How should we act on Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

[Deleted]

The thing is that Russia have its military force in Ukraine legitimately since god knows when. In exchange they utilized for tens of years our oil/gas with very high discount. BTW one of those "protest leaders" Timoshenko was convicted for signing such contracts with Russia, yeah.

Restricted movement the legitimacy is bound to conditions if those are broken the legitimacy is void like marching into goverment institutions.

They got Oil/Gas discounts because they can blackmail Russia as long as there are no alternative transit countrys.....
The ukraine will have a hard Time shortterm it will benefit from staying with Russia the most long and midterm its selfdefeating.

Diten we see stuff like this in about 1936... hope the world is going to stop it quick..

Chamberlainbama.

Totally different scenario. The comparsion is headache inducing ridicilous if you start to look at the given facts.

[Souther]

I hope Russia just manages to get away all the russian people away from Crimea and then we leave. Ukraine can be left alone, its just the russian people in the region that matter. Many of my relatives are there at the moment, living in fear of the current illegitimate power. The people who are sitting in the government at the moment are fascists and radicals.

I also hope USA and EU will stay away from Ukraine with their promotion of "stability" and hypocrisy of the kind. It has led to nothing good before.

[Zecora]

What the reaction should be depends on the actions of Russia. I can sympathise with them wanting to look after the Russians in Ukraine, and if they merely want to extract them to Russia, well and good. If they decide to take part of, or the whole of Ukraine and keep it, that will be something that has to trigger a response beyond "we are disappointed" from the rest of the world.

[Mongoose19]

I voted do nothing. Ukranian chicks are f*cking gorgeous, so if they all have to come to Canada as refugees and need well-to-do husbands to start a new life hey, who am I to argue?

I guess you wouldn't be so happy if it was men coming over wouldn't you.

[Deleted]

I hope Russia just manages to get away all the russian people away from Crimea and then we leave. Ukraine can be left alone, its just the russian people in the region that matter. Many of my relatives are there at the moment, living in fear of the current illegitimate power. The people who are sitting in the government at the moment are fascists and radicals.

I also hope USA and EU will stay away from Ukraine with their promotion of "stability" and hypocrisy of the kind. It has led to nothing good before.

Just checked, there are 3 people from Svoboda in the current government. The prime minister is from Batkivshchyna, some more are from this or other parties and the majority of ministers has no party...

Russia broke international agreement, doesn't matter why, it should be punished, world should show that one can't just break international law/agreements without consequences.

[Deleted]

A lot of unnecessary drama in here.

The situation from Russia's perspective:

Primarily Russia is securing the future of the Black Sea Fleet, in case the Ukrainian hardline Nationalists decide to break the treaty and take the Russian naval bases in Crimea. Base reinforcement was a preventative measure to nip any such action in the bud. Had Putin not done so and if the new Ukrainian government was foolish enough to take it by force (as some were suggesting) then there would have been an unavoidable war. Russia NEEDS warm water ports in Europe, this has been the the historical catalyst for over a dozen wars for Russia, under no circumstances will they give up their naval bases in Crimea. A show of strength is intended to show their commitment to keeping those bases. That is the bottom line of this situation, the ports must stay at all costs.

Naturally Russia is not happy with the turnout of the Ukrainian revolution. The way it sees it, a violent nationalist opposition overthrew the pro-Russian majority elected President of their close neighbor and ally. As a result a significant (ethnically and politically Russian) segment of the Ukrainian population now finds itself without due representation in government. In response Crimea, a historically and ethnically Russian region, declared autonomy from the "usurper" government in Kiev. A new government that through both action and rhetoric has shown that it is both volatile and not opposed to using violence to silence its pro-Russian opposition, something that they themselves condemned when it suited them. The Crimean administration has requested Russian troops stationed in Ukraine for protection from an otherwise likely attempts by the Kiev government to violently put down the Crimean revolt until the situation stabilizes.

