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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Spoiler:

Loath as I am to refer to RT, it seems that they have picked up on a story that Reuters and the BBC are choosing to ignore.

http://rt.com/news/155724-crimea-water-supply-ukraine/

Moscow will not bargain with Kiev over Crimea's water supply

Russia will not engage in political bargaining with the Ukrainian government over its decision to cut off Crimea's water supply, Russian natural resources minister Sergey Donskoy said.

“The situation clearly shows that Kiev is unfriendly towards the people of Crimea. We’re not surprised by this as recent developments characterize the regime in Kiev as anti-popular,” Donskoy said, as quoted by Itar-Tass news agency.

Moscow will not take part in political bargaining because “it’s the ordinary people who suffer” from water shortages, the minister said as he arrived in the city of Sevastopol.

Donskoy stressed that Crimea's agricultural industry is most affected in the current situation, but added that “we’ll find ways to compensate the water demands.”

“In Crimea, a lot of water is wasted. It’s dumped into the sea. There’s no water recycling in place, which would enable us to use water for technical needs after preliminary processing,” he said.

The minister added that Crimea's water supply system is in rather bad shape after decades of Ukrainian rule.

“Today we examined the Feodosiya reservoir where over 70 percent of the water is unusable,” he explained.

According to the minister, the water supply system in Crimea will be modernized by the Russian government, taking into account the specific features of each region of the peninsula.

He added that groundwater reserves will help satisfy Crimea's needs.

“But we must use all available options,” the minister said, underlining the importance of reconstructing the existing facilities. Donskoy said this will be less expensive than erecting large desalination plants for sea water, which he called “the last option to be considered.”

On Saturday, the coup-imposed Kiev government cut off water supply through the North-Crimean Channel, which delivers water from the Dnieper River to Crimea.

Crimea’s Prime Minister Sergey Aksenov was quick to state that “there are no problems with drinking water. Agricultural producers will be compensated for their losses.”

Crimea, which is dependent on Ukraine for 85 percent of its freshwater, offered an advance payment for the water from the Dnieper River. However, the talks were sabotaged by Kiev.

The relevant documents were sent to Ukraine's water management agency on five occasions, but were returned as “far-fetched” excuses, Vitaly Nakhlupin, head of the Permanent Economic Committee of the Crimean Parliament, said.

If the Ukrainians truly have cut all the water supplies going through to Crimea, then I somewhat take the view that they mustn't complain if the Russians then in turn cut off their gas. If you're going to try to strangle the absolute essentials of a group of people (and we're talking about over 80% of the water supply used in the Crimea for drinking, washing, and farming), you don't have much of a leg to stand on to complain when others do it to you, regardless of the politics of the situation.

I do note with interest though, that if gas were cut off to Ukraine the BBC would be all over it like hot cakes, but there hasn't been so much as a whisper on Ukraine cutting off water to Crimea. A perfect example, if one was needed, that the BBC are far from impartial on this one.

The BBC did have this article on the water issue posted on April 25.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27155885

Russian officials say a water shortage in Crimea is threatening to become acute as Ukraine has reduced the supply via a key canal.

Ukraine does not recognise the new authorities in Crimea who are backed by Moscow. Russia made the peninsula part of its territory last month.

Crimea's harvest of grapes, rice, maize and soya will be ruined if it does not get more water soon, officials say.

Russia says the Crimea-Ukraine border is now officially a state border.

The Russian government plans to establish permanent checkpoints there, as well as new rules for entering or leaving Crimea, Ria Novosti news agency reports.

The North Crimea Canal delivers water to Crimea from the River Dnieper, in Ukraine's southern Kherson region. The canal accounts for 80% of Crimea's water.

The current water shortage is threatening 120,000 hectares (296,000 acres) of Crimea's crops, which rely on irrigation, Russian Agriculture Minister Nikolai Fedorov said.

A ruined harvest across that area would mean losses of up to 5bn roubles (£83m; $140m), he told the Gazeta.ru news website.

