of missile batteries in Turkey would make things unpleasant.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The inconsistency of logic here is incredible. Apparently the wishes of the pro-EU bulk of Ukraine we can have "no idea" about, but the wishes of the pro-Russian East is "very clear".
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
Whataboutism is the refuge of those who can't defend something on the grounds of the case itself, and try to change the subject to what others have done elsewhere. Russia has moved its military into a foreign country, whose borders it has pledged to respect on several occasions, without any basis in international law, and with the apparent intent of outright imperialist annexation and is clearly illegal.
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
This is the morally and politically right thing to do.
As I said the hypocrisy of those trying to attack the Russians over this is remarkable.
That may be true, but that doesn't give the Russians the right to march their tanks over the border, unless there was some referendum held and some political settlement agreed which I must have missed.
You don't know that the South/East of Ukraine want to be part of Russia, because no ones actually asked them.
It was enough of an excuse for us to bomb Serbia during the Kosovo conflict in support of an organisation we had listed as terrorists until only a few months before.
It was enough of an excuse for us to bomb Libya.
As I said, utter hypocrisy on the part of the west .
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
Of course, if that is what they want. And if they want that, it can be done via a democratic process of organizing a political movement inside Ukraine and then pushing it through due process and a referendum, as the Scottish nationalists have done. But, strangely enough, that's never happened in a quarter century of independence. During which time, Russia has endorsed the borders you claim are an "artificial relic" three times.
The east Ukraine party won the last Presidential election. The west part deposed him with EU and US help. (Made easier by the capital being in the west part.)
If west Ukraine can't abide someone representing east Ukraine winning elections then your due democratic process argument is invalid.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
Good luck to them then. Given the area is mostly very poor and sparsely populated , to wish to continue their downward spiral would seem counter intuitive to me but no issues with them going if that is what they wanted. Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
This week's Spectator has a 'What if the vikings had defeated King Alfred' article:
"There was nothing inevitable about the emergence of a united England. Without Alfred and his remarkable dynasty, the kingdom that helped give the world the United States, the Industrial Revolution and the most widely-spoken language of all time would never have come into existence. Not just British but global history would have been incalculably different."
At least the piece didn't include that sure sign of idiocy, 'Braveheart', not far off it though. Not sure which day I'll be able to fit in tossing a couple of cabers this week.
'having been ruled by Nordic kings until the late 15th century, Shetland and Orkney share little of the Celtic culture that defines much Scottish nationalism. They do not wear kilts or toss the caber. They also lack much sense of Scottish nationhood. Scottish saltires are almost as hard to find on the islands as the union flag—rather it is their own flags, Scandinavian-style crosses on blue and red backgrounds, that billow from trawlers and flagstaffs. Begrudgingly, the SNP suggested the islanders should be free to set their own course—and this has fuelled a fresh debate about devolution which could have great consequences for them and other local communities, however the referendum turns out.'
Interestingly the Shetland flag which I assume they're referring to was designed by a Scottish Nationalist.
Interestingly Shetland Islanders rejected the Nat creation at plebiscite. It was later imposed on them by decree.
Eh? what are you talking about? I was under the impression that the Shetland flag was well popular with the islanders and the Lord Lyon merely formalised the de facto situation somewhat retrospectively.
[Edit] And if you mean the 1997 referendum, which was hardly a Nat creation, the Shetlanders voted Yes just like everyone else did.
At least the piece didn't include that sure sign of idiocy, 'Braveheart', not far off it though. Not sure which day I'll be able to fit in tossing a couple of cabers this week.
'having been ruled by Nordic kings until the late 15th century, Shetland and Orkney share little of the Celtic culture that defines much Scottish nationalism. They do not wear kilts or toss the caber. They also lack much sense of Scottish nationhood. Scottish saltires are almost as hard to find on the islands as the union flag—rather it is their own flags, Scandinavian-style crosses on blue and red backgrounds, that billow from trawlers and flagstaffs. Begrudgingly, the SNP suggested the islanders should be free to set their own course—and this has fuelled a fresh debate about devolution which could have great consequences for them and other local communities, however the referendum turns out.'
Interestingly the Shetland flag which I assume they're referring to was designed by a Scottish Nationalist.
Dear dear, what imbeciles does the Economist employ to write such drivel. They missed out the haggis shooting.
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
Of course, if that is what they want. And if they want that, it can be done via a democratic process of organizing a political movement inside Ukraine and then pushing it through due process and a referendum, as the Scottish nationalists have done. But, strangely enough, that's never happened in a quarter century of independence. During which time, Russia has endorsed the borders you claim are an "artificial relic" three times.
The east Ukraine party won the last Presidential election. The west part deposed him with EU and US help. (Made easier by the capital being in the west part.)
If west Ukraine can't abide someone representing east Ukraine winning elections then your due democratic process argument is invalid.
The East Ukraine party just unanimously rejected the president from power after he started gunning down unarmed civilians on the streets of Kiev. I would like to think the leader of the British government would also be removed from power if he ordered something similar in London.
I must say that the tories' attack on Ed Miliband for helping to fuel Russian expansionism is a bit rich, considering it is the tories who have slashed defence spending.
I'm sure Putin takes more notice of the latter than the former.
At least the piece didn't include that sure sign of idiocy, 'Braveheart', not far off it though. Not sure which day I'll be able to fit in tossing a couple of cabers this week.
'having been ruled by Nordic kings until the late 15th century, Shetland and Orkney share little of the Celtic culture that defines much Scottish nationalism. They do not wear kilts or toss the caber. They also lack much sense of Scottish nationhood. Scottish saltires are almost as hard to find on the islands as the union flag—rather it is their own flags, Scandinavian-style crosses on blue and red backgrounds, that billow from trawlers and flagstaffs. Begrudgingly, the SNP suggested the islanders should be free to set their own course—and this has fuelled a fresh debate about devolution which could have great consequences for them and other local communities, however the referendum turns out.'
Interestingly the Shetland flag which I assume they're referring to was designed by a Scottish Nationalist.
Dear dear, what imbeciles does the Economist employ to write such drivel. They missed out the haggis shooting.
And the road tankers of Buckfast, and the Mars bars - but that wouldn't fit with the idea that we're all Gaels.
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation t nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
I was talking of the West, not of the UK specifically. The EU has engineered this crisis and then - not surprisingly - seen it get out of hand.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
I regret to say you're one-eyed Ukip anti-EU stance colours your whole judgement fatally. This issue shouldn't be seen though the prism of straight bananas or a multiple of other Ukip fantasies.
The simplest of simple facts is that Putin is striving to annex vast swathes of sovereign Ukraine. The Russian bear is on the march.
I regret to say 'your' grasp of the issues is about as good as your grammar.
The simplest of truths is that the West has striven to undermine Russia in its own backyard and is now in no position to complain when they play the same game.
