95.5 percent of Crimeans vote for joining Russia

[sotsira]

I wouldn't call Putin a cynical aggressor in all this, no blood has been spilt in Crimea

whereas in Kiev there were killings and violent clashes that provoked Putin's hand to do what he did

which was through the ballot box.

It just so happens that the US & Europe didn't like the outcome.

Do you actually BELIEVE the Putin propaganda about defending Russians? I am amazed that any westerner would actually believe that. Russians, I understand, nationalism, their seduced by a strong man dictator, and an almost totally controlled PRESS (by, you guessed it, Putin). I also understand that some people, including Americans, are so anti-American that they'll put on an act of believing liar Putin just because they know that Putin is positioning himself now as the man against everything America. So that's not belief, that's just taking a partisan side.

No, what i believe is that Putin doesn't like the West especially the US interfering with Russian and Ukrainian politics, hence why he felt the need to protect his assets in Crimea before any of the West can get control of it after the Ukrainian government was overthrown.

Not forgetting that Russia has military bases in Crimea and regards it as a strategically important part of controlling the Black Sea area.

[Jingthing]

How do you know Putin will STOP at Crimea?

The same Putin apologia tripe can be used (and will be used if Putin launches further aggression) relating to ALL of Ukraine (and other countries as well).

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/crimea-is-just-putins-opening-game-says-swedish-foreign-minister-carl-bildt/?hpt=hp_c3

Russia’s annexation of Crimea could be just the first move in President Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical chess match with Ukraine, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

“I think that Crimea is the opening game,” he said. “It is not that President Putin is primarily interested in Crimea. He is interested in Ukraine.”

“If you read carefully what President Putin said in his big speech in the Kremlin the day before yesterday, what he says there about sort of historical claims and those sorts of things, apply not only to Crimea but also to southern parts of Ukraine.”

[benalibina]

Many on this topic defending the indefensible.

Anyway the goodwilling people, Ukranian citizens, loose. Because of incompetent, powerabsorbing, greedy, selfish and ruthless socalled leaders. Whether it is Putin, Obama and the present fascist leaders of the Ukraine.

This is 21st century. Shambles.

[sotsira]

How do you know Putin will STOP at Crimea?

The same Putin apologia tripe can be used (and will be used if Putin launches further aggression) relating to ALL of Ukraine (and other countries as well).

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/crimea-is-just-putins-opening-game-says-swedish-foreign-minister-carl-bildt/?hpt=hp_c3

Russia’s annexation of Crimea could be just the first move in President Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical chess match with Ukraine, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

“I think that Crimea is the opening game,” he said. “It is not that President Putin is primarily interested in Crimea. He is interested in Ukraine.”

“If you read carefully what President Putin said in his big speech in the Kremlin the day before yesterday, what he says there about sort of historical claims and those sorts of things, apply not only to Crimea but also to southern parts of Ukraine.”

I don't know whether he'll stop at Crimea.

What i do know is that only 20 yrs ago the USSR governed Ukraine together with all the other

countries that have fractured since then.

Since the USSR dissolved, the West has started to interfere more to gain the upper hand, especially the US, which has provoked the Kremlin to the point where we are today.

So i think the more the West continues to interfere the more the Kremlin will retaliate, that is what this is all about.

The fragmented ex USSR countries that hold value to the Kremlin will be the ones that are

most vulnérable to be exploited due to the West and Russia fighting tit for tat politics.

[Jingthing]

So if Putin invades all of the Ukraine, then it's not Putin's fault.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

[bangon04]

I think we all understand why most of the ethnic Russians in Crimea are happy now that Putin has invaded and stolen Crimea from Ukraine, just as the ethnic Germans were happy when Hitler invaded and stole Sutedenland from Czechoslovakia.

and the ethnic Albanians were happy when NATO sponsored / facilitated the separation of Kosovo from a greater Serbia.....

[folium]

I wouldn't call Putin a cynical aggressor in all this, no blood has been spilt in Crimea

whereas in Kiev there were killings and violent clashes that provoked Putin's hand to do what he did

which was through the ballot box.

It just so happens that the US & Europe didn't like the outcome.

Leaving the words "wouldnt and cynical" out of ur comment....and it gets a different meaning.A truthfull 1.

I think the truth is in the title of this thread:

95.5 percent of Crimeans vote for joining Russia

Where's the aggression?

Firstly not all Crimeans voted in the referendum. Not many non-Russian speakers/Tatars took part in the vote.

Secondly the aggression is simple and plainly visible. Russia sent its troops in contravention of the Budapest Memorandum, international law and the agreement re the presence of Russian troops inside 3 bases within the Crimea. That would count as aggression to any rational thinking, non-Putin dupe.

Then they should have voted, what do the non voters represent in % ? 2, 5, 25% ? even if 25% and every single one voted no that would only have been 27% no and 73% yes. Still very conclusive.

You say aggression but it could also be called a peace keeping force,How many casualties ? it has in fact more in common with the latter than the former.

Jing I am assuming you are american the US is trying to palm Crimea off as Ukrainian which it isnt historically at all, it was just a region handed under administrative control to Ukraine, it even pre-dates Ukraine with its own history. Im not sure why you would instantly assume Putin is so bad whilst the EU and the US are so good, unless of course you have that west is best thing going on.They have been destabilising the Ukraine for a decade under the intention of converting Ukraine to become part of the EU and western block.

