Ray Jay wrote:Based on the ethnicity and loyalty of the population, it seems like Ukraine is really 2 different countries and should be split up. The Crimea and east is primarily ethnically Russian whereas western Ukraine is filled with Ukrainians. It seems like Czechoslovakia (or Austria-Hungary for those of you whose geography is based on the Diplomacy board). I think you would maximize the population happiness by splitting the country in 2. However, western Ukraine has no desire to give up the Crimea, and these split ups always create new headaches for the minorities within the minority regions.

All correct.

My main point is that Russia is not contributing to a solution by sending in troops. It would seem some kind of "federation" with an east/west divide could be a temporary solution. Maybe the Crimea and east eventually join Russia.

Russia is going to flex its muscle and Europe and Obama are going to flex their vocal chords. I have no idea what is going to happen next.

There are clever and meaningful ways for a President of the United States and his Secretary of State to speak. So far, they've not found those ways.

Note well: in spite of the caricature presented of my views by Danivon, I'm not proposing troops. I'm not proposing war. I am proposing Obama act and speak like the US has something unique to offer. This is the time for clarity of thought, moral forcefulness, and clever international maneuvering. Kerry has shown none of that and I don't think he has that capacity. Thus far, neither has the President.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Stop waiving your Pom-proms and display some objectivity

Really? You're calling for objectivity? Really?

Yes, I think even those who like President Obama should be able to see he was caught flat-footed again. That's not difficult to see.

The Crimea is already an autonomous oblast within The Ukraine.
And as the history lesson shows was arbitrarily put into the Ukraine by Stalin...

The people of The Ukraine outside of the Crimea won't particularly mind when the Crimea leaves to become part of Russia. The question is whether or not Putin will stop there. If the annexation of South Ossetia provides a road map, he probably will. The similarities of the two situations are numerous. Including the nonsense about the West intervening effectively.

The other similarity yet to unfold is that years after South Ossetia was forcibly reunited with North Ossetia, there have been no repercussions. Georgia gets along fine without the formerly semi-autonomous region. And the Ossetians are a reunited ethnic group. I doubt that Putin will move on Ukraine proper....
But not because of anything the West would do. Simply because he doesn't see the Ukraine proper as Russia. And he doesn't have a popular base of support asking for reunification with Russia as he had overwhelmingly in Ossetia and has at least a majority in the Crimea. (If one can count on the results of previous elections as predictive of how a referendum might go. And I think because it can we should expect a referendum in a few months.)
Fate, if the majority of Crimeans vote to join Russia what should the West do?

Would sanctions work against Russia?

Firstly it is part of a large trading bloc based on the former Soviet states and also has links with other countries in Asia. Significantly China, who frankly are not going to care what we think.

Secondly, the EU imports about a third of it's oil requirements (and gas requirements) from Russia. This Wikipedia page has figures from 2007 (so it may have changed, but it won't have massively) - Russia in the European energy sector. Not only have some of these countries in Eastern Europe become 100% dependent on Russian supplies, but they are signed up on long term deals. Sanctions will be very hard to sell to the Baltic states or the likes of Slovakia and Poland - a cut in supply could seriously affect their economies, and so it would not be Russia that suffers from sanctions as much as Europe.

Thirdly, when you take out oil and gas (over half of the value of exports), Russian export trade then goes to other commodities: nickel, palladium, iron. In nickel, Russia is the world's third largest producer, accounting for 13% of world supply. In palladium Russia is the top producer, with about 45% of supply. Iron is less important - fifth largest with 4%. But these are commodities the world will find it hard to see a price spike in if sanctions really are put in place.

Fourthly, Russia can probably live without imports in many ways. Their main import is cars, and after that medicine. Those could be targets, but the problem with the latter is that it will again be hard to agree sanctions that cover medicines - as the most likely people to suffer would be ordinary Russians, not the government.

Fifthly, sanctions rarely work even when there is an economic case for them.

Yes, the Russians are using a similar justification as the Germans did with Sudetenland. But the Czechs had not just launched a coup against a legitimately elected government, or removed German as an official language. And the USA used similar justifications to annex parts of Mexico.

