Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Borachio]

Hmm. I'm not sure I wouldn't say I was in favour, as well, if I were living in the Crimea.

Not just for my own safety either. They'll probably be more financially secure than attached to a failing Ukraine. Not very financially secure, of course. Since Russia's difficulties are likely to increase in the next year or two. But better than a Ukraine which the West is clearly going to fail to support.

And that was the problem, I feel. Ukrainians wanted to move closer towards Europe. Russia felt, rightly, that it would thereby lose some hegemony. And then... what? I don't know. Russia starts annexing Crimea, actively supports Donetsk, and the West looks on, making noises; and the rest is history.

Here we are.

 

[LamaGT]

Hmm. I'm not sure I wouldn't say I was in favour, as well, if I were living in the Crimea.

Not just for my own safety either. They'll probably be more financially secure than attached to a failing Ukraine. Not very financially secure, of course. Since Russia's difficulties are likely to increase in the next year or two. But better than a Ukraine which the West is clearly going to fail to support.

And that was the problem, I feel. Ukrainians wanted to move closer towards Europe. Russia felt, rightly, that it would thereby lose some hegemony. And then... what? I don't know. Russia starts annexing Crimea, actively supports Donetsk, and the West looks on, making noises; and the rest is history.

Here we are.

"Moving closer to Europe" has to be done gradually. Considering the incredible competitiveness of the main EU markets, before it can be successfully done, Ukraine would essentially have to become another Poland.
A violent revolution and a civil war are definitely not the way to do it, I think you can agree.

There's literally nothing the West can do, Ukraine exports into Russia manufactured goods, while in the EU it exports raw materials. It's trying to cut all ties with its largest export partner while spending 18% of the budget to destroy something like 20% of its GDP. If it sounds completely r*tarded (why is this even censored?), that's because it is.

 

[red_elk]

Hmm. I'm not sure I wouldn't say I was in favour, as well, if I were living in the Crimea.

Then it should be easier for you to trust official results.

Not just for my own safety either. They'll probably be more financially secure than attached to a failing Ukraine. Not very financially secure, of course. Since Russia's difficulties are likely to increase in the next year or two. But better than a Ukraine which the West is clearly going to fail to support.

I'm getting impression that you just cannot imagine how people in their right mind can support a pro-Russian position, prefer it to pro-Western and vote accordingly. Instead, you are trying to explain it by their pragmatical (financial, security) interests. I have more simple and natural explanation - most of Russian people in Crimea just don't want to live in Ukraine and feel that their home is Russia. Better living standards is just additional bonus for them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As I said before, when you are talking about a population where anyone over the age of thirty was born a Russian (soviet) citizen it is not really all that surprising when they think rejoining Russia might be a good idea. In many respects it is their native land.

 

[Commodore]

As I said before, when you are talking about a population where anyone over the age of thirty was born a Russian (soviet) citizen it is not really all that surprising when they think rejoining Russia might be a good idea. In many respects it is their native land.

That's not really their decision to make though. Just like no state can legally secede from the US without approval from the president and congress, Crimea cannot legally secede from the Ukraine without the consent of the government in Kiev.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The government in Kiev is not in a comparable position to the government in Washington. They can't keep order in the streets of Kiev, much less in the distant corners of their country. While it is all good to discuss legality, law is fundamentally dependent upon one of two things; agreement, which is apparently lacking, or enforcement, which appears to be beyond their ability.

 

[Commodore]

The government in Kiev is not in a comparable position to the government in Washington. They can't keep order in the streets of Kiev, much less in the distant corners of their country. While it is all good to discuss legality, law is fundamentally dependent upon one of two things; agreement, which is apparently lacking, or enforcement, which appears to be beyond their ability.

True, but the government in Kiev is still the internationally recognized sovereign authority over the territory designated to the Ukraine. Crimea is part of that territory. So while they may not be able to keep control of it now, eventually they will get back on their feet and they will send forces to reclaim Crimea; probably with the complete blessing of the international community too. And if Russia tries to claim it in the interim, you can bet the international community will bully Russia into giving it back.