Now this is where the situation could have got messy. A pro-Russian"wannabe" breakaway state (at least on paper), with a majority ethnically Russian populace, being threatened with violence right on Russia's own doorstep. The situation is starting to mirror the lead up to the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. However Russia has learned from that conflict and has altered their preventative doctrine accordingly. Instead of waiting for Ukraine to attack Crimea and then inevitably counterattacking, Russia laid out its cards on the table by deploying their forces within and outside of Ukrain. Through doing so they hope to cower the Ukrainian government into inaction and avoiding war in the process.

Neither side wants a war. The only way it could happen is through rash and foolish action undertaken by volatile elements in an attempt to get an easy win where there is none. In 2008 South Ossetia looked like an "easy win" for Georgia and many paid dearly for that illusion. If prior to troop mobilization Sevastopol and other Crimean bases looked "easy" then now they most certainly do not. Using Russian troops for protection of key points of infrastructure such as the Simferopol airport only strengthens their ability to protect the interests of Russia and the Crimean people.

Russia is being very cautious in how it chooses to proceed. So far Russia is following the existing treaties to the letter. No breach of any kind has so far taken place, despite all the media sensationalism. Note that pre-Duma approval, the troops defending the Simferopol airport intentionally don't have magazines in their rifles and no armour has been deployed, their presence around the airport in the current manner does not legally constitute an act of aggression or occupation. They are legally there as an informal peace keeping force. Russian troops are present around the airport, but officially they are not the ones controlling it, the Crimeans are running the show, at least on paper. The Russian troops are currently there in a role of an enabling shield, not a sword. Russian bases have been reinforced within the levels permitted by the 1994 treaty and their troop movements both within and outside of Ukraine are legally in the clear. Russia is taking every step to ensure that they are toeing the line of international laws and treaties.

Although Putin has obtained Duma's approval to deploy troops in Ukraine, so far it is held as a chip to strengthen the Russian position. A chip that has not been cashed in. Doing so without Ukrainian provocation would undermine the Russian position. Russia already has over 20,000 troops legally present within Ukraine. Double the force that was used to defeat Georgia.

In essence this tells us several things about Russian intention:

1) Such caution is not indicative of a country that set out to illegally annex Ukraine. Even without warnings from Western Powers such action would have made no sense for Russia.

2) Russia aims to remove Ukraine's ability to silence the Crimean opposition by force, by legally deploying troops around key Crimean access points and reinforcing their bases Russia is placing their own forces as a buffer between the pro-Russian Crimean opposition and potential use of Ukrainian forces to regain control of Crimea. A Russian show of strength on Ukrainian border is meant to signal to Ukraine that trying to force Russia out of Crimea will have serious consequences. The potential for Russia to instantly pour pre-approved troops into Ukraine further leverages Kiev away from seeking a military resolution.

3) Without the option to use force Ukraine will have to rely solely diplomatic means in order to negotiate with the Crimean opposition. This is greatly advantageous to Russia, the heavy pro-Russian sentiment of the population forms a Win-Win-Win scenario with the following outcomes:

WIN 1: Russia get to use its political leverage over Crimea to ensure that the Black Sea Fleet stays in Crimea in return for facilitating the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.

+

WIN 2: In doing so Crimean and other pro-Russian views will have to be represented within the new government, thus Russia regains a portion of its political influence in Ukraine.

or

Win 3: Crimea agrees to split away from Ukraine following the March referendum, joining Russia as a fully or semi-autonomous region.

Russia has its foot in the door, thus Ukraine is forced to respect the rights of the Crimean people. The only way Russia loses out is if Ukraine attacks, in that event everyone loses. Russia has been trying to prevent that from happening by flexing muscles to show that any such attack would be suicide.

tl,dr: Russia wants to keep the naval bases in Ukraine as the bottom line, protect the ethnic Russian population and to force the Ukrainian government to seek diplomatic solution in regard to Crimea. Through doing so they either regain some of their political influence within the new Ukrainian government or gain control of Crimea outright. All without firing a single shot.