Row with Kiev
A BBC reporter in Crimea recently said the water supply was one of the chief concerns of local people, ahead of the controversial March referendum on joining Russia.

The canal authorities in Ukraine say Crimea has accumulated a huge debt for water supplied last year. The dispute is aggravated by the breakdown in relations between Kiev and Moscow.

The water supply to Crimea has diminished from 50 cu m (1,765 cu ft) per second to about 16 cu m per second, Crimea's new pro-Russian authorities say.

To deal with the shortage, new wells could be dug or water could be brought in from Russia, but such options are expensive, officials warn.

Masked Russian-speaking gunmen blockaded Ukrainian military units in Crimea last month, leading to the peninsula's annexation by Russia - a move condemned internationally.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin later admitted that regular Russian forces had helped pro-Russian militants in Crimea.

Most of the local population is Russian-speaking and Sevastopol is the base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

I googled around and was unable to find that article initially. Thank you for posting it.

However, the timestamp is a day before the water supply was cut off altogether, so my original point of no new articles being posted on it since it happened still stands to a large extent. If anything, I'm somewhat even more incredulous as the BBC is clearly aware that has happened and yet has chosen not to run a story on it.

With regards to them saying that Crimea's debt is the reaosn that they're doing it, according to the last more recent article, the Crimeans have offered to pay in advance, and they're still being ignored. So that more or less removes that flimsy excuse from the Ukrainian regime.

I love how you keep using the terminology of "Kiev regime". Totally objective to the whole situation, right?

I would call them the 'Ukrainian Government', but I'm hesitant to apply that noun to an institution that cannot control their own country, cannot control their own military, does not have possession of a good chunk of their physical land, and came to power through violence. At this stage, it's like calling the Bolsheviks a government within a few weeks of the Russian civil war starting. Recognition as a Government by America, whilst one of the key factors in becoming one, does not suffice alone to make a group of people into one.

I recognise that 'regime' is also thus technically incorrect as a result, but need some way of separating the two concepts. Regime is as good a word as any to do it, as whilst not a government, they're too large to be called a 'faction' by this stage. If you can suggest a more appropriate word, I'll happily adopt it.

Where did "pro-western protesters" take hostages?

Plus, they weren't "declaring themselves an independent nation".

Right, they just has snipers shoot pro government protesters in the initial Kiev uprising.

Sure they were, they were declaring themselves the new nation of Ukraine.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Where did "pro-western protesters" take hostages?

They captured dozens of Riot Police, beat them severely and paraded them in front of cameras to make "apologies" under duress.

Plus, they weren't "declaring themselves an independent nation".

No, just overthrowing a democratically elected government that was popular with east Ukraine and Crimea and imposing a new unelected revolutionary government onto them.

Again, total ignorance coming from someone who believes that you can take anything said by the Russian government at face value.

As opposed to...what? Taking anything said by American and European governments at face value?

The smart thing to do would be to trust no-one, and suspect everyone. Both sides have an agenda here, both sides are lying and manipulating in order to carry out those agendas. Just because one side is marginally more civilized in the way it goes about pursuing that agenda doesn't make it trustworthy.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Where did "pro-western protesters" take hostages?

They captured dozens of Riot Police, beat them severely and paraded them in front of cameras to make "apologies" under duress.

Plus, they weren't "declaring themselves an independent nation".

No, just overthrowing a democratically elected government that was popular with east Ukraine and Crimea and imposing a new unelected revolutionary government onto them.

Again, total ignorance coming from someone who believes that you can take anything said by the Russian government at face value.

As opposed to...what? Taking anything said by American and European governments at face value?

The smart thing to do would be to trust no-one, and suspect everyone. Both sides have an agenda here, both sides are lying and manipulating in order to carry out those agendas. Just because one side is marginally more civilized in the way it goes about pursuing that agenda doesn't make it trustworthy.

Have an exalt

 Ketara wrote:
I googled around and was unable to find that article initially. Thank you for posting it.

No problem. I read your posting and I immediately recalled reading something on the BBC about the water issue so I went to do some digging.

