Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Berkut]

I think if you forget for a moment about the actual moves that have happened and the fucking idiotically aggressive and belligerent way Russia has acted, the basic idea that "Hey, should the Crimea really be part of the Ukraine instead of Russia" being a reasonable question to ask is hardly beyond the pale.

If Russia had approached this from the standpoint of "Given the recent events in the Ukraine, we are going to insist that the Ukraine and Russia sit down and discuss the status of the Crimea, and revisit the validity of the decisions that were made giving the Crimea to the Ukraine by a political entity that no longer exists and both our nations have disavowed" I would not at all find that an unreasonable demand.

Russia has a valid issue here that is clearly within their sphere of national interests and demographic interests.

[Solmyr]

In Finland this has sparked a renewed debate on whether we should be joining NATO. Traditionally a very divisive issue here.

[Admiral Yi]

In Finland this has sparked a renewed debate on whether we should be joining NATO. Traditionally a very divisive issue here.

Will the question start: civil war?

[PJL]

So when any group of non-native peoples living in a nation decide that they don't want to be part of the country they live in, they have a right or standing to have parts of the nation taken by another nation or to become separate?

Actually, the Russians in Crimea haven't decided to become part of Russia, it's been forced on them by Russia, and self appointed militias in Crimea. Now if there was a referendum where they wanted to become part of Russia, then that's a different matter.

Otherwise, what you're describing is perfectly normal. E.g. Scottish independence referendum

[Sheilbh]

No blood for mouth sugar.

[derspiess]

  Someone's getting sent to Siberia.

1823 GMT: Yesterday, a very talkative soldier in Kerch was interviewed by journalists. He admitted that he was a Russian soldier, but was told not to carry any identifying insignias or symbols. An English Translation has been provided on Facebook.

http://youtu.be/b0Z8ymyhx8A

Key excerpt:

Male Journalist: You're Ukrainians?
Soldier: Us ? We're Russians
Male Journalist: In that case, as you are the leader of the unit, please explain what the armed forces of Russia are doing on the territory of Ukraine ?
S: We are carrying out protection duties
MJ: What kind ?
Female Journalist: What kind of protection ?
S: To prevent terrorist acts
MJ: There is information that there will be terrorist acts?? What kind?
S: I don't know. I cannot reply to your questions.

[crazy canuck]

I think if you forget for a moment about the actual moves that have happened and the fucking idiotically aggressive and belligerent way Russia has acted, the basic idea that "Hey, should the Crimea really be part of the Ukraine instead of Russia" being a reasonable question to ask is hardly beyond the pale.

If Russia had approached this from the standpoint of "Given the recent events in the Ukraine, we are going to insist that the Ukraine and Russia sit down and discuss the status of the Crimea, and revisit the validity of the decisions that were made giving the Crimea to the Ukraine by a political entity that no longer exists and both our nations have disavowed" I would not at all find that an unreasonable demand.

Russia has a valid issue here that is clearly within their sphere of national interests and demographic interests.

Its not quite as simple as that.  Russia and Ukraine entered into an agreement after the collapse of the Soviet Union giving Russia and its Black Sea fleet access to the Crimea.  Rather than asserting a territorial claim to Crimea Russia negotiated a lease for its naval base.  It was a term agreement which was to expire in 2017.  It was renewed in 2010 for another 25 years.

Here is a very good article from 2010 analyzing the deal.

http://www.diploweb.com/Russia-s-Black-Sea-fleet-in.html

After concluding the deal didnt make any economic sense for Russia (it could build more efficient and less costly bases in Russian ports) or much military sense (the Russian Black Sea fleet was old and ineffective) it focused on the real reason why Russia was willing to pay for an extension of the lease:

Behind the scenes, one of the major underpinnings of the Russian position and its most generous financial deal with Ukraine is the fact that the Black Sea fleet presence in Sevastopol blocks Ukraine's accession to NATO, while containing the Atlantic organization.

Although NATO has not yet clarified its position regarding the renewed lease, membership cannot be granted to a country housing a non-member's military base in its territory. The Sevastopol agreement closely follows Russia's 2010 Military Doctrine, which identifies the Atlantic Alliance as a serious threat to its sovereignty and to its presence in supposed Russian areas of influence, commonly referred as the 'near abroad'. Thus, the new lease agreement suggests, in principle that Ukraine will not be able to join NATO until 2042, by the time the lease expires and a new agreement would have to be reached. The agreement also assures the Russian leadership that no other former Soviet country besides the Baltic states will be granted NATO membership, a move Russia has been strongly opposing since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And so we come to the reason Russia is now occupying Crimea. It has very little to do with the are being given to Ukraine in the Soviet era (although that offers Russia with a convenient pretext) and everything to do with Russian fears that it will lose the base in Crimea (the extension of the lease was opposed for the people now in power in the Ukraine) and the Ukraine will move closer to the West with a worst case scenario for Russia that Ukraine might become a member of NATO. 

