Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Seaward**

Anyway, to answer the question, the New York Times headline this morning is, "Kremlin Deploys Military To Seize Crimea - Rebuff To Obama," so at least some conservative* media outlets believe the president's worth involving in the discussion.

*Dakka definition.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
Anyway, to answer the question, the New York Times headline this morning is, "Kremlin Deploys Military To Seize Crimea - Rebuff To Obama," so at least some conservative* media outlets believe the president's worth involving in the discussion.

You meant to use the word "importance" not the word "worth".

Seaward wrote:

*Dakka definition.

That's a lame attempt at trolling.

**Seaward**

Scott Wilson over at the Washington Post must have been reading me here.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
Scott Wilson over at the Washington Post must have been reading me here.

So, to be clear, what is your argument regarding the situation in the Ukraine?

Article wrote:
The once-hopeful Arab Spring has staggered into civil war and military coup.

Yep, totally Obama's fault.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
So, to be clear, what is your argument regarding the situation in the Ukraine?

That we've prevented ourselves from being in a position to influence events there by making consistent blunders in our dealings with Russia since Obama took office. As the president has greatly diminished foreign policy credibility, Putin can safely ignore anything we say or even do.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

That we've prevented ourselves from being in a position to influence events there by making consistent blunders in our dealings with Russia since Obama took office. As the president has greatly diminished foreign policy credibility, Putin can safely ignore anything we say or even do.

Why should the US want to influence events in the Ukraine?

Also, how can Putin ignore what the US does? And when did Russia become more important than China?

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
Why should the US want to influence events in the Ukraine?

This has been annoying me for a while now, so I'll use your post to say it: it's not "the Ukraine." It's Ukraine. No 'the'.

And we want to influence events in Ukraine for many reasons. The biggest is quite simply that Russia plays in the same sandbox we do. Iran and Syria remain major world concerns, unless something changed in the past five minutes that I'm unaware of, and we want as much leverage with their biggest backer as possible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Also, how can Putin ignore what the US does?

Because he knows we're going to take symbolic actions at best (and that only if people actually press Obama to keep his word), not go for anything actually effective.

And when did Russia become more important than China?

When did I say it had?

**Ketara**

Seaward wrote:
.

And we want to influence events in Ukraine for many reasons. The biggest is quite simply that Russia plays in the same sandbox we do. Iran and Syria remain major world concerns, unless something changed in the past five minutes that I'm unaware of, and we want as much leverage with their biggest backer as possible.

Iran I can vaguely understand. Why Syria though? The USA has no more in the way of interest there then they do Ukraine. I mean, as far as I can tell, your logic is, 'We want to meddle in something the Russians are doing so that they never meddle in anything we do'. But usually, annoying someone internationally just inspires them into annoying you even more, tit for tat style. I mean, when was the last time America deliberately went out of their way to hack off the Russians, and as a result, the Russians gave concessions on other frontiers?

**Seaward**

Ketara wrote:
Iran I can vaguely understand. Why Syria though? The USA has no more in the way of interest there then they do Ukraine. I mean, as far as I can tell, your logic is, 'We want to meddle in something the Russians are doing so that they never meddle in anything we do'. But usually, annoying someone internationally just inspires them into annoying you even more, tit for tat style. I mean, when was the last time America deliberately went out of their way to hack off the Russians, and as a result, the Russians gave concessions on other frontiers?

We literally already had this conversation, a few pages ago. I'm not doing it again.

**Ketara**

Seaward wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Iran I can vaguely understand. Why Syria though? The USA has no more in the way of interest there then they do Ukraine. I mean, as far as I can tell, your logic is, 'We want to meddle in something the Russians are doing so that they never meddle in anything we do'. But usually, annoying someone internationally just inspires them into annoying you even more, tit for tat style. I mean, when was the last time America deliberately went out of their way to hack off the Russians, and as a result, the Russians gave concessions on other frontiers?

We literally already had this conversation, a few pages ago. I'm not doing it again.

But you didn't give me an answer a few pages ago. I keep trying to pin you down to an answer, but you just keep replying, 'Because they're Russians and we should want to intimidate them generally to gain concessions in other places'. And then refusing to expand on precisely what these concessions in other places are, or why you should want them in the first place. And those are something on the order of key details which would give that viewpoint weight.

But you just don't seem to be able to tell me what they are. You either can't or won't, give me answers for:-

1) What interests the Americans have that the Russians are stepping on, which you want to gain concessions over,
2) What those concessions could be, or
3) Why you think that trying to intimidate the Russians would logically lead to the Russians giving way instead of hardening their own position further.

**Bromsy**

Ketara wrote:

1) What interests the Americans have that the Russians are stepping on, which you want to gain concessions over,
2) What those concessions could be, or
3) Why you think that trying to intimidate the Russians would logically lead to the Russians giving way instead of hardening their own position further.