Correct Richard , hoist by their own Petard, and now sit on the sidelines bumping their gums in faux outrage. Hoping the markets will do the job for them, LOL.
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation t nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
I was talking of the West, not of the UK specifically. The EU has engineered this crisis and then - not surprisingly - seen it get out of hand.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
I regret to say you're one-eyed Ukip anti-EU stance colours your whole judgement fatally. This issue shouldn't be seen though the prism of straight bananas or a multiple of other Ukip fantasies.
The simplest of simple facts is that Putin is striving to annex vast swathes of sovereign Ukraine. The Russian bear is on the march.
I regret to say 'your' grasp of the issues is about as good as your grammar.
The simplest of truths is that the West has striven to undermine Russia in its own backyard and is now in no position to complain when they play the same game.
The whole concept that Russia has its "own backyard" it shold be allowed to have free reign to dominate is an appalling one, although it is fitting with your denial of Ukrainian nationhood. Every country should be allowed to have a free democratic choice over its international associations, regardless of geographical proximity to imperial tyrants.
Out of interest, regarding the wishes of Ukrainians, why don't you tell us how the MPs from the Eastern region voted in the resolution to remove Yanukovych?
If it's between the Ukrainians losing their democratic rights, and World War 3, I know which I prefer. Call me a poltroon if you will.
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
Of course, if that is what they want. And if they want that, it can be done via a democratic process of organizing a political movement inside Ukraine and then pushing it through due process and a referendum, as the Scottish nationalists have done. But, strangely enough, that's never happened in a quarter century of independence. During which time, Russia has endorsed the borders you claim are an "artificial relic" three times.
As has already been pointed out. They had a democratic election which was free and fair and elected a pro-Russian president. The minority in Kiev decided they didn't like Democracy and so staged a coup.
So much for the rule of law and democratic self determination.
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation t nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
I was talking of the West, not of the UK specifically. The EU has engineered this crisis and then - not surprisingly - seen it get out of hand.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
The whole concept that Russia has its "own backyard" it shold be allowed to have free reign to dominate is an appalling one, although it is fitting with your denial of Ukrainian nationhood. Every country should be allowed to have a free democratic choice over its international associations, regardless of geographical proximity to imperial tyrants.
Out of interest, regarding the wishes of Ukrainians, why don't you tell us how the MPs from the Eastern region voted in the resolution to remove Yanukovych?
If it's between the Ukrainians losing their democratic rights, and World War 3, I know which I prefer. Call me a poltroon if you will.
Free rein please, not reign.
Correct - I must have missed the pictures of the Crimean people raging against their Russian overlords..
Struggling to give a toss - other than if Crimea goes indy then that is one more team trying to qualify from the UEFA zone for World Cups etc - makes it tougher for Scotland..
If you seriously believe that Foreign Office intervention in Ukraine amounted to more than a very marginal interest and certainly nothing in comparison to Putin, then I suggest you look to re-education in a Ukip camp.
Neither do I concede that mistakes of the past, even recent past, allow us to negate treaty obligations freely given, especially in relation t nuclear disarmament.
You might consider the UK is damaged goods but assuredly most citizens of Ukraine think the opposite.
I was talking of the West, not of the UK specifically. The EU has engineered this crisis and then - not surprisingly - seen it get out of hand.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
I regret to say you're one-eyed Ukip anti-EU stance colours your whole judgement fatally. This issue shouldn't be seen though the prism of straight bananas or a multiple of other Ukip fantasies.
The simplest of simple facts is that Putin is striving to annex vast swathes of sovereign Ukraine. The Russian bear is on the march.
I regret to say 'your' grasp of the issues is about as good as your grammar.
The simplest of truths is that the West has striven to undermine Russia in its own backyard and is now in no position to complain when they play the same game.
The whole concept that Russia has its "own backyard" it shold be allowed to have free reign to dominate is an appalling one, although it is fitting with your denial of Ukrainian nationhood. Every country should be allowed to have a free democratic choice over its international associations, regardless of geographical proximity to imperial tyrants.
Out of interest, regarding the wishes of Ukrainians, why don't you tell us how the MPs from the Eastern region voted in the resolution to remove Yanukovych?
If it's between the Ukrainians losing their democratic rights, and World War 3, I know which I prefer. Call me a poltroon if you will.
Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
The response on pb has been pretty cross-party as we all chew over the complexities of the situation: it doesn't lend itself to the classic party rivalries. Britain seems largely powerless (even the most gung-ho aren't suggesting we send in troops) so it's an example of where any relatively effective action has to be taken by the US and/or EU, and even they haven't all that many realistic options. It's surely clear that we should be supporting the right of the western Ukraine to turn their backs on Russia without intimidation, not so clear that we should be supporting a Ukrainian claim to dominate Crimea and cancel the language rights of the majority there? Any attempt to portray the issue as purely one-dimensional (or, ludicrously, caused by the UK doing or not doing anything) is mistaken.
Perhaps Nick it is clear if you accept that the UK should uphold its treaty obligations signed over the past two decades and especially that which saw the sovereignty of Ukraine assured in return for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.
What hope for future nuclear disarmament is there if the US and UK abrogate so blatantly the terms of such agreements ?
Realpolitik. There is nothing we can do, so we will do nothing.
There's plenty we can do: kick Russia out of as many international organisations as possible, reduce our purchases of gas, close the Bosphorus strait...
China will be watching closely for its future plans with Taiwan...
Divided countries (divided along ethnic/religious/cultural lines) always struggle.
Other than Switzerland.
Canada, the United States...
I considered putting the US in there but decided it muddied the point I was making. I completely forgot about Canada.
One could also, realistically, put China in there on the basis of its lack of a shared language. Belgium would be easy, too - although one can debate how successful that country is :-)
Seems that a sufficiently high GDP per capita will smooth over any cultural fissures. That, and cheap cable TV.
Russia threatens the whole of Easterm Ukraine, the west yells stop, imposes economic saanctions, threatens Russia with the Eastern Med fleet.
The indy referendum is held in the Crimea. Crimea becomes de jure an independent state, de facto Russia - like South Ossetia/Azhbakia.
Russia pulls back the troops, Europe gets its gas - everyone is (relatively happy).
I don't think Eastern Ukraine splits off.
Or 1.1 million Ukrainian regular and reserve servicemen decide they're not prepared to stand by and let the Vlads walk all over them. Then it's anyone's guess.
Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
The response on pb has been pretty cross-party as we all chew over the complexities of the situation: it doesn't lend itself to the classic party rivalries. Britain seems largely powerless (even the most gung-ho aren't suggesting we send in troops) so it's an example of where any relatively effective action has to be taken by the US and/or EU, and even they haven't all that many realistic options. It's surely clear that we should be supporting the right of the western Ukraine to turn their backs on Russia without intimidation, not so clear that we should be supporting a Ukrainian claim to dominate Crimea and cancel the language rights of the majority there? Any attempt to portray the issue as purely one-dimensional (or, ludicrously, caused by the UK doing or not doing anything) is mistaken.