Good points (and info). While it may not be exactly clear who are the good guys and the bad guys here, if Russia intervenes I think they are one of the bad guys (and should be treated accordingly)The conventional wisdom cited here that sanctions rarely work may be a bit overstated, though.
http://nepsanet.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... ctions.pdf

rickyp wrote:The Crimea is already an autonomous oblast within The Ukraine.

False. It was an Oblast until 1991, and then became an Autonomous Republic. There was a move to independence in the early 90s, which was rescinded, and Crimea ended up still being an Autonomous Republic. The rest of Ukraine is divided up into oblasts.

And as the history lesson shows was arbitrarily put into the Ukraine by Stalin...

False. Stalin died in 1953. Crimea was transferred from the Russian Federation to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954

The people of The Ukraine outside of the Crimea won't particularly mind when the Crimea leaves to become part of Russia.

False. There are demonstrators in Kiev and other Ukrainian cities insisting that "Crimea = Ukraine"

The question is whether or not Putin will stop there. If the annexation of South Ossetia provides a road map, he probably will. The similarities of the two situations are numerous. Including the nonsense about the West intervening effectively.

False. You clearly 'forgot' that Russia also annexed Abkhazia, strengthening it's independence, and subsequently has a military presence in both places, including on the borders with the rest of Georgia.

The other similarity yet to unfold is that years after South Ossetia was forcibly reunited with North Ossetia, there have been no repercussions. Georgia gets along fine without the formerly semi-autonomous region. And the Ossetians are a reunited ethnic group. I doubt that Putin will move on Ukraine proper....

False. North Ossetia and South Ossetia are not unified. Georgians who lived in South Ossetia still cannot return. Georgia still refers to South Ossetia as occupied territory. The people on the ground are fairly friendly with each other, but the government of Georgia does not get along with South Ossetia - they just have no choice but to accept the facts on the ground due to continued Russian military presence.

But not because of anything the West would do. Simply because he doesn't see the Ukraine proper as Russia. And he doesn't have a popular base of support asking for reunification with Russia as he had overwhelmingly in Ossetia and has at least a majority in the Crimea. (If one can count on the results of previous elections as predictive of how a referendum might go. And I think because it can we should expect a referendum in a few months.)

False. In the east of Ukraine there are other regions which are majority Russian, and it's not at all inconceivable (especially if internal problems escalate) that areas like Donetsk and Luhansk (each over 67% Russian) would also request secession from Ukraine.

rickyp wrote:The Crimea is already an autonomous oblast within The Ukraine.
And as the history lesson shows was arbitrarily put into the Ukraine by Stalin...

The people of The Ukraine outside of the Crimea won't particularly mind when the Crimea leaves to become part of Russia. The question is whether or not Putin will stop there. If the annexation of South Ossetia provides a road map, he probably will. The similarities of the two situations are numerous. Including the nonsense about the West intervening effectively.

The other similarity yet to unfold is that years after South Ossetia was forcibly reunited with North Ossetia, there have been no repercussions. Georgia gets along fine without the formerly semi-autonomous region. And the Ossetians are a reunited ethnic group. I doubt that Putin will move on Ukraine proper....
But not because of anything the West would do. Simply because he doesn't see the Ukraine proper as Russia. And he doesn't have a popular base of support asking for reunification with Russia as he had overwhelmingly in Ossetia and has at least a majority in the Crimea. (If one can count on the results of previous elections as predictive of how a referendum might go. And I think because it can we should expect a referendum in a few months.)
Fate, if the majority of Crimeans vote to join Russia what should the West do?

Self-determination means "self-determination." Of course, if the Russians are occupying Crimea during the vote, I would not see that as particularly compelling.