Im sure some here are aware of the Orange revolution and it might be a good idea to look at who the backers were, at what point they changed tack, its goals and manipulation. Its far from being all about Putin and the Ukraine has been the whipping boy of these factions and attempts at democratising it for over a decade.

Really its just Sour grapes at losing the Crimea as its a key strategic area. it would have been very happy to bring the EU right upto the front door of Russia, far as Russia is concerned thats like having red china right on the Mexican border.

Majoritarianism reigns supreme in the Crimean peninsula. Quite what happens to its citizens that do not regard Putin as a saviour is likely to be a whole lot less edifying. But then again a removal of said people would just complete the ethnic cleansing of the Crimea begun soon after it's occupation in the late 18th century and completed in 1944 with the mass deportation of all non ethnically Russian types. Just like the Sochi Region, Russian holiday spots cannot be clogged up with non-Russian types. A neat little twist on apartheid executed with clinical efficiency.

Referring to the occupying Russian forces as "peacekeepers" brings back hideous flashbacks to Hungary 1956, Prague 1968 and even Afghanistan in 1979, when the retrospectively termed "Brezhnev Doctrine" was pit into effect with "peace- keeping" forces intervening to prevent capitalist, western- backed counter revolutionaries triumphing against the progressive forces of socialism and Russian fellow brethren. The doctrine even highlighted the threat from nazis and anti-Semites. Like so much with Putin he is just digging out the old Soviet play book and re-running the excuses and propaganda lines to bolster domestic support whilst showing no regard for morals, ethics or even international law.

Before we have a rerun of Putin's little canard of Crimea being no different to Kosovo have a look at the human cost of the failure to intervene in other ex Yugoslav republics and quite how the Serbs had been attempting to "resolve" the Albanian Kosovar issue. On the question of foreign intervention it should also be highlighted that Russian troops were some of the first to intervene in/invade Kosovo, seizing Pristina airport and giving James Blount/Blunt the chance to claim he prevented WW3.

Putin has invaded and now annexed part of the sovereign territory of another country. That's the issue here and no amount of smokescreen or diversionary tactics can obscure this fact. If you feel that a brutal autocrat has the right to invade and annex territory of their choosing, so be it, where does it end?

When was the last time a western nation invaded and annexed part of a sovereign nation?

Pathetic/ill-informed references to Sudan, Pakistan (??), Iraq or Kosovo miss this point completely.

By the way the EU is already sitting on Russia's doorstep in the shape of Finland, right on the doorstep of Putin's hometown. Check out the atlas, it will save the geography lesson.

On the history lesson front, most of Crimea's history has had nothing to do with Russia, and this was very apparent in the indigenous population of the Crimea until they were conveniently cleansed to create the equivalent of a "whites only" apartheid style resort for Russians.

[F430murci]

Happy days indeed.

---------

Pro-Russian forces seized three Ukrainian warships Thursday and Ukraine said its troops were being threatened in Crimea as the U.S. announced a new round of sanctions against Russia for its annexation of the Black Sea peninsula.

Tensions in the region remained high despite the release of a Ukrainian naval commander held by pro-Russian forces.

. . .

In Geneva, Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations warned of a sharp deterioration in relations between the two neighbors, saying that Russia appears to be preparing for a military "invasion" in more areas of his country.

http://m.kltv.com/#!/newsDetail/25024312

[F430murci]

Ouch, only going to get worse. I know BofA global had been pulling back big time, but I am told US money in Russua that could actually be at risk is about 14 Billion. Russia losing about $439 Billion in short order. This is the bigger story here and one has to wonder whether all of those staunch Putin supporters that were, but are no longer, billionaires will have any impact on Putin's big picture plans for Unraine and its neighbors. Not sure Putin will be so popular when that meager 1% growth goes down and currency implodes.

This article oy tells part of the story, but tracking Russian and Russian politician money is crazy. These guys operate better than mob with laundering and etc.

-----------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2014/03/20/u-s-treasury-sanctions-four-russian-billionaires-for-ukraine-involvement/

----------

Russia's most powerful businessmen waited for over an hour Thursday to speak with President Vladimir Putin, whose decision to annex the Crimean Peninsula has cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in market value.

When Putin finally showed up, he spoke to them for five minutes and gave them no reassurances that they or their companies will get any respite from the uncertainty created by the takeover of a piece of land of little value to them beyond national pride.

Russia's economy is getting pinched by the crisis over Crimea even before the new sanctions the U.S. and Europe announced Thursday.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sp-cuts-russian-credit-outlook-amid-crimea-crisis-22988184

[englishoak]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

[F430murci]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

Global impact very short term and minimal. Russia'a fragile economy is heavily dependent upon foreign investment in US and European markets. I suppose Cyprus too at one time . . . Anyway, Russian can go back to being and isolationist and it will have little or no long term negative impact globally. Just hurt Russia. At least then, the world would know where it stands.

[Spartakos]

Do your research on the history of the Crimea and you will see that it makes much more sense in Russia than it ever did during it's 60 years of Ukrainian adventure.and by the way the russkies did not move to annex it until the west supported Nazi radicals overthrew the elected government and seized the power.

[F430murci]

Do your research on the history of the Crimea and you will see that it makes much more sense in Russia than it ever did during it's 60 years of Ukrainian adventure.and by the way the russkies did not move to annex it until the west supported Nazi radicals overthrew the elected government and seized the power.

You gotta love the West made me do it excuse or its all the West's fault. So childish. I would love to hear someone just man up and say we did because we damn well wanted to rather than constantly blaming someone or something else. Man up and accept responsibility for once.

