Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Viking]

Will world oil prices rise due to this Ukraine crisis?

Almost certainly not.

Oil is not exported from russia by pipeline through ukraine for the most part. The connection in gas prices to oil prices have traditionally been with gas prices being derivative of oil prices. This is often included in gas contracts simply because there isn't a real market for gas and the context surrounding the gas industry is sufficiently similar to the oil industry as well as gas historically being a bi-product of oil production. Today gas is it's own industry in most cases. It is still found where oil is found, but today specialized gas fields and gas industries exist. These don't have contracts based on oil costs, but more likely dependent on electricity cost in the destination market. 

[Syt]

John Kerry made the comments about imposing sanctions on Russia on CBS's Face the Nation programme.

He condemned Russia's "incredible act of aggression" in Ukraine, adding:

"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text."

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the current situation that is a statement that is a statement likely to be flung back at him given what happened in Iraq.

Kerry added that Russia still has "a right set of choices" that can be made to defuse the crisis.

Here are some more quotes from that interview with John Kerry on CBS's Face the Nation in which he warned Russia faced a number of possible sanctions if it did not pull back from Ukraine.

"It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President (Vladimir) Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations...

There will be serious repercussions if this stands. The president ... told Mr Putin that it was imperative to find a different path, to roll back this invasion and un-do this act of invasion."

He added that G8 nations and some other countries are "prepared to go to the hilt to isolate Russia" with a "broad array of options" available.

"They're prepared to put sanctions in place, they're prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges."

He also mentioned visa bans, asset freezes and trade isolation as possible steps.

"We're not trying to make this a battle between East and West, we're not trying to make this a Cold War. Nobody wants this kind of action, there are many ways to resolve this kind of problem. If Russia wants to be a G8 country, it needs to behave like a G8 country, and I guarantee you that everybody is determined that if this cannot be resolved in a reasonable, modern, 21st Century manner, there are going to be repercussions."

He said Putin's actions were motivated by "weakness and out of a certain kind of desperation".

[LaCroix]

Oh, where did I do that? I said we could use it as part of our justification for moving troops into Kiev-controlled parts of Ukraine to help them with internal security matters. I never said it was a justification for anything else. Most importantly I never argued the agreement in and of itself was a reason for us to intervene. The reason we would intervene would be to check Putin, but foreign policy is a grand dance and in this day and age you always try to justify your actions, even when you're just committed bald-faced aggression. By and large even Hitler tried to drum up some veneer of justification for his actions.

As a justification to parade out in front of the EU it would be one of a few key things to justify our behavior if we decided to send a military detachment to Kiev. But it would be secondary to the fact the current government of the Ukraine would be requesting our presence there.

No, I didn't. Where did this happen? I reread the thread--something I'm about 90% sure you didn't do at all to start with. My first mentioning of the treaty was actually in response to DGuller and my first post about the treaty specifically says it does not require us to protect the Ukraine--and then I point out that since both ourselves and Russia promised not to fuck with Ukraine in order to get them to disarm their nuclear stockpile Ukraine would be more than justified in re-arming nuclearly and I posited we should help them do that if they want. I made it clear however from my very first post on the subject that it did not require we protect Ukraine, meaning it is not a defensive alliance treaty establishing a NATO-style relationship between us and Ukraine. That was my very first post in reference to the treaty. Your narrative about my comments in regard to the treaty are completely false. Have you gotten around to shoving that baseball bat up your ass yet? Because I'm really not seeing what you're bringing to this thread other than a habit of lying about what other people have posted--which in the format of a message board is particularly stupid since anyone can look at prior posts and note that you're lying.

that's wrong, as i was pointing out. the US could militarily intervene all it wants, but it would be embarrassing if it were to use that treaty as a reason for its intervention. you shouldn't assume i didn't read your post. i'd admit if i overlooked your admission, as i have before with other posters - i didn't, though. i do apologize for upsetting you, though 