1)Controlling the world - it's better to have one domineering world power than multiple world powers competing for the title. Europe was nice enough to prove this point for us by hosting two massively destructive wars because they couldn't agree on who was on top.
2) Stay in your borders and stop acting like a dick.
3)because of that time their stupid Union cracked like a poorly built workers barracks and they fell apart for the better part of two decades.

**Ketara**

....Seaward, I'm genuinely hoping your answers are better composed/reasoned than those.

**Bromsy**

Ketara wrote:
....Seaward, I'm genuinely hoping your answers are better composed/reasoned than those.

To be fair those are purposefully humorous because I default to comedy instead of trying to point out to people why I find their opinions hilarious and naive; because trying to change the opinion of someone on the internet is an exercise in futility.

**Ketara**

To be fair those are purposefully humorous because I default to comedy instead of trying to point out to people why I find their opinions hilarious and naive; because trying to change the opinion of someone on the internet is an exercise in futility.

So.,...a form of trolling in other words? With such profound witticisms, no doubt your talent will allow you to make your fortune in stand up comedy in no time.

**Ouze**

Given the source, I'm unsure how reliable this is but Pravda is reporting that Ukraine is mobilizing their military.

Ukraine declares general mobilization after Russia approves use of military force in Crimea
02.03.2014 | Source: Pravda.Ru

Ukraine declares general mobilization after Russia approves use of military force in Crimea. 52266.jpeg
Russia's Federation Council has approved the address from the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin about the deployment of limited military contingent on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea.

On Saturday, March 1, the Prime Minister of the autonomous republic, Sergei Aksyonov asked Russia for assistance.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has declared general mobilization. Secretary of the National Security and Defense of Ukraine, Andrey Paruby, reported that mobilization would be conducted across the whole country. All people liable for military service will receive draft notices and will have to come to local military committees on March 2.

On Saturday, March 1, the National Security Council of Ukraine ordered to bring the troops in full combat readiness. The Ukrainian authorities emphasize that they are against the use of force in resolving the conflict.

**Seaward**

Ketara wrote:
But you didn't give me an answer a few pages ago.

Ah, but I did. I pointed out initially that Sevastopol - and Tartus before it - are excellent leverage points. Making Russian life harder with regard to either if they don't play ball on Iran (or making it easier if they do) is, in a word, leverage.

Are they enough alone to do the job? Doubtful. Which is why you need a credible, multi-layered approach. If Putin believed we would actually do something with regard to Ukraine, that alone is itself leverage - taking the possibility that we would off the table and tacitly allowing Russia free reign in Crimea in return for more cooperation with Iran would be a theoretical option, for example. But because we've metaphorically quit the field and let Putin claim victory every time we've clashed before under Obama's watch, that's not really something we can deal based on, because Putin knows we're full of gak whenever we talk about red lines or unacceptable scenarios.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Say what you want about George W Bush (and I was one of his biggest critics) but the guy would have done something by now.

I don't want war, and this crisis will need to be solved by diplomacy, but Obama and the EU are flunking this. Putin's deployment of troops strengthens his hand and makes negotiating more difficult, unless the West matches the number of Russian troops on a tit-for-tat basis.

That's what the great diplomats/politicians of the past would have done.

**Iron_Captain**

Jihadin wrote:
Hold one. I'm under the impression its Russian Marines from Sevastapol Naval Station being used. Took control of both airports and a comm center. One airport is near Sevastopol Naval Station itself and the other airport located near the intersection of two major highways of M17and M18 located at Simferpol. Pretty much keeping a logistical lifeline from both Airport to the Naval Station by Air. Under 50 miles. If so then that's pretty much it. Unless they roll across the Russian border into Crimea and literally drive down M17.

How I know? I can read a map from a military perspective

http://www.alpina.cz/images/zajezdy/krym-cyklo/krym-mapa.jpg

Judging from the pictures, all Russian soldiers so far are indeed Sevastopol's naval infantry, but there are also reports that Russia has flown in several thousand soldiers from Russia itself.

Also, this is very interesting: http://rt.com/news/us-military-ukraine-radicals-440/

This is one of they main reasons why Russian soldiers guard the Crimea: http://rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-existential-threat-russia-413/ It is not just all politics and power play, the ethnic Russians on the Crimea are genuinely afraid of the new government in Kiev.

I've heard several reports already that Ukraine is mobilising its armies and calling up reservists, if that is true it could turn ugly...
At any rate, the Ukrainian military is a total mess: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-military-russia-resign-437/

**Salad_Fingers**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Say what you want about George W Bush (and I was one of his biggest critics) but the guy would have done something by now.

I don't want war, and this crisis will need to be solved by diplomacy, but Obama and the EU are flunking this. Putin's deployment of troops strengthens his hand and makes negotiating more difficult, unless the West matches the number of Russian troops on a tit-for-tat basis.

That's what the great diplomats/politicians of the past would have done.

You mean like how George Bush did pretty much nothing about the Georgia situation when Russia decided they wanted a piece of them?