Perhaps Nick it is clear if you accept that the UK should uphold its treaty obligations signed over the past two decades and especially that which saw the sovereignty of Ukraine assured in return for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.
What hope for future nuclear disarmament is there if the US and UK abrogate so blatantly the terms of such agreements ?
Realpolitik. There is nothing we can do, so we will do nothing.
There's plenty we can do: kick Russia out of as many international organisations as possible, reduce our purchases of gas, close the Bosphorus strait...
China will be watching closely for its future plans with Taiwan...
What exactly have Russia done wrong ? If the French had another revolution I would hope that Uk troops would land in the Eurotunnel terminal in Calais to ensure security of our plucky passport checkers stationed there.
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
Of course, if that is what they want. And if they want that, it can be done via a democratic process of organizing a political movement inside Ukraine and then pushing it through due process and a referendum, as the Scottish nationalists have done. But, strangely enough, that's never happened in a quarter century of independence. During which time, Russia has endorsed the borders you claim are an "artificial relic" three times.
As has already been pointed out. They had a democratic election which was free and fair and elected a pro-Russian president. The minority in Kiev decided they didn't like Democracy and so staged a coup.
So much for the rule of law and democratic self determination.
Except that he has been in his position for four years, during which time he was not removed. He was only removed from power after he ordered the security forces to mow down innocents on the streets. Then there was a vote in parliament to remove him, and his crimes were sufficient that it was a unanimous vote to remove him, including from his own party.
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
Of course, if that is what they want. And if they want that, it can be done via a democratic process of organizing a political movement inside Ukraine and then pushing it through due process and a referendum, as the Scottish nationalists have done. But, strangely enough, that's never happened in a quarter century of independence. During which time, Russia has endorsed the borders you claim are an "artificial relic" three times.
As has already been pointed out. They had a democratic election which was free and fair and elected a pro-Russian president. The minority in Kiev decided they didn't like Democracy and so staged a coup.
So much for the rule of law and democratic self determination.
TBF to Socrates, Mr Tyndall, I think Yanukovych faced rebellion and revolt for more reasons than the country splitting between pro-Russia and pro-EU factions.
And you have no idea what most citizens of the Ukraine believe. All you know is what a few thousand in Kiev believe. You certainly seem to be happy to ignore the wishes of a large portion of the East and South of the region who have made very clear what they want.
The inconsistency of logic here is incredible. Apparently the wishes of the pro-EU bulk of Ukraine we can have "no idea" about, but the wishes of the pro-Russian East is "very clear".
The hypocrisy of those attacking Russia whilst trying to claim the moral high ground after what the UK has done to North Africa and the Middle East in the last couple of decades is quite breathtaking.
Whataboutism is the refuge of those who can't defend something on the grounds of the case itself, and try to change the subject to what others have done elsewhere. Russia has moved its military into a foreign country, whose borders it has pledged to respect on several occasions, without any basis in international law, and with the apparent intent of outright imperialist annexation and is clearly illegal.
I can easily defend it. You just don't want to hear it.
The Ukraine as it is configured today is an artificial relic of the Soviet Union and in no way reflects the wishes of the peoples it contains. As such they have a right to self determination and the country should be partitioned to allow the south and east to either form an independent country or join the Russian Federation if that is what they want.
This is the morally and politically right thing to do.
As I said the hypocrisy of those trying to attack the Russians over this is remarkable.
I agree with much of that: self-determination is key. But self-determination can only truly be judged in free and independent referendums, and I am unsure how likely that is to occur with Russian troops on the ground.
The 'self determination' line also has problems, for instance the rights of those non-Russian speakers and supporters within the enclaves such as Crimea. Their rights also need to be guaranteed.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
Good luck to them then. Given the area is mostly very poor and sparsely populated , to wish to continue their downward spiral would seem counter intuitive to me but no issues with them going if that is what they wanted. Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
There's been no pressure in England for a vote on independence from Scotland...
Speaking as someone who was thinking of voting UKIP in the euros, I have been turned off by the dismissive and condescending attitude shown by some of the more enthusiastic UKIP supporters on Ukraine. It crosses over into almost xenophobic territory.
The response on pb has been pretty cross-party as we all chew over the complexities of the situation: it doesn't lend itself to the classic party rivalries. Britain seems largely powerless (even the most gung-ho aren't suggesting we send in troops) so it's an example of where any relatively effective action has to be taken by the US and/or EU, and even they haven't all that many realistic options. It's surely clear that we should be supporting the right of the western Ukraine to turn their backs on Russia without intimidation, not so clear that we should be supporting a Ukrainian claim to dominate Crimea and cancel the language rights of the majority there? Any attempt to portray the issue as purely one-dimensional (or, ludicrously, caused by the UK doing or not doing anything) is mistaken.
Perhaps Nick it is clear if you accept that the UK should uphold its treaty obligations signed over the past two decades and especially that which saw the sovereignty of Ukraine assured in return for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.
What hope for future nuclear disarmament is there if the US and UK abrogate so blatantly the terms of such agreements ?
Realpolitik. There is nothing we can do, so we will do nothing.
There's plenty we can do: kick Russia out of as many international organisations as possible, reduce our purchases of gas, close the Bosphorus strait...
China will be watching closely for its future plans with Taiwan...
What exactly have Russia done wrong ? If the French had another revolution I would hope that Uk troops would land in the Eurotunnel terminal in Calais to ensure security of our plucky passport checkers stationed there.
Invading an independent country with the intent to annex territory or set up puppet states, merely because they impeached a leader you got on with. This wasn't a violent seizure of government. It was a parliamentary vote after dozens of unarmed protesters got shot dead on the streets of Kiev, on the orders of the president.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
"always" in the sense "since it was conquered" and "Russian speaking" in the sense of "once Stalin forceably deported the original residents because he was worried about their residual loyalty to the Khanate"
But that's the reality today Charles are we going to re-deport people ? If not then we have to ignore history and deal with what we have and that's a clear Russian majority.
No, the residents of Crimea are 100% Ukrainian, a portion of whom speak Russian.
If you establish the principle that Russia can unilaterally intervene to protect people of its ethnicity/language when the Russian state itself is not threatened then we are in very dangerous territory
The principle's already established. The residents of Kosovo are 100% Serbian some of whom speak Albanian. The residents of Crossmaglen are 100% British some of whom think of themselves as Irish. We're more than capable of putting the shoe on the other foot when it suits us.
As a country which has decolonised lots of places I'd have thought it would be better to look at the process and recognise things are probably easier when the borders are drawn as close as possible to the ethnic make up of the country. The Ukraine's borders aren't.
