Ukraine Today

[Jhessail]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26350088

BERKUT has been disbanded. Ashcroft urges Parliament to form a coalition government and not shut out former supporters of Yanukovich, who is still missing. Apparently the story of him trying to flee the country by air is true.

And indeed, Putin is increasing the pressure:
http://world.time.com/2014/02/26/russia-orders-troop-maneuvers-amid-ukraine-tensions/

The military exercise is meant to “check the troops’ readiness for action in crisis situations that threaten the nation’s military security,” said Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who added that Putin ordered the exercise Wednesday afternoon. The troop maneuvers will begin Friday and will last four days, and involve ships of the Baltic and Northern Fleets and the air force.

Note that Russia has also stated that it is "looking into" possibilities of making it possible for people from the Crimean autonomous area to get Russian passports. As everyone probably remembers, Russia started the groundwork for the Georgian war by issuing Russian passports to people in South-Ossetia and Abhakzia.

 

[Untitled.]

D:

 

[Mage246]

I doubt it's a prelude to an invasion, but if it is then the EU should take serious steps to prevent it from happening.

 

[Anthropoid]

The plan to send him to Hague is a good one, as Weaver earlier said. It's the best place to ensure he gets a fair trial and that there's no credible "Yanukovich the Martyr" movement.

That won't stop the Martyr thing. It'll be "poor, poor Yanukovich" being unfairly judged by a foreign power no matter what.
Facts won't matter.

But yeah, probably the best bet in any case.

Did Milosevic ever actually get prosecuted, or he still being detained through interminable appeals processes? I also seem to recall that the total tab for prosecuting him was astronomical? Agree best bet, but the International Criminal prosecution process is not without its shortcomings.

ADDIT: as far as Russia 'gearing up' and making claims about 'defending their interests' . . . I am certainly no Putin fan and generally find Russian foreign policy these past 75 years to be damnable . . . However . . .

I seem to recall that Russia's Black Sea fleet is pretty much dependent on standing "leases" (or some such) that it holds (or rather HELD) with the government of Ukraine? Obviously Ukraine was an subject state to the Soviet Union, so this arrangement is not the least bit surprising.

Given the importance of its Black Sea access, and the fact that Ukraine has just undergone a revolution, and is about to have a brand new government (which may refuse to honor the standing leases), isn't there actually just at least a shred of legitimacy to Russian consternation?

What do you Ukrainian, Russian and more broadly European folks think of that (don't care what you other Americans think  )

 

[rejenorst]

He died from heart failure iirc (while in the Hague jail).

Also I don't see how Russia could really manage to win anything by military intervention in the Ukraine. They would have to have a military presence there for goodness knows how long just to prop up an illegitimate puppet from an angry Ukrainian mob while dealing with the negative political fallout. Not really worth it. I'd say they might be interested in securing the borders though from militants.

On the flip side they may be inclined to protect native Russians in the Ukraine (perhaps in parts of the country sympathetic to Russia). If anything maybe the exercises are a futile show of strength just to make everyone nervous and less likely to piss off Russia.

I mean we do tend to do a lot of this (annoy Russia ):

Spoiler

 

[Mage246]

Well honestly they could move in to establish an independent enclave around their naval base. Would make a lot of sense for them and I doubt Ukraine could do much to stop it. They have significant local support there, so maintaining a permanent presence would not be a problem. Someone pointed this out earlier with the Georgia example, and this is looking more and more plausible the more I think about it. That naval base is massively important to Russia.

 

[Anthropoid]

Well honestly they could move in to establish an independent enclave around their naval base. Would make a lot of sense for them and I doubt Ukraine could do much to stop it. They have significant local support there, so maintaining a permanent presence would not be a problem. Someone pointed this out earlier with the Georgia example, and this is looking more and more plausible the more I think about it. That naval base is massively important to Russia.

Honestly you cannot really blame them for wanting to insure that naval base(s) are secure. They are a nation after all, and have a right to defend their sovereignty.

Strong arming the governments of the local states is a different matter entirely.

ADDIT: @Rejenorst OMG that is funny!

 

[rejenorst]

Well honestly they could move in to establish an independent enclave around their naval base. Would make a lot of sense for them and I doubt Ukraine could do much to stop it. They have significant local support there, so maintaining a permanent presence would not be a problem. Someone pointed this out earlier with the Georgia example, and this is looking more and more plausible the more I think about it. That naval base is massively important to Russia.

I suppose that could be a problem yes, especially if this is in fact a concern:

Consequently, given the fact that NATO’s charter prevents country members from having foreign military bases on their territory, Ukraine will not become a member of the Western military alliance until the lease expires or is subverted.