FYI, from wiki:

"Ukraine" versus "the Ukraine"[edit]
In English, the definite article is used with geographical identifiers primarily in one of four situations: 1. If the name is plural ('the Philippines', 'the Netherlands') 2. If a common noun is included ('the United States', 'the Central African Republic') 3. If the region in question is a sub-region of another ('the Sudetenland', 'the Saar').[36] 4. If the country is essentially synonymous with a marked geographical feature ('the Republic of The Gambia [River]', 'The Ivory Coast'). Prior to its 1991 independence, the technical name of Ukraine as a constituent part of the Soviet Union was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and thus by reasons likely stemming from 2 and 3 above was often referred to in English as the Ukraine. As none of the four conditions now hold (and conditions 1 and 4 never applied), the use of the definite article is now obsolete. Since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine the English-speaking world has largely stopped using the article.[37][38][39][40] Since November 1991, several American journalists started to refer to Ukraine as Ukraine instead of the Ukraine.[39] The Associated Press dropped the article 'the' on 3 December 1991.[39] This approach has become established in journalism and diplomacy since (other examples are the style guides of The Guardian[41] and The Times[42]). In 1993 the Ukrainian government requested that the article be dropped

danivon wrote:Yes, the Russians are using a similar justification as the Germans did with Sudetenland. But the Czechs had not just launched a coup against a legitimately elected government, or removed German as an official language. And the USA used similar justifications to annex parts of Mexico.

So, why is it a "coup" and not a "revolution?" In other words, when is it okay to rebel? And, when the Ukrainian government opened fire on protesters, did it retain the moral authority it had by winning an election? It's not like it was living up to promises made prior to the election, was it? Are protests against a government not legitimate?

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:The Crimea is already an autonomous oblast within The Ukraine.

False. It was an Oblast until 1991, and then became an Autonomous Republic. There was a move to independence in the early 90s, which was rescinded, and Crimea ended up still being an Autonomous Republic. The rest of Ukraine is divided up into oblasts.

And as the history lesson shows was arbitrarily put into the Ukraine by Stalin...

False. Stalin died in 1953. Crimea was transferred from the Russian Federation to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954

The people of The Ukraine outside of the Crimea won't particularly mind when the Crimea leaves to become part of Russia.

False. There are demonstrators in Kiev and other Ukrainian cities insisting that "Crimea = Ukraine"

The question is whether or not Putin will stop there. If the annexation of South Ossetia provides a road map, he probably will. The similarities of the two situations are numerous. Including the nonsense about the West intervening effectively.

False. You clearly 'forgot' that Russia also annexed Abkhazia, strengthening it's independence, and subsequently has a military presence in both places, including on the borders with the rest of Georgia.

The other similarity yet to unfold is that years after South Ossetia was forcibly reunited with North Ossetia, there have been no repercussions. Georgia gets along fine without the formerly semi-autonomous region. And the Ossetians are a reunited ethnic group. I doubt that Putin will move on Ukraine proper....

False. North Ossetia and South Ossetia are not unified. Georgians who lived in South Ossetia still cannot return. Georgia still refers to South Ossetia as occupied territory. The people on the ground are fairly friendly with each other, but the government of Georgia does not get along with South Ossetia - they just have no choice but to accept the facts on the ground due to continued Russian military presence.

But not because of anything the West would do. Simply because he doesn't see the Ukraine proper as Russia. And he doesn't have a popular base of support asking for reunification with Russia as he had overwhelmingly in Ossetia and has at least a majority in the Crimea. (If one can count on the results of previous elections as predictive of how a referendum might go. And I think because it can we should expect a referendum in a few months.)

False. In the east of Ukraine there are other regions which are majority Russian, and it's not at all inconceivable (especially if internal problems escalate) that areas like Donetsk and Luhansk (each over 67% Russian) would also request secession from Ukraine.

Hey, other than those few nits, it was a fine post, rickyp--well, after the whole "the Ukraine vs. Ukraine" thing that I corrected. Other than the entirety of your post, it was really well done.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, why is it a "coup" and not a "revolution?" In other words, when is it okay to rebel? And, when the Ukrainian government opened fire on protesters, did it retain the moral authority it had by winning an election? It's not like it was living up to promises made prior to the election, was it? Are protests against a government not legitimate?

A revolution is a form of coup. They can both be violent or non-violent, justified or unjustified. Yes, governments can lose legitimacy by their actions. But coups/revolutions also need to quickly establish their own legitimacy or be found wanting.

