Russia has invaded Ukraine

[ohmymimi]

Not a shot fired. Putin outwits the West and who/what will stop him getting his way?

Ben Judah was on Sky today and he said something like the Russians don't really fear an economic squeeze or a freezing of oligarch's assets, because the Western elite of bankers and hedge fund managers need Russian hot money to maintain growth etc

"The Kremlin thinks it knows Europe’s dirty secret now. The Kremlin thinks it has the European establishment down to a tee. The grim men who run Putin’s Russia see them like latter-day Soviet politicians. Back in the 1980s, the USSR talked about international Marxism but no longer believed it. Brussels today, Russia believes, talks about human rights but no longer believes in it. Europe is really run by an elite with the morality of the hedge fund: Make money at all costs and move it offshore."

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134.html#.UxT1qaLitMw

Russia can't be marginalised as long as Europe relies on Russian gas and oil. Europe needs Russia far more than Russia needs Europe. And unless Ukraine can find oil and gas elsewhere cheaply, Ukraine too will have to deal with Russia. Economics is going Russia's way right now thanks to oil and gas and lack thereof in Europe. The US is considering loans to the tune of $10bn to Ukraine at the moment. Russia could conceivably charge Ukraine $10bn for gas and oil next winter.

There will be a lot of surface level snubbing of Russia G8 meeting next year in Sochi will probably not happen, etc., and heads of state will not go to Russia for football matches but behind the scenes Russian cooperation on matters like North Korea, anti terrorism, etc., will proceed as usual unless the silly posturing goes too far.

Russia already has a potential puppet - Viktor Medvedchuk -- though he has shown his hand and is probably not credible at the moment. But once the inevitable falling apart of the post Yanukovich government happens thanks to pressure from right wing groups, and hacks of various cabals of oligarchs, and when the revolutionary glow wears off as Ukraine starts figuring out how to repay billions of dollars to the US or the EU while at the same time trying to pay for gas and oil from Russia, a more conciliatory and realistic tone will set in and we will be back to where we started, minus Crimea, which will henceforth be part of Russia as it was before 1954.

mathanxiety, you are right.
You were also right when you said that Germany was not a puppet of the US.

"Ukraine crisis: US-Europe rifts surfacing as Putin tightens Crimea grip

Barack Obama threatens to 'isolate Russia' as EU ministers resist trade sanctions"

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-crisis-us-europe-putin-crimea

'But at an emergency meeting in Brussels the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy and Spain resisted calls for trade sanctions, instead limiting discussion to freezing long-running talks with Russia on visa liberalisation that would have made it easier for Russians to visit Europe. Washington is also threatening to kick Russia out of the G8 group of leading economies, but Berlin opposes that.'

Ukraine is basically bust. It is a heck of a lot more of a hot potato than perhaps America thinks it is. It is also full of Ukrainian people who may or may not like to be dictated to by economics and budget gurus in the US embassy in Kiev, pensioners who resent being cold as well as really wealthy people who may well decide their money is safer elsewhere, even in Russia because Tymoshenko is a complete flake and the political situation in Ukraine is extremely volatile even with recognition of the new regime from the EU and US.

Reuters analysis of Germany's position here. Germany depends on Russia for 40% of its gas and 35% of its oil, and there are significant investment ties harnessing Germany to Russia. It is very possible that despite rhetoric, Germany would be prepared to see the Crimea going to Russia as a compromise if Russia does not take over any more of Ukraine. It is also possible Russia would accept the Crimea as a compromise gain and would call off the hounds, while proceeding with running some of its own horses in Ukrainian politics.

Putin speaking this morning.

He's basically shrugging at the prospect of sanctions. And claiming all Russian actions are legitimate as they are at the request of the President whose ousting they see as invalid. And it's all done in a spirit of amity to protect the citizenry.

Comparison to Kosovo, and that citizens have right to determine their own future (also allusion to precedent set by western powers by going in to Iraq).

He shrugs because he can. He hasn't ruled out any military moves.
He also pointed out that the ousting of Yanukovich was the result of a coup, and of course this is also true - he didn't say who encouraged it all or backed it as that has already been raked over. He knows Ukraine will have to deal with Russia no matter who is in power.