 Ketara wrote:
With regards to them saying that Crimea's debt is the reaosn that they're doing it, according to the last more recent article, the Crimeans have offered to pay in advance, and they're still being ignored. So that more or less removes that flimsy excuse from the Ukrainian regime.

When I read the water story last week I was left with the impression that it was Kiev's way of responding to Russia's threat to cut natural gas supplies. Isn't that something the Russians threatened to do shortly after taking Crimea? Or was it just threatening to inflate the price Ukraine pays for the gas? My memory is failing here. If so, and I am not asking this to argue it is more out of my own curiosity on the matter, wouldn't that make Kiev's actions more in line of a "tit" for Russia's "tat"? No water in Crimea is a humanitarian and economic crisis just like no natural gas would be the same in Ukraine (especially in 5 months when it starts to get cold). So aren't both sides being petulant children trying to exert leverage any way they can?

I guess I don't see Kiev's response with water supplies as any worse than Russia's initial move to highly inflate the price of, and or cut off, Ukraine's gas supply.

The difference is, Kiev also hasn't paid the bills in a long time, and gas costs quite a bit more than water. In actual fact, Russia weren't threatening to raise the price of gas as such, they were threatening to cut most of the subsidy, so that Ukraine paid a similar price to everyone else who buys gas from Russia.

I hope that makes sense to someone, I don't think I've phrased it very well.

That's right, I had forgotten about the subsidies. Ultimately, isn't it a matter of semantics to the Ukranian who is paying more for their gas? If it is a loss of subsidies or a regular ol' price increase the energy still costs more than it did previously.

I feel like I am missing a piece of the puzzle. Is Ukraine/Kiev considered the bad guys here because they actually did cut the water supply while Russia only threatened to cut the gas supply?

In my view at least, actually cutting off the water supply to a region you adamantly claim is still part of your country is a dick move at best. I try not to get too involved with either side of this argument, mainly because everyone has an agenda.


Something else to consider. America and Kiev maintain that Russia has covert operatives in Eastern Ukraine. From Russia's point of view, how can you go about disproving this?

 -Shrike- wrote:
In my view at least, actually cutting off the water supply to a region you adamantly claim is still part of your country is a dick move at best. I try not to get too involved with either side of this argument, mainly because everyone has an agenda.


Something else to consider. America and Kiev maintain that Russia has covert operatives in Eastern Ukraine. From Russia's point of view, how can you go about disproving this?

Trouble is everybody there speaks Russian. One Russian speaking guy in uniform, is the same as another.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I feel like I am missing a piece of the puzzle. Is Ukraine/Kiev considered the bad guys here because they actually did cut the water supply while Russia only threatened to cut the gas supply?

Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation.

If some threatens to punch you and you want to avoid that if possible, is it really wise to kick them first? Kicking them just makes it more likely that they will punch you after all.

 -Shrike- wrote:
In my view at least, actually cutting off the water supply to a region you adamantly claim is still part of your country is a dick move at best. I try not to get too involved with either side of this argument, mainly because everyone has an agenda.

Same. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just see a lot of criticism leveled at Kiev and "the West" when it looks like everyone is being rather aggressive and short-sighted in this matter so I am trying to figure out if I am missing a bigger part of the picture.

Regarding the water I understand your position, but I also wonder how I'd feel as a Ukranian in the western part of the country, and in all likelihood if I saw the actions of Russia/Crimea as unlawful then I'd probably be for turning off the water as well. Something along the lines of "You want this land? Fine. Good luck living there and growing anything without water, bitches."

It is petty, but understandable given the situation. And if those same Russians were threatening to turn off my gas or raise the price to the point that it felt punitive, then I'd likely also come to the same conclusion of "feth yo' water, bitches!"

Again, it is petty and not necessarily the appropriate response but I think an argument could be made that this whole situation is loaded with inappropriate responses from all sides.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Regarding the water I understand your position, but I also wonder how I'd feel as a Ukranian in the western part of the country, and in all likelihood if I saw the actions of Russia/Crimea as unlawful then I'd probably be for turning off the water as well. Something along the lines of "You want this land? Fine. Good luck living there and growing anything without water, bitches."