Probably, yes. But there is a huge difference between what you are saying and what the Russians are doing. It would probably be quite sensible for Ukraine to either have a federation or to have a vote on independence (in the same way it makes sense for the Scots to vote on independence). It is completely unacceptable for Russia to forment rebellion in an independent state on spurious grounds.
Kosovo was a special case - Western intervention followed (IIRC) ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. So far, the Russians haven't that recently.
Nick - just saw your post. I haven't updated myself on the rest of the thread yet.
Firstly, I wasn't making my observation based purely upon the (mostly civil) discussions on pb. I have seen plenty of UKIP supporter comment across the media spectrum that I found chauvinistic, ignorant and dismissive.
On your other points, I do not agree that Britain is largely powerless - although I accept it has far less power than, say, in 1999 when we led the Kosovo intervention, largely due to almost continuous defence cuts. However, IIRC, Britain and France still account for 50% of EU military spending. Therefore, an EU response would equate to one where Britain/France deployed their assets, probably bolstered by German and Polish forces, with most of the air/naval support provided by the US.
I may shock you: I wouldn't rule out putting the NATO rapid reaction corps at alert readiness, or deployment of logistics and military advisors to Kiev to help aid and prepare their defences. I think it would show real support and deter Putin from further aggressive action. I would also support the deployment of a NATO naval fleet at least to the eastern med or, possibly, at the throat of the Black Sea near Bulgaria.
On the remainder of your post, I'm afraid I thought it was absolutely shameful. You're talking about a Ukrainian "claim" to "dominate" Crimea.
Hang on a second here .. Ukrainian sovereign territory has been invaded by a foreign power here using *naked and open military force*. No plebsicite has taken place. No proposal has been made to cancel their language rights. There has been no expression of democratic will, or invitation by the elected regional government free from intimidation, to invite the Russians in to annex the terrritory.
The ones trying to dominate Crimea are the Russians. And they are doing it by sheer naked military force.
If there's anyone trying to view it as one-dimensional (i.e. they're all Russians in east Ukraine and want to be Russian anyway, so invading a foreign state in violation of international law and treaties is absolutely fine..) it's you. And I'm afraid you are making excuses for it.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
Good luck to them then. Given the area is mostly very poor and sparsely populated , to wish to continue their downward spiral would seem counter intuitive to me but no issues with them going if that is what they wanted. Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
There's been no pressure in England for a vote on independence from Scotland...
I have not heard of D&G wanting to have a referendum to join England either. Why pose the question.
But wouldn't the most natural precedent be the fact that the 9 counties of Ulster became the 6 counties of Northern Ireland with 3 choosing independence?
Perhaps, but you seem to be forgetting the provisions of Article 12 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921. It provided that if each House of the Parliament of Northern Ireland presented an Address to His Majesty, as they did, praying that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State should not extend to Northern Ireland, then a boundary commission would be established
to determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland.
It is of course the case that the Government of the Irish Free State were happy to shelve the idea in the 1920s. In return, its share of the imperial debt was cancelled. They were also unwilling to give up one acre of the Protestant parts of Donegal even in return for one and half counties of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the precedent from Ireland ought to be that the boundary should be determined in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants. The Government of Ireland Act 1920, which established the six county area, was of course passed when it was still envisaged that all of Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom.
My bolding. Really?
Ireland in the 1920s is not my specialty, but it was pretty clear by 1920 that all of Ireland was not going to remain part of the UK.
For instance, in 1914 Carson described a proposal to allow each of the counties of Ulster to opt out of Home Rule for 7 years as "a sentence of death with a stay of execution"
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
Invading an independent country with the intent to annex territory or set up puppet states, merely because they impeached a leader you got on with. This wasn't a violent seizure of government. It was a parliamentary vote after dozens of unarmed protesters got shot dead on the streets of Kiev, on the orders of the president.
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned. OTOH, no one can seriously say that the Russian population is being persecuted.
It's certainly undesirable to let Russia invade and occupy the sovereign territory of an independent country, with impunity.
It should also be clear to our government (but won't be) that this shouldn't be the moment to disband 20% or our armed forces.
I cannot think of any time in the last 100 years when the West might have intervened militarily over Russian military action in a place such as Ukraine, however unpalatable and dreadful it is. That is realpolitik, isn't it? Big powers have their spheres of influence and in practical terms they have a freedom of action in those places which can only be countered by diplomatic means.
That's exactly what it is Socrates: cowardice. I am also terrified of Putin and, even more, of war. I shudder to think of ever getting involved in a shoot-out with Russia.
And there are even worse things: failing to robustly defend the democratic rights of smaller nations, in the face of larger more powerful aggressive ones, will doom us all in the end.
Nothing should be off the table and I see no problem with aiding and reinforcing the Ukrainians with, if necessary, enhanced military measures - on the strict understanding it is purely defensive.
Yes, and India was 'plainly' Hindu, and Pakistan was 'plainly' Muslim, so let's split the nation there. What could possibly go wrong.
Two points
1) Pretending its Ukrainians vs Russia is plainly wrong.
2) There were protests against the east Ukraine guy winning the election from day one including a mini-rebellion in the far west.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Well we know for sure what goes wrong when it's the other way. You always end up with a Saddam or an Assad because that's the only way to force two unwilling populations to stay together.
I regret to say 'your' grasp of the issues is about as good as your grammar.
The simplest of truths is that the West has striven to undermine Russia in its own backyard and is now in no position to complain when they play the same game.
The whole concept that Russia has its "own backyard" it shold be allowed to have free reign to dominate is an appalling one, although it is fitting with your denial of Ukrainian nationhood. Every country should be allowed to have a free democratic choice over its international associations, regardless of geographical proximity to imperial tyrants.
Out of interest, regarding the wishes of Ukrainians, why don't you tell us how the MPs from the Eastern region voted in the resolution to remove Yanukovych?
Yes. Scotland is in our "own backyard" and we have our nuclear deterrent based there.
Perhaps, if Scotland does vote for independence, we should move rUK troops in to protect the unionists and our interests?
After all, the international community couldn't possibly complain.
That is pretty persuasive. Perhaps East Ukraine could be governed simultaneously by Moscow and Kiev, like the New Hebrides - which was a "condominium" peacefully ruled from Paris AND London.
Probably Putin has dissipated the goodwill that emanated from Sochi, but does he really care as the EU is dependent on Russia for about a third of its oil and gas and a quarter of its coal.
Will the anti-frackers still support Putin?
Russia is dependent on gas and oil for 70% of it's income. Energy flows out, cash flows in. If they turn off the taps, to whom else can they sell?
Only to the places where the gas pipelines flow. They can liquify it, but that's an expensive process.
The best idea in all this was Yokel's. Turkey is a member of NATO and has fallen out with Russia since Russia backed the tyrant to their south mass murdering his own people. If we get them to close the Bosphorus to Russian shipping, Moscow's deep desire for a warm water port will be lost. It would be a response both practical and clearly related to the occupation of Crimea.