Looking way ahead, if Ukraine eventually joins the EU, Russia will have a chance via Russia-friendly Ukrainian politicians to benefit in Brussels. Ukraine could be a bit like a Russian Trojan horse.

claig, you really have to ease off quoting the very biased/own agenda sources regarding neo-nazis. This is a movement that exists in most countries (Russia has them too, not that small either!) and it's of tiny proportion in Ukraine. Yes, they were used to actually cause the fight when the President wouldn't step down. BUT he could have been wiser and stepped down, as signing an agreenent that he would stay till Dec was just a ridicule of the population who literally had enough to the degree of being sick of the Ukr government. Yanukovich, I'm sure, had been given instructions from Putin to stay and shoot at the protesteers, but Yanukovich isn't that kind of man, 'too soft ' which Putin pretty much said at his press conf just now. The neo-nazis mainly come from the far western regions of Ukraine (around Lviv), the area of five 'counties' which were invaded by the Soviets at the end of WWII - the same areas which wre under Poland before that, but were also invaded by Poland in the past - they still saw them,selves as Ukrainians. Some collaboration with German Nazis happened during WWII because they wre scared of being invaded by the USSR - which happened. USSR/Russia saw the invasion as liberation of those places from Germany but of course it was a takeover. Westren Ukraininas speak Ukr and had to study Russian, not their first lang. It's very mixed with Polish.
It's been a big mistake of Stalin's to attach the W.Ukraine to the USSr as all the separatist and 'nationalist' movement (and why shouldn't they??) came from that direction since. Some say he should have called 'Ukraine' only that region around Lviv and now they could just easily lose it as really there is NO economic interest in that area for Russians, as it been said, no industry there, no common culture either. Whereas Kiev and eastwards should have always been part of Rus federation, as 'counties'.
It's Kiev where the word Russia came from btw - it was Kiev Rus in the 8th cen, golden domes and Christianity that then spread to what now is Russia, Moscow being half the age of Kiev. What's been now called Western Ukr is mainly Catholic btw.
Kiev has NEVER been 'western ukraine' (until suddenly now), it was always part of the USSR and before that it's been under the Tzars, same as many central regions, not just the east. Kiev, before Ukraine became separate from USSR in 1992 was mainly Russian speaking, though Ukr culture and literature was taught at scholls, but it was optional to go to Ukrainian school, so many Ukrainians who were born there didn't speak the language. It's changed since of course to an extent (migration from other areas, Ukr lang becoming official), but on the streets there is still more Russian language or a mix, then Ukrainian. But there is little allegiance to Russia unlike in Donetsk etc where the industries serving Russia are (machinery/railway plants etc).

The revolution happened NOT because of neo-nazi uprising. The people really had enough of the continuation of what really is modified Soviet corrupt govt, taking orders from moscow, being dependent, but even worse in a way, as unlike Russia (or former ussr) the pill isn't sweetened by decent pensions and other social benefits. Yanukovich was a puppet of Putin but also had great benefits for himself (money etc), and he just wouldn't go. The right wing did the violent part but the rest of protesters went along because of their principles and genuinely being absolutely fed up of being ignored/discounted/being impotent people who since the collapse of the USSR had no real voice in politics whatsoever - and it's been 20yrs!
To someone who asked - Putin IS very popular in Russia. I love the role he's playing of the boy-next-door informal guy, not averse to jokes but with firm principles, hmm he's good! Nuances are not heard through interpreters. But his intervention in ukraine is very much also about giving a message to the Russians, that he wouldn't stand for any armed coup or any such nonsense, and he wouldn't be soft like Yanukovich (who he's very angry with) but would use 'legitimate' force against illegitimate protests. So he is SLIGHTLY worried, but not much atm. He was on about it at the press conference (again). Obviously not too directly but very clearly.

I meant Orthodox Christianity (sounded as if catholics are not christians!) where the whole use of icons and all the rituals are quite different from catholics (in Kiev/central and eastern Ukraine/Russia all very similar).

Whatever happened to waiting until the next election rolled around? Waiting for elections isn't the strong suit of right wingers I suppose. The cat is now out of the bag - it is very hard to tell the neo nazis 'thank you, you have done your bit, now go back to your caves and we will take it from here'.

The right wing are going to love taking orders from Brussels if they eventually join the EU, and having their financial policy and issues like welfare and pensions dictated by the Deutsche Bank. Or alternatively, if the EU keeps its distance, and the US goes rushing in with money for missile sites or whatever the deal will be, they are going to love having policy both domestic-financial and foreign dictated by gurus in the US embassy in Kiev.

www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right
I do not agree with you that neo nazis were not at the heart of this coup.

From a January article in Der Spiegel (before the whole thing got up to warp speed):
'Yanukovich's unwillingness to compromise also has to do with the weakness of the opposition. The protests of pro-European Ukrainians, which began eight weeks ago, took Klitschko and the heads of the allied opposition parties by surprise. Last week, they were once again overtaken by events when militants took the initiative on Kiev's Maidan Square out of frustration that the three opposition leaders were unable to get what they demanded of the country's leadership.

Svoboda member Myroshnychenko is likewise not a fan of Klitschko. His development as a politician is moving "rather slowly," he says sarcastically. "I don't think that he can take over leadership of the opposition, much less leadership of the aggressive Maidan." What he doesn't say is that his own party is also a problem for the opposition alliance. Svoboda has joined the revolt, but it rejects certain human and minority rights.