Russia: "You want to cut off Crimea's water? Fine. Good luck running your economy and heating your homes through winter without our gas, bitches."

The law of unintended consequences is in play here.

Cut off Crimea's water supply? Risk having your natural gas supply cut off.

It is petty, but understandable given the situation. And if those same Russians were threatening to turn off my gas or raise the price to the point that it felt punitive, then I'd likely also come to the same conclusion of "feth yo' water, bitches!"

Petty and self-destructive. Because responding to a threat to cut off a utility supply by preemptively cutting off another utility supply simply guarantees that the original threat to cut off a utility supply will be carried out after all. Russia now has absolute justification to cut off the supply of gas to Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is not paying its bills.
2. Ukraine started it by cutting of Crimea's water.

If someone threatens to punch you, preemptively kicking them will just prompt them to follow through on the original threat.

Again, it is petty and not necessarily the appropriate response but I think an argument could be made that this whole situation is loaded with inappropriate responses from all sides.

True. But Ukraine and their puppet masters (i.e. OUR governments) most of all.

 Allod wrote:
I get what you mean. In all fairness, I do think that "we" (put in quotes because of Austria's silly neutrality) in the west, who are so closely tied to each other, should stick up for each other, even in the face of danger. In the end, that might mean armed conflict with all its possible consequences. I just don't think that this is a clear-cut case of such defense.

Agreed on all points.

OK, that was not what I meant, I should make myself more clear: Is this terribly young nation of Ukraine identical with "the land of the Ukrainians"? History is a relevant factor here because Ukraine is a fantasy-land that was born by being drawn unto a map, not through any natural processes,

I'd argue there's no such thing as a natural process that establishes a nation or its borders, there's just fantasy lands that had their borders drawn up so long ago we all accept them as national borders, and there's borders that were drawn up more recently causing us to question them.

By now this is all crying over spilt milk, but what should have been done is to give the people their vote which state they want to belong to after the fall of the Soviet Union, instead of just recognising another soviet republic that broke away.

But different parts of the country wanted to go different ways, which could be solved by splitting the country up, but the support for East or West wasn't about becoming part of those countries, but about remaining a single country while focusing economic ties and military allegiances in one direction or the other.

Ukraine, as in, the land that the people identifying as Ukrainians can rightfully claim, deserves our protection. So far, nobody knows what this nation would look like. Unfortunately, we will never find out, because now Russia alone dictates what's Ukraine and what's not.

Very true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
you have a false equivelency fallacy here seb...

IE: if a person in US states its raining, and a person in russia says its not, then yes, they are both right, and yes, you need to take into account both veiw points to acertain the actual truth (being that is is raining in one place and not another.

If we were actually talking about rain, then your point would be genius. We're not though, and so the fact that Russia has different weather to the USA is completely irrelevant. Whether you're standing in New York or St Petersburg, the events in the Ukraine and the actions and ambitions of various governments in the country exist as objective reality.

In complicated issues, where both people are not "in the same house looking out the same window" on an issue as simple as "is it raining?", you actually do have to take all veiwpoints into account.

That is absolutely, 100% the absolute worst way you can approach a complex subject. Reality isn't decided by a consensus of everyone who wrote on the issue.

You dont HAVE to consider both viewpoints valid at all, just know that both exist, and WHY they exist, and WHY they are different.

For a media studies degree you might have to, yeah. But for figuring out the reality of a political situation that would be a total fething waste of time. Well, possibly if you wanted to explain why some people believe Russia has a defensible position in this matter you might say 'lots of people believe it because they accept lies put out by propaganda groups organised and funded by the Russian government'.

otherwise you are literally denying yourself information, then claiming to make an informed decision.

Not bothering with liars and fools is not denying information.

Just because one side is marginally more civilized in the way it goes about pursuing that agenda doesn't make it trustworthy.

Thing is it wasn't more civilized, just more savvy or underhanded. The Western sponsored "revolution" was much less civilized and caused much more bloodshed than anything that the Pro-Russians did.

