ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

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.

at the very least re syria he shouldn't have made a red line that he wasn't prepared to back up

like it's one thing to not threaten at all and so much worse to threaten and then not follow up on the threat

that part's fair.

yeah there's nothing obama can do. i agree that he shouldn't have made threats.

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

he's the neo-nazi one, right? that's charming.

yeah, you're right that russians in the east have some legitimate reasons to fear, or at least not to recognize, the new government, such as it is. i highly doubt any of the big words coming from kyiv would amount to much in the end, though, even w/o russian invasion.

The irony is that if Russia were at peak Cold War powers, the US would probably have more power to persuade, and likely be forced to intervene. But because Russia is nowhere near at peak power, and because Russia these days has little direct bearing on US policy, despite being more "powerful" the US is almost forced to take a sideline stance.

That said, I'm not even going to bother reading an opinion, any opinion, from Palin. She's an idiot who has proven her worthlessness so many times over that an opinion from her likely ratifies the opposite as the valid opinion. See also: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton ...

this seems so oversimplified and pollyannaish that it defies belief: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nyrblog+%28NYRblog%29

the author seems to think that "propaganda" is wholly the product of one "side" of this conflict.

we've seen similar articles about the arab spring - it's inevitable that revolutions, esp in infancy, will always seem more romantic and charming than they later turn out.

he does get at some of the complications in the latter half of the article, but i think he is naive in thinking that the character of the "transitional government" is fundamentally liberal and multicultural—some of the actions taken by kyiv in the preceding days suggest otherwise. none of this of course justifies Putin's invasion of opportunity.

Sunday, March 2, 2014 in WASHINGTON, DC, MEETING AT NOON WITH FRIENDS TO DEMAND "RUSSIA - GO HOME" AND #stoprussianoccupation of #Ukraine. Dupont Circle
PLEASE JOIN US!!!!

Facebook message I received

rubio: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/8-things-obama-must-do-about-ukraine-104128.html#.UxLAHtxRhO5

"Fifth, the U.S. and our allies should put forward a condemnatory resolution in the United Nations Security Council. A Russian or Chinese veto would make clear to the world the hypocrisy of these governments, since they say they oppose foreign intervention into the affairs of sovereign countries—unless of course they are the ones intervening."

THAT'LL SHOW EM

rubio's 8 things obama must do about ukraine are lame.

rush's 8 things obama must do about ukraine are bold.

• resign;
• resign;
• resign;
• resign;
• resign;
• resign;
• apologize and resign;
• resign in disgrace;

http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/

i think i just got my brain into a knot

greenwald's response to the above: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/01/journalistic-independence/

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/

this seems like a good roundup for people who are behind

Yanukovych built for himself a series of extravagant homes, perhaps the ugliest in architectural history.

I kinda like it?

http://www.nybooks.com/media/img/blogimages/yanukovych-house_jpg_600x654_q85.jpg

rubio/cruz 2016 -- ukraine, you saw, you conquered

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhvIcQ2CQAAttsr.jpg:large

http://i.imgur.com/85nDLvk.jpg

I lol'd

The Admiral Kyiv made head of the Ukrainian navy yesterday has just sworn allegiance to the Republic of Crimea and told all the troops under his command to ignore any orders coming from the capital. Not sure how many will follow him.

russia didn't hesitate invading georgia even w/ meathead warking bush in office

worth noting that this was a response to georgia's invasion of south ossetia.

https://24.media.tumblr.com/90c89980510c84634ef509adf5de3a0e/tumblr_n1sjpnqwic1r6s5zro1_250.gifhttps://24.media.tumblr.com/ea0deff2a634c1f5503d88d4af298ba1/tumblr_n1sjpnqwic1r6s5zro2_250.gif

This is a bold move:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/ukraine-turns-to-its-oligarchs-for-political-help.html?referrer=

Kyiv has put billionaire oligarchs in charge of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk, presumably because they have enough influence behind the scenes in the East to theoretically keep some of the institutions onside.

Appointing oligarchs could go down very badly with pro-revolution, anti-corruption groups though.

Yes, they should be freely elected in totally transparent and totally fair elections.

Lots of interesting perspectives on this thread. Perhaps surprising, but when I was thinking of where to go online for well-rounded analysis I thought of ILE first, and you guys didn't let me down. The major media outlets (NY Times, WaPo, etc) have an annoying tendency to frame things in terms of US domestic politics - like everything that happens is portrayed as either a rebuff to Obama or a victory for him - as though the number of one thing on people's minds in Russia and Ukraine is what does the US president think. Personally I'm 100% A-OK with Obama's handling of this so far. I certainly don't think US needs to be out in front of EU in taking a hard line - it's their backyard.

is there gas and oil ukraine ? is taht what theyre really after

Well, no. But important gas-lines from Russia runs through Ukraine.