The treaty specifically obligates both the United States and Russia to not fuck with Ukraine's territory or sovereignty. A treaty is like a contract and can require specific performance--as our membership in NATO does. Or it can be an open-ended treaty like the Memorandum with Ukraine. But I can't see any argument at all that we wouldn't have a good legalese justification for sending soldiers to help Kiev with security in response to Russia violating its treaty obligations. Most treaties historically have not required specific performance per se but have been similar to the memorandum, they just spell out a rough agreement. In reality that's about all you need, because all that matters anyway is what you're willing to do if the other parties don't hold up to their end. In many situations signatories just don't care, violations are seen as not a big deal or too minor to get all heated up about (many of Germany's first violations of Versailles were of this nature, and Versailles didn't require the signatories respond to Germany failing to do what it said it would do.) In video game terms I'd say we definitely would have a casus belli against Russia for not holding up its end of the treaty. But in the 21st or even 20th centuries there's not going to be a direct conflict with Russia, but if we wanted to deploy a limited military presence to Ukraine (and I've already pointed out that's the last in a long line of options) we would want some veneer of justification for our actions. Putin is making the argument he is protecting Russian speakers and Russian citizens living in Crimea. We could say we are taking responsibility for the safety of Ukraine due to having persuaded them to de-arm themselves and having signed an agreement saying we would "respect" their territorial integrity and sovereignty--in addition to the fact we would only go in if specifically asked to do so.

oy vey, otto.

1) i never said you were using the treaty as the sole argument/justification for war against russia. i said you were using it as an argument, implying there were more than one, which is true given your post i directly referred to in my earlier post.

2) as mentioned, my earlier point is that there is enough justification without using a treaty that doesn't say anything about the US having an obligation to protect ukraine's sovereignty. now otto, i'm not overlooking your lengthy final paragraph where you explain how the US could still use it as justification. i'm saying it's wrong. russia, UK and US signed a treaty with ukraine where those three nations promise ukraine that they will respect ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. this makes it a two way street between the former three on one end and ukraine on the other. russia violating the agreement does nothing to the US, because the US did not make any agreements with russia. the US made no promise aside from protecting ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for ukraine dismantling its nuclear arms (which it did), therefore russia renegading on the agreement does not affect the US - it only affects ukraine. so, russia is in violation of an agreement with ukraine, but russia is not in violation with an agreement with the US

notice kerry's speech even takes this position. kerry condemns russia for violating its agreement with the ukraine, not for violating agreements with the US. you can't twist the agreement in a way to support your position without taking some extreme (and flawed) mental gymnastics. furthermore, the US would never shoulder the burden of essentially guaranteeing ukraine's territory, because that's stupid. if they made this argument during this crisis, then it would hold the US to it in subsequent crises. why would we do that? it's dumb - ukraine isn't canada. no, here the US might choose to intervene to assist ukraine, but it's not gonna obligate itself to forever intervene in every incident

3) i fished out your older post that you refer to. for me it's on page 92. so that you don't jump down my throat again, i'll copy the WHOLE thing! 

Ukraine is not a direct military ally of the United States so you obviously couldn't immediately jump to saying "an attack on Ukraine is an attack on us." However, as President I would state that the memorandum signed between the Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. when we disarmed Ukrainian nuclear weapons stockpile contained promises by both the United States and Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. I would say that any military action against Ukraine would be a violation of this agreement, and that as the United States had entered into this agreement with the understanding that Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty would be respected, that Russia violating that entitled Ukraine to extraordinary support from the United States. Namely, since Ukraine had essentially been violated it would be entitled to like compensation in the form of what it had given up: nuclear weapons. I would then offer Ukraine up to 50 nuclear weapons and something akin to the Minuteman III missile (which could hit anywhere in Russia from anywhere in Ukrainian territory) to launch said weapons.

so, you were wrong from the beginning. especially the comment "as the US had entered into this agreement with the understanding that..." according to the actual document, the US never did that. the US merely wanted a nation to give up its nuclear arms, and in exchange for that they made a promise not to fuck with ukraine's sovereignty. that's all. in essence, it doesn't matter that i overlooked this early post because you've been saying the same wrong thing over and over. you're interpreting the agreement as something it's not, to try and warp it as a justification for intervention. it's a huge mental leap that no one else is making (aside from some really sketchy websites after a brief skim on google)

4) otto, lying requires intent to lie. you should know this. i haven't tried to lie in this thread, as what's the point? i don't know why you're so into the personal insults, but i'd suggest taking a step back, having a little breather, and coming back to this debate with a clear head

5) what i said wasn't even incorrect. take a look at what i said:

a few pages back you mentioned it in a list of reasons for why the US should intervene. then someone points out that the treaty doesn't support the US intervening, and you say "well of course!" but continued to stress that the treaty could be used as justification for military intervention.

this is actually what happened, otto. your prior comment that i hadn't seen doesn't make this statement any less true. you mentioned the treaty in a list of reasons for why the US should/could intervene, someone pointed out it doesn't support US protecting ukraine sovereignty, you agreed but stressed it could still be used as justification for intervention. so, i don't see where this whole "you're LYING!!!!" thing and other immature accusations/insults are coming from

[OttoVonBismarck]

Based on the fact your posts are at this point boring and I suspect trollish, and you already misrepresented my prior posts (and from skimming this one you've continued that practice) I'm not seeing much of a reason to respond or even read through your trash, ciao cocksucker. Life is too short to get into grumbler style arguments where someone tries to alter your past posts into arguments you yourself never made. Maybe you're just stupid and don't understand what I actually posted in which case maybe you should go get a job at Taco Bell instead of wasting your time here.