Although Ukraine still has some dependency on Russia. I am not sure the new Ukrainian government will seek to take a completely hostile stance towards Russia given the past trend, I could be wrong but I don't think the Ukraine will make rash moves and I think Russia might try and use economic/resource pressure before using a military option:

Ukraine is an important transit state for Russian gas flowing to the European Union. It is also a major consumer in its own right, particularly for its large steel industry, but its antiquated plants are very inefficient. The country has promising gas resources in shale and the Black Sea, but political uncertainty and widespread corruption make it a difficult place for international companies. So, the economy is badly dependent on imports of cheap gas.

This creates an odd dynamic. Russia demands higher gas prices from Ukraine, which cannot pay. Russia then threatens to cut supplies, usually in the middle of winter. Ukraine makes some political concessions, prices are reduced, some dubious intermediaries profit by handling the gas trade, and normal deliveries are resumed.

This happened several times during the 1990s, and – after the Orange Revolution – again in 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.

The 2009 dispute cut gas supplies to eastern Europe. This left European consumers shivering in winter, and badly damaged Russia’s reputation as a reliable supplier, and Ukraine’s as a trustworthy transit state.


EDIT:

Can someone tell me what exactly is going on here? Is this psycho actually in parliment or...?

Spoiler

 

[Anthropoid]

Is that an AKS-74U with the stock removed?

 

[Tancred_de_Houdan]

Is that an AKS-74U with the stock removed?

No.
It's an AKS-74 with the muzzle brake removed.
It's a folding stock design. The S in the AKS means skladnoy which means collapsible
AKS-74U is a carbine variant with also a collapsible stock; but the U at the end means ukorotchenny which is shortened.

(: Dem Russian classes sure payed off.

 

[Bluehawk]

He's addressing the Rivne oblast council, and he does not have a seat in any assembly, local or national.

 

[Anthropoid]

He's addressing the Rivne oblast council, and he does not have a seat in any assembly, local or national.

Salience of a short-collapsible stock assault rifle for indoor applications aside  . . .

Why exactly is he putting his weapons up on the table? He seems rather . . . 'hostile' and unfriendly to the audience? Is he threatening them? . . . geeze I really should dig out that Russian Rosetta Stone CD set . . .

This guy is one of the neo-nazi 'Right Sector' dingbats, eh?

 

[Humlenerd]

He's addressing the Rivne oblast council, and he does not have a seat in any assembly, local or national.

Salience of a short-collapsible stock assault rifle for indoor applications aside  . . .

Why exactly is he putting his weapons up on the table? He seems rather . . . 'hostile' and unfriendly to the audience? Is he threatening them? . . . geeze I really should dig out that Russian Rosetta Stone CD set . . .

This guy is one of the neo-nazi 'Right Sector' dingbats, eh?

I think he brings it with him where ever he goes. He's holding it the exact same way in all the videos he has been in. It must be his lucky gun, it gives im courage to speak in front of audiences 

 

[The Bowman]

To be honest, Crimea is an excellent strategical position which can be used by Russia. Moreover, the native language of the local populace is Russian, so it's easy for them to gain support there. If I recall correctly, there was an attempted census to choose whether Crimea unites with Russia or not. I can still remember the American reactions who stated that they won't let Russia have that region. In other words, the Ukraine has to gather its **** and control the masses in its favour. Oterwise, a second Transnistria/Abkhazia/Ossetia might pop up.

 

[Trueten]

Can someone tell me what exactly is going on here?

Spoiler

TV market.

 

[Untitled.]

He's selling televisions to the Rivne oblast council? I didn't realize the market for electronics was in such bad a shape that you had to advertise your product with AKs and knives.

 

[Weaver]

To be honest, Crimea is an excellent strategical position which can be used by Russia.

Used for... what exactly?
It's obvious that occupation of Crimea will bring more problems than gains for Russia.
Several Russian officials already announced they will not intervene in Ukraine's internal events under any circumstances. They also said Yanukovich is not in Russia and they will not give him a political asylum. Their black sea fleet is most certainly safe in Crimea, this is a non-issue.
Moreover, Crimeans seem to finally get it too. Crimean Parliament and Council of Ministers both are issuing announcements right now how they never made any separatist statements and that it was hackers'/the other institution's provocation. Politicians do hilarious things when the ground start shaking under their feet.

 

[Trueten]

Statement by NATO Defence Ministers on Ukraine.

(frankly speaking, I didn't read it)

 

[Weaver]

Yeah, don't. Just half-hearted empty blabber.

 

[Jhessail]

We continue to follow developments in Ukraine very closely. We deplore the tragic loss of life. We welcome the fact that violence has been stopped through negotiations that paved the way for a peaceful outcome. We emphasise the importance of an inclusive political process based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities and the rule of law, which fulfils the democratic aspirations of the entire Ukrainian people.

Russia has leased Sevastopol until 2042. EU-leaning Ukraine might not renew that lease when it expires. But on the other hand, a wise Russian leadership would start construction of a new base in the Caucasus side of Black Sea. Lot of jobs, building the facilities and the infrastructure, and a safe location that would not rely on Ukraine.