[Ravenblade]

I am not supporting military intervention as first response which would be too slow, ineffective and potentially collaterally damaging anyway. I believe the moment the Ukraine fires the first shot Russia will waste no time to create facts, and sooner than later we will have a 2nd Georgia at hand. There are other things we can do. If Russia sticks with its claim to Crimea - let's be honest, if you're tearing the masks of it's exactly that - then only thing you have to worry about is whether Putin will listen to the irredentist hardliners asking for even more.

[Cien]

It's kinda funny when seeing maps of how Ukraine is divided pro-west / pro-russia, and that the most support for Russia is focused where the Russian naval base is

I bet if anything, it's more the case that Russia is happy to let Ukraine and Crimea let it roll, but you touch our naval base in Sevastopol, ZOMG HELLZ TO PAY. And obviously Putin is 'looking out' for the Russian ethnics of course. You know, Governments always looking out for it's people, without any possible background political / economic gains.

How should we react though? Well, it depends on the situation, if Ukraine wants and needs western support as they feel that their society is threatened then by all means we should help, but in accepting that help there's always a cost, and im sure no matter what happens and no matter what resolution is reached, Ukraine is going to emerge economically ruined and needing lots and lots of western loans to support them again. Personally i'm all for supporting damsels in distress, but with current domestic issues in the U.K and with huge pressure to slash foreign aid budgets as it is, I can't see many Brits being too happy if they are involved in an economic bail out for Ukraine.

Decisions decisions! Im glad im not the one making them Westminster, Washington, Moscow & Brussels, eat yer hearts out!

[May90]

Putin is a former KGB agent, the organisation that never cared about anything other than controlling and using other people. Why are Western leaders even trying to reason with him? He is no better than Kim Jung Il or Robert Mugabe. Accept it, damn it, say out loud that Putin is a dictator and that you won't negotiate with him under any circumstances, and that any aggression will lead to NATO's military actions - he doesn't understand any language other than the one of fist and pistol.

But, no, Russia has gas and oil. Just like with Saudi Arabia where King has 100% power constitutionally, people get their hands cut off for saying that the king is not divine in the Internet, women are not allowed to drive and to walk on the streets without agreement of their husbands - but Western countries ignore Saudi Arabia because it sells so much oil.

I wish new sources of energy will become widespread soon, and Russia's and alike's resources won't matter any more - then, maybe, all these African dictatorships will collapse and people will stop living in conditions not suitable even for stock.

P.S. I myself am originally from Russia, and it disgusts me what is going on in that country and how the entire world pointedly ignores it, changing to tiny criticism when something nasty happens. I bet, if, say, Zimbabwe invaded Zambia, the reaction would be different.

[Deleted]

It's kinda funny when seeing maps of how Ukraine is divided pro-west / pro-russia, and that the most support for Russia is focused where the Russian naval base is

I bet if anything, it's more the case that Russia is happy to let Ukraine and Crimea let it roll, but you touch our naval base in Sevastopol, ZOMG HELLZ TO PAY. And obviously Putin is 'looking out' for the Russian ethnics of course. You know, Governments always looking out for it's people, without any possible background political / economic gains.

How should we react though? Well, it depends on the situation, if Ukraine wants and needs western support as they feel that their society is threatened then by all means we should help, but in accepting that help there's always a cost, and im sure no matter what happens and no matter what resolution is reached, Ukraine is going to emerge economically ruined and needing lots and lots of western loans to support them again. Personally i'm all for supporting damsels in distress, but with current domestic issues in the U.K and with huge pressure to slash foreign aid budgets as it is, I can't see many Brits being too happy if they are involved in an economic bail out for Ukraine.

Decisions decisions! Im glad im not the one making them Westminster, Washington, Moscow & Brussels, eat yer hearts out!

With the Ukraine wanting to join the EU any negative affect on their current economic status will have massive repercussions across the EU region. The last thing the EU needs having finally started to climb out of its sees pit is another unstable economy to bail out and plunge it back in. It could be the straw that broke the camels back.
Idont think the current interim PM did himself any favours claiming the Crimean govnt was illegal and not recognising it. Sounds like throwing petrol on an already burning fire

- - - Updated - - -

Putin is a former KGB agent, the organisation that never cared about anything other than controlling and using other people. Why are Western leaders even trying to reason with him? He is no better than Kim Jung Il or Robert Mugabe. Accept it, damn it, say out loud that Putin is a dictator and that you won't negotiate with him under any circumstances, and that any aggression will lead to NATO's military actions - he doesn't understand any language other than the one of fist and pistol.