**Breotan**

Let's be fair here, Salad. Georgia (unlike Ukraine) wasn't exactly the innocent victim they tried to portray themselves as. But, yes, Russia crossed their boarder and invaded and yes, Bush essentially did nothing.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
He handles the situation better than whoever build that horrible website...

**WarOne**

The only thing to do right now for the West is to wait and see. It would be like Canada experience troubles, the US intervenes to protect English speaking citizens, and Russia criticizing the US for invading Canada. Realistically, Russia couldn't do a darn thing.

Same goes for this reality.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ketara wrote:
The newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, earlier said he had appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".

The interim government in Kiev does not recognise Mr Aksyonov and his government, and signed a decree on Saturday that their election at an emergency session of the regional parliament this week was illegal.

This genuinely made me laugh. The unelected interim government in Kiev says that decisions made by the elected leader of autonomous Crimea are illegal.

Does the leader of the Crimea have the legal authorization to request outside assistance from other nations? If not then it is illegal.

**WarOne**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ketara wrote:
The newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, earlier said he had appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".

The interim government in Kiev does not recognise Mr Aksyonov and his government, and signed a decree on Saturday that their election at an emergency session of the regional parliament this week was illegal.

This genuinely made me laugh. The unelected interim government in Kiev says that decisions made by the elected leader of autonomous Crimea are illegal.

Does the leader of the Crimea have the legal authorization to request outside assistance from other nations? If not then it is illegal.

Through the Ukrainian Constitution, the sovereignty of the Crimea is through the Ukraine; in effect, the Crimea has no authority in foreign affairs outside what is allowed by the Ukraine.

**Pacific**

Quite an interesting article in the Independent from a former ambassador to Moscow, with some background on the current situation

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukraine-crisis-no-wonder-vladimir-putin-says-crimea-is-russian-9162734.html

In other news..

Eyewitnesses in Crimea earlier said that a convoy including a Tiger tank and two ambulances was heading for Simferopol from the Black Sea coast.

Thought the last one of those left was in Bovington tank museum!

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

This has been annoying me for a while now, so I'll use your post to say it: it's not "the Ukraine." It's Ukraine. No 'the'.

Either form is acceptable in English.

Seaward wrote:

And we want to influence events in Ukraine for many reasons. The biggest is quite simply that Russia plays in the same sandbox we do. Iran and Syria remain major world concerns, unless something changed in the past five minutes that I'm unaware of, and we want as much leverage with their biggest backer as possible.

How do events in the Ukraine relate to Russian influence in Iran and Syria?

Seaward wrote:

Because he knows we're going to take symbolic actions at best (and that only if people actually press Obama to keep his word), not go for anything actually effective.

Ok, that covers the "...anything we say..." part of your comment, but not the "...or even do." part, which was my point of contention.

And when did Russia become more important than China?

When did I say it had?

**Jihadin**

Mobilizing Ukraine Reserve forces is mistake number one. I saw the words "Draft notices" are heading out. Issue is a questionable military. Depending who dumb enough to issue a "aggressive" order to the units facing Russian units. Also where the units are from...
1. Orders to engage more likely be disobeyed
2. Tree's are marked as targets and engaged well away from Russia units (That way over the net they're being "productive")
3. Units go in unloaded and "assist/standby Russian units to say "Mission Accomplish.
4. Some idiot trigger happy ans starts shooting at the Russian unit. Russian has it well documented they were engaged first. Idiot along with his unit is "opted out"
5. Someone in Crimea calls for a new "Crimea Government" Former Ukraine units from Crimea sides with it.
6. Domino effect occurs and Southern and eastern Ukraine might break away and go Russian.

**Tyran**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ketara wrote:
The newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, earlier said he had appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".

The interim government in Kiev does not recognise Mr Aksyonov and his government, and signed a decree on Saturday that their election at an emergency session of the regional parliament this week was illegal.

This genuinely made me laugh. The unelected interim government in Kiev says that decisions made by the elected leader of autonomous Crimea are illegal.

Does the leader of the Crimea have the legal authorization to request outside assistance from other nations? If not then it is illegal.

Crimea is an autonomous republic and has its own constitution.
Also which is more legal, the democratically elected government of Crimea or the government established by a bunch of revels in Kiev? The rebels may have won in Kiev, but they never won in Eastern Ukraine.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

Ah, but I did. I pointed out initially that Sevastopol - and Tartus before it - are excellent leverage points. Making Russian life harder with regard to either if they don't play ball on Iran (or making it easier if they do) is, in a word, leverage.

If Russia continued to work with Iran how would force the issue over Sevastopol? Force the Ukraine to abrogate the Russian (essentially indefinite) lease? Invade?

Sevastopol is, for all intents and purposes, Russian territory in a region dominated by ethnic Russians. It is not a useful leverage point for the US.

**Jihadin**

Negative Tyran. Crimea in whole belongs to Ukraine

Edit

Something I picked up over the pass....ten years...to facilitate moves into new areas...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Edit

Ignore
Charlie India Alpha portion

Edit

Tibet is no longer a recognize country to the US Government to the two that was so concern about it.