In other words: Awesome, the people of Crimea made it known that they no longer wish to be a part of the Ukraine and wish to rejoin Russia. Too bad that vote meant nothing since they really have no legal right to even vote on that issue unless such a referendum is held by the internationally recognized sovereign authority of their nation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Once again we get that issue with legality; it requires agreement or enforcement. If Crimea wants to be in Russia, as they apparently do, and Russia takes them in, as they apparently have, you are saying that someday Ukraine is going to have the ability to do something about it. Do you really see that someday as realistic?

The Ukraine isn't going to have a military capable of marching on Russia in my lifetime, or my kid's lifetime. By the time they do there won't be anyone in Crimea that even remembers being part of Ukraine. Is the international community going to sanction this invasion over a decades old grievance?

So that leaves the possibility of some interventionist bully stepping in sooner to do it for them. Against the Russians. That is an incredibly poor idea, and I suspect even the total Russophobes know it, somewhere under all their bluster.

 

[Commodore]

Once again we get that issue with legality; it requires agreement or enforcement. If Crimea wants to be in Russia, as they apparently do, and Russia takes them in, as they apparently have, you are saying that someday Ukraine is going to have the ability to do something about it. Do you really see that someday as realistic?

The Ukraine isn't going to have a military capable of marching on Russia in my lifetime, or my kid's lifetime. By the time they do there won't be anyone in Crimea that even remembers being part of Ukraine. Is the international community going to sanction this invasion over a decades old grievance?

So that leaves the possibility of some interventionist bully stepping in sooner to do it for them. Against the Russians. That is an incredibly poor idea, and I suspect even the total Russophobes know it, somewhere under all their bluster.

No there won't be a war for Crimea. If Russia claims it, the West will just keep tightening the economic noose around Russia's neck until they either withdraw willingly or become so impoverished that they can't maintain their presence in Crimea. This would allow the Ukrainian military to march in unopposed and will probably make life hard for the Crimeans as a form of 'punishment' for trying to secede. Kind of like how the US government punished the former CSA states after the Civil War. Not that I agree with such reprisals, but if you are going to secede from your current government, you better make sure you are going to be successful. Governments tend to get a little snippy towards those that try to slip from their grasp.

 

[red_elk]

If Russia claims it...

Russia claimed it a year ago. And looks like the West informally accepted it - the sanctions are linked to the situation in Donbass only. The case is closed.

 

[Bootstoots]

No there won't be a war for Crimea. If Russia claims it, the West will just keep tightening the economic noose around Russia's neck until they either withdraw willingly or become so impoverished that they can't maintain their presence in Crimea. This would allow the Ukrainian military to march in unopposed and will probably make life hard for the Crimeans as a form of 'punishment' for trying to secede. Kind of like how the US government punished the former CSA states after the Civil War. Not that I agree with such reprisals, but if you are going to secede from your current government, you better make sure you are going to be successful. Governments tend to get a little snippy towards those that try to slip from their grasp.

On what basis could we expect that Russia would back down on Crimea because of economic sanctions? Based on both current and historical behavior, they seem quite willing and able to endure economic hardship for the sake of national pride. I don't think the West has the capability to compel them to behave in certain ways by imposing economic sanctions alone, particularly if this would require the Russians to retreat back to their old borders with their tails between their legs. The cost of doing that would be far greater to any Russian leadership present or future than Western economic sanctions.

 

[Farm Boy]

Russia does seem to negotiate in bodies rather than currency when it comes to this sort of thing. Let me why I'm wrong if I'm wrong please.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No there won't be a war for Crimea. If Russia claims it, the West will just keep tightening the economic noose around Russia's neck until they either withdraw willingly or become so impoverished that they can't maintain their presence in Crimea. This would allow the Ukrainian military to march in unopposed and will probably make life hard for the Crimeans as a form of 'punishment' for trying to secede. Kind of like how the US government punished the former CSA states after the Civil War. Not that I agree with such reprisals, but if you are going to secede from your current government, you better make sure you are going to be successful. Governments tend to get a little snippy towards those that try to slip from their grasp.

