Crimea: Sanctions vs diplomacy

realitykeeper

The EU and US have taken a rather belligerent stance against Russia following the vote in Crimea. It seems to me that at every level, diplomacy has not even been attempted.

When the cold war ended, there seemed to be a brief period when relations between Russia and the West had well and truly thawed. Back then, there was an opportunity to build on the genuine goodwill and friendship that prevailed at the time. Ending the cold war had required enormous trust between the superpowers and that had translated into a certain level of economic and scientific co-operation. So what went wrong.

I think the problem is that old animosities and suspicions were allowed to re-emerge. Efforts must be made to re-establish trust. To do that, leaders must take a self effacing look at themselves and the legacy of their country`s respective foreign policies.

The EU/US should recognize the outcome of the vote in Crimea and stop the sanctions. The Russians should recognize the new Ukrainian government. The Ukrainians should be prepared to forgive Russia for its past sins and provide and neutral corridor between Russia and Crimea. Russia should apologize to Ukraine for the wrongs of the past.

The best politicians are the ones we don`t remember.

Nodin

Theres the public attitude, the stance, and the private attitude. Essentially they've taken the grab of Crimea as a fait accompli and are warning off a split of Ukraine, rather than seriously expecting a change of Crimeas status back to what it was.

View

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think the problem is that old animosities and suspicions were allowed to re-emerge.

Well that is what happens when one country invades another and annexes part of its territory.

After that, we know we can trust Russia to break international treaties (the 1994 one in which it guaranteed to respect the then Ukraine-Russia borders) when it suits itself, hence we can trust that any international commitment it gives is worthless.

Scofflaw

realitykeeper wrote:

The best politicians are the ones we don`t remember.

Like Gorbachev, Reagan, Thatcher, and Kohl? I'm not so sure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

realitykeeper

View wrote: »

Well that is what happens when one country invades another and annexes part of its territory.

After that, we know we can trust Russia to break international treaties (the 1994 one in which it guaranteed to respect the then Ukraine-Russia borders) when it suits itself, hence we can trust that any international commitment it gives is worthless.

The real aggressors are NATO and the EU. Instead of creating a new organisation comprising NATO and Russia twenty years ago, NATO kept its name and expanded eastwards in a provocative and arrogant act of expansionism. Russia was struggling financially and the collapse of the USSR had left it humiliated. Rather than pushing the advantage I think the US and the EU should have tried to build on the newly improved relationship with Russia. Failure to do so has been an opportunity lost.

The EU in recent times did not help either. The position adopted by the EU was that the Ukraine should choose between the EU and Russia for economic partnership whereas Russia had made no such precondition. Why should the Ukraine have to choose? Why not both? The unrest in Ukraine would not have happened were it not for the EU precondition.

While no reasonable person could object to 97% of Crimea's population voting to rejoin the rest of Russia, the UN could. Perhaps it is time to rename the U.N. as the U.N.R.E.A.S.O.N.A.B.L.E.

As for the Ukraine, this situation in Crimea could be to their advantage if they could forgive whatever historical grievances they may have. For example, Russia could finance a new motorway/railway through Ukraine to Crimea and Ukraine would get the benefit by way of slip roads to towns on the route and railway stations for commuters.

Alternatively, Russia may become increasingly aggressive and invade the Ukraine to secure territories it deems desirable to its interests and security. This scenario is much more likely given the EU and US efforts to "make Ukraine strong" through investment. That said, the relentless and determined efforts of the US and EU to drive a wedge between the Ukraine and Russia may be part of a hidden agenda. Both the EU and US economies are very vulnerable and ultimately they will crash. They may require a war under the present circumstances. Economic measures like quantitative easing will fail and economic catastrophe is inevitable. Without a war, there could be no excuses.

View

realitykeeper wrote: »

The real aggressors are NATO and the EU. Instead of creating a new organisation comprising NATO and Russia twenty years ago, NATO kept its name and expanded eastwards in a provocative and arrogant act of expansionism. Russia was struggling financially and the collapse of the USSR had left it humiliated. Rather than pushing the advantage I think the US and the EU should have tried to build on the newly improved relationship with Russia. Failure to do so has been an opportunity lost.

The EU in recent times did not help either. The position adopted by the EU was that the Ukraine should choose between the EU and Russia for economic partnership whereas Russia had made no such precondition. Why should the Ukraine have to choose? Why not both? The unrest in Ukraine would not have happened were it not for the EU precondition.

While no reasonable person could object to 97% of Crimea's population voting to rejoin the rest of Russia, the UN could. Perhaps it is time to rename the U.N. as the U.N.R.E.A.S.O.N.A.B.L.E.

As for the Ukraine, this situation in Crimea could be to their advantage if they could forgive whatever historical grievances they may have. For example, Russia could finance a new motorway/railway through Ukraine to Crimea and Ukraine would get the benefit by way of slip roads to towns on the route and railway stations for commuters.