A potentially messy option of course. They could try and fight their way through; a couple of missile batteries in Turkey would make things unpleasant.
I'm not sure Turkey needs another hostile neighbour on its borders - what with its border issues with Iran, Syria,its internal issues and the fact it hasn't always seen eye to eye with Russia in the past.
Mind you EU membership is a mighty big carrot to wave in Turkey's face. And it IS a member of NATO so I'd guess ultimately they'll do what the yanks tell them to over regarding the waters. Might that anger islamists in Turkey itself though... 'Tricky position' for Turkey, it needs to consider its own very real security threats in any action.
That's exactly what it is Socrates: cowardice. I am also terrified of Putin and, even more, of war. I shudder to think of ever getting involved in a shoot-out with Russia.
And there are even worse things: failing to robustly defend the democratic rights of smaller nations, in the face of larger more powerful aggressive ones, will doom us all in the end.
Nothing should be off the table and I see no problem with aiding and reinforcing the Ukrainians with, if necessary, enhanced military measures - on the strict understanding it is purely defensive.
It seems to me that most of those on the other side of the debate are starting from a position of (a) trying to dodge our own moral responsibility or (b) a gladness at seeing the West get one in the eye, and then working backwards to justify it from there. The problem is that it's such a blatant conflagration of international law that they end up having to resort to outrageous positions, like the Ukrainians not being a people, or "sphere of influence" IR theory, or the claim that a parliamentary vote is a violent revolution/coup. On the latter they can't even decide which of the two it is!
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
Good luck to them then. Given the area is mostly very poor and sparsely populated , to wish to continue their downward spiral would seem counter intuitive to me but no issues with them going if that is what they wanted. Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
There's been no pressure in England for a vote on independence from Scotland...
I have not heard of D&G wanting to have a referendum to join England either. Why pose the question.
Because it was the most Anglophile part of Scotland I could think of. The question was originally:
IF Scotland votes 'YES' but D&G votes 'No' by a large majority, is it right that D&G should be forced to become independent against their will.
Invading an independent country with the intent to annex territory or set up puppet states, merely because they impeached a leader you got on with. This wasn't a violent seizure of government. It was a parliamentary vote after dozens of unarmed protesters got shot dead on the streets of Kiev, on the orders of the president.
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned. OTOH, no one can seriously say that the Russian population is being persecuted.
It's certainly undesirable to let Russia invade and occupy the sovereign territory of an independent country, with impunity.
It should also be clear to our government (but won't be) that this shouldn't be the moment to disband 20% or our armed forces.
>
Well, if we let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong I don't see why we shouldn't let Peking re-absorb Taiwan - it was part of China for millennia, after all.
As for ring-fencing the military from cuts, what would you cut instead, Sean? Means-test pensions, perhaps?
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
Neither side has a democratic mandate..
Sorry, you're right: I forgot. The 'Maidan' revolutionaries have also invaded a foreign adjoining sovereign state with their military forces in defiance of international law. How silly of me.
I regret to say 'your' grasp of the issues is about as good as your grammar.
The simplest of truths is that the West has striven to undermine Russia in its own backyard and is now in no position to complain when they play the same game.
The whole concept that Russia has its "own backyard" it shold be allowed to have free reign to dominate is an appalling one, although it is fitting with your denial of Ukrainian nationhood. Every country should be allowed to have a free democratic choice over its international associations, regardless of geographical proximity to imperial tyrants.
Out of interest, regarding the wishes of Ukrainians, why don't you tell us how the MPs from the Eastern region voted in the resolution to remove Yanukovych?
Yes. Scotland is in our "own backyard" and we have our nuclear deterrent based there.
Perhaps, if Scotland does vote for independence, we should move rUK troops in to protect the unionists and our interests?
After all, the international community couldn't possibly complain.
An excellent analogy. There are also a lot of English people living in Edinburgh.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned.
The proposal to abolish the status of Russian as an official language was blocked and never passed into law. As for "some off its supporters", this is really grasping at straws. No government can control the clothing choices of every one of its supporters.
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
.
I bet Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are thanking their lucky stars they both joined NATO and the EU when they did. If they were still independent, and thinking of applying now, I think there'd be a lot of talk and warm-words from both organisations, but no accession treaty.
The thing that really worries me - and probably worries them: would NATO actually do anything if Russia did make a move against the baltic states now?
The Kiev thing was a revolution a few days ago with the US state department recorded deciding in advance who was going to be allowed in the Ukraine's shiny new democracy. Now it's turned into a peaceful vote of no confidence.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned.
It ill behoves anonymous posters on an internet message board to talk of cowardice with regards to the West's response to what is happening in Ukraine. Deciding when and whether to send troops into a conflict zone knowing that at least some are likely to die is the most solemn of all judgements for any sentient political leader.
Disagree entirely. NATO is the most powerful military alliance in the world, it has kept the peace in Europe - and elsewhere - for sixty years, but it depends entirely on its sworn oath, that any attack on one member is an attack on all. Without that it would be worthless and would disintegrate in days.
What about the guarantee to Ukraine's borders, given by the UK and USA in the Budapest Resolution? What about the US' guarantees to Taiwan and elsewhere?
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
A lot of talk on here today about how the military move of the Russians into sovereign Ukrainian territory reflects the wishes of the population.
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
There have been no elections to show support for the Maidan revolutionaries either.
Neither side has a democratic mandate..
Sorry, you're right: I forgot. The 'Maidan' revolutionaries have also invaded a foreign adjoining sovereign state with their military forces in defiance of international law. How silly of me.
Who asked the Crimeans if they could overthrow the govt ?
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned.
Invading an independent country with the intent to annex territory or set up puppet states, merely because they impeached a leader you got on with. This wasn't a violent seizure of government. It was a parliamentary vote after dozens of unarmed protesters got shot dead on the streets of Kiev, on the orders of the president.
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned. OTOH, no one can seriously say that the Russian population is being persecuted.
It's certainly undesirable to let Russia invade and occupy the sovereign territory of an independent country, with impunity.
It should also be clear to our government (but won't be) that this shouldn't be the moment to disband 20% or our armed forces.
>
Well, if we let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong I don't see why we shouldn't let Peking re-absorb Taiwan - it was part of China for millennia, after all.
As for ring-fencing the military from cuts, what would you cut instead, Sean? Means-test pensions, perhaps?
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
.
I bet Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are thanking their lucky stars they both joined NATO and the EU when they did. If they were still independent, and thinking of applying now, I think there'd be a lot of talk and warm-words from both organisations, but no accession treaty.
The thing that really worries me - and probably worries them: would NATO actually do anything if Russia did make a move against the baltic states now?
I'm not sure they would.