[englishoak]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

Global impact very short term and minimal. Russia'a fragile economy is heavily dependent upon foreign investment in US and European markets. I suppose Cyprus too at one time . . . Anyway, Russian can go back to being and isolationist and it will have little or no long term negative impact globally. Just hurt Russia. At least then, the world would know where it stands.

I wouldnt be too sure of that, Russia just has to sell its oil not in dollars to affect markets and it can if it so wishes, The global financial banks are all running on created money atm and very interlinked, many economists concur there can be a meltdown at any time as no one knows how far this ponzi scheme will go and a domino effect could just start up, if it did it would be very hard to stop this time if global. Playing with economic sanctions is as the US has said liable to inflict hurt on more than just Russia. Its not known if sanctions would just affect Russia and derivative links no one has a clue how they are connected. its not really smart on the face of it to enter into those waters as no one really knows what might happen. Global impact MAY be minimal it may not. Mess about with a countries economy and they are liable to start doing stupid or desperate things.

[Spartakos]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

Global impact very short term and minimal. Russia'a fragile economy is heavily dependent upon foreign investment in US and European markets. I suppose Cyprus too at one time . . . Anyway, Russian can go back to being and isolationist and it will have little or no long term negative impact globally. Just hurt Russia. At least then, the world would know where it stands.

Yep, serves them right. Who do they think they are to reject the mighty USA's will and protect their peoples interests and security. Those neo fascist groups that seized the power with the backing of USA had the best interests of the people of the Crimea all along.

Back to reality tho, stop watching fox news and listening to mc Cain. Russia can do pretty well isolated from the west, something I can't say about much of the western Europe, they will crumble without the resources from russia. And the "gold for oil" stuff can do wonders for the US economy.

[folium]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

Glad you used the word "invasion" as that is exactly what has happened in the Crimea.

The boundaries and territorial extent of almost every nation are a function of usually unedifying political/military acts of the past. But that does not give other countries the right to start unpicking and redrawing those boundaries as they see fit.

Not sure where I have exercised double standards in relation to invasion/intervention in other sovereign states. I do take huge notice of the rules myself. Ironically while Russia's Afghan disaster curtailed its foreign interventionism for a while (and helped bring down the Soviet Empire), the West's own disasters in Iraq & Afghan are likely to see far less cavalier adventures for the foreseeable future. Hence the reason why Putin has invaded Crimea now and why the Soviets decided to invade Hungary in 1956 using Suez as cover.

The economic and demographic situation facing Russia is far from rosy and your verdict on the US is probably overstated. The Soviet Empire collapsed fundamentally due to its economy being a classic Potemkin edifice. The situation today is hardly more promising and long term it will need a government less driven by rent-seeking, cronyism and self-serving objectives if Russia is to stand any chance of genuine economic improvement for all its citizens (or even just the majority of them).

Referendums are not the issue. I am all in favour of self determination etc as long as the necessary institutions are in place to ensure that democracy is a whole lot more than just casting a vote. It will be interesting to see what the citizens of Crimea gain and lose by joining Putin's haven of human rights and freedom of expression. Is Russia a democratic country? Does Russia have the institutions and enshrined rights of a democratic government?

"In Russia, a new wave of repressive laws increased the ability of the state to clamp down on critical protest, demonstrations, individuals or organizations. Across the region, states also applied more insidious pressure on their critics: anonymous threats of violence, smear campaigns of drug use, promiscuity, or tax evasion." AI Annual Report 2013

Sorry to return to the geography lesson but you mentioned multiple fronts. Well....

Russia shares land and or sea boundaries with EU/NATO Finland, Norway, Estonia and Latvia, even Denmark via Greenland. The Russian "colony" of Kaliningrad is entirely surrounded by EU/NATO members. Then there are sea boundaries with NATO member Turkey, sea boundaries with NATO member Canada, sea boundaries with NATO member USA (more ex Russian colonies), and sea boundaries plus occupied territories originally belonging to western ally Japan. Heaven's above they are encircled and we are back to the whole containment debate of the Cold War.

Would you be in favour of Norway sending marines into the Orkneys/Shetland islands to annex them and redress the historical error of handing these islands over to Scotland? Should the UK retake and annex the Treaty Ports in the ROI handed over in 1938? Perhaps Germany might like to regain and annex its historical heartland in East Prussia lost in 1945. Perhaps Italy might decide to revive the Roman Empire and annex most of Europe, North Africa and the Near East....

Once players start crossing boundaries in terms of intervention and redrawing boundaries we move into incredibly dangerous territory.

[Spartakos]

Do your research on the history of the Crimea and you will see that it makes much more sense in Russia than it ever did during it's 60 years of Ukrainian adventure.and by the way the russkies did not move to annex it until the west supported Nazi radicals overthrew the elected government and seized the power.

You gotta love the West made me do it excuse or its all the West's fault. So childish. I would love to hear someone just man up and say we did because we <deleted> well wanted to rather than constantly blaming someone or something else. Man up and accept responsibility for once.

I'm not denying the Russians did annex it. And they had the reason to do so. They stated both. But I am still waiting for the Wests admittance of their involvement in the events leading to this mess. What are exactly their reasons to destabilise the security and stability in the region?

[folium]

No, not all the population voted, but the majority did, any rational thinking person would know that you would never get a 100% voter turn out.

As for your interpretation of aggression i reiterate there was no violence or bloodshed, unlike what happened for weeks in Kiev by the anti government protesters, now that was plainly visible.