Question?

We call them Pro Russians, what are they really? Would they be loyalists to the original government? They didn't actually appear to be true separatists until pressed by the new junta? They are rebelling for sure, but against revolutionaries, but I don't think they quite count as counter revolutionaries either.

What a tangled web we weave.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
When I read the water story last week I was left with the impression that it was Kiev's way of responding to Russia's threat to cut natural gas supplies. Isn't that something the Russians threatened to do shortly after taking Crimea? Or was it just threatening to inflate the price Ukraine pays for the gas? My memory is failing here.

Russia didn't just threaten to hike the price, it straight up did hike the price, as it does whenever Ukraine elects a government looks West instead of East. The Ukraine said 'it is overt political shenanigans to drive up the price based on our government and we won't pay', at which point Russia said 'if you don't pay we'll cut off the gas'.

Now, the Ukraine shouldn't get to just choose whether or not the gas price is reasonable enough for them to pay the bill, but starting factor in this, just like the starting factor in every single part of this whole damn thing, is that Russia is trying to force it's political will on to another country.

Which is, or at least should be, absolutely unacceptable to everyone.

So aren't both sides being petulant children trying to exert leverage any way they can?

Pretty much, yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
The difference is, Kiev also hasn't paid the bills in a long time, and gas costs quite a bit more than water. In actual fact, Russia weren't threatening to raise the price of gas as such, they were threatening to cut most of the subsidy, so that Ukraine paid a similar price to everyone else who buys gas from Russia.

Sort of. The subsidy was part of the generalised understanding that allowed Russia to run pipelines through the Ukraine and in to Western Europe.

And the extent of that subsidy ebbed and flowed based on whether a pro-Russian or pro-Western government was elected to power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Something else to consider. America and Kiev maintain that Russia has covert operatives in Eastern Ukraine. From Russia's point of view, how can you go about disproving this?

Part of the issue there is that it'd be really damn weird if Russia didn't have operatives. It's a country on your border, that used to be part of your greater political entity. Of course you're going to have assets in the country. Any nation would choose to establish assets in that situation.

The actual, real issue is whether those assets are being used to inflame the situation or not. And that gets even more complicated when you consider that the kind of people who sign up to work for Russia are also the exact sort of people who are going to be in favour of the uprising in the Eastern Ukraine right now, and likely to be involved in that work, whether or not Russia requests it or even wants it.

Which leaves the question of whether any involvement they likely have is at the behest of the Russian government, and well who fething knows if that's true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation.

Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Regarding the water I understand your position, but I also wonder how I'd feel as a Ukranian in the western part of the country, and in all likelihood if I saw the actions of Russia/Crimea as unlawful then I'd probably be for turning off the water as well. Something along the lines of "You want this land? Fine. Good luck living there and growing anything without water, bitches."

It is petty, but understandable given the situation. And if those same Russians were threatening to turn off my gas or raise the price to the point that it felt punitive, then I'd likely also come to the same conclusion of "feth yo' water, bitches!"

Possibly. But the thing is, Russia hasn't turned off the gas yet. They've raised the price, but as any capitalist will tell you, you have every right to sell your goods to whoever you wish, at whatever price you wish. And whilst they have indeed hiked the price, the gas still flows. The lights in Ukraine are on. Nobody is without electricity. As far as I see it, in a situation like that, to turn around and deliberately cut off 4/5 of the water supply to Crimea puts you in the wrong. Because the gas still flows freely, and no Russian or Crimean action has affected that yet.

What's more, if you consider that the Kiev lot have also been jumping up and down about how the Russians moved in and stole Crimea against the will of the people living there, why would you then turn around and inflict incredible hardship upon those who are now under supposed Russian military occupation? Unless, y'know, the people did actually want to be Russian. In which case, you're punishing them for exercising the right of self-determination.

Whichever way you look at it, the Kiev lot are committing quite the crime there in my view. Either they're punishing a populace for being conquered, or they're punishing them for deciding who they want to rule them. Both are unacceptable, and show something of the actual colours of the Kiev administration.