But, no, Russia has gas and oil. Just like with Saudi Arabia where King has 100% power constitutionally, people get their hands cut off for saying that the king is not divine in the Internet, women are not allowed to drive and to walk on the streets without agreement of their husbands - but Western countries ignore Saudi Arabia because it sells so much oil.

I wish new sources of energy will become widespread soon, and Russia's and alike's resources won't matter any more - then, maybe, all these African dictatorships will collapse and people will stop living in conditions not suitable even for stock.

P.S. I myself am originally from Russia, and it disgusts me what is going on in that country and how the entire world pointedly ignores it, changing to tiny criticism when something nasty happens. I bet, if, say, Zimbabwe invaded Zambia, the reaction would be different.

Russia hasn't invaded anyone though. So your whole argument falls down. Also you cannot claim a democratically elected president is a dictator just because you don't like him. He ultimatly didnt make the decision. he made the request and as far as ive read the russian parliment approved the measures which as of yet have not been used

[Cien]

With the Ukraine wanting to join the EU any negative affect on their current economic status will have massive repercussions across the EU region. The last thing the EU needs having finally started to climb out of its sees pit is another unstable economy to bail out and plunge it back in. It could be the straw that broke the camels back.
Idont think the current interim PM did himself any favours claiming the Crimean govnt was illegal and not recognising it. Sounds like throwing petrol on an already burning fire

Have to agree with this, as arsey as it sounds I am glad that the UK will be voting in or out of the EU soon, although it is good to stick together, sometimes things just fail so often and so badly that its neccessary to just go it alone

[Deleted]

Have to agree with this, as arsey as it sounds I am glad that the UK will be voting in or out of the EU soon, although it is good to stick together, sometimes things just fail so often and so badly that its necessary to just go it alone

I don't particularly think we will be better out the EU. We should move back to the initial agreement which was a free trade agreement. Part of the problems we have is due to immigration levels. And without pointing any fingers we have a huge area that can move and work here unchecked. Now that's fine. but we are an island of finite space and resources. Our systems just cant cope at present which is part of the reason for private companies being allowed to run areas of the NHS as it just cant take the financial strain. Same with our overall budget. when >30% of it is spent on welfare and benefits you have a major problem

[Cien]

I don't particularly think we will be better out the EU. We should move back to the initial agreement which was a free trade agreement. Part of the problems we have is due to immigration levels. And without pointing any fingers we have a huge area that can move and work here unchecked. Now that's fine. but we are an island of finite space and resources. Our systems just cant cope at present which is part of the reason for private companies being allowed to run areas of the NHS as it just cant take the financial strain. Same with our overall budget. when >30% of it is spent on welfare and benefits you have a major problem

That is one view, and I guess it's true, however the cost of being a member of the EU is something astronomical, I can't remember where I saw it, but im pretty sure per annum it costs us like billions of ££££££, and probably after a few years of saving that money and redirecting it to areas we need it in, food banks, welfare, NHS etc etc etc, im not expert, but im pretty sure we could be better off, especially since we'd be able to decide our own immigration policies

[Deleted]

Have to agree with this, as arsey as it sounds I am glad that the UK will be voting in or out of the EU soon, although it is good to stick together, sometimes things just fail so often and so badly that its neccessary to just go it alone

Sadly most of the people doesn't see the major advantages of being in EU - Schengen, free trade or common law. Leaving Eu is bad idea, one will get nothing but economic problems and losing meaning in the world. Don't cheat yourself, soon no lone country in Europe will be match for India, China, Russia or USA. European inetrgation is only way for Europe to be meaningful in the future.

[Deleted]

As Europe we should stay as far away from previous USSR states as we can , there is nothing to win there.
To bad our crappy unelected EU 'masters' see it differently and like to stir the pot in those countries .....