So when Argentina invaded and attempted to annex the Falklands and South Georgia in 1982 this did not constitute an act of aggression as there was little fighting and only 1 confirmed death.

Why did Russia need to deploy its troops across the Crimean peninsula, cutting off access from the north and securing key installations across Crimea? If invading another country with substantial military assets does not count as an act of aggression, heaven knows what makes your definition...!

[englishoak]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

Glad you used the word "invasion" as that is exactly what has happened in the Crimea.

The boundaries and territorial extent of almost every nation are a function of usually unedifying political/military acts of the past. But that does not give other countries the right to start unpicking and redrawing those boundaries as they see fit.

Not sure where I have exercised double standards in relation to invasion/intervention in other sovereign states. I do take huge notice of the rules myself. Ironically while Russia's Afghan disaster curtailed its foreign interventionism for a while (and helped bring down the Soviet Empire), the West's own disasters in Iraq & Afghan are likely to see far less cavalier adventures for the foreseeable future. Hence the reason why Putin has invaded Crimea now and why the Soviets decided to invade Hungary in 1956 using Suez as cover.

The economic and demographic situation facing Russia is far from rosy and your verdict on the US is probably overstated. The Soviet Empire collapsed fundamentally due to its economy being a classic Potemkin edifice. The situation today is hardly more promising and long term it will need a government less driven by rent-seeking, cronyism and self-serving objectives if Russia is to stand any chance of genuine economic improvement for all its citizens (or even just the majority of them).

Referendums are not the issue. I am all in favour of self determination etc as long as the necessary institutions are in place to ensure that democracy is a whole lot more than just casting a vote. It will be interesting to see what the citizens of Crimea gain and lose by joining Putin's haven of human rights and freedom of expression. Is Russia a democratic country? Does Russia have the institutions and enshrined rights of a democratic government?

"In Russia, a new wave of repressive laws increased the ability of the state to clamp down on critical protest, demonstrations, individuals or organizations. Across the region, states also applied more insidious pressure on their critics: anonymous threats of violence, smear campaigns of drug use, promiscuity, or tax evasion." AI Annual Report 2013

Sorry to return to the geography lesson but you mentioned multiple fronts. Well....

Russia shares land and or sea boundaries with EU/NATO Finland, Norway, Estonia and Latvia, even Denmark via Greenland. The Russian "colony" of Kaliningrad is entirely surrounded by EU/NATO members. Then there are sea boundaries with NATO member Turkey, sea boundaries with NATO member Canada, sea boundaries with NATO member USA (more ex Russian colonies), and sea boundaries plus occupied territories originally belonging to western ally Japan. Heaven's above they are encircled and we are back to the whole containment debate of the Cold War.

Would you be in favour of Norway sending marines into the Orkneys/Shetland islands to annex them and redress the historical error of handing these islands over to Scotland? Should the UK retake and annex the Treaty Ports in the ROI handed over in 1938? Perhaps Germany might like to regain and annex its historical heartland in East Prussia lost in 1945. Perhaps Italy might decide to revive the Roman Empire and annex most of Europe, North Africa and the Near East....

Once players start crossing boundaries in terms of intervention and redrawing boundaries we move into incredibly dangerous territory.

It gives no platform to criticizing one nation if another or others illegally invade a country or if it fabricates a reason to... lets take Iraq as that example. I said at the time this will set precedent for others to do similar in the future and to hell with UN rules. Seems this is so. To throw stones its better not to live in a glass house

Double standards I was referring to to nations not you personally, Come on Crimea was given an opportunity to choose and it did. Now as far as annexing is concerned If Ukraine were to vote to join the EU it could be seen as annexing as well.

Russia of course is very not keen on having Ukraine as part of the EU with Turkey as a possibility on the future it is looking at being surrounded totally on the western borders.

Latvia Estonia Finland Norway are all minor concerns re the landmass border and logistics of defence they are minor ... the Ukraine is not, the Crimea is not and Turkey is not (such is the concern re Georgia ) yes they are surrounded re NATO but they are also part of NATO themselves anyway so its not really an issue.

PS re invasion.

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that ‘16,000 Russian soldiers had been deployed’ across Crimea sparked a feeding frenzy about invasion that steadfastly ignored any hard facts that got in their way.

Unwelcome is the fact that the so-called ‘invasion force’ has been there for 15 years already. Russia has always had a military presence there with consent.People can say how the Republic of Crimea was under a full-scale Russian invasion with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea”, “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”. you would reading that think thats all there is to it, but

Facts, and ardent statements by top Russian diplomats were totally ignored by the western ‘war press’. Which made me curious at the time so off I went and dug around and yes ive checked and it is true.There is in fact a longstanding 25,000 Russian troop allowance caveat in Crimea, airbases too not just naval.

The Russian navy is allowed up to - 25,000 troops, - 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, - 132 armored vehicles, and - 22 military planes, on Crimean territory. Russia has two airbases in Crimea, in Kacha and Gvardeysky.Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines.Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures. source RT for ease but is easily checked and confirmed on other sources as I did a week or so ago.

Of course Russia has the right to fill entirely to its maximum allowance should it choose and it still wouldnt be an actual invasion. so the term invasion is actually dependent on this agreement that does exist.

However i prefer to call a spade a spade and am happy with the term invasion but it was not an invasion the word imply's of blood and violence. Determining boundaries is always fraught with problems and there are many cases of redrawing them, we could go on all day about examples.

