dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

To stop further invasion.... that's why.

I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.

The EU and NATO are not the same things, please do not conflate them.

As to "further invasion": what responsibility does the EU have to defend the Ukraine?

 whembly wrote:
What hypocrisy?

Which international laws were broken?

I think Putin was encouraged because he believe the West won't stop him. Simply that.

How was that illegal? The U.N. authorized that.

Kofi Annan wrote:On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]

Colin Powell wrote:Powell retraction

In 2004 and 2005 Colin Powell acknowledged that much of his 2003 UN presentation was inaccurate:
“ I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[9] April 3, 2004

I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[10] Sep 8, 2005

You might have a point here... but, understand it was a fething hotbed of terrorist activies. Besides... ask the Frenchies about this one.

What mission? We didn't even start.

So?

Nah... it's the right response. Anything less than that would be deemed toothless. The current sanctions? It's a joke.

 whembly wrote:

I'm not conflating the two as I'm not really considering the EU. This is more about NATO than EU.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

To stop further invasion.... that's why.

I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.

The EU and NATO are not the same things, please do not conflate them.

As to "further invasion": what responsibility does the EU have to defend the Ukraine?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

snip

Nah... it's the right response. Anything less than that would be deemed toothless. The current sanctions? It's a joke.

The right response being increasing diplomatic tensions and the risk of an open conflict with Russia that could very easily escalate into World War III?

Do you want a war with Russia?

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

snip

Look, if you want to believe the West is hypocritical and all that... go ahead.

But, I think simply ramping up economic sanctions and diplomatically worded letters is asinine to believe it'd have any impacts on Russia.

Nah... it's the right response. Anything less than that would be deemed toothless. The current sanctions? It's a joke.

The right response being increasing diplomatic tensions and the risk of an open conflict with Russia that could very easily escalate into World War III?

Do you want a war with Russia?

Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.

Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.

The cost will be too high.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a part of Russia tried to cede right now...

 d-usa wrote:
Putin also said that countries can't just hold referendums and leave, so his word really means jack...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.

Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.

The cost will be too high.

 whembly wrote:

Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.

Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.

The cost will be too high.

 Pacific wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.

Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.

The cost will be too high.

Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?

'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.

I don't believe the Ukraine joining NATO is a terribly smart thing to do - in fact, I think it's a terrible idea! It makes the chances of an escalation that much more likely, and we shouldn't be poking the bear with a stick if we're not willing to get swiped..

 Pacific wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.

Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.

The cost will be too high.

Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?

'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.

It's an agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships. The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It restricts the passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states.

Spoiler:

 d-usa wrote:
The convention guarantees free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime and only restricts passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states.

Russia is a Black Sea state and it's still peacetime, so I'm not sure how they could do anything to Russia without violating the treaty. Unless I'm missing something...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Aren't Russia's Black Sea ports the only ones that don't freeze over in winter too?

Economic sanctions really are a good tactic. Despite Putin's posturing, it would definitely hurt.

Russia would survive without international trade, but their economy would take a nosedive. And I think they rely on a lot of food imports too.

ABC News wrote:Russian Deputy PM Laughs at Obama’s Sanctions


Russia and the United States Locked in a Duel of Super Powers

Kirit Radia wrote:MOSCOW – Russia’s deputy prime minister laughed off President Obama’s sanction against him today asking “Comrade @BarackObama” if “some prankster” came up with the list.

The Obama administration hit 11 Russian and Ukrainian officials with sanctions today as punishment for Russia’s support of Crimea’s referendum. Among them: aides to President Vladimir Putin, a top government official, senior lawmakers, Crimean officials, the ousted president of Ukraine, and a Ukrainian politician and businessman allegedly tied to violence against protesters in Kiev.

It remains to be seen whether the sanctions will dissuade Russia from annexing Crimea, but one an early clue that they will not be effective came just hours later when President Putin signed a decree recognizing Crimea as an independent state, perhaps an early step towards annexation.