With 10 percent support, Svoboda is the fourth-strongest group in parliament. Klitschko and the Tymoshenko party need its backing. Plus, the party is a key player in the protests. But Klitschko plays down Svoboda's right-wing stance. "We have different ideologies, but two things connect us," Klitschko says. "We are fighting against those in power today and we want European values for our country."

(Good luck with that.)

(The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is in communion with Rome and was very strongly supported by John Paul II in its efforts to be allowed to exist under Communism, and after the fall of Communism in its struggle against the Orthodox Church which had taken over much of the property of the UGCC, but it is distinct from the RC Church in many ways - and there are various little offshoots of it also, who have issues with the Church on various matters. There is a controversial movement afoot to set up Kiev as the Church's major see and in effect demote L'viv. Everybody wants Kiev.)

beaglesaresweet, I agree with a lot of your points. The west and East of Ukraine are vastly different with the Galicians in the West having only been annexed in 1939 by the Soviet Union. There is a strong anti-Russian sentiment and a desire for national independence.

Stepan Bandera, the Galician nationalist, inspired a nationalist movement that was responsible for the massacre of tens of thousands of Poles and also killed Jews. To the neo-nazis, he is seen as a hero, and a fighter for independence. A former President gave Bandera the Hero of Ukraine status, but Yanukovych said he would repeal it.

"The revolution happened NOT because of neo-nazi uprising."

"The right wing did the violent part but the rest of protesters went along because of their principles and genuinely being absolutely fed up of being ignored/discounted/being impotent people who since the collapse of the USSR had no real voice in politics whatsoever"

The revolution had fewer people out on the streets than the peaceful orange Revolution in 2004, and obviously the vast majority of protestors are not neo-nazis, since neo-nazis number only about several thousand. However, the protest in Maidan had gone on for months (and began only after the President decided to reject the EU deal) and it was not successful in removing the government. The thing that changed the situation was when the violence began, and the violene was not carried out by tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens, but by violent protestors, many of whom came from the right. It was these violent elements who were prepared to battle the police and who killed police officers etc, not the ordinary citizens of Kiev.

The majority of the country, both East and West are anti Yanukovych and the endemic corruption, but the real factor that made the revolution succeed was the violence, which in large part came from hard-core neo-nazi elements.

The government is not full of them. Klitschko and the Fatherland Party etc are not neo-nazis, but I think the small band of neo-nazis were used by other forces in order to escalate the violence in order to make the revolution succeed.

As we have seen on TV, there are people in Crimea and regions of the East of Ukraine who do not accept this government and what theu feel are the neo-nazi elements who spearheaded the violence in Kiev.

It is obvious that Putin is not going to accept wat he calls this illegitimate government and he believes that the revolution was stirred up and aided by outside forces.

The Guardian reported

"Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers

Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet tells EU's Cathy Ashton about claim that provocateurs were behind Maidan killings"

...

"A leaked phone call between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet has revealed that the two discussed a conspiracy theory that blamed the killing of civilian protesters in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, on the opposition rather than the ousted government."

...

"During the conversation, Paet quoted a woman named Olga – who the Russian media identified her as Olga Bogomolets, a doctor – blaming snipers from the opposition shooting the protesters.

"What was quite disturbing, this same Olga told that, well, all the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides," Paet said.

"So she also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."

"So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition," Paet says.

Ashton replies: "I think we do want to investigate. I didn't pick that up, that's interesting. Gosh," Ashton says."

Guardian article link

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet

'"So she also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened ."

There are lots of TV pictures of politicians laying flowers for dead protestors, but have you seen any for the dead police forces?

There are some hawks who want to push Obama to show a strong hand. They say that Obama was weak over Syria with his "red line" that he didn't enforce. They wanted Obama to bomb Syria. But Obama didn't do it.

Some Tory politicians have tried to claim that Ed Miliband and the Labour vote against strikes on Syria has led Russia to act in the way it has in Crimea.

"Ed Miliband has rejected claims that Labour's vote against missile strikes in Syria helped embolden Russia to send tanks and troops into part of Ukraine.

The Labour leader told the Guardian this was "complete nonsense" after senior Tories blamed him for making Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, think he could act with impunity in Ukraine's Crimea region.

...

On Saturday night, a number of Conservative MPs linked the "appeasement" of Russia over Syria to its aggression in Ukraine. Sajid Javid, a Treasury minister who is close to George Osborne, said there was a "direct link between Miliband's cynical vote against [the] Syria motion and Russia's actions on Ukraine," adding that this made the Labour leader "completely unfit to lead Britain".

Nick Boles, a Tory planning minister, joined the accusations on Twitter, saying David Cameron "was right to urge parliament to stand up to Putin and punish Assad's use of chemical weapons. Look where Miliband's weakness has led us."

