Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Gocka

I know Tom, only you live in reality.

You should have a careful think about some of your comments and consider whether or not they are as hypothetical as you make them out to be. Particularly the one in relation to Macedonia. Maybe the year 2001 might ring a bell.

You could perhaps also consider what it actually means to have an independent country, in particular, what the cost of having one is and what the cost of not having one is. Then maybe have a think about what one should avoid doing if they were to determine that the cost of having an independent country is too high and a decision is made to abort such a costly experiment.

Then we can measure to what extent both of us live in reality.

[Vangelovski]

Russia is making preparations to enter Eastern Ukraine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/wo...aine.html?_r=0

[Vangelovski]

Looks like Ukraine's leaders suffer from the same disease as Macedonia's: delusional optimism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/wo...kraine-crisis/

[vicsinad]

One Ukrainian soldier killed, another wounded, and others placed under arrest in Crimea...Ukraine authorizes its military to use force to protect themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/18/world/...html?hpt=hp_c2

[George S.]

Russia signs treaty & annexes the crimea.

[Vangelovski]

The take on Crimea by a Russia analyst from the ANU:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comm...316-34v8n.html

[Risto the Great]

From the above link:

These interests are two-fold and apply to all former Soviet republics: the preclusion of NATO's eastward expansion, and the protection of the well-being of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. Both have been articulated clearly and consistently by the Kremlin since 2000. The legality or morality of these interests may be questioned, just like the US concepts of pre-emptive war or expediting Jeffersonian democracy via regime change, but they are good predictors of Moscow's behaviour.

This is not necessarily the will of the people we are talking about here. It is very much about spheres of influence. Democracy plays a part in it, but surely we can all see an opportunists goldmine here.

[George S.]

what Russia did is highly illegal againsn't un charter etc,Russia did not respect un law on crimia.Use of armed forces, etc

[Risto the Great]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
(Churchill)

I like it. Seems relevant.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by vicsinad

Ukraine authorizes its military to use force to protect themselves.

Russian forces are storming Ukrainian military locations in Crimea and meeting little resistance from Ukrainian soldiers. It almost seems as though the Ukrainians fear the reaction of Russia if they do react.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226862900156

Ukraine's acting defence minister Igor Tenyukh yesterday lamented that his navy officers appeared too ready to surrender to Kremlin-backed militias and Russia's Black Sea Fleet that has made Crimea its home since the 18th century. “You know that in recent days, we have had our ships blockaded and seized even though our commanders had the authorisation to use force,” Mr Tenyukh told reporters in Kiev. “Unfortunately, the commanders made decisions on the spot. They chose not to use their weapons in order to avoid bloodshed.” The Ukrainians' refusal to engage Russian forces has led to a domino-like fall of their bases across the rugged peninsula of two million people.

Crimea appears all but lost. Perhaps they will have more resolve if the Russians begin to assert themselves in eastern Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

I like it. Seems relevant.

The notion of 'democracy' does not exactly gel with "internationally recognised" borders, as the case of Crimea has demonstrated. It also means that if 9 out of 10 voters are idiots, then idiocy prevails.