Sadly most of the people doesn't see the major advantages of being in EU - Schengen, free trade or common law. Leaving Eu is bad idea, one will get nothing but economic problems and losing meaning in the world. Don't cheat yourself, soon no lone country in Europe will be match for India, China, Russia or USA. European inetrgation is only way for Europe to be meaningful in the future.

So what was the problem with the EEC than ? which addressed all those 'issues'. No one is arguing against those things , the problem is the political EU and the transfer of power of sovereign states to an unelected EU , that is no integration , that is assimilation which is the part most if not all people have a problem with, i got no problems with working together as Europe but i do with the political EU trying to take over legislation where they have no right to do so.

[Deleted]

As Europe we should stay as far away from previous USSR states as we can , there is nothing to win there.

Are your aware that 3 of those states are currently NATO and EU members as well as some more countries, which were before under USSR influenace?

[Deleted]

That is one view, and I guess it's true, however the cost of being a member of the EU is something astronomical, I can't remember where I saw it, but im pretty sure per annum it costs us like billions of ££££££, and probably after a few years of saving that money and redirecting it to areas we need it in, food banks, welfare, NHS etc etc etc, im not expert, but im pretty sure we could be better off, especially since we'd be able to decide our own immigration policies

We are a net contributor to the EU but that doesnt bother me. If we could regain border control and limit immigration to get our population and resources sorted that would suit me. What i am 100% opposed to is this United states of Europe that a senior Eurocrat was bleating on about. That is a sure fire way to guarantee a UK break away. Which would spell disaster for the EU right now. Merkel knows that Germany cant do it alone. They do need us there atm.

Sadly most of the people doesn't see the major advantages of being in EU - Schengen, free trade or common law. Leaving Eu is bad idea, one will get nothing but economic problems and losing meaning in the world. Don't cheat yourself, soon no lone country in Europe will be match for India, China, Russia or USA. European inetrgation is only way for Europe to be meaningful in the future.

I dont think anyone would argue against that. A lot of the animosity comes across mainly from the one issue of immigration. UK net immigration form all sources rose by 58,000 last year. Even if we ignore stuff like benefits, NHS ect effects, the simple fact atm is we don't even have enough property in this country to house the current population.

The govnt target of <100k net immigration for me is a good target. you will still get the high skilled workers you need (and ofc can move that number if you need more) whilst being able to adequately manage your resources and population to suit rising demand.
The UK is starved for workers in certain industries and i think if we can negotiate to bring that into the game then we will be fine. People have nothing against hard working people but the issue atm is unrestricted entry of "low skilled" workers which does have an overall negative impact. Such as youth unemployment levels ect.

A similar system to OZ would work nicely. You can move here to work if you are in x,y,z skill set ect

[Schuetze]

As Europe we should stay as far away from previous USSR states as we can , there is nothing to win there.

If we do that we will one day wake up with Russia on our doorstep.

Don't fool yourself, Europe will never truly be peaceful. We live in a barrel of gunpowder ready to explode, it just needs a spark and this situation in the Ukraine might turn into that spark.

Europe should really spend more money on their own defense. I hope this opens the eyes to many people that think that we live in some sort of "war free utopia".

[Collegeguy]

So where is the horribly written research paper that blames all the woes of Crimea-russians on coporate America?

I know its out there somewhere or will be soon with a RT stamp on it.

[Deleted]

If we do that we will one day wake up with Russia on our doorstep.

Don't fool yourself, Europe will never truly be peaceful. We live in a barrel of gunpowder ready to explode, it just needs a spark and this situation in the Ukraine might turn into that spark.

Europe should really spend more money on their own defense. I hope this opens the eyes to many people that think that we live in some sort of "war free utopia".

Little fact.. No democratic nation has ever gone to full scale warfare with another. Hell even to a declaration of war with another. Politicians are not stupid. They will not risk an all out world war over "trivial" things.

n.b. Im not calling the issue trivial but in the scope of you claiming mass warfare from it. its not going to happen. The issue is not nearly important enough to spark war