[alfred russel]

  It seems some Estonian snipers have decided to impersonate Russian soldiers in interviews with Western media.

[crazy canuck]

In Finland this has sparked a renewed debate on whether we should be joining NATO. Traditionally a very divisive issue here.

That would be a very ironic outcome if Putin's antics in Ukraine brought Finland into NATO

[DGuller]

In Finland this has sparked a renewed debate on whether we should be joining NATO. Traditionally a very divisive issue here.

That would be a very ironic outcome if Putin's antics in Ukraine brought Finland into NATO

Karelians do feel pretty threatened, I'm sure they need some unmarked self-defense militias to protect them.

[Malthus]

I think if you forget for a moment about the actual moves that have happened and the fucking idiotically aggressive and belligerent way Russia has acted, the basic idea that "Hey, should the Crimea really be part of the Ukraine instead of Russia" being a reasonable question to ask is hardly beyond the pale.

If Russia had approached this from the standpoint of "Given the recent events in the Ukraine, we are going to insist that the Ukraine and Russia sit down and discuss the status of the Crimea, and revisit the validity of the decisions that were made giving the Crimea to the Ukraine by a political entity that no longer exists and both our nations have disavowed" I would not at all find that an unreasonable demand.

Russia has a valid issue here that is clearly within their sphere of national interests and demographic interests.

Its not quite as simple as that.  Russia and Ukraine entered into an agreement after the collapse of the Soviet Union giving Russia and its Black Sea fleet access to the Crimea.  Rather than asserting a territorial claim to Crimea Russia negotiated a lease for its naval base.  It was a term agreement which was to expire in 2017.  It was renewed in 2010 for another 25 years.

Here is a very good article from 2010 analyzing the deal.

http://www.diploweb.com/Russia-s-Black-Sea-fleet-in.html

After concluding the deal didnt make any economic sense for Russia (it could build more efficient and less costly bases in Russian ports) or much military sense (the Russian Black Sea fleet was old and ineffective) it focused on the real reason why Russia was willing to pay for an extension of the lease:

Behind the scenes, one of the major underpinnings of the Russian position and its most generous financial deal with Ukraine is the fact that the Black Sea fleet presence in Sevastopol blocks Ukraine's accession to NATO, while containing the Atlantic organization.

Although NATO has not yet clarified its position regarding the renewed lease, membership cannot be granted to a country housing a non-member's military base in its territory. The Sevastopol agreement closely follows Russia's 2010 Military Doctrine, which identifies the Atlantic Alliance as a serious threat to its sovereignty and to its presence in supposed Russian areas of influence, commonly referred as the 'near abroad'. Thus, the new lease agreement suggests, in principle that Ukraine will not be able to join NATO until 2042, by the time the lease expires and a new agreement would have to be reached. The agreement also assures the Russian leadership that no other former Soviet country besides the Baltic states will be granted NATO membership, a move Russia has been strongly opposing since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And so we come to the reason Russia is now occupying Crimea. It has very little to do with the are being given to Ukraine in the Soviet era (although that offers Russia with a convenient pretext) and everything to do with Russian fears that it will lose the base in Crimea (the extension of the lease was opposed for the people now in power in the Ukraine) and the Ukraine will move closer to the West with a worst case scenario for Russia that Ukraine might become a member of NATO.

The problem with this theory is that, if this were the case, Russia would want Crimea to remain part of Ukraine (and still have its base there), to block it joining NATO.

If Russia succeeds in detatching Crimea, the potential block to NATO-status of the rest of Ukraine is gone.

The notion that the current Ukrainain government had any chance of squeezing Russia out of its base is a non-starter: it would give Russia a perfect pretext to intervene.

[The Larch]

Does anyone know what sort of freedom of movement Russia is entitled to in Crimea per the 1997 treaty with Ukraine?  RT claims that Russia is allowed to have up to 25,000 troops "in Crimea" and I always assumed they were limited to the Sebastopol naval base, though maybe with some limited transit provisions.

I'm sure RT is fudging things, but I was just curious as to how much.

http://rt.com/news/russian-troops-crimea-ukraine-816/

IIRC per that treaty Russian troops could be stationed in Sevastopol and in a secondary naval base, as well as in two air bases associated to them.

[derspiess]

In Finland this has sparked a renewed debate on whether we should be joining NATO. Traditionally a very divisive issue here.

That would be a very ironic outcome if Putin's antics in Ukraine brought Finland into NATO

Yeah, de-Finlandizing Finland would be extra ironic

[derspiess]

IIRC per that treaty Russian troops could be stationed in Sevastopol and in a secondary naval base, as well as in two air bases associated to them.

Makes sense.  I can't imagine Ukraine would've agreed to allowing 25,000 Russian troops to freely roam around whichever part of Crimea they feel like occupying.

[Tamas]

If Crimea gets an internationally recognised vote on seceding to Russia, will Hungarian lands next to the Hungarian border get the same in neighbouring countries? At many places they are well over 60% in population. What about Bosnian Serbs? etc.