ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

i imagine there are at least a few democratically elected leaders who've gunned down their own people over the years.

http://iaspace.pbworks.com/f/richard%20nixon.jpg

you rang?

Who was removed as president...

hey those weren't really *his* people anyway

Who was removed as president...

― Frederik B, Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:10 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for covering up the tapping of the opposing party's campaign headquarters!

why would the pro-democracy cheerleader support the ppl deposing the ostensibly democratically elected government?

pro-democracy cheerleaders are only pro-democracy if the result is pro-them(/western), cf hamas etc

tbf there haven't been elections in gaza since 2006. but yanukovych wasn't threatening to cancel elections was he? if anything he pushed the elections up in the deal signed before he had to flee.

see - that's what is weird to me. why would the pro-democracy cheerleader support the ppl deposing the ostensibly democratically elected government? this destroy a democratically elected government to save democracy paradigm is so bizarre. pro-democratic opponents of government need to establish reforms + not precedence for coup d'etat

― Mordy , Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:44 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not saying it applies here - and I'm really swayed by the arguments that the 'pro-democracy' cheerleading is really just 'pro-free-flowing-capital' - but surely there would be some circumstances where someone who was once 'democratically elected' then uses their term of office to dismantle legitimate means of opposition, stifles the free press, allows only pro-them advertising, finds ways to stifle all protestors on weird technicalities, whatever. I mean, this situation is definitely NOT Germany in 1933 or even France under Napoleon III for that matter, but those kinds of cases do exist and I'm not sure I'd object if brute-force mass movements forced out these democratically elected governments to save democracy.

hmmmm, putin comes to mind, but most russians seem not to mind him

oy, hillary

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-compares-russia-moves-to-nazi-aggression

that's a terrific way of helping to defuse the situation and prepare for her foreign policy as president

https://twitter.com/grahamblog/status/440920315292811264

This situation ceased to be defuseable many weeks ago. I do wonder if some of the Western cynical "hey, calm down, dudes, we all made mistakes" pseudo-liberal punditry has elements of wishful racist "white people shouldn't act this way" feeling to it.

Lindsey Graham is an unconscionable sack of feces

This situation ceased to be defuseable many weeks ago

so what is it that you think is inevitable at this point? whatever putin wants?

Lindsey Graham is an unconscionable sack of feces

― you are clinically deaf and should sell you iPod (stevie), Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:21 AM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if only! then we could be rid of him with one swift roundhouse.

as it is, it will take a significant portion of the people of south carolina to come to their senses, which is a very remote possibility at best.

Bloodshed is inevitable, as is Putin trying to do whatever he wants. I think the choice is between Putin doing whatever the hell he wants or significant military conflict, and neither of those choices are any good.

Do you see war as being in Putin's interests? He's getting a boost from 'defending the rights of Crimea' at home but full on war with a historical ally is unlikely to go down well. Ukraine is also a major economic partner and Russia will still need to have some kind of relationship with it, and most likely Tymoshenko, when the dust settles.

Russia's recent actions have made concessions from Kyiv more difficult as they'll be seen as backing down in the face of aggression, but putting some kind of deal on the table that would guarantee elected mayors and no Ukrainian military intervention in Crimea in return for Russian troops backing off and the referendum being delayed until next year should be something the EU is floating.

He's getting a boost from 'defending the rights of Crimea' at home

Time piece I read this morning - which might be full of US-friendly shinola, I don't know - suggested he's not even getting that, and that 70$ disapprove of his movements in the Ukraine.

70%, not 70$

$70 is the current budget of the ukrainian gov't

Putin is betting that the only army he'll have to fight against is that of Ukraine, and I think that's a fairly safe bet.

I think it's not wise to try to figure out Putin's next move without constantly considering him to be, in many ways, a bully who feels he has nearly invincible backup. I am not saying he is in any way correct, but I do think that that's where he's coming from most of the time.

Ukraine's army is pretty decent, tbh. It's not like rolling over a couple of thousand Georgian soldiers moving into South Ossetia. A full war (not skirmishes around Crimea) would probably be a long, drawn-out affair (bad for the economy). There doesn't really seem for him to need to make that move unless Ukrainian soldiers attempt to take Crimea back or things turn nasty in Donetsk. At the moment, things in Crimea seem tense but mostly cordial.