​Ukraine has neo nazis in government I would suggest that Putin and Russia is far less a threat to instability in the region than they. The other question id ask is is the EU or the US tolerating these scum for ? much the same as people asked was the US thinking in wanting to back terrorist factions and unsavoury groups in the Syria crisis ? they still are btw.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[englishoak]

I should clarify my mention of Russia and NATO though not being an actual "member" there is a NATO - Russia Council and has an equal voice on counter terrorism peacekeeping and arms control, in effect it is a partner or if you like associate member of NATO, part of the NATO pact of nations and not that easy to separate.

[sotsira]

No, not all the population voted, but the majority did, any rational thinking person would know that you would never get a 100% voter turn out.

As for your interpretation of aggression i reiterate there was no violence or bloodshed, unlike what happened for weeks in Kiev by the anti government protesters, now that was plainly visible.

So when Argentina invaded and attempted to annex the Falklands and South Georgia in 1982 this did not constitute an act of aggression as there was little fighting and only 1 confirmed death.

Why did Russia need to deploy its troops across the Crimean peninsula, cutting off access from the north and securing key installations across Crimea? If invading another country with substantial military assets does not count as an act of aggression, heaven knows what makes your definition...!

In retaliation to the revolution in Kiev that overthrew the government of Victor Yanuckovych and the setting up of a new government to replace it.

That is why, and that is what all this is about.

[folium]

No, not all the population voted, but the majority did, any rational thinking person would know that you would never get a 100% voter turn out.

As for your interpretation of aggression i reiterate there was no violence or bloodshed, unlike what happened for weeks in Kiev by the anti government protesters, now that was plainly visible.

So when Argentina invaded and attempted to annex the Falklands and South Georgia in 1982 this did not constitute an act of aggression as there was little fighting and only 1 confirmed death.

Why did Russia need to deploy its troops across the Crimean peninsula, cutting off access from the north and securing key installations across Crimea? If invading another country with substantial military assets does not count as an act of aggression, heaven knows what makes your definition...!

In retaliation to the revolution in Kiev that overthrew the government of Victor Yanuckovych and the setting up of a new government to replace it.

That is why, and that is what all this is about.

So the usurping of a client regime in Kiev justifies a military intervention and annexation of the sovereign territory of another state....?

[Jingthing]

It does for people who accepted the status quo of Russian control over Ukraine controlled by a massively corrupt Putin Puppet. Remember Putin told Obama Ukraine isn't really a country. That's the common Russian view of Ukraine. I don't blame Ukrainian nationalists for being angry.

Yes I know they've got too many fascists, that and other toxic political manifestations is often a side effect of nationalist movements. I still think they have the right to national self determination without being under Putin's thumb. Doesn't mean I want to move there or am not happy my grandparents ran for their lives!

[folium]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

Glad you used the word "invasion" as that is exactly what has happened in the Crimea.

The boundaries and territorial extent of almost every nation are a function of usually unedifying political/military acts of the past. But that does not give other countries the right to start unpicking and redrawing those boundaries as they see fit.

Not sure where I have exercised double standards in relation to invasion/intervention in other sovereign states. I do take huge notice of the rules myself. Ironically while Russia's Afghan disaster curtailed its foreign interventionism for a while (and helped bring down the Soviet Empire), the West's own disasters in Iraq & Afghan are likely to see far less cavalier adventures for the foreseeable future. Hence the reason why Putin has invaded Crimea now and why the Soviets decided to invade Hungary in 1956 using Suez as cover.

The economic and demographic situation facing Russia is far from rosy and your verdict on the US is probably overstated. The Soviet Empire collapsed fundamentally due to its economy being a classic Potemkin edifice. The situation today is hardly more promising and long term it will need a government less driven by rent-seeking, cronyism and self-serving objectives if Russia is to stand any chance of genuine economic improvement for all its citizens (or even just the majority of them).

Referendums are not the issue. I am all in favour of self determination etc as long as the necessary institutions are in place to ensure that democracy is a whole lot more than just casting a vote. It will be interesting to see what the citizens of Crimea gain and lose by joining Putin's haven of human rights and freedom of expression. Is Russia a democratic country? Does Russia have the institutions and enshrined rights of a democratic government?

"In Russia, a new wave of repressive laws increased the ability of the state to clamp down on critical protest, demonstrations, individuals or organizations. Across the region, states also applied more insidious pressure on their critics: anonymous threats of violence, smear campaigns of drug use, promiscuity, or tax evasion." AI Annual Report 2013

Sorry to return to the geography lesson but you mentioned multiple fronts. Well....

Russia shares land and or sea boundaries with EU/NATO Finland, Norway, Estonia and Latvia, even Denmark via Greenland. The Russian "colony" of Kaliningrad is entirely surrounded by EU/NATO members. Then there are sea boundaries with NATO member Turkey, sea boundaries with NATO member Canada, sea boundaries with NATO member USA (more ex Russian colonies), and sea boundaries plus occupied territories originally belonging to western ally Japan. Heaven's above they are encircled and we are back to the whole containment debate of the Cold War.

Would you be in favour of Norway sending marines into the Orkneys/Shetland islands to annex them and redress the historical error of handing these islands over to Scotland? Should the UK retake and annex the Treaty Ports in the ROI handed over in 1938? Perhaps Germany might like to regain and annex its historical heartland in East Prussia lost in 1945. Perhaps Italy might decide to revive the Roman Empire and annex most of Europe, North Africa and the Near East....