Alternatively, Russia may become increasingly aggressive and invade the Ukraine to secure territories it deems desirable to its interests and security. This scenario is much more likely given the EU and US efforts to "make Ukraine strong" through investment. That said, the relentless and determined efforts of the US and EU to drive a wedge between the Ukraine and Russia may be part of a hidden agenda. Both the EU and US economies are very vulnerable and ultimately they will crash. They may require a war under the present circumstances. Economic measures like quantitative easing will fail and economic catastrophe is inevitable. Without a war, there could be no excuses.

Ukraine and the EU member states believed that as sovereign nations they had the sovereign right to enter into Free Trade Agreements on whatever terms and conditions were best suited to themselves.

Russia, however, has adopted the position that an independent sovereign nation - Ukraine - must do as it is told by Putin and, when it didn't, launched an invasion and illegal annexation of the sovereign territory of an independent sovereign nation just as Hitler used to do to neighbouring countries many decades ago.

It says a lot for today's Russia that it is following in the deluded doctrine of Hitler, doesn't it?

You can be sure that every single European country bordering Russia, that isn't already a member, will be looking at NATO membership and increased defence spending in the wake of the contempt that Russia has shown for the basic principles of international law.

Russia has proven that it can't be trusted and the rest of the world would be foolish to believe ANY commitment it gives since, as with the 1994 treaty where it promised to respect the then Russia-Ukraine border, no one can take a word of what Russia promises seriously.

realitykeeper

View wrote: »

It says a lot for today's Russia that it is following in the deluded doctrine of Hitler, doesn't it?

Hitler was the consequence of the Treaty of Versailles. Putin gets his support by facing down ongoing attempts by NATO, the EU and the US to humiliate and isolate Russia since the collapse of the USSR. The more this continues the more support Putin will enjoy. Lest we forget, Putin was appointed by Yeltsin around the time (or shortly after) the US bombed Serbia. Clinton constantly humiliated and outraged Russians by this murderous campaign and Yeltsin in particular by his conduct at what was then called the "G7 and Russia." Yeltsin`s response was to appoint Putin. So Putin is a consequence of western aggression.

Yeltsin was chosen precisely because he will not be pushed around, so the more the west up the pressure the more Putin will respond and the more popular he will become.

It is time for diplomacy and lots of it. Most of the diplomacy will have to come from the west.

petronius

Diplomacy should be used, the west (EU and US) allowed ukraine to fester since the demonstrations and they seemed to sponsor a change of government (a coup) always a dangerous thing.
Naturally the Russian speaking, and aligned east and crimea fear their identity and rights and connection to Russia would be superseded by a pro-western(and indeed anti-Russian administration).

Crimea is a Russian place and only a Soviet era dictate moved it to Ukrainian SSR administration.

How can anyone support parties like Svoboda being in government .

jimeryan22

petronius wrote: »

Diplomacy should be used, the west (EU and US) allowed ukraine to fester since the demonstrations and they seemed to sponsor a change of government (a coup) always a dangerous thing.
Naturally the Russian speaking, and aligned east and crimea fear their identity and rights and connection to Russia would be superseded by a pro-western(and indeed anti-Russian administration).

Crimea is a Russian place and only a Soviet era dictate moved it to Ukrainian SSR administration.

How can anyone support parties like Svoboda being in government .

Because most here seem to believe the western propaganda and ignore old facts like the ones you just mentioned...

Jonny7

petronius wrote: »

Diplomacy should be used, the west (EU and US) allowed ukraine to fester since the demonstrations and they seemed to sponsor a change of government (a coup) always a dangerous thing.

Appears to be the opposite, was a lot of support for the interim gov and stability in Ukraine - especially from regional EU countries

Naturally the Russian speaking, and aligned east and crimea fear their identity and rights and connection to Russia would be superseded by a pro-western(and indeed anti-Russian administration).

Many feared what local Russian TV, radio and print were telling them, not the reality

Polls in Crimea in previous years showed swinging whimsical support for joining Russia

How can anyone support parties like Svoboda being in government .

The French just gave a 25% vote toward an anti-semitic racist outfit

The Svoboda presidential candidate got around 1% of the vote. We'll see how well they do in parliamentary elections, but I would doubt no better than Golden Dawn or BNP in their respective countries

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

Appears to be the opposite, was a lot of support for the interim gov and stability in Ukraine - especially from regional EU countries



Many feared what local Russian TV, radio and print were telling them, not the reality

Polls in Crimea in previous years showed swinging whimsical support for joining Russia



The French just gave a 25% vote toward an anti-semitic racist outfit

The Svoboda presidential candidate got around 1% of the vote. We'll see how well they do in parliamentary elections, but I would doubt no better than Golden Dawn or BNP in their respective countries

Plus I will add, it's quite clear voters in many countries are sick with the usual cronies, 2/3 heads on the same body type of politics that has been going on for a very long time... Unfortunately it's the cycle of history repeating itself...
Adversity, prosperity, decadence

jimeryan22

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines

Jonny7

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Plus I will add, it's quite clear voters in many countries are sick with the usual cronies, 2/3 heads on the same body type of politics that has been going on for a very long time... Unfortunately it's the cycle of history repeating itself...
Adversity, prosperity, decadence