The problem with the proposed 'economic noose' is that Russia is pretty well self sufficient. They won't thrive in isolation, but we aren't dealing with a middle east dictatorship that has to trade oil for guns to maintain order. They can't be any more isolated than they were in the cold war, and without the pressure of a mind boggling arms race they might never have folded then. I don't see them folding now.

 

[FriendlyFire]

On what basis could we expect that Russia would back down on Crimea because of economic sanctions? Based on both current and historical behavior, they seem quite willing and able to endure economic hardship for the sake of national pride. I don't think the West has the capability to compel them to behave in certain ways by imposing economic sanctions alone, particularly if this would require the Russians to retreat back to their old borders with their tails between their legs. The cost of doing that would be far greater to any Russian leadership present or future than Western economic sanctions.

Thats why I suggest that a Ukraine be divided into two and Germany EU sign a non aggression pact with Russia. The Eastern half want to be part of Russia while the Western half want to be part of the West.

Of course this is Russian mentality of National Pride, but I suspect deep down Russian know that there culture of backwardness and want to change.
Saddly though all the best, brightest are fleeing for there lives to the west and huge amounts of Russian money is leaving the country.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thats why I suggest that a Ukraine be divided into two and Germany EU sign a non aggression pact with Russia. The Eastern half want to be part of Russia while the Western half want to be part of the West.

Of course this is Russian mentality of National Pride, but I suspect deep down Russian know that there culture of backwardness and want to change.

It isn't close to half, and I have seen no indication that the Russian's 'pride' is driving them to want much of any of Ukraine. If the fairly small part that wants to go with Russia were allowed to I don't see any reason why anyone should have a problem with it. The fly in the ointment is Ukrainian pride. Despite their demonstrable inability to hold the country together, the government in Kiev would throw a fit if anyone suggested just accepting letting it fall apart.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Russia claimed it a year ago. And looks like the West informally accepted it - the sanctions are linked to the situation in Donbass only. The case is closed.

Why do you even bother ?
Its takes like 5 seconds to Google and disprove Russian state media as lies.

Yes I joked about Russia being reversed, backwardness and Vodka, (is only Joke)
but this seems to be willful nationalistic blindness of the Russians.

International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis

In response to the Crimean crisis and the subsequent annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, some governments and international organisations, led by the United States and European Union, imposed sanctions on Russian individuals and businesses. As the unrest expanded into other parts of southern and eastern Ukraine, and later escalated into the ongoing war in the Donbass region, the scope of the sanctions increased

First round of sanctions

On 6 March 2014, US president Barack Obama, invoking, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act, signed an executive order that declared a national emergency and ordered sanctions, including travel bans and freezing of their U.S. assets, against unspecified individuals to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, who had "asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine" and whose actions were found, inter alia, to "undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine".[2][3]

The first round of specifically targeted sanctions was introduced by the US, the EU and Canada on 17 March 2014,[4][5][6] the next day after the Crimean referendum and a few hours before the Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a decree recognizing Crimea as an independent state, thus laying the groundwork for its annexation by Russia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you look at the lists of individuals that were targeted by sanctions it's pretty easy to suggest that the 'first round', which was directly in response to Crimea, was limited enough to almost ignore. It was only after the rest of eastern Ukraine started saying 'what about us?' that the fur really started flying.

 

[FriendlyFire]

If you look at the lists of individuals that were targeted by sanctions it's pretty easy to suggest that the 'first round', which was directly in response to Crimea, was limited enough to almost ignore. It was only after the rest of eastern Ukraine started saying 'what about us?' that the fur really started flying.

That's a good point, though I think the wiki is missing something.

The West certainly did NOT formally accept Russia's annexation of Crimea
Sanctions started with Russian actions in Crimea
Only Russians wishful thinking would this entire case be closed.

President Barak Obama announced Mar. 20 the US will be imposing a second wave of sanctions on Russia.

The US sanctions target 20 members of Putin’s inner circle, as well as Bank Rossiya, an institution that supports officials with interests in Crimea, reports BBC.

The sanctions will put more pressure on Russia to forgo its involvement in Crimea. This latest round comes after pro-Russian military forces entered a navel base in Crimea around 2:30 a.m. Mar. 20, according to Al Jazeera.