Once players start crossing boundaries in terms of intervention and redrawing boundaries we move into incredibly dangerous territory.

It gives no platform to criticizing one nation if another or others illegally invade a country or if it fabricates a reason to... lets take Iraq as that example. I said at the time this will set precedent for others to do similar in the future and to hell with UN rules. Seems this is so. To throw stones its better not to live in a glass house

Double standards I was referring to to nations not you personally, Come on Crimea was given an opportunity to choose and it did. Now as far as annexing is concerned If Ukraine were to vote to join the EU it could be seen as annexing as well.

Russia of course is very not keen on having Ukraine as part of the EU with Turkey as a possibility on the future it is looking at being surrounded totally on the western borders.

Latvia Estonia Finland Norway are all minor concerns re the landmass border and logistics of defence they are minor ... the Ukraine is not, the Crimea is not and Turkey is not (such is the concern re Georgia ) yes they are surrounded re NATO but they are also part of NATO themselves anyway so its not really an issue.

PS re invasion.

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that ‘16,000 Russian soldiers had been deployed’ across Crimea sparked a feeding frenzy about invasion that steadfastly ignored any hard facts that got in their way.

Unwelcome is the fact that the so-called ‘invasion force’ has been there for 15 years already. Russia has always had a military presence there with consent.People can say how the Republic of Crimea was under a full-scale Russian invasion with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea”, “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”. you would reading that think thats all there is to it, but

Facts, and ardent statements by top Russian diplomats were totally ignored by the western ‘war press’. Which made me curious at the time so off I went and dug around and yes ive checked and it is true.There is in fact a longstanding 25,000 Russian troop allowance caveat in Crimea, airbases too not just naval.

The Russian navy is allowed up to - 25,000 troops, - 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, - 132 armored vehicles, and - 22 military planes, on Crimean territory. Russia has two airbases in Crimea, in Kacha and Gvardeysky.Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines.Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures. source RT for ease but is easily checked and confirmed on other sources as I did a week or so ago.

Of course Russia has the right to fill entirely to its maximum allowance should it choose and it still wouldnt be an actual invasion. so the term invasion is actually dependent on this agreement that does exist.

However i prefer to call a spade a spade and am happy with the term invasion but it was not an invasion the word imply's of blood and violence. Determining boundaries is always fraught with problems and there are many cases of redrawing them, we could go on all day about examples.

​Ukraine has neo nazis in government I would suggest that Putin and Russia is far less a threat to instability in the region than they. The other question id ask is is the EU or the US tolerating these scum for ? much the same as people asked was the US thinking in wanting to back terrorist factions and unsavoury groups in the Syria crisis ? they still are btw.

You seem to be missing the point here...

Invading another country whether it be Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Afghan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Georgia, is one thing and Iraq hardly set the precedent for such actions. They have a regrettably far longer pedigree. What makes Russia's invasion of Ukraine/Crimea different is that its intent was quite simple. Namely that of annexing a piece of sovereign territory (and acknowledged as Ukrainian territory by Russia's signature of the Budapest Memorandum and which also pledged Russia to preserving Ukraine's territorial integrity).

The NATO and Russian intervention in Kosovo had no intent of annexation (though the Russians were initially attempting an ethnic partition along the lines of Bosnia Srbska), nor did the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even the Russian invasion/intervention in Abkhazia and S.Ossetia did not result in annexation, "merely" recognition of self-proclaimed independent states plus de facto military/political control of two pieces of Georgian territory. Similarly Nagorno-Karabakh has never been formally annexed by Armenia despite its triumph in the 1991-94 conflict in a situation somewhat similar to that of Crimea. Israel has not annexed the West Bank while it has annexed the Golan Heights (Syrian sovereign territory). The last major piece of annexation by Russia was in 1940, when they carved up Poland with the Nazis as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to create western extensions to the Ukraine and Byelorussia SSRs. They also annexed Romanian Bukovina to create the Moldavian SSR just for good measure. Ironically while many ethnically Ukrainian residents of these areas initially celebrated the arrival of the Soviets this soon soured and many of the same people ended up fighting both Russian and Nazi forces attempting to crush any form of local self-determination. Funny how things pan out.

Your facts and figures re permitted Russian force levels in the Crimea are quite correct but the conclusion is wide of the mark. While actual sovereign territory rather than leased bases, the British Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus provide an illuminating analogy. British forces are based on Cyprus and have the right of transit between the various base areas and installations. However if those troops were to move off the base areas and surround the parliament building in Nicosia, the international airports at Larnaca and Paphos, to blockade the port at Limassol and to invest all Greek Cypriot military installations across the Republic, that would be correctly termed an invasion.

This is exactly what Putin has done in Crimea, and by then annexing the occupied territory has set a hideously dangerous precedent.

Many people resent American primacy and Western moralising, but is what Putin has to offer a better path?

If might is right and the application of power is tolerated where does it end? Unilateral secession and annexations would create hideous conflicts around the world from S. Asia to the Middle East to Africa. The Biafra War in the late 1960's and the images it created is scarred onto my consciousness.

The pre Crimea world order was imperfect and far from ideal but it functioned with international agreements and borders largely respected. This action by Moscow is a major threat to global stability if borders are ignored and agreements broken at the whim of agenda-driven autocrats.

[whoisyourdaddy]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

Glad you used the word "invasion" as that is exactly what has happened in the Crimea.

The boundaries and territorial extent of almost every nation are a function of usually unedifying political/military acts of the past. But that does not give other countries the right to start unpicking and redrawing those boundaries as they see fit.

