5 ms·

One interesting point is the agreement with Ukraine in favor of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1]. To sum it up roughly, Ukraine ended

by yoha 13y ago

One interesting point is the agreement with Ukraine in favor of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1]. To sum it up roughly, Ukraine ended up with a lot of nuclear devices after the split of USSR. Since nuclear powers wanted to avoid the spread of the deadly weapon, they convinced Ukraine into getting rid of its nuclear arsenal. In exchange, US, Russia, UK and France agreed to respect and help defend Ukraine's borders. So, it would seem that Russia did violate this agreement but there remains to see what other countries will do. One thing to underline is that they would have to respond to a call for help from Ukraine and, with the ousting of the Ukrainian government, it is still unclear who is to make the call. The strategy of Russia might just have been to play on this period of uncertainty to claim some of Ukraine's territory. Because the US-Russia relation is still similar to the one from during the Cold War, they might really want to avoid a direct conflict with Russia. Until the situation in Ukraine is settled, Russia can move its troops without having to face the US. Once it's settled, the US will probably not want to engage a fight and will not push them back out of Ukraine. tl;dr: Russia might be on a conquer-and-hold over Crimea Edit: the agreement is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
The Crimea, presently, is threatening to secede from Kiev. That this appears to largely be the work of Russian special forces is a moot point. Russia is interpreting its obligation to protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity as compelling it to prevent the Crimea from seceding. In its eyes, the regime in Kiev is illegal and antagonising ethnic Russians in the Crimea. The simplest solution, to Moscow, is fighting the illegal" regime. This follows a similar script to Georgia - provoking the new regime into aggression and then intervening to keep the peace (with such an intervention not necessarily restricted to the initial separatist areas, e.g. South Ossetia or Crimea). In Russia's defence, it is a strategy the United States has used to great success as well.
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  [Actually open to correction, I swear] Didn't Georgia invade South Ossetia shortly after vague noises about it being able to join NATO one day? I understand that under modern international law South Ossetia is part of Georgia but it's never been actually ruled by post-Soviet Georgia. They were invading. On a separate note, why would any country treat the UK's guarantee as worth anything after Cyprus? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus In response to the coup, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sent Joseph Sisco to try to mediate the conflict.[42] Turkey issued a list of demands to Greece via a US negotiator. These demands included the immediate removal of Nikos Sampson, the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard, the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, equal rights for both populations, and access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots.[47] These demands were rejected as they would have given Turkey an unacceptable amount of power on the island. Turkey, led by Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit, then applied to Britain as a signatory of the Treaty of Guarantee to take action to return Cyprus to its neutral status. Britain declined this offer, and refused to let Turkey use its bases on Cyprus as part of the operation.
  - lmg643 13y ago
    Yes, Georgia invaded South Ossetia. It's incredible how often this incident is twisted to portray the Russians as aggressors.
    - jnbiche 13y ago
      Yes, because Russia has never displayed any aggression in the Caucasus.
      - lostlogin 13y ago
        Not that others are without fault here. We commentate the day here in New Zealand that a load of our troops went into the Caucuses. The deaths of New Zealand troops was somehow nation forming. There are those that see glory in killing nearly 3,000 young men and wounding nearly 5,000 on some grotty strip of coast that is about as far from home as its possible to get.
speeder 13y ago
Mind you Crimea asked for help (and today some other states also asked for help, and passed laws authorizing referendums to ask their citizens if they want to leave Ukraine) Also Russia still consider Yanuk as the president, since he was physically kicked out (the day he fled some Right-Sector people were actually trying to kill him, his car for example ended full of bullet holes), and they consider that since Yanuk authorized they to get inside to get rid of the new government (that in eyes of Russia is illegal), then it is not a invasion, or a act of war. Of course that is just the theoretical explanation, if Putin REALLY believe that stuff or not, is another thing entirely.
nl 13y ago
Of course the US, UK and/or France aren't going to intervene, anymore than they intervened in Georgia. But I doubt Russia actually wants war with the Ukraine either. They just want a Russia-friendly government installed, which they may well end up getting.

by yoha 13y ago

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

The Crimea, presently, is threatening to secede from Kiev. That this appears to largely be the work of Russian special forces is a moot point. Russia is interpreting its obligation to protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity as compelling it to prevent the Crimea from seceding. In its eyes, the regime in Kiev is illegal and antagonising ethnic Russians in the Crimea. The simplest solution, to Moscow, is fighting the illegal" regime. This follows a similar script to Georgia - provoking the new regime into aggression and then intervening to keep the peace (with such an intervention not necessarily restricted to the initial separatist areas, e.g. South Ossetia or Crimea). In Russia's defence, it is a strategy the United States has used to great success as well.

barry-cotter 13y ago
[Actually open to correction, I swear] Didn't Georgia invade South Ossetia shortly after vague noises about it being able to join NATO one day? I understand that under modern international law South Ossetia is part of Georgia but it's never been actually ruled by post-Soviet Georgia. They were invading. On a separate note, why would any country treat the UK's guarantee as worth anything after Cyprus? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus In response to the coup, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sent Joseph Sisco to try to mediate the conflict.[42] Turkey issued a list of demands to Greece via a US negotiator. These demands included the immediate removal of Nikos Sampson, the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard, the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, equal rights for both populations, and access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots.[47] These demands were rejected as they would have given Turkey an unacceptable amount of power on the island. Turkey, led by Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit, then applied to Britain as a signatory of the Treaty of Guarantee to take action to return Cyprus to its neutral status. Britain declined this offer, and refused to let Turkey use its bases on Cyprus as part of the operation.
- lmg643 13y ago
  Yes, Georgia invaded South Ossetia. It's incredible how often this incident is twisted to portray the Russians as aggressors.
  - jnbiche 13y ago
    Yes, because Russia has never displayed any aggression in the Caucasus.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      Not that others are without fault here. We commentate the day here in New Zealand that a load of our troops went into the Caucuses. The deaths of New Zealand troops was somehow nation forming. There are those that see glory in killing nearly 3,000 young men and wounding nearly 5,000 on some grotty strip of coast that is about as far from home as its possible to get.

speeder 13y ago

Mind you Crimea asked for help (and today some other states also asked for help, and passed laws authorizing referendums to ask their citizens if they want to leave Ukraine) Also Russia still consider Yanuk as the president, since he was physically kicked out (the day he fled some Right-Sector people were actually trying to kill him, his car for example ended full of bullet holes), and they consider that since Yanuk authorized they to get inside to get rid of the new government (that in eyes of Russia is illegal), then it is not a invasion, or a act of war. Of course that is just the theoretical explanation, if Putin REALLY believe that stuff or not, is another thing entirely.

nl 13y ago

Of course the US, UK and/or France aren't going to intervene, anymore than they intervened in Georgia. But I doubt Russia actually wants war with the Ukraine either. They just want a Russia-friendly government installed, which they may well end up getting.