However, Miliband dismissed their comments as pathetic party political point-scoring at such a time."

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/ed-miliband-tories-syria-vote-ukraine

But I am now beginning to think that the hawks will lose. I don't think the Germans will be hawkish and I don't think that people in Europe will back the hawks.

I was watching the press conference of the Ukrainian PM today from the European Council and something made me uncomfortable in his rhetoric.

It looks to me that this new Ukrainian government is just another juvenile clique concerned with their internal ethnic divisions who want to land this conflict on the lap of European taxpayers.

He was speaking from the platform of the European Council, saying it is a "European conflict", and clearly sees that it is the job for mummy Europe and Daddy US to sort it out for them against the big bad Russia acting "as usual". Not surprising the Russians don't want to talk to them.

His country is not a member of EU and I don't feel it is right for him engage in this rhetoric on behalf of Europe.

I believe in EU, in human rights, freedoms and democracy.

I don't understand how the name of Europe became soiled in support for Nazzi apologists advocating anti Russian ethnic cleansing. This is just discrediting the EU and the very values about human rights and democracy it is supposed to embody.

Exactly, Hopefulgoat.

There is a clique of hawks, strategists, billionaires and arms dealers who want to force the EU to wake up and take sides against Russia. Responsible and principled politicians like Ed Miliband, who prevented the strike on Syria, is accused of weakness. They are trying to pressure politicians to act in their interest.

But I think they will fail.

I don't understand how a group of people concerned with domination of one group over another, advocating to deny the identity and dignity of the other group (such as language and culture) could possibly promote human rights and democracy. For me it's a flagrant contradiction in terms.

Absolutely
'Human rights and democracy' are often just a cover for power politics as usual.

Apparently, a Russian news agency is reporting that the Crimean Parliament has just voted unanimously to join Russia. Let's see how much democratic governance is repsected.

Of course, the whole thing is a tragedy, because 40% of Crimea is made up of Tatars and Ukrainians who probably would vote against joining Russia.

The only fair way is referenda and elections, not revolutions

The Crimean Parliament has set up a referendum on the status of Crimea for March 16th.

For anyone who doubts that far-right politicians have influence in the new government, read the link that mathanxiety posted, which is a Channel 4 News article

"How the far-right took top posts in Ukraine's power vacuum"
"In the new Ukrainian government politicians linked to the far-right have taken posts from deputy prime minister to head of defence ."

www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right

"The new Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Sych is a member of the far-right Svoboda party , which the World Jewish Congress called on the EU to consider banning last year along with Greece's Golden Dawn."

and there is also an article from the World Socialist Website

"The New York Times, for example, asserted, “Putin’s claim of an immediate threat to Ukrainian Russians is empty,” while Britain’s Guardian dismissed as a “fancy” claims that events in Crimea were an attempt to “prevent attacks by bands of revolutionary fascists,” adding that “the world’s media has [not] yet seen or heard from” such forces.

This is an obscene cover-up.

The reality is that, for the first time since 1945, an avowedly anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi party controls key levers of state power in a European capital, courtesy of US and European imperialism. The unelected Ukrainian government, headed by US appointee Arseniy Yatsenyuk, includes no fewer than six ministers from the fascist Svoboda party.

Less than a year ago, the World Jewish Congress called for Svoboda to be banned. But the party’s founder and leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, who has spoken repeatedly of his determination to crush the “Russkie-Yid mafia that controls Ukraine,” was feted by US and European Union officials as they prepared last month’s coup.

Following the 2010 conviction of John Demjanjuk as an accomplice in the murder of nearly 30,000 people in the Nazi concentration camp at Sobibor, Tyahnybok called him a hero. Tyahnybok’s deputy, Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, founded a think tank called the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.

Svoboda was the major political force in the Maidan protests that overthrew Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych . In return for providing the shock troops for the coup, it has been given control of vital ministries.

Svoboda co-founder Andriy Parubiy acted as “security commandant” in the protests, directing attacks by the Right Sector—an alliance of fascists and extreme right-wing nationalists, including the paramilitary Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Self Defense (UNA-UNSO). Dressed in uniforms modelled on Hitler’s Waffen SS, its members boast of fighting Russia in Chechnya, Georgia and Afghanistan.

Parubiy is now secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, overseeing the Defence Ministry and the armed forces . Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector, is his deputy.

www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/06/pers-m06.html?view=article_mobile

just to be clear, Claig, you are not suggesting that Russia is free from neo-Nazis, anti-semites, far-right extremists, armed gangs, nationalists, powerful gangsters and corrupt politicans.

Are you?

No. But the difference is that they do not hold government ministries.

The Deputy Prime Minister of Russia is not a member of a far-right wing party and the Russian head of armed forces is not a founder of a far-right party.