Can we have a Ukraine/ Russia/ Crimea thread for dummies?

[chicaguapa]

In other words, could someone explain the situation in really simple terms please. I don't understand it but feel it's important and I should know what's going on.

And because DD(12) asked me this morning and I couldn't answer.

And don't forget, those were BBC videos. They were they probably the most shocking that they could find. That was it, some desks trashed, but no one harmed.

so not as you said "I don't know, I'm not a BBC journalist. But I would imagine they were Russian troops at that point since the bases were on Russia territory at that point. In order minimise casualties, I suspect the best trained and disciplined troops were sent in at that point."

I am amused by your use of the term "self defence forces" to describe an armed mob.

perhaps you use the term "self defence forces" to describe this violent pro-Russian mob.

Two casualties mourned together. The nuts and bolts of returning Crimea to Russia were clearly carried out with considerable effort made to ensure very few casualties.

LOL at your first video PigletJohn. Did you watch it all the way to the end?

And the second video shows Ukrainian insignia placed neatly on a desk
A quote: In Kiev 'they're starting to learn about the limits of sovereignty'. There will be plenty more lessons on the limits of sovereignty now that Ukraine is financially yoked to the west.

I don't know about anyone else here, but when I look at BBC videos I get an advert from Goldman Sachs and/or Charles Schwab before the footage.

take a look at this and try to tell me that it is a locally organised self-defence force who bought their uniforms, guns and vehicles in a shop.

Pigletjohn, there are different types of self defence force. Some may be ex-military, some not.

and do you call the Russian army, when operating in a foreign country, a "self defence force?"

PigletJohn, you are flogging a dead horse. I don't know why, but you are.

And you are being very obtuse in insisting that Claig is talking about Russian military personnel when the John Simpson report you posted upthread clearly shows the self defence types she is talking about.
'Be so kind as to view the video'
(-- the one showing the TV station head being pushed around by the MP who sits on the Ukrainian freedom of speech committee.)

Sorry wrong thread, will have it deleted

yes, I realise that the pro-Putin lobby on here will never admit that it is wrong of Russia to expand its borders by invasion and occupation of its neighbours.

However I am under no obligation to leave the Kremlin line unchallenged.

But that's what happens if you stir ethnic tensions and Neo Nazi allegiances and topple a democratic (arguably inept) government that was trying to uphold the fine balance in a complex ethnically mixed society. A peaceful and mutually friendly population starts to self organise into militias and chaos follows.

Ukraine needs a government that is recognised by all parts of the population, so it could uphold law and order.

Daily Mail reports on Blackwater mercenaries being used in Ukraine by the Yats government

"As well as acting as security contractors, Blackwater are seen by some as a private army that can promote U.S. interests without official military involvement."

It seems the Blackwater men are used to crack down on protest in Eastern cities.

It really begs the question how much support the government has if it has to rely on foreign private contractors for defending itself. Obviousely it could be propaganda, but Blackwater did not deny their involvement...

It is hard not to notice that according to the Ukrainian president, 50% of Ukrainian army men in Crimea switched side to Russia and the government had to create a completely new parallel "National guard", recruited from Right Sector volunteers. Looks like the Ukrainian police and the army do not support the interim government.

yes, you can certainly stir up ethnic tensions by invading and occupying a neighbouring country.

I think we established earlier that is not a good way to win friends, so we can expect anti-Russian feeling to grow among other neighbours, especially those who fear they will be the next to be invaded.

Who do you think will be next?

Heroically fighting for the lost cause, blinkers clapped firmly on -- meanwhile the sovereignty of Ukraine is taken away by the IMF as it dictates policy to a government that came to power in dubious circumstances, and of course the hedge funds that will shortly sell off Ukrainian assets to the highest bidder will also play a role.

It would of course be wrong of Russia to expand its borders by invasion and therefore Russia has not done that and will not do that.

The answer to your last question is Venezuela, an adventure that will win the US no more friends than the Ukrainian adventure will.

It might be the usual diplomatic ramble as a way to buy more time, but it might also be that Kerry and Lavrov yesterday negotiated something. It could be the federalisation of Ukraine, now called "constitutional reform", and the independence of Transnistria.

Federalisation and neutrality vs NATO was in Russia's proposal before the Crimea referendum and annexation of 16 March, along with the return to the agreement of 21 February. Then EU and US rejected it as impossible.