Hmmm

European country gives 25% vote to far-right - excuses are made

Ukraine, in dire economic straits and under one of the worst klepocrats in modern history votes 10% for the far-right - gets the full hysterical treatment; neo-Nazi government, fascist takeover coup, the lot

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hmmm

European country gives 25% vote to far-right - excuses are made

Ukraine, in dire economic straits and under one of the worst klepocrats in modern history votes 10% for the far-right - gets the full hysterical treatment; neo-Nazi government, fascist takeover coup, the lot

I'm pretty sure the globe is in dire straits economically.. We all know the markets are rigged, it's all a massive bubble, being manipulated...
Cooked numbers, so it's no different any where... You have to take into account it's no longer the "baby boomers" doing all the voting, and younger people aren't stupid, they've well cottoned on to the usual clowns, but maybe are naive enough to think nationalism is the way out, I don't think so myself... Either way times is changing.. Fascism is pretty much on the go.. Sure the very definition of being.. "The merger of corporate and state".... That happend the moment all country's decided "too big to fail". Namely bail out private banks with public money..... There is no such thing as too big to fail in the capitalist system.. So I would say we're already into fascism in most places

petronius

EU/US Sponsored the Coup (removing a democratically elected leader however disliked) and replacing them with a pro-western junta who were obviously going to side with the west, take the EU-Schilling and automatically alienate the pro-russian part of the country

A chocolate and media magnet gets elected president, agrees to sell his confectionary empire - but not his Media Outlets so as to maintain his control over the media narrative favouring him... (Silvio like)

comongethappy

petronius wrote: »

A chocolate and media magnet gets elected president, agrees to sell his confectionary empire - but not his Media Outlets so as to maintain his control over the media narrative favouring him... (Silvio like)

How has the independent media sector been getting along in Russia lately?

Is there any left?

jimeryan22

comongethappy wrote: »

How has the independent media sector been getting along in Russia lately?

Is there any left?

Just a swipe... doesn't change Petronius's statement at all.. It's just a smart Alec remark really...

CptMackey

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Just a swipe... doesn't change Petronius's statement at all.. It's just a smart Alec remark really...

If ye all think that Putin is a great fella ye should read the book about how he came to power and how it controls Russia now which has no free media

jimeryan22

CptMackey wrote: »

If ye all think that Putin is a great fella ye should read the book about how he came to power and how it controls Russia now which has no free media

I don't think I've seen one person on any Ukraine thread mention Putin in a good light.. Some here have taken it that way alright... I'd agree Putin being ex KGB is by no means a good fella you'd go for a pint with...
Good doc here...

http://youtu.be/m5Rkom1RpKA

Jonny7

petronius wrote: »

EU/US Sponsored the Coup (removing a democratically elected leader however disliked) and replacing them with a pro-western junta who were obviously going to side with the west, take the EU-Schilling and automatically alienate the pro-russian part of the country

Which European countries exactly were involved in this coup and how did they implement it?

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which European countries exactly were involved in this coup and how did they implement it?

Hmmmmn

Maybe some maybe all.. Who knows..
Defo, Britain Germany Poland Baltic states....

Jonny7

So Britain, Germany, Poland, and all the Baltic states conspired to get rid of Yanukovych... how did they do it?

After that I have questions on how they chose the interim government, and how they fixed the election so that "their man" got in

Obviously those claiming this was all planned are doing so on strong evidence and not say.. their own dogmatic beliefs.. so will be interested to see all the evidence provided

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

So Britain, Germany, Poland, and all the Baltic states conspired to get rid of Yanukovych... how did they do it?

After that I have questions on how they chose the interim government, and how they fixed the election so that "their man" got in

Obviously those claiming this was all planned are doing so on strong evidence and not say.. their own dogmatic beliefs.. so will be interested to see all the evidence provided

I did say jonny. Maybe all maybe none maybe some. Who knows...

To think none of them had some form of heads up would be naive In my opinion..

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

So Britain, Germany, Poland, and all the Baltic states conspired to get rid of Yanukovych... how did they do it?

After that I have questions on how they chose the interim government, and how they fixed the election so that "their man" got in

Obviously those claiming this was all planned are doing so on strong evidence and not say.. their own dogmatic beliefs.. so will be interested to see all the evidence provided

God, I wish the world was as black and white as you see it.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

God, I wish the world was as black and white as you see it.

Obviously I am very disappointed, it would be fascinating if there was a European plot to remove Yanukovych, I'd love to know who was involved and how they pulled it off..

Doesn't seem to be much interest in that part of it so far

realitykeeper

jimeryan22 wrote: »

I don't think I've seen one person on any Ukraine thread mention Putin in a good light.. Some here have taken it that way alright... I'd agree Putin being ex KGB is by no means a good fella you'd go for a pint with...
Good doc here...

http://youtu.be/m5Rkom1RpKA

KGB operatives are for the most part honest to goodness, law abiding, God fearing folk just like their CIA counterparts.