“With its currency near an all-time low, its stock market down twenty percent this year and a marked rise in interest rates, Russia has already started to bear the economic costs of its unlawful effort to undermine Ukraine’s security, stability, and sovereignty,” said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen in a press release.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said the European Union will also be imposing more sanctions. Russia’s spot in the G8 forum has been suspended indefinitely, reports CBC.

These sanctions against Russia are the most comprehensive since the Cold War. But western news agencies report tens of thousands of Russian troops are still massing along Ukraine’s border.

Putin says they are there for training exercises. But Ukraine is afraid Russia is preparing to invade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis#cite_note-9

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's a good point, though I think the wiki is missing something.

The West certainly did NOT formally accept Russia's annexation of Crimea
Sanctions started with Russian actions in Crimea
Only Russians wishful thinking would this entire case be closed.

Agreed. But I think it might be a little wishful thinking by the west making this whole sanction business look more effective than it is.

The weakest segment in the Russian economy is probably food production. While the west has sanctioned various Russian businessmen and companies, Russia has responded by sanctioning western food exporters. That hurt pretty badly in some places, especially due to timing. Agricultural products don't have shelf life. When a grower was told shortly before harvest 'oh our governments are squabbling so our contract to purchase is voided' they were sent scrambling for buyers, and a lot of stuff got sold for pennies on the dollar rather than letting it rot. A lot of that went to intermediaries who sold it into Russia for something close to the previously agreed price anyway, so Russians weren't terribly harmed by the experience.

Meanwhile, the big international agribusiness suppliers went to Russians who are not on the sanction list. Modernization of Russian agriculture can make a huge difference in their self sufficiency in a fairly short time, and provide a pretty good economic boost in the process. And a massive profit for the agribusiness corporations, of course. So the damage to the previous supplier's export market may be long term even if the sanctions are lifted.

Bottom line, I think the targeted Russian individuals may well be pinched by western sanctions, but the Russian economy overall may benefit more from their counter sanctions. I know it isn't popular to show him any respect, but Putin's economic play seemed much better thought out than Europe's. I know Europe got pressured into a 'do something even if it's wrong' position by the US...but economically the US is not Europe's friend so the fact they then took the brunt of the consequences may not be just bad luck. I would score the match a draw between US and Russia, with the EU the clear loser.

 

[Bootstoots]

A fairly minor couple of rounds of sanctions followed the Crimea annexation, as did a General Assembly resolution and some other diplomatic minutiae designed to signal that the US+allies were displeased. It strikes me as unlikely that this would have gone much further had it not been for the Donbass war. Western countries would have been unlikely to have recognized the Crimea as Russian territory for a very long time if ever, but this would not have prevented them from mostly continuing to do business with Russia.

My best guess is that something of this nature will still be the final outcome in Ukraine, with Crimea an internationally unrecognized part of Russia, and unrecognized frozen conflict zones holding in Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts. Ukraine could grant them some sort of "autonomous republic" status and still claim their territory (along with Crimea) even though everybody knows they don't actually control them. Russia would treat them like it already does Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The rest of Ukraine is likely to join NATO, which is probably a more serious punishment to the Russians than the economic sanctions. For the sake of regional stability I would recommend against that outcome (or enlarging NATO generally), but this seems most likely to me.

The US and most of its allies will have trouble discontinuing any significant sanctions while this sort of "unsatisfactory" situation prevails. For us, like for Russia, economic logic doesn't really rule the day: if we have some ideological problem, we will base our actions on our ideology rather than on what would make rational sense. Cuba is an excellent example of how that can continue for absurd lengths of time. Some allies that actually depend far more than the US does on Russian trade (Germany in particular) will probably loosen sanctions quietly, but the US will resist this for as long as possible.

If sanctions persist, they won't force Russia out of Crimea and the Donbass. Instead, Russia will take the short-term economic hit and become less dependent on the West in general. They were in a similar situation in the Cold War and can now form a strong trading bloc with China and other non-aligned nations, so the situation should be manageable. If anything, the main lesson the Russians will learn is that they should never have become as dependent on the West as they became in the 1990s and 2000s.