 Ketara wrote:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Regarding the water I understand your position, but I also wonder how I'd feel as a Ukranian in the western part of the country, and in all likelihood if I saw the actions of Russia/Crimea as unlawful then I'd probably be for turning off the water as well. Something along the lines of "You want this land? Fine. Good luck living there and growing anything without water, bitches."

It is petty, but understandable given the situation. And if those same Russians were threatening to turn off my gas or raise the price to the point that it felt punitive, then I'd likely also come to the same conclusion of "feth yo' water, bitches!"

Possibly. But the thing is, Russia hasn't turned off the gas yet. They've raised the price, but as any capitalist will tell you, you have every right to sell your goods to whoever you wish, at whatever price you wish.

Not if it's a breach of contract. Further, you're assuming that we're all accepting the idea that a free market is desirable at all times, but let's not go down that road further.

Girl says both sides corrupt.

Russia didn't just threaten to hike the price, it straight up did hike the price, as it does whenever Ukraine elects a government looks West instead of East. The Ukraine said 'it is overt political shenanigans to drive up the price based on our government and we won't pay', at which point Russia said 'if you don't pay we'll cut off the gas'.

Not really accurate, all Russia did was remove the subsidy that they had in place, now Ukraine pays the same as everyone else. That's usually what happens when you snub your nose at someone, they remove preferential treatment.

It's basically Russia saying "OK well if you want to have the EU support you instead of us, lets see them help you out with the gas bill".

Now, the Ukraine shouldn't get to just choose whether or not the gas price is reasonable enough for them to pay the bill, but starting factor in this, just like the starting factor in every single part of this whole damn thing, is that Russia is trying to force it's political will on to another country.

Which is, or at least should be, absolutely unacceptable to everyone.

Not really, Ukraine was under Russian political will, it was only when the West tried to interfere that the situation started to boil. There was a status quo that it seamed most people in Ukraine and Russia were OK with, until the West showed up. Now had the West has tried to take Ukraine politically, which I would have been fine with. When that failed they resourted to supporting a violent uprising, couldn't win fair, so they resorted to violence, that should be unacceptable to everyone!

Not if it's a breach of contract. Further, you're assuming that we're all accepting the idea that a free market is desirable at all times, but let's not go down that road further.

The Gas deal involve Putin having Sevestopol Naval Base. When Kiev changes owner ship with no mentioning of honoring the conditions of the base Putin had to respond to secure the logistical lifeline.

Yet the Kiev government wanted the West to honor its commitment to them but would not honor the commitment towards Russia.

 Jihadin wrote:

Not if it's a breach of contract. Further, you're assuming that we're all accepting the idea that a free market is desirable at all times, but let's not go down that road further.

The Gas deal involve Putin having Sevestopol Naval Base. When Kiev changes owner ship with no mentioning of honoring the conditions of the base Putin had to respond to secure the logistical lifeline.

Yet the Kiev government wanted the West to honor its commitment to them but would not honor the commitment towards Russia.

Wait, when did Kiev break the Sevastopol base agreement? Didn't that end when Russia rolled in and took over?

When Ukraine went to Hell at the beginning as in new Kiev.

Putin moved to secure Sevestopol Civilian airport and another one east at a major interstate junction about 50+ miles east. He secured the highway leading into the Naval base by locking down I believe three Ukraine Army bases that held Armor/Mech forces that would interfere with the operations of his logistical lifeline. I nailed this one out way way back in this thread

He used the Marines he had station there in Sevestapol

 Jihadin wrote:
When Ukraine went to Hell at the beginning as in new Kiev.

Putin moved to secure Sevestopol Civilian airport and another one east at a major interstate junction about 50+ miles east. He secured the highway leading into the Naval base by locking down I believe three Ukraine Army bases that held Armor/Mech forces that would interfere with the operations of his logistical lifeline. I nailed this one out way way back in this thread

He used the Marines he had station there in Sevestapol

How is that Ukraine breaking the deal with Russia though?

and the situation gets a bit more serious:

"Ukraine's acting President Aleksandr Turchinov has announced he is reinstating a military draft to help deal with the “deteriorating” situation in the country's east and south.