U.S. official have warned of additional sanctions for Russian action, hoping it will deter Russia from any further aggression towards Ukraine, but it didn’t appear to upset the often outspoke Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.


Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin is seen in this July 17, 2012 file photo during a meeting with Indian Minister for External Affairs, S.M. Krishna in New Delhi.
Raveendran/AFP/Getty Images

Rogozin, a friend of actor Steven Seagal, took to Twitter to tweak Obama, tweeting he thinks “some prankster” came up with the sanctions list

In a later tweet addressed to “Comrade @BarackObama,” he asked, “what should do those who have neither accounts nor property abroad? Or U didn’t think about it?”

Another Russian on the sanctions list, Vladislav Surkov, also seemed unconcerned.

Surkov, a top Putin ideologue often called the Kremlin’s grey cardinal, reportedly told a Russian newspaper, “It’s a big honor for me. I don’t have accounts abroad. The only things that interest me in the U.S. are Tupac Shakur, Allen Ginsberg, and Jackson Pollock. I don’t need a visa to access their work. I lose nothing.”

Here’s who gets hit with the sanctions:

U.S. officials said that, among the sanctioned individuals were the “key ideologists and architects” of Russia’s Ukraine policy, while adding that some of the Russian officials were included in the list for their role in curbing “human rights and liberties” in Russia.

The sanctions freeze any assets under American jurisdiction and prevent American banks from doing business with the named individual, essentially freezing them out of the international banking system. The sanctions also impose a ban on their travel to the United States. Separately, but in coordination with the White House, the European Union announced sanctions today on 21 individuals that it plans to name later. U.S. officials told reporters that the American and European lists “overlapped” in some area, but declined to say how.

While some of the sanctioned officials are bold faced names, the White House move is unlikely to affect Russia’s decision making with regard to Crimea’s bid to join the Russian Federation. Russia’s stock market actually improved on the news that so few officials were included on the list. U.S. officials warned that, if Russia does go ahead with annexation of Crimea, additional penalties will follow, with more, harsher measures to come if Russia attempts to enter eastern Ukraine.

Kremlin aides

Vladislav Surkov – An aide to President Vladimir Putin, he was once considered one of Russia’s most powerful men. He has been called the Kremlin’s “gray cardinal” for his role as a power broker behind the scenes. He’s also credited the architect of Russia’s political system, with power concentrated in the presidency. In the past he was credited with shaping the ideology of the ruling United Russia party. He has also written rock music lyrics and is rumored to have authored a book.

Sergei Glazyev – An economic aide to Putin who oversaw relations with Ukraine. He frequently blasted the protest movement in Kiev and was outspoken in his criticism of American and European support for the protests.

Top government official

Dmitry Rogozin – An outspoken, hawkish Deputy Prime Minister, he’s known to have a close friendship with Hollywood actor Steven Seagal. As a member of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s government, Rogozin is responsible for the armed forces and arms industry.

Russian lawmakers

Elena Mizulina – A senior lawmaker, she is considered one of the Kremlin’s morality enforcers in the parliament. She is perhaps best known as the co-author of last year’s homosexual “propaganda” law which sparked outrage overseas. She also proposed a measure to give Ukrainians Russian passports.

Leonid Slutsky – A lawmaker in the lower house of Parliament. He is the chair of the Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration, and Relations with Compatriots. He was one of the Russian observers attending Sunday’s referendum in Crimea.

Andrei Klishas – A member of the upper house of Parliament, the Federation Council, who proposed retaliatory action in case of Western sanctions on Russia. He is chairman of the Federation Council Committee of Constitutional Law, Judicial, and Legal Affairs, and the Development of Civil Society.

Valentina Matviyenko – The head of the Federation Council, she is the most senior lawmaker on the sanctions list.

Crimean officials

Sergey Aksyonov – Once an obscure pro-Russian politician in Crimea, he has now been declared the prime minister.

Vladimir Konstantinov – The newly declared speaker of Crimea’s parliament.

