Ukraine

[aeolium]

A revolutionary act against a figure closely associated with a great power; bellicose actions and threats by that great power against those believed to be responsible; other great powers either sympathetic to the aspirations of the revolutionaries or at least hostile to any retribution from the offended power; mobilisation and military action by the offended power against the revolutionaries.

OK, there are some important differences between Kiev/Crimea on the one hand and Sarajevo 1914 on the other, but I hope a century on that politicians and diplomats will have learnt something about treating a volatile region as a potential trigger point for wider conflict (as could well have happened with Georgia in 2008). Let's commemorate the Great War, not repeat it.

[Dave2002]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26379722

I just hope the Russians keep out of it, otherwise it looks as though we're sliding back into the bad old days.

[french frank]

OK, there are some important differences between Kiev/Crimea on the one hand and Sarajevo 1914 on the other, but I hope a century on that politicians and diplomats will have learnt something about treating a volatile region as a potential trigger point for wider conflict (as could well have happened with Georgia in 2008). Let's commemorate the Great War, not repeat it.

Especially remembering the Crimean War itself and the Crimea as a cradle of ethnic, nationalist and cultural/religious rivalries. Names like Sevastopol and Balaklava still have terrible resonances.

[Petrushka]

It looks as if the West has been presented with a fait accompli as Putin has already got his troops on the ground before anyone noticed. Putin, like Hitler before him, moved on a weekend when all the European leaders would have been away from their desks and like Adolf will bank on the West doing nothing. A dangerous game but will probably get away with it.

[Serial_Apologist]

What is actually going on there, on the ground, I'd like to know, as I think we all should. Prior to yesterday, when from what one learned it seemed that Russian spokespersons were talking some sense about threats to their ex(?) nationals in the Ukraine, I'd assumed the mass demonstrations and blockades to be a classic dual power situation a la leading up to October 1917; now, from what I understand, it turns out that a majority of those behind the demonstrations are extreme right wingers. We never get serious analysis - of what the Ukrainian government policies are, for instance. After watching all the TV bulletins it's been possible to see, I've still no idea what proportions of the parliamentary representatives want the country to join the EU, and what proportion to re-join Russia. I have no idea what kind of jurisdiction exists, for instance by the (presumably) central authority in Kiev and the regions, such as the Crimea, for instance; or what the President's powers are, his (sic) accountability to their parliament or theirs to him.

These things are important: should our government decide to plump for one side or another, backing military intervention, we should be properly informed as to the issues, told that this is the situation, and it has serious consequences for these reasons if nothing is done, and then consulted.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

All we can do is to keep a calm, non-aggressive dialogue going. Anything else would be extremely foolish.

[aeolium]

I think the EU's foreign policy has not been the best here (as it wasn't in the Georgia situation either). It should not have openly encouraged the dissident side for whatever one thinks of Yanukovych as a corrupt leader he was undoubtedly elected in what were deemed internationally to have been fair elections. Crimea is predominantly Russian speaking, and for 300 years until being curiously "gifted" to Ukraine by Kruschev was part of Russia, and subsequently the Soviet Union. It is not surprising if Russia feels it has a stake in it.

It's difficult to see how the opposing groups of supporters can be reconciled while retaining the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and possibly a division of the territory, or at least secession of the Crimea, ought to be considered as a practical possibility.

[amateur51]

The forum member who purports to be a big fan of Russia and Pres.Putin has been strangely silent thus far.

I wonder what Putin makes of the threat of Obama's 'consequences'.

[Nick Armstrong]

The forum member who purports to be a big fan of Russia and Pres.Putin has been strangely silent thus far.

Who she/he? (Ed.)

PM will do *nod/wink*

[Petrushka]

I wonder what Putin makes of the threat of Obama's 'consequences'.

Putin is a gambler in the Hitler mould. He knows that the West needs Russian help in Syria and Iran and the situation in the Crimea is a classic Sudetenland 1938 crisis where the ethnic Russians call on Putin for 'help' thus legitimising the presence of Russian troops. The West will not lift a finger to help and with the very real risk of triggering a much wider European war would perhaps be foolish to do so.

Putin must increasingly be seen as a dangerous man, getting away with each gamble as the West wrings its hands and is impotent to do anything about it. It's all very worrying.

[Sydney Grew]

Wise advice from Malcolm Fraser the former conservative Prime Minister of Australia:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/ukraine-theres-no-way-out-unless-the-west-understands-its-past-mistakes

In part he says:

. . . the west has once again chosen some unsavoury partners and that does not augur well for the future. Milne then described the elements . . . fighting the government as pro-fascist, pro-nazi, anti-Jew.

To protect assets in Crimea will always be a Russian objective. Western leaders and western media mostly paint the whole dispute as totally one-sided: it is all Russia’s fault, and Putin is preventing a true democracy emerging. The steps taken in the early days after the fall of the Soviet Union, the breach of what Gorbachev (I accept almost certainly mistakenly) believed to be a firm agreement that Nato would not move east, was bound to create difficulties for the future.

There will be no way out of this, unless the history and the west’s past mistakes are understood by those who are trying to grapple with the present intractable, difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.

There is another aspect of this which should give western powers even greater concern for the future. The US has embarked on what many regard as a foolish and dangerous policy in the western pacific: a policy of containment of China. Even Joseph Nye, a former Pentagon official, has said containment is the wrong approach to a rising China – the US policy should be one of co-operation. There have been discussions about possible strategic arrangements between China and Russia. Are the mistaken policies of the US and the unfolding drama in Ukraine going to push both Russia and China towards a strategic partnership?

Those who thought the cold war was over and hoped for a better world are being proved to be wrong. Those in charge of current policy are showing an inadequate understanding of the events unfolding before their eyes, and an inability to work co-operatively to guide the world more safely.

And wise advice from me: Yankees go home and stay there!

[MrGongGong]

“You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said. “It’s really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century.”

erm

[JimD]

And wise advice from me: Yankees go home and stay there!

Breathtaking.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I think the EU's foreign policy has not been the best here (as it wasn't in the Georgia situation either).

.. and that is not all according to this analysis

i find the hypocrisy of the USA quite staggering and i disagree that the EU should treat the USA as an ally in European affairs; being independent of the USA and its neocons might yet be the biggest strength of the EU

[french frank]

.. and that is not all according to this analysis

i find the hypocrisy of the USA quite staggering and i disagree that the EU should treat the USA as an ally in European affairs; being independent of the USA and its neocons might yet be the biggest strength of the EU

Yes, I think that somewhat overstates the extent to which the EU was at fault, and the idea that only 'pride' stands in the way of admitting that everything must be done with Washington's prior support is ludicrous.

Blaming the EU's misreading of Yanukovych's motives and Putin's supposed rhetoric is also an easy criticism to make after the events.

The BBC story even questions whether Merkel really made her reported comment to Obama: "The reported comment seems to have come from the American end and clearly the tone - or even if it was said at all - remains unclear." Yet Techau maintains the comment 'finally debunked' the West's illusions. Possibly, if it was said.

This story is a quite interesting spotlight on Merkel.