ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

I have glibly remarked in the past that I would not visit anywhere in Europe east of Italy

this is ridiculous

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10668357/Russia-admits-that-it-has-moved-troops-in-Ukraine.html

u're right. i'd also visit finland. xp

I was in Russia, Czechoslovakia and Hungary right after the wall came down, I never ran into any anti-semitism. which is not to say it doesn't exist, and is not to say that I was advertising my Jewishness in any particular way that would have invited it, but there are plenty of great places/people in that area of the world, not visiting them because of historically shitty things that have happened seems I dunno sort of small-minded.

xxxp

not visiting them because of historically shitty things that have happened seems I dunno sort of small-minded.

really? this isn't like ancient history. it's current and very recent history.

would you find it small-minded if a black person said they would never visit the states of the confederacy?

anyway, i said glibly bc obv i didn't mean it w/ any seriousness. that said, i've never visited any of those countries (i almost went to kosavo a couple years ago for a conference but it didn't work out). if someone bought me a plane ticket to Krakow tho i wouldn't refuse it.

http://www.jta.org/2014/02/28/news-opinion/world/in-kiev-an-israeli-militia-commander-fights-in-the-streets-and-saves-lives

^ this is amazing

would you find it small-minded if a black person said they would never visit the states of the confederacy?

― Mordy , 28. februar 2014 21:24 (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think this is the same, when you imply that you would go to Italy? Also, what about the countries to the north?

let's say my statement applies specifically to the following countries:
Germany, Austria, Czech, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia

Well, then that makes it more the same. And I can definitely understand that.

i heard obama is speaking at 4:45 about ukraine sitch

https://twitter.com/edwardlucas/status/439499082617597953

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-explainer-budapest-memorandum/25280502.html

obama speaking now - "the Ukrainian people deserve the opportunity to determine their future"

obv US is not going to do shit to stop any potential annexation (assuming that's what is going on here) - just happy obama didn't make any unenforceable red lines during his speech

so is the us going to war with russia over this or what

no way

A boykot? Apparantly the Russian economy is pretty close to a shambles, and spring is here, so who needs Russian gas anyway.

Though to be honest, if someone put me on the spot, I'd be hard pressed to answer why the people of Crimea shouldn't be allowed to hold a referendum on their future status. If it was a free and fair referendum, obviously, which there's no chance it would be.

been refusing to visit spain ever since the spanish inquisition

I would assume that there would have to be some kind of international monitoring of the national general election in May for it to be taken remotely seriously. If the separatists have any sense they wouldn't impede the work of the international monitors in Crimea, but who knows if they do? The referendum could genuinely go either way.

maybe crimea will consider itself de facto part of russia and not participate in the elections. the rest of ukraine will get to join the eu.

Aiui, what is on the table would be more autonomy (which could let the Crimean parliament move for full separation afterwards) rather than a straight switch to Russia so I would be surprised if any big decisions like that were made prior to May.

It's worth remembering that Crimea has had more autonomy in the recent past than it does now, while still being part of Ukraine. It used to have a President, until Kuchma abolished the post, and elected mayors until they started voting in separatists and Kyiv abolished that too and imposed mayors on them. This is part of a long game that has been going on since 1992 and compromise positions have been reached in the past.

http://blogs.rj.org/blog/2014/02/28/reform-synagogue-attacked-in-simferopol-ukraine/

If the Russians go whole hog on armed intervention in the Ukraine, then the Ukrainians won't get much help from the west, apart from angry talk and a lot of tut-tutting. Putin prob knows this, too.

The "Putin is a reasonable guy"/"TWU is dumb and worse than Hitler" crew are real quiet this morning...

Upper house of Russian Parliament approves the use of troops in Ukraine. Huh.

I'm not sure anyone has claimed that Putin is particularly reasonable. He is usually rational in going about his objectives, though - whether we agree with them or not.

Russian troops are currently "guarding" some Crimean government buildings, using some unverified (and possibly spurious) claims that armed men tried to take the Interior Ministry last night as justification. The Parliament decision might be providing extra legal cover for that but it would also permit much wider action "if Russian lives are threatened", which they aren't being at the moment - similar to the Ossetia situation. It looks like unhelpful sabre rattling rather than a declaration of war but it's a pretty clear threat that Russia would respond if Ukraine tried to move in on Crimea (which, again, it probably wouldn't).

Would be very worrying if Russian troops started turning up in other parts of the country like Donetsk, though.

The more significant news is that the Crimean Parliament has apparently voted to move the referendum forward to the end of this month which leaves Kyiv with much less time to come to a negotiated agreement that would avoid it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=287_1393605865

NY Times headline
Action Flouts U.S. Warning to Respect Ukraine’s Borders
By ALISON SMALE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN 32 minutes ago
As Russian armed forces effectively seized control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula on Saturday, the Russian Parliament granted President Vladimir V. Putin the authority he sought to use military force in response to the deepening instability in Ukraine

Washington Post:
Crimea’s pro-Russia leader claims control of the region’s military and police, saying soldiers from Russia’s Black Sea Fleet are guarding official buildings and that his government was coordinating directly with them.