The draft will call on all males between 18 and 25 years of age, who are not eligible for an exemption. "

How is that Ukraine breaking the deal with Russia though?

Because they screamed "We're being invaded by Putin" when they should have asked him or better yet reassure him that his deal will be honored. No one bothered to ask Putin in political field at all. Not New Kiev nor the West. It took him a couple of days of waiting before he initiated operations to maintain operational control on the base. Still no one ask him why nor look at a map to see where exactly his units from Sevestopol deployed.

Edit

They need to break away from manning their units from individuals from the same area the unit is station in. Move western units into eastern Ukraine but that be dicey as heck.

The Ukrainian girl say government in Kiev, mostly all criminals.

Well, gak, this I was really hoping Obama was right when he was mocking Romney and Palin, but here we go, back to the 80's:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/01/nato-official-says-russia-now-adversary/?intcmp=latestnews

Ah crapgak.

No sooner do we draw troops home, to save money. We have to send them back again.

On another note,

The Pentagon cannot find a replacement for the Russian rocket engines it buys anytime soon, a senior official has revealed. The import of the engines has for now been banned via a court order lobbied by SpaceX and based on sanctions against Russia.

Washington may soon find it problematic to continue launching its military satellites, as a long-time supply connection between Russian and US defense companies has been halted and is being reviewed – all because of sanctions against Moscow in connection with the Ukrainian crisis.

Earlier ordered by US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the review of US Air Force dependence on the Russian-made RD-180 engine, used in American Atlas V rockets, has not yielded any solutions.

“We don’t have a great solution. We haven’t made any decisions yet,” Frank Kendall, the US undersecretary of defense for acquisition, was quoted as saying by Bloomberg in a Thursday article. The defense official spoke to the outlet after testifying before a Senate committee on the matter on Wednesday.

United Launch Alliance LLC, a partnership of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Boeing Co. (BA), has been purchasing RD-180 rocket engines from joint Russian-American enterprise RD-Amross LLC since 1997. The engines in question have been produced at a plant of NPO Energomash near Moscow, and over 40 of them were delivered between 1997-2007 alone.

The US has used RD-180 engines to power its Atlas III and Atlas V rockets, which mostly deliver commercial or military communications satellites, as well as reconnaissance and navigation satellites.
SpaceX fighting Russia on US space market?

So far, the replacement options outlined by the Air Force for Hagel have reportedly included building RD-180s in the US under an existing license from the Russian maker, or using different Delta-class rockets altogether. Each of the options has its drawbacks, such as the need to harness the time and know-how for setting up engine production in the US, or the limited production capability for another class of rockets, according to Kendall.

However, even as the Pentagon has yet to come up with a definite decision on the issue, the banning of the Russian engine import is being pushed through by other US players.

US billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX corporation on Wednesday won a court order temporarily blocking the Air Force from buying the Russian rocket engines on the grounds of a “potential violation” of US-imposed sanctions. The corporation says that by purchasing the engines, the Air Force is funneling money to Russia’s military industrial complex, which could be sponsoring some sanctioned Russian personas.

That was only part of the April 28 complaint filed by SpaceX, which has been desperately trying to break into the military launch market. Musk has particularly been aiming to end the Boeing/Lockheed-Martin monopoly on launching military satellites in the US.

Speaking at a congressional hearing in March, Musk alleged that such launches may be at risk due to the dependence on the Russian engine.

There has not, however, been any indication that Russia could stop the production of engines already agreed upon under the latest contract, nor did the US freeze their delivery. The Wednesday court decision did not cover existing contracts or payments either.

Despite Washington’s recently ratcheted-up rhetoric on sanctions against Russia, Bloomberg learned that five more RD-180 engines are still due to be delivered this year. The further deliveries could come under question at least temporarily, as, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Maureen Schumann, the United Launch Alliance has already stockpiled a two-year supply of the engines.

I find that very funny