[CountDeMoney]

Shuttering nuclear means relying on dirty power, and the costs to commercial and residential customers have increased accordingly;  so yeah, there is a connection when it comes to the energy commodities market.

Big industry has its power consumption heavily subsidized.

Good for them.  Shame households have seen the subsidy rate imposed on them jump.

[CountDeMoney]

Shuttering nuclear means relying on dirty power, and the costs to commercial and residential customers have increased accordingly;  so yeah, there is a connection when it comes to the energy commodities market.

Not really.

Yeah, really. 

[Ed Anger]

Right now every old leftist in Europe is looking for their old Russian phrasebook.

[CountDeMoney]

Right now every old leftist in Europe is looking for their old Russian phrasebook.

It's not the same, though.  This has nothing to do with the Party or the Revolution. 
There's none of the romance...the adventure...participating in the sweeping arc of history...the promise of economic and social justice.  It's just Putinpalooza '14.

[Tonitrus]

A summary of headlines from a brief scan of Russian news sites:

- Citizens of Crimea welcome support of their Russian brothers, while others in eastern Ukraine anxiously await Russian support against the radicals.
- Ukrainian nationalists are appealing to support from infamous Caucus terrorist leaders (accompanied by grainy pictures of shady/swarthy Chechen bandits)

[Ed Anger]

Right now every old leftist in Europe is looking for their old Russian phrasebook.

It's not the same, though.  This has nothing to do with the Party or the Revolution. 
There's none of the romance...the adventure...participating in the sweeping arc of history...the promise of economic and social justice.  It's just Putinpalooza '14.

Putin on the Ritz.

[Berkut]

A summary of headlines from a brief scan of Russian news sites:

- Citizens of Crimea welcome support of their Russian brothers, while others in eastern Ukraine anxiously await Russian support against the radicals.
- Ukrainian nationalists are appealing to support from infamous Caucus terrorist leaders (accompanied by grainy pictures of shady/swarthy Chechen bandits)

I am waiting for the reports of attacks on the Russian radio station.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

It's a treaty as far as I know. What you're probably confused on is whether it's a requirement that we protect Ukraine--it isn't. Instead it's just basically us (United States) saying "we will respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity" and Russia saying the same for itself. It was not a security agreement or an alliance so in and of itself it wouldn't be binding on the U.S.--and I never said it was, although it would violate international norms for us to say, invade Ukraine. Which is what Putin is doing.

But like I said, we have a treaty in replace in which we made a promise to "respect" Ukraine's territorial integrity, that along with an official request from Kiev for aid would give us more than enough internationalist cover.

I never said there was a requirement to protect Ukraine.  In fact, I spend a good part of yesterday arguing the opposite in another venue.  What I am saying is that the memorandum is not a treaty[1].  I haven't found a Senate ratification resolution[2] for the memorandum.  Without that vote it is not a treaty, because the US government cannot ratify a treaty without the approval of the Senate.

[1] Granted, I'm using a slightly legalistic definition of "treaty", but the definition in US law and the Constitution is more restricted than in general international law.
[2] I would like to correct one thing:  the Senate doesn't actually ratify treaties; it just approves or disapproves the ratification.

[crazy canuck]

A summary of headlines from a brief scan of Russian news sites:

- Citizens of Crimea welcome support of their Russian brothers, while others in eastern Ukraine anxiously await Russian support against the radicals.
- Ukrainian nationalists are appealing to support from infamous Caucus terrorist leaders (accompanied by grainy pictures of shady/swarthy Chechen bandits)

I am waiting for the reports of attacks on the Russian radio station.

[Tonitrus]

Right now every old leftist in Europe is looking for their old Russian phrasebook.

It's not the same, though.  This has nothing to do with the Party or the Revolution. 
There's none of the romance...the adventure...participating in the sweeping arc of history...the promise of economic and social justice.  It's just Putinpalooza '14.

Putin on the Ritz.

[Neil]

If I were the Baltic countries, I'd be rounding up and expelling every Russophone I could find.  Putin will be coming for them next, and the Germans would sell them out in a heartbeat.  There is no country in the world that would be more happy to sell people out to evil than Germany.