Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Viking]

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.

I know some karelians, they do feel threatened by russia.. even after they got expelled in the 1940s and settled in helsinki.

[Queequeg]

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.

Or Mitrovica Serbs?  That always struck me as willfully inane. 

[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.

I can't recall the last time one country said to another 'I think I'd like a slice of your territory, please' where the discussion was not the result of a successful war/occupation.

[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.

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.

Russian would want Crimea to remain a part of Ukraine if the puppet Ukranian regime was still in place.  Now that it is gone Russia's hand was forced.  You are quite correct that Putin's best move was likely to wait to see what provocation might occur before he intervened.  But that is looking at this with Western eyes.  I dont think he much cares what the West thinks.  He just doesnt want Ukraine to align with the West in any manner.

The problem with your theory is you are assuming that all the Russians will control when all is said and done is Crimea.  I think it much more likely that what Russia will get out of this is the Crimea and a Ukraine that can never align itself with the West.

[derspiess]

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.

If I had my way, yes to both.

[crazy canuck]

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.

If I had my way, yes to both.

We could do Paris 1919 all over again

[Queequeg]

Bosnia is hardly functioning as is.  Look at a map of ethnic Serbs and Croats across Bosnia, it's a total fucking mess. 

[derspiess]

You are quite correct that Putin's best move was likely to wait to see what provocation might occur before he intervened.  But that is looking at this with Western eyes.  I dont think he much cares what the West thinks.  He just doesnt want Ukraine to align with the West in any manner.

The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.

[crazy canuck]

You are quite correct that Putin's best move was likely to wait to see what provocation might occur before he intervened.  But that is looking at this with Western eyes.  I dont think he much cares what the West thinks.  He just doesnt want Ukraine to align with the West in any manner.

The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.

Meh, I think we understand what he is doing and why he is doing it well enough. 

[derspiess]

Bosnia is hardly functioning as is.  Look at a map of ethnic Serbs and Croats across Bosnia, it's a total fucking mess. 

That might have changed a little since 1991

[Malthus]

Russian would want Crimea to remain a part of Ukraine if the puppet Ukranian regime was still in place.  Now that it is gone Russia's hand was forced.  You are quite correct that Putin's best move was likely to wait to see what provocation might occur before he intervened.  But that is looking through this with Western eyes.  I dont think he much cares what the West thinks.  He just doesnt want Ukraine to align with the West in any manner.

The problem with your theory is you are assuming that all the Russians will control when all is said and done is Crimea.  I think it much more likely that what Russia will get out of this is the Crimea and a Ukraine that can never align itself with the West.

It just seems sorta contradictory to me. If Russia's interest in Crimea is to prevent NATO membership, Russia ought logically to want Crimea to stay Ukrainian. If Russia has the clout to force Ukraine to stay out of the West's orbit - Crimea or not - why is Putin's "hand forced" by regime change? No matter what the regime, they would have to dance to his tune.

All the current move appears to be doing is (1) removing the legalistic pretext to prevent NATO membership, while (2) giving Ukraine, and every other neighbouring country, the strongest possible motivation to join NATO if it can.

[DGuller]

Bosnia is hardly functioning as is.  Look at a map of ethnic Serbs and Croats across Bosnia, it's a total fucking mess. 

Yeah, it cries out for some clean-up.

[derspiess]

Meh, I think we understand what he is doing and why he is doing it well enough. 

I think we have an idea what Putin's endgame is, but none of us really knows what's going on inside his head.

[Malthus]

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.

This sort of issue is exactly why moving borders around to match ethnicities is a bad idea. Pretty well everyone in Europe has "minorities" located somewhere who look to another country as a possble "home".

[Solmyr]

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.

Finland also has a fairly notable Russian emigree minority (who mostly don't want Russian protection, in case this becomes a question in the future ).