Not sure where I have exercised double standards in relation to invasion/intervention in other sovereign states. I do take huge notice of the rules myself. Ironically while Russia's Afghan disaster curtailed its foreign interventionism for a while (and helped bring down the Soviet Empire), the West's own disasters in Iraq & Afghan are likely to see far less cavalier adventures for the foreseeable future. Hence the reason why Putin has invaded Crimea now and why the Soviets decided to invade Hungary in 1956 using Suez as cover.

The economic and demographic situation facing Russia is far from rosy and your verdict on the US is probably overstated. The Soviet Empire collapsed fundamentally due to its economy being a classic Potemkin edifice. The situation today is hardly more promising and long term it will need a government less driven by rent-seeking, cronyism and self-serving objectives if Russia is to stand any chance of genuine economic improvement for all its citizens (or even just the majority of them).

Referendums are not the issue. I am all in favour of self determination etc as long as the necessary institutions are in place to ensure that democracy is a whole lot more than just casting a vote. It will be interesting to see what the citizens of Crimea gain and lose by joining Putin's haven of human rights and freedom of expression. Is Russia a democratic country? Does Russia have the institutions and enshrined rights of a democratic government?

"In Russia, a new wave of repressive laws increased the ability of the state to clamp down on critical protest, demonstrations, individuals or organizations. Across the region, states also applied more insidious pressure on their critics: anonymous threats of violence, smear campaigns of drug use, promiscuity, or tax evasion." AI Annual Report 2013

Sorry to return to the geography lesson but you mentioned multiple fronts. Well....

Russia shares land and or sea boundaries with EU/NATO Finland, Norway, Estonia and Latvia, even Denmark via Greenland. The Russian "colony" of Kaliningrad is entirely surrounded by EU/NATO members. Then there are sea boundaries with NATO member Turkey, sea boundaries with NATO member Canada, sea boundaries with NATO member USA (more ex Russian colonies), and sea boundaries plus occupied territories originally belonging to western ally Japan. Heaven's above they are encircled and we are back to the whole containment debate of the Cold War.

Would you be in favour of Norway sending marines into the Orkneys/Shetland islands to annex them and redress the historical error of handing these islands over to Scotland? Should the UK retake and annex the Treaty Ports in the ROI handed over in 1938? Perhaps Germany might like to regain and annex its historical heartland in East Prussia lost in 1945. Perhaps Italy might decide to revive the Roman Empire and annex most of Europe, North Africa and the Near East....

Once players start crossing boundaries in terms of intervention and redrawing boundaries we move into incredibly dangerous territory.

It gives no platform to criticizing one nation if another or others illegally invade a country or if it fabricates a reason to... lets take Iraq as that example. I said at the time this will set precedent for others to do similar in the future and to hell with UN rules. Seems this is so. To throw stones its better not to live in a glass house

Double standards I was referring to to nations not you personally, Come on Crimea was given an opportunity to choose and it did. Now as far as annexing is concerned If Ukraine were to vote to join the EU it could be seen as annexing as well.

Russia of course is very not keen on having Ukraine as part of the EU with Turkey as a possibility on the future it is looking at being surrounded totally on the western borders.

Latvia Estonia Finland Norway are all minor concerns re the landmass border and logistics of defence they are minor ... the Ukraine is not, the Crimea is not and Turkey is not (such is the concern re Georgia ) yes they are surrounded re NATO but they are also part of NATO themselves anyway so its not really an issue.

PS re invasion.

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that ‘16,000 Russian soldiers had been deployed’ across Crimea sparked a feeding frenzy about invasion that steadfastly ignored any hard facts that got in their way.

Unwelcome is the fact that the so-called ‘invasion force’ has been there for 15 years already. Russia has always had a military presence there with consent.People can say how the Republic of Crimea was under a full-scale Russian invasion with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea”, “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”. you would reading that think thats all there is to it, but

Facts, and ardent statements by top Russian diplomats were totally ignored by the western ‘war press’. Which made me curious at the time so off I went and dug around and yes ive checked and it is true.There is in fact a longstanding 25,000 Russian troop allowance caveat in Crimea, airbases too not just naval.

The Russian navy is allowed up to - 25,000 troops, - 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, - 132 armored vehicles, and - 22 military planes, on Crimean territory. Russia has two airbases in Crimea, in Kacha and Gvardeysky.Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines.Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures. source RT for ease but is easily checked and confirmed on other sources as I did a week or so ago.

Of course Russia has the right to fill entirely to its maximum allowance should it choose and it still wouldnt be an actual invasion. so the term invasion is actually dependent on this agreement that does exist.

However i prefer to call a spade a spade and am happy with the term invasion but it was not an invasion the word imply's of blood and violence. Determining boundaries is always fraught with problems and there are many cases of redrawing them, we could go on all day about examples.

​Ukraine has neo nazis in government I would suggest that Putin and Russia is far less a threat to instability in the region than they. The other question id ask is is the EU or the US tolerating these scum for ? much the same as people asked was the US thinking in wanting to back terrorist factions and unsavoury groups in the Syria crisis ? they still are btw.

You seem to be missing the point here...

Invading another country whether it be Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Afghan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Georgia, is one thing and Iraq hardly set the precedent for such actions. They have a regrettably far longer pedigree. What makes Russia's invasion of Ukraine/Crimea different is that its intent was quite simple. Namely that of annexing a piece of sovereign territory (and acknowledged as Ukrainian territory by Russia's signature of the Budapest Memorandum and which also pledged Russia to preserving Ukraine's territorial integrity).