Among professional military, yes -- but the pro-Russian paramilitary types (startlingly well-built and well-armed protestors, Cossacks, etc.) are, from what I have heard, becoming increasingly provocative and ready to throw down at any moment. I do not believe that they are outside of the control of the Kremlin, and doubt that most of them are full-time long-term residents of the Crimea, if you get my insinuation.

I would assume most are Crimean but some probably won't be. One of the side effects of Russia being there is that the pro military is fairly unambiguously in charge. They should be able to keep them in check. Bad as the current situation is, government troops or nationalist militias clashing with separatist militias might be even more dangerous.

thanks, both of you, good posts

now I think at least for this morning I have half a clue about how this might go down

USA/UKR soccer friendly getting ready to kick off... in Cyprus.

roundhousing a sack of feces sounds like a terrible idea. just take that sack of feces carefully to the nearest dumpster imo.

The Crimean Parliament has voted to extend the scope of the referendum to include the option of union with Russia, with remaining part of Ukraine under greater autonomy the other option. This is supposedly happening on the 16th.

Pre-crisis surveys had about 40% of people in favour of going back to being part of Russia but it could be close. Clock ticking on efforts to negotiate a delay now.

The legitimacy of this referendum is extremely questionable.

isn't it

It's tough to argue that the current Crimean Parliament is valid but the current Kyiv government isn't (and vice versa).

The challenge to the international community is how to monitor the referendum to make sure it's fair without implicitly endorsing it. They might take the view that sending observers validates the outcome and choose not to.

If the referendum was free and fair, and the people wanted to be part of Russia, then is that so bad?

Putin has made up a bunch of shit about western Ukrainian terrorists, but ... are there Ukrainian terrorists, like some of the more rabid nationalists? Because if Russian annexes Crimea or otherwise permanently invades Ukraine, I bet we'll find out.

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

If in some bizarre twist of events Russia invaded Kyiv or Lviv, then sure. Crimea, by virtue of being mostly Russian, a relatively recent addition to Ukraine and semi-autonomous already hasn't really featured in the Ukrainian nationalist narrative in the same way as the west / centre of the country though. Or at least not yet.

There have been some speculative articles about Tatar terrorism being a possibility but they don't extend much beyond 'oh hey, they're Muslims they've gotta be into blowing stuff up, eh?'.

Eh, some just go on stabbing rampages.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/03/who-s-really-behind-ukraine-s-synagogue-attacks.html

Putin has made up a bunch of shit about western Ukrainian terrorists, but ... are there Ukrainian terrorists, like some of the more rabid nationalists? Because if Russian annexes Crimea or otherwise permanently invades Ukraine, I bet we'll find out.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:01 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We can all thank George W Bush for such great statesmen like Bashar al Asad and Putin invoking terrorism any time they want to run off and do some flagrant violent shit.

Worth a read.

putin and assad's dad were using that language well before dubya

not everything happens cuz 'murrica

“The only lawful armed force on the territory of the Crimea is the Russian armed forces,” said Crimea’s deputy premier, Rustam Temirgaliev, according to Reuters news agency. “Armed forces of any third country are occupiers. The Ukrainian armed forces have to choose. Lay down their weapons, quit their posts, accept Russian citizenship and join the Russian military. If they do not agree, we are prepared to offer them safe passage from the territory of Crimea to their Ukrainian homeland.”

things not lookin good

that's just... nuts.

it's one thing to say that the current ukrainian government isn't legitimate it's another to say "oh btw we're part of russia now. referendum? why wait for a referendum?"

the "offer safe passage" thing is such an ugly veiled threat

oh good, Seumas Milne has some thoughts

question

so putin was able to effectively seize crimea by taking advantage of a nation gripped by something like chaos, or at best political confusion--not to mention a struggling economy, only tentative formal links to the EU.

a lot of people are suggesting versions of a domino theory, where a russia victorious in the crimea would elect to invade/stir trouble in other countries w/ significant russian populations using the same "protect the people" pretext. but those other states--i'm thinking chiefly of the baltic ones--are doing well economically, have strong democratic governments, and if i'm not mistaken are members of NATO. putin would have no ambiguities to make hash of there.

as for belarus, they are so firmly in the russian orbit that it might as well be a sattelite, so there's not really any need for russia to assert their dominance there.

so does this sort of "domino theory" have any credence?

nah