And yes, protests against a government are often legitimate, and governments initiating violence against them are wrong. I am so glad you back the Occupy movement now . But seriously, perhaps you are not reading what I am saying properly - it's not as simple as one side being 'good' and the other 'bad', as much as you may want it to be. Neither the Ukrainian revolutionaries nor the Russians come out of this looking like the guys in white hats here.

freeman3 wrote:Good points (and info). While it may not be exactly clear who are the good guys and the bad guys here, if Russia intervenes I think they are one of the bad guys (and should be treated accordingly)The conventional wisdom cited here that sanctions rarely work may be a bit overstated, though.
http://nepsanet.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... ctions.pdf

All very well, but that paper assumes we are in a 'unipolar' era. We are not - Russia and China are major powers. It is one thing for the USA to lead sanctions against a small and already isolated country. It is quite another to try it against a major world economy.

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Good points (and info). While it may not be exactly clear who are the good guys and the bad guys here, if Russia intervenes I think they are one of the bad guys (and should be treated accordingly)The conventional wisdom cited here that sanctions rarely work may be a bit overstated, though.
http://nepsanet.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... ctions.pdf

All very well, but that paper assumes we are in a 'unipolar' era. We are not - Russia and China are major powers. It is one thing for the USA to lead sanctions against a small and already isolated country. It is quite another to try it against a major world economy.

So true, which leads to something else--the uselessness of the UN in so many situations around the world.

I think the G8 conference should be scrapped. I think we should look at booting Russia from it. It does not hold the values of the other powers.

We should put the missile defense system back into Poland that Obama cancelled.

We should stop speaking as if Russia is our moral equivalent. That does not mean talking down to them. It does mean pointing out their foibles and stopping with the overly optimistic rhetoric.

We should look for ways to make things uncomfortable for Russia. Can we support Ukraine militarily? No. Can we take Russia to the woodshed with economic sanctions? Maybe not. That doesn't mean we should shrug.

The Russian economy is not exactly chugging along, however...
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0 ... -2013.html

It seems that Russia would be vulnerable to economic sanctions, but the question is whether in a non US dominated world (or, at least less US dominated) that Russia could not look to alternatives to get around sanctions. I don't know the answer to that question, but it is a little disquieting to think that our options are do nothing or war.

freeman3 wrote:The Russian economy is not exactly chugging along, however...
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0 ... -2013.html

2.2% to 2.5% projected annual growth is not that bad. It is still growing, just 0.2% less in the last quarter than some expected.

It seems that Russia would be vulnerable to economic sanctions, but the question is whether in a non US dominated world (or, at least less US dominated) that Russia could not look to alternatives to get around sanctions. I don't know the answer to that question, but it is a little disquieting to think that our options are do nothing or war.

The problem is that Russia may be viulnerable to economic sanctions, but it is likely to hurt other countries far more than them. In fact, Russia could cut off the supply of gas or oil in 'retaliation' for something anyway, and hit Europe hard.

There are options other than war or hard economic sanctions. Such as diplomacy. Oh, what am I saying, no-one on this site would ever think of that kind of thing, it's not like we are all play a board game based on the concept...

Of course, if one does really believe we need to 'do something', then the real question is first of all to work out why. What outcome is it we are looking to achieve, and what is it we are looking to stop? Because acting just so we look like we are doing something is not always the best idea.

Doctor Fate wrote:I think the G8 conference should be scrapped. I think we should look at booting Russia from it. It does not hold the values of the other powers.

Britain and France are saying they will not participate in the preparatory talks for the Sochi conference.

I agree that the next conference should not go ahead unless Russia changes course. I am not comfortable with excluding Russia from the G8, though - that could just encourage them to ignore the West.

We should put the missile defense system back into Poland that Obama cancelled.

Not sure that helps either way.

We should stop speaking as if Russia is our moral equivalent. That does not mean talking down to them. It does mean pointing out their foibles and stopping with the overly optimistic rhetoric.

Do we do that? Not that I've noticed. The problem is that they may not be a moral equivalent, but the are a major power and have to addressed on those terms as well.