But for the negotiations of the 30 March the Russian government added Transnistria to the mix. Lavrov found the negotiations "very, very constructive", while Kerry said Russian troops must start to be withdrawn from the boarder and Ukrainian government must be center stage.

Guardian reported the conditions pre-30 March www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/30/russia-ukraine-john-kerry-sergei-lavrov-paris
and the results on 31 March www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/31/russia-ukraine-deal-troops-lavrov-kerry

""Frankly speaking, we don't see any other way for the steady development of the Ukrainian state apart from as a federation," he added. Under the Russian plan, which Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin reportedly discussed in a phone call initiated by Moscow on Friday, each region would have control of its economy, taxes, culture, language, education and "external economic and cultural connections with neighbouring countries or regions", Lavrov said."

To me it looks like Putin marched his troops up to the border and then partially withdrew them to provide the off-ramp for Obama to accept the deal and to present it as a de-escalation...

Today the joined statement of German, French and Polish foreign ministers reiterates their earlier positions, but adds that the Ukrainian government need to implement all the agreements of 21 February as a condition for association as well as the timetable for "constitutional reforms" ... this is an interesting u-turn.

The statement also "propose EU-Russia talks with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia about the consequences of the EU-Association Agreements", which might be code for accepting military neutrality and annexation by Russia of Crimea, Transnistria, Ossetia etc.

Very interesting...

"Frankly, we" (the Russian government) "don't see..."

Just as well to make the attribution clear.

I wonder if Russia will be able to partition Ukraine and seize more territory in Eastern and Central Europe. Perhaps Putin can seize as much as Stalin did.

It looks like the EU, US and Russia are negotiating a new post cold war settlement, which includes not expanding NATO and redefining the territorial status of the frozen conflicts, created at the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think the sort of atavistic attitudes they are facing in Kiev should be obvious at this point to the US, and that Lavrov is right to say Ukraine is not capable of functioning as a unified state. I think there will eventually be some sort of federalism. The fate of the IMF investment is at stake after all, on top of the US money, and stability is necessary in order to ensure that money does not go to waste. The US made the mistake of making a large investment in circumstances that are far from stable and now must take care of the investment.

"We will not accept a path forward where the legitimate government of Ukraine is not at the table. This principle is clear. No decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine." (John Kerry)
This is a puzzling statement in light of the fact that decisions about Ukraine have been made by a man hand picked by the US to run Ukraine in the wake of an insurrection, with no popular vote as yet on the composition of the government he heads and no verdict yet passed by the people on his fitness to occupy that post. But heyho.

The emphasis on troop withdrawal is clear as a precondition to a climbdown in Kerry's statement, and I agree Washington has been given a chance to back away.

o First: Inclusiveness: We encourage the government in Kyiv to reach out towards all regions of Ukraine and to ensure the representative nature and inclusiveness of governmental structures.

o Second: Democracy: Presidential elections must take place on May 25, be thoroughly prepared and be free and fair. In the same vein we would welcome a time table for the process leading to a constitutional reform.

o Third: Reconciliation: All sides must join in the effort to fully investigate all human rights violations and acts of violence. We encourage the Ukrainian leadership to accelerate the ongoing process of disarmament, re-establish the state monopoly on the use of force as well as distance itself from extremist groups.
(From the Weimar Triangle statement)

The ball is now in Ukraine's court.

And the specific mention of the extremist groups reveals how spooked by the Right the governments of France, Germany and Poland are.

The Right represents a centrifugal force in the EU, so it's not just for Ukraine or for the Russian ethnic minority there that it fears.

They topple the elected government, steer a nationalistic divisive mob putsch to install a puppet government, get the government to sign the association agreement, which the elected legitimate president rejected.
Then they say that as an additional condition for the association agreement the country needs to agree to terms they negotiated with Russia. Throughout this process the puppet government is "centre stage".

Then they lecture Russia about being on the wrong side of history and not having the power of ideas they have...

Yes, I agree Mathanxiety that IMF needs stability and EU cannot associate with a politically unstable country. Nor can they be complacent with an emboldened extreme right that marches with weapons.

The ball is now in Ukraine's court.

You may be right, but Russia is so big that despite its political instability, and the influential right-wing nationalists, the EU will have to come to some kind of accomodation with it.

What happens when Putin's ambitions to reconstruct a new Soviet Union collapse, it is too early to say.