****
Disagree entirely. NATO is the most powerful military alliance in the world, it has kept the peace in Europe - and elsewhere - for sixty years, but it depends entirely on its sworn oath, that any attack on one member is an attack on all. Without that it would be worthless and would disintegrate in days.
Washington, and London and Berlin, to name but three, could not allow that to happen, so Yes I think an invasion of the Baltics would see a swift and significant military response, as well as sanctions etc. NATO and/or EU membership is the Red Line. I'm sure Putin knows this, he's not insane (though Merkel has hinted that he's gone slightly doo-lally).
Spot on. And for all the same reasons the Chinese will not invade Taiwan.
Ukraine has arguably been Russian since the 9th century, when it was Kievan Rus.
It was certainly part of Russia by the 17th century:
"In 1653 the greater portion of the [Ukrainian] population rebelled against dominantly Polish Catholic rule and in January 1654 an assembly of the people (rada) voted at Pereyaslav to turn to Moscow, effectively joining the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River to Russia.[6]"
It's difficult to argue that Putin is "invading a foreign country", in that light.
That's nonsense.
Even if every single Ukrainian was Putin's half cousin, Russia would still by any logical and legal definition be invading a foreign country.
Is Ukraine part of Russia? No. Has Russia invaded Ukraine? Yes. Therefore Russia has invaded a foreign country.
Why they hell is anybody making excuses for Putin?
Disagree entirely. NATO is the most powerful military alliance in the world, it has kept the peace in Europe - and elsewhere - for sixty years, but it depends entirely on its sworn oath, that any attack on one member is an attack on all. Without that it would be worthless and would disintegrate in days.
What about the guarantee to Ukraine's borders, given by the UK and USA in the Budapest Resolution? What about the US' guarantees to Taiwan and elsewhere?
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
Good luck to them then. Given the area is mostly very poor and sparsely populated , to wish to continue their downward spiral would seem counter intuitive to me but no issues with them going if that is what they wanted. Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
There's been no pressure in England for a vote on independence from Scotland...
I have not heard of D&G wanting to have a referendum to join England either. Why pose the question.
Because it was the most Anglophile part of Scotland I could think of. The question was originally:
IF Scotland votes 'YES' but D&G votes 'No' by a large majority, is it right that D&G should be forced to become independent against their will.
They are not being forced against their will. They are not voting to make D&G independent or not , the vote is "Should Scotland be an Independent Country". So your question is indeed as you say fantasy and therefore irrelevant. If you used that measure Scotland would not have had a Tory government over the last 40 years.
Maybe we are learning that splitting countries which have been together a while is messy!
The Crimea was always part of Russia. It was only in 1954 that Krushchev, on a whim, decided that it should be part of the Ukrainian Soviet Federation. It is Russian speaking and thinking. It would be as if Northumberland had for some bizarre administrative reason become part of Scotland in the 1950s and the English deciding, upon Scottish independence, that actually they still consider it English – as do the people of Northumberland.
The better analogy is with Monmouthshire which was annexed by Wales from its historic place in England an on the Oxford Circuit between 1972 and 1974.
That's an interesting thought.
What would be the implications* if Scotland voted YES but, by a very large margin, Dumfries & Galloway voted to remain part of England. Surely there would be a moral case for allowing self-determination?
* I know none in reality, but please play along
Good luck to them then. Given the area is mostly very poor and sparsely populated , to wish to continue their downward spiral would seem counter intuitive to me but no issues with them going if that is what they wanted. Do you think the same re Berwick , Carlisle etc is also applicable
There's been no pressure in England for a vote on independence from Scotland...
I have not heard of D&G wanting to have a referendum to join England either. Why pose the question.
Because it was the most Anglophile part of Scotland I could think of. The question was originally:
IF Scotland votes 'YES' but D&G votes 'No' by a large majority, is it right that D&G should be forced to become independent against their will.
If Cameron ever has his EU referendum (ho ho) and UK/rUK votes In but Essex Out by a large majority, is it right that Essex should be forced to stay in the EU against their will?
That is pretty persuasive. Perhaps East Ukraine could be governed simultaneously by Moscow and Kiev, like the New Hebrides - which was a "condominium" peacefully ruled from Paris AND London.
Just because the population can be split in this way doesn't mean that there is support for Crimea to become part of Russia or power sharing: the Gallup polling shows otherwise. it is not difficult to think of examples in the UK where this is true, also.
Invading an independent country with the intent to annex territory or set up puppet states, merely because they impeached a leader you got on with. This wasn't a violent seizure of government. It was a parliamentary vote after dozens of unarmed protesters got shot dead on the streets of Kiev, on the orders of the president.
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned. OTOH, no one can seriously say that the Russian population is being persecuted.
It's certainly undesirable to let Russia invade and occupy the sovereign territory of an independent country, with impunity.
It should also be clear to our government (but won't be) that this shouldn't be the moment to disband 20% or our armed forces.
>
Well, if we let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong I don't see why we shouldn't let Peking re-absorb Taiwan - it was part of China for millennia, after all.
As for ring-fencing the military from cuts, what would you cut instead, Sean? Means-test pensions, perhaps?
I can answer that: I would have increased the retirement age to 70+ sooner (and index-linked future state pension age revisions every subsequent 20 years at average life expectancy minus 12 years for men/women) not had the (extremely expensive) triple-lock on pensions or committed to maintain increasing NHS spending in real terms. With that money, I would have protected our armed forces at their current levels, and closed the £38bn black-hole.
Not saying I'd have got elected, but I think it'd have been the right thing to do.
"At the end of the party’s spring conference the delegates assembled for their gala dinner, where they were entertained by a comedian called Paul Eastwood.
Milking what the Telegraph’s Steve Swinford described as “rapturous applause”, Eastwood told the following jokes.
Referring to the Olympics, Eastwood said: “Poland did well. They took home bronze, silver, gold, lead, copper – anything they could get their hands on.”
“Team Somalia – they did well, didn’t they? They had to apologise. Didn’t realise sailing and shooting were two different events.”"
"mplying the Midlands was mostly populated by Asian people he said: “Any Midlands people here? Wonderful! My favourite accent is a Midlands accent.” The comedian then tried to do an Asian accent and branded the Islamic call to prayer a “traditional Midlands folk song”."
SeanF - Well, if we let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong I don't see why we shouldn't let Peking re-absorb Taiwan - it was part of China for millennia, after all.
We didn't let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong. We did a deal with them to prevent just that happening.
The difference between HK and Taiwan is that China cannot just walk in because there is a stretch of sea to navigate first. And there is a dug-in standing army of tens of thousands to overcome too.
I regret to say 'your' grasp of the issues is about as good as your grammar.
The simplest of truths is that the West has striven to undermine Russia in its own backyard and is now in no position to complain when they play the same game.