The NATO and Russian intervention in Kosovo had no intent of annexation (though the Russians were initially attempting an ethnic partition along the lines of Bosnia Srbska), nor did the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even the Russian invasion/intervention in Abkhazia and S.Ossetia did not result in annexation, "merely" recognition of self-proclaimed independent states plus de facto military/political control of two pieces of Georgian territory. Similarly Nagorno-Karabakh has never been formally annexed by Armenia despite its triumph in the 1991-94 conflict in a situation somewhat similar to that of Crimea. Israel has not annexed the West Bank while it has annexed the Golan Heights (Syrian sovereign territory). The last major piece of annexation by Russia was in 1940, when they carved up Poland with the Nazis as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to create western extensions to the Ukraine and Byelorussia SSRs. They also annexed Romanian Bukovina to create the Moldavian SSR just for good measure. Ironically while many ethnically Ukrainian residents of these areas initially celebrated the arrival of the Soviets this soon soured and many of the same people ended up fighting both Russian and Nazi forces attempting to crush any form of local self-determination. Funny how things pan out.

Your facts and figures re permitted Russian force levels in the Crimea are quite correct but the conclusion is wide of the mark. While actual sovereign territory rather than leased bases, the British Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus provide an illuminating analogy. British forces are based on Cyprus and have the right of transit between the various base areas and installations. However if those troops were to move off the base areas and surround the parliament building in Nicosia, the international airports at Larnaca and Paphos, to blockade the port at Limassol and to invest all Greek Cypriot military installations across the Republic, that would be correctly termed an invasion.

This is exactly what Putin has done in Crimea, and by then annexing the occupied territory has set a hideously dangerous precedent.

Many people resent American primacy and Western moralising, but is what Putin has to offer a better path?

If might is right and the application of power is tolerated where does it end? Unilateral secession and annexations would create hideous conflicts around the world from S. Asia to the Middle East to Africa. The Biafra War in the late 1960's and the images it created is scarred onto my consciousness.

The pre Crimea world order was imperfect and far from ideal but it functioned with international agreements and borders largely respected. This action by Moscow is a major threat to global stability if borders are ignored and agreements broken at the whim of agenda-driven autocrats.

To be precise this was not and is not an invasion but infiltration and the smoothest one at that.

The takeover of Crimea has been completely different. This was an infiltration, not an invasion. And unlike in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan it was welcomed by a large proportion of the local population.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26644082

[Jingthing]

Sure thing , Buddy, from your link:

The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.

Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland was also not an invasion, right?

[whoisyourdaddy]

Sure thing , Buddy, from your link:

The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.

Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland was also not an invasion, right?

Selective reading as usual buddy?

From the same link:

In modern times, Moscow has staged three major invasions: Hungary in November 1956 and Czechoslovakia in August 1968, when the Communist governments there began showing dangerously Western tendencies; and Afghanistan in December 1979, when the pro-Communist regime was on the point of collapse.

These were huge and brutal operations, involving large numbers of tanks, and sometimes great bloodshed.

The takeover of Crimea has been completely different. This was an infiltration, not an invasion. And unlike in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan it was welcomed by a large proportion of the local population.

[folium]

Sure thing , Buddy, from your link:

The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.

Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland was also not an invasion, right?

Selective reading as usual buddy?

From the same link:

In modern times, Moscow has staged three major invasions: Hungary in November 1956 and Czechoslovakia in August 1968, when the Communist governments there began showing dangerously Western tendencies; and Afghanistan in December 1979, when the pro-Communist regime was on the point of collapse.

These were huge and brutal operations, involving large numbers of tanks, and sometimes great bloodshed.

The takeover of Crimea has been completely different. This was an infiltration, not an invasion. And unlike in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan it was welcomed by a large proportion of the local population.

You could compare Putin's annexation of Crimea with the 1938 Anschluss of Austria as there are many similarities....Let's hope the outcome is not so similar.

Intervention/infiltration/invasion...really just semantics and a smokescreen to cover over the simple fact that Putin has ripped up the existing world order and annexed another country's territory. Where next Vladimir?

[Jingthing]

In any case, the 95.5 percent figure is wildly misleading.

What would have been results with a reasonably civilized campaign and keeping with Ukraine options?

I guess around 70 percent.

That still leaves a lot of people VERY FREAKED OUT and many in real danger now.

The big question now is does Putin stop at Crimea. The world and Ukraine will adjust to the change in Crimea but what happens next may prove more problematical.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/03/ukraine_and_crimea_russia_is_an_anti_western_power_with_a_dark_vision_of.html

...
But because Crimea is so close to Europe, and because Putin’s new ethnic-nationalist language contains so many echoes of Europe’s bloody past, the Crimean invasion might have a bigger effect on the West than even he intended. In many European capitals, the Crimean events have been a real jolt. For the first time, many are beginning to understand that the narrative is wrong: Russia is not a flawed Western power. Russia is an anti-Western power with a different, darker vision of global politics. The sanctions lists published in Europe this week were laughably short, but the fact that they appeared at all reflects this sea change. For 20 years, nobody has thought about how to “contain” Russia. Now they will.
...


All of this will take time, and for some it may be too late. In Kiev, Ukraine, last week, I met young Ukrainians who were heartbreakingly enthusiastic about the idea that they might, someday, live in a different kind of country. I didn’t have the heart to tell them that I didn’t know if they ever would.