There's so much happening so quickly, but isn't it debatable, invasion or no, that Russia's military presence may be more stabilizing than not? At least in the short term. That is, Ukraine appeared on the cusp of total chaos *before* Russia moved in, so short of massing on the border to keep refugees from spilling out, which would have caused more than its own share of problems, Russia moved in to fill the power vacuum. Curious how this all plays out now. Occupation in the name of stability is an all too common gambit.

Russia has long considered having access to an ocean port in warm waters for their navy as a paramount strategic goal. Odessa and the Crimea are about the best they're ever going to get, so if they can secure it as non-contiguous part of the Russian federation, they will go to great lengths to accomplish that.

Sevastopol is already Russia's warm water port. The questions would be whether a nationalist government might break the agreement in place to lease areas to Russia (which I think would be unlikely) and whether in the short term any outbreak of civil war would threaten their ability to operate there (which again is possible but not necessarily likely). It might not be the primary reason for intervening but having a friendly Crimean government letting them use it without question in perpetuity would be a consideration.

I'm not sure that Russia's actions have necessarily stabilised the country as a whole. Their presence is probably enough to stop Kyiv from taking Crimea back by force but that may never have happened. It has probably exacerbated tension outside of Crimea.

gosh i wonder what john mccain will say on the sunday morning shows

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/10/22/russia_might_invade_ukraine_if_obama_wins_palin_warns

the whole "protecting russian-speakers from abuse" line (also used in georgia war IIRC) is such bullshit. does anyone believe the russians in crimea were under any threat?

i don't even know why I'm parsing this, it's a pretty thin rationale for standard imperialist behavior.

this is all so worrisome. i now read people "hoping" for the sort of very limited conflict we saw in georgia, but georgia was much more stable—they had a sitting president whose authority (at least outside of the contested territories) wasn't much in question, etc. this could really become chaos.

I wouldn't call it standard imperialist behaviour, as such. Seen from the perspective of a lot of Crimeans the events of the last few weeks are going to be pretty worrying. The president 85% of them voted for was forced out of office with threats of violence, on their first full day in power the new government (not recognised by Crimea) downgraded the languages 90% + of the people speak to unofficial status, fascists were given significant official posts, armed men (many linked to the far right) occupied buildings, Pravy Sektor has called on Chechen terrorists to up attacks on civilians in Russia, etc. That's a very partial and arguably slanted view of what has gone on but these are concerns that are widely and genuinely held.

The idea of Ukrainian "terrorists" taking over Crimea is fanciful but some people, including the current Crimean government, are clearly in favour of the security Russian troops provide. It's more complicated than an old fashioned land grab.

I should stress that I don't think it's "a good thing". It wasn't necessary and probably divides Ukrainians and Russians in the rest of the country even more at a time when reconciliation is crucial.

wow palin otm

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-donetsk-protests-referendum-383/

Donetsk City Council has called for a referendum and has clarified that it doesn't currently recognise the government in Kyiv. It has also restored Russian as an official language alongside Ukrainian.

The Kyiv chief prosecutor (from Svoboda) has said that any groups holding referenda will be "severely punished".

wow palin otm

― Mordy , Saturday, March 1, 2014

(a) right about what?
(b) even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/10/22/russia_might_invade_ukraine_if_obama_wins_palin_warns

― balls, Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:41 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

not only was she right about russia invading ukraine, but i agree that a lot of it (tho probably not everything - russia didn't hesitate invading georgia even w/ meathead warking bush in office) is attributable to obama's foreign policies over the last few years

which of obama's foreign policy choices led to russia invading ukraine?

i think it's likely that w/out the evidence of syria's red line, reconciliation w/ iran, deferment to putin in the former and partially the latter, the lack of antagonism re russian social policies esp wrt the recent olympics, in general policies of hands-off non-intervention, may have convinced putin that obama would be very hesitant to defend the budapest memorandum. obv it's not even close to being entirely obama's fault (for one he is expressing the post-Iraq sentiments of the majority of Americans, for two, like i mentioned, having Bush in office didn't stop the Georgian invasion), but i don't think it's controversial to state that obama has squandered some believability when it comes to US deterrent. maybe all for the best in the end. russia entered georgia on august 8th and left by the 22nd. it seems unlikely at this point that russia will leave crimea in a similar timeframe.

one thing i noticed during obama's speech yesterday is that he really didn't threaten russia w/ anything. not military action (okay, bush took military action off the table for georgia) but not even trade agreements, partnerships, etc (which iirc gates threatened pretty early on in the georgia campaign). he was basically like "ukraine deserves to determine their own fate, russia it won't be great if you stay" and that was that. idk. it seems of a piece w/ his general policies imho.

I'm not sure any US President would have enough weight to shift Russia's thinking. Military action is not a credible threat and iirc Russia exports less to the US than it does to Poland. EU would have more muscle but needs gas / coal.

Yeah, Obama could do absolutely nothing. Bush wrecked the foreign policy for decades to come.

and, it seems to me from mordy's comment, that the kinds of things obama arguably could have done to scare russia away from its ukraine intervention -- e.g., a u.s. strike on syria; increasingly hostile posturing, and possibly a u.s. strike on, iran -- could have been disastrous episodes for the u.s.