The whole concept that Russia has its "own backyard" it shold be allowed to have free reign to dominate is an appalling one, although it is fitting with your denial of Ukrainian nationhood. Every country should be allowed to have a free democratic choice over its international associations, regardless of geographical proximity to imperial tyrants.
Out of interest, regarding the wishes of Ukrainians, why don't you tell us how the MPs from the Eastern region voted in the resolution to remove Yanukovych?
Yes. Scotland is in our "own backyard" and we have our nuclear deterrent based there.
Perhaps, if Scotland does vote for independence, we should move rUK troops in to protect the unionists and our interests?
After all, the international community couldn't possibly complain.
An excellent analogy. There are also a lot of English people living in Edinburgh.
Living very happily as well and most likely to vote YES as well.
He's not invading a foreign country - yet - despite what the media are saying. There's an agreement to have x thousand Russian troops in the Crimea as part of the base and an agreement they can be moved about a bit in "emergencies" so so far he's skating right along the outer edge of legality.
A lot of interesting comments but non one's yet asked ... what else could Putin do? He has an electorate at home (of sorts) to pacify, he is a politician and a touchy one, so to do nothing would be seen by him and the electorate as being cowardly. His response has been in character (or my reading of his character).
As far as I know (and I know less than many) no tanks have actually rolled over the borders in broad daylight to shoot dead the local population. I would suspect he's after bargaining chips for when the real discussions start. He has to withdraw with honour intact and some positive gai for Russia. What that will be depends on the West's and Ukraine's responses and negotiators.
Comments
https://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/101-the-munich-agreement
The UK and US colluded in the biggest ethnic cleansing in European history when 14 million Germans were forcibly removed from eastern Europe post 1945. Moral my arse.
Out of interest, regarding the wishes of Ukrainians, why don't you tell us how the MPs from the Eastern region voted in the resolution to remove Yanukovych?
Or at least 'human rights are fundamental, but only when we can do something about or, or be bothered to do something about it'.
You've made yourself a bit of a hostage to fortune with that forecast. But fair play. We'll see.
Still, now we have numpty London hacks telling us that it's a symbol of Shetland independence; funny ole world.
One could also, realistically, put China in there on the basis of its lack of a shared language. Belgium would be easy, too - although one can debate how successful that country is :-)
The best idea in all this was Yokel's. Turkey is a member of NATO and has fallen out with Russia since Russia backed the tyrant to their south mass murdering his own people. If we get them to close the Bosphorus to Russian shipping, Moscow's deep desire for a warm water port will be lost. It would be a response both practical and clearly related to the occupation of Crimea.
Russia is - to all intents and purposes - 100% dependent on the European market for its gas exports.
"On March 24, well-known Russian astrologists, shamans and parapsychologists gathered to discuss forecasts for near and distant future...
...The participants of the meeting also unveiled the date for the beginning of Third World War. The new war is said to begin in March of 2014, during the Olympic Games in Sochi. It is also possible that the war may start five days after the Games end. Globa did not say in which country exactly the war would begin. He only said that the African revolutions would slowly be moving towards Russia."
http://english.pravda.ru/society/anomal/25-03-2011/117328-third_world_war-0/
It was enough of an excuse for us to bomb Libya.
As I said, utter hypocrisy on the part of the west .
If west Ukraine can't abide someone representing east Ukraine winning elections then your due democratic process argument is invalid.
"There was nothing inevitable about the emergence of a united England. Without Alfred and his remarkable dynasty, the kingdom that helped give the world the United States, the Industrial Revolution and the most widely-spoken language of all time would never have come into existence. Not just British but global history would have been incalculably different."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9146741/the-night-that-saved-england/
[Edit] And if you mean the 1997 referendum, which was hardly a Nat creation, the Shetlanders voted Yes just like everyone else did.
I'm sure Putin takes more notice of the latter than the former.
Free rein please, not reign.
So much for the rule of law and democratic self determination.
Struggling to give a toss - other than if Crimea goes indy then that is one more team trying to qualify from the UEFA zone for World Cups etc - makes it tougher for Scotland..
Russia threatens the whole of Easterm Ukraine, the west yells stop, imposes economic saanctions, threatens Russia with the Eastern Med fleet.
The indy referendum is held in the Crimea. Crimea becomes de jure an independent state, de facto Russia - like South Ossetia/Azhbakia.
Russia pulls back the troops, Europe gets its gas - everyone is (relatively happy).
I don't think Eastern Ukraine splits off.
China will be watching closely for its future plans with Taiwan...
http://themoneyconverter.com/GBP/RUB.aspx
https://twitter.com/davegaz
The 'self determination' line also has problems, for instance the rights of those non-Russian speakers and supporters within the enclaves such as Crimea. Their rights also need to be guaranteed.
Goodness, with enormous currency AND capital appreciation, how cheap are those London properties us Russians bought??? What an investment!!!
two years ago I could have only bribed five officials, now I can bribe twenty!!
And how stupid are those idiot financial advisers telling poor brits to 'diversify into emerging markets'!!!
Kosovo was a special case - Western intervention followed (IIRC) ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. So far, the Russians haven't that recently.
Firstly, I wasn't making my observation based purely upon the (mostly civil) discussions on pb. I have seen plenty of UKIP supporter comment across the media spectrum that I found chauvinistic, ignorant and dismissive.
On your other points, I do not agree that Britain is largely powerless - although I accept it has far less power than, say, in 1999 when we led the Kosovo intervention, largely due to almost continuous defence cuts. However, IIRC, Britain and France still account for 50% of EU
military spending. Therefore, an EU response would equate to one where Britain/France deployed their assets, probably bolstered by German and Polish forces, with most of the air/naval support provided by the US.
I may shock you: I wouldn't rule out putting the NATO rapid reaction corps at alert readiness, or deployment of logistics and military advisors to Kiev to help aid and prepare their defences. I think it would show real support and deter Putin from further aggressive action. I would also support the deployment of a NATO naval fleet at least to the eastern med
or, possibly, at the throat of the Black Sea near Bulgaria.
On the remainder of your post, I'm afraid I thought it was absolutely shameful. You're talking about a Ukrainian "claim" to "dominate" Crimea.
Hang on a second here .. Ukrainian sovereign territory has been invaded by a
foreign power here using *naked and open military force*. No plebsicite has taken place. No proposal has been made to cancel their language rights. There has been no expression of democratic will, or invitation by the elected regional government free from intimidation, to invite the Russians in to annex the terrritory.
The ones trying to dominate Crimea are the Russians. And they are doing it by
sheer naked military force.
If there's anyone trying to view it as one-dimensional (i.e. they're all Russians
in east Ukraine and want to be Russian anyway, so invading a foreign state in violation of international law and treaties is absolutely fine..) it's you. And I'm afraid you are making excuses for it.
http://jackmatlock.com/2014/03/ukraine-the-price-of-internal-division
He was former US Ambassador to the USSR.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/12/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png
2010 pres election results
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/12/ukraine-2010-election.jpg
location of protests against the 2010 election results
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/01/ukraine-protests-map-k.jpg
plainly two distinct populations
My bolding. Really?