Sergey Aksyonov – Once an obscure pro-Russian politician in Crimea, he has now been declared the prime minister.

Vladimir Konstantinov – The newly declared speaker of Crimea’s parliament.

Ukrainian officials

Viktor Medvedchuk – A pro-Russian politician, he is being sanctioned for having “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support” to impeached President Viktor Yanukovich. Ukraine’s opposition has accused him of orchestrating or aiding a crackdown on protesters and opposition.

Viktor Yanukovich – The ousted president of Ukraine. He was elected in 2010 but was chased from office by protests last month.

 Pacific wrote:

Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?

 Breotan wrote:
So, we now learn about these "targeted" sanctions and what the Russians (and perhaps much of the rest of the world) thinks of them. Go Team Obama!!!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
WTF?


Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?

Western Ukraine has been a part of Poland before. I would have no problem in it becoming part of Poland again, but I don't live in Western Ukraine. I don't know how the Ukrainians would feel about that. They did massacre the Poles in Volhynia in 1943...
Also, Poland is really playing world history on hard mode, being caught between Germany and Russia. How many times has Poland been invaded again? But seriously, I have a deep respect for the Poles.

 dogma wrote:
A fair point, though I would contend that many of the technological claims ring hollow. I expect the T-99 to be the next T-95.

We'll see how the PAK FA does.

 Pacific wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.

Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.

The cost will be too high.

Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?

'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.

I don't believe the Ukraine joining NATO is a terribly smart thing to do - in fact, I think it's a terrible idea! It makes the chances of an escalation that much more likely, and we shouldn't be poking the bear with a stick if we're not willing to get swiped..

PhantomViper wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.

Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.

The cost will be too high.

Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?

'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.

I don't believe the Ukraine joining NATO is a terribly smart thing to do - in fact, I think it's a terrible idea! It makes the chances of an escalation that much more likely, and we shouldn't be poking the bear with a stick if we're not willing to get swiped..

Ah, appeasement, because that worked so well in '38 when another country started annexing regions to protect their 'native' citizens, didn't it guys?


Godwinned!

 djones520 wrote:

This thread has been godwinned about 20 times already. You're late to the party.

PhantomViper wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

This thread has been godwinned about 20 times already. You're late to the party.

Bah, that is what I get for not paying enough attention.

You may have heard about a little controversy involving the mention of Adolf Hitler in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Now a new YouGov poll provides a sense of what difference mentioning Hitler can make.

In the poll, respondents were asked whether they thought the U.S. should get involved in Ukraine and what types of involvement were appropriate — sanctions, economic aid, diplomacy, military intervention, and so on. But the poll also involved an experiment. Half of respondents were asked about Ukraine only after they answered these two questions:

“Do you think Vladimir Putin’s actions in Crimea today are similar to what Hitler did in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938?”

“Would you consider it ‘appeasement’ for the U.S. and other western democracies not to take strong action to defend Ukraine?”

The other half of respondents answered these questions after they were asked about Ukraine. So we can see what effect bringing up Hitler and appeasement had on opinion.

Doug Rivers reports the results:

Only 21% of those asked in the conventional way favored U.S. involvement in the Ukraine. When this question was preceded by the questions about appeasement and comparing Putin to Hitler, support for U.S. involvement rose to 29%. It didn’t change the overall result — a majority of Americans still oppose getting involved in the Ukraine even after the parallel to 1938 is mentioned — but it does make a difference of about 8%.

Mentioning Hitler also tended to increase the percentage of Americans who favored sanctions, economic aid, providing weapons to Ukraine, and intervening militarily — although sanctions and economic aid were by far more popular than either military option. For more, see the post.

 whembly wrote:
Woah...

The West my have a wildcard against Russia.... Turkey.

Turkey's Montreux Treaty.

It's an agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships. The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It restricts the passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states.

Spoiler:

Turkey could restrict Russian naval ships and allow NATO ships passage.

That'll make a dent to Russian's economy.