Ireland in the 1920s is not my specialty, but it was pretty clear by 1920 that all of Ireland was not going to remain part of the UK.
For instance, in 1914 Carson described a proposal to allow each of the counties of Ulster to opt out of Home Rule for 7 years as "a sentence of death with a stay of execution"
Has anyone actually asked them? Or are people basing this opinion purely on seeing the 'protestors' raise the Russian flag on government buildings on the news, with a few hundred 'supporters' cheering them on?
Neither side has a democratic mandate..
Invading an independent country with the intent to annex territory or set up puppet states, merely because they impeached a leader you got on with. This wasn't a violent seizure of government. It was a parliamentary vote after dozens of unarmed protesters got shot dead on the streets of Kiev, on the orders of the president.
It does make me wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow if Russia chose to annex a Baltic State, or China chose to invade Taiwan.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned. OTOH, no one can seriously say that the Russian population is being persecuted.
It's certainly undesirable to let Russia invade and occupy the sovereign territory of an independent country, with impunity.
It should also be clear to our government (but won't be) that this shouldn't be the moment to disband 20% or our armed forces.
And there are even worse things: failing to robustly defend the democratic rights of smaller nations, in the face of larger more powerful aggressive ones, will doom us all in the end.
Nothing should be off the table and I see no problem with aiding and reinforcing the Ukrainians with, if necessary, enhanced military measures - on the strict understanding it is purely defensive.
1) Pretending its Ukrainians vs Russia is plainly wrong.
2) There were protests against the east Ukraine guy winning the election from day one including a mini-rebellion in the far west.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Well we know for sure what goes wrong when it's the other way. You always end up with a Saddam or an Assad because that's the only way to force two unwilling populations to stay together.
Perhaps, if Scotland does vote for independence, we should move rUK troops in to protect the unionists and our interests?
After all, the international community couldn't possibly complain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria
Mind you EU membership is a mighty big carrot to wave in Turkey's face. And it IS a member of NATO so I'd guess ultimately they'll do what the yanks tell them to over regarding the waters. Might that anger islamists in Turkey itself though... 'Tricky position' for Turkey, it needs to consider its own very real security threats in any action.
IF Scotland votes 'YES' but D&G votes 'No' by a large majority, is it right that D&G should be forced to become independent against their will.
There are faults on both sides in this conflict. For the new Ukrainian government to abolish the status of Russian as an official language, and for some of its supporters to parade around in Ukrainian SS uniforms is a red rag to a bull, as far as the ethnic Russian population is concerned. OTOH, no one can seriously say that the Russian population is being persecuted.
It's certainly undesirable to let Russia invade and occupy the sovereign territory of an independent country, with impunity.
It should also be clear to our government (but won't be) that this shouldn't be the moment to disband 20% or our armed forces.
>
Well, if we let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong I don't see why we shouldn't let Peking re-absorb Taiwan - it was part of China for millennia, after all.
As for ring-fencing the military from cuts, what would you cut instead, Sean? Means-test pensions, perhaps?
.
I bet Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are thanking their lucky stars they both joined NATO and the EU when they did. If they were still independent, and thinking of applying now, I think there'd be a lot of talk and warm-words from both organisations, but no accession treaty.
The thing that really worries me - and probably worries them: would NATO actually do anything if Russia did make a move against the baltic states now?
I'm not sure they would.
Are they idiots ?
Well, if we let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong I don't see why we shouldn't let Peking re-absorb Taiwan - it was part of China for millennia, after all.
As for ring-fencing the military from cuts, what would you cut instead, Sean? Means-test pensions, perhaps?
I'd cut Overseas Aid.
****
Disagree entirely. NATO is the most powerful military alliance in the world, it has kept the peace in Europe - and elsewhere - for sixty years, but it depends entirely on its sworn oath, that any attack on one member is an attack on all. Without that it would be worthless and would disintegrate in days.
Washington, and London and Berlin, to name but three, could not allow that to happen, so Yes I think an invasion of the Baltics would see a swift and significant military response, as well as sanctions etc. NATO and/or EU membership is the Red Line. I'm sure Putin knows this, he's not insane (though Merkel has hinted that he's gone slightly doo-lally).
Spot on. And for all the same reasons the Chinese will not invade Taiwan.
Even if every single Ukrainian was Putin's half cousin, Russia would still by any logical and legal definition be invading a foreign country.
Is Ukraine part of Russia? No. Has Russia invaded Ukraine? Yes. Therefore Russia has invaded a foreign country.
Why they hell is anybody making excuses for Putin?
So your question is indeed as you say fantasy and therefore irrelevant. If you used that measure Scotland would not have had a Tory government over the last 40 years.
Well, if we let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong I don't see why we shouldn't let Peking re-absorb Taiwan - it was part of China for millennia, after all.
As for ring-fencing the military from cuts, what would you cut instead, Sean? Means-test pensions, perhaps?
I can answer that: I would have increased the retirement age to 70+ sooner (and index-linked future state pension age revisions every subsequent 20 years at average life expectancy minus 12 years for men/women) not had the (extremely expensive) triple-lock on pensions or committed to maintain increasing NHS spending in real terms. With that money, I would have protected our armed forces at their current levels, and closed the £38bn black-hole.
Not saying I'd have got elected, but I think it'd have been the right thing to do.
Dan Hodges wins some new friends
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100261889/ukip-are-now-a-racist-party/
"At the end of the party’s spring conference the delegates assembled for their gala dinner, where they were entertained by a comedian called Paul Eastwood.
Milking what the Telegraph’s Steve Swinford described as “rapturous applause”, Eastwood told the following jokes.
Referring to the Olympics, Eastwood said: “Poland did well. They took home bronze, silver, gold, lead, copper – anything they could get their hands on.”
“Team Somalia – they did well, didn’t they? They had to apologise. Didn’t realise sailing and shooting were two different events.”"
"mplying the Midlands was mostly populated by Asian people he said: “Any Midlands people here? Wonderful! My favourite accent is a Midlands accent.” The comedian then tried to do an Asian accent and branded the Islamic call to prayer a “traditional Midlands folk song”."
We didn't let the Chinese walk into Hong Kong. We did a deal with them to prevent just that happening.
The difference between HK and Taiwan is that China cannot just walk in because there is a stretch of sea to navigate first. And there is a dug-in standing army of tens of thousands to overcome too.
As far as I know (and I know less than many) no tanks have actually rolled over the borders in broad daylight to shoot dead the local population. I would suspect he's after bargaining chips for when the real discussions start. He has to withdraw with honour intact and some positive gai for Russia. What that will be depends on the West's and Ukraine's responses and negotiators.