There was no Nazi government propped up in Ukraine (and certainly not a totalitarian one). The majority of the protestors are pro-EU democrats trying to escape Russia's sphere of influence. Besides, it's not exactly a new strategy on Putin's part to utilize trumped-up ethnic rivalries in order to undermine and bully former Soviet states.
Schröder's parliament leader also said Bush was like the dictator, Julius Ceasar and his minister of justice said Bush's policies were more like Adolf Hitlers. They should know, right?
Secession is illegal.
Perhaps if you had read their history and what the Ukraine nationalist parties really stand for, you might think differently. The Svoboda is little more than a front for extreme right wing neo-nazi fascists...
Svoboda (political party) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See the red/black flags and the blue/gold flags and all those nazi uniforms? They are nationalists and are at the heart of every protest and difficult to miss....and now they are the new government.....
https://www.google.com/search?q=ukr...=isch&ei=4-MhU6SGMumIyAH7_4HwCg&start=20&sa=N
Aside from their goal of ethnic cleansing and Ukrainian purity, the Svoboda want to nationalize Ukraine industries, forbid private ownership of property, forbid imports of foreign products that compete with Ukraine products, and to re-acquire nuclear weapons....I don't see how they expect to join the EU or NATO with a platform like that and I don't see why the US is supporting them. Trading one bad apple for a rotten apple isn't the way to go, imo.
I was looking at something today that said that Germany gets almost 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia. I don't think there is enough leverage there to force the issue with Russia. Any attempt at imposing substantial sanctions could be met with a disruption with those gas supplies. Germany is the engine of the European economy. Any such disruption would likely was devastating effects on the European economy at this crucial time.
There are two questions being put to the vote:
1. Are you in favour of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea reuniting with Russia as a constituent part of the Russian Federation?
2. Are you in favour of restoring the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 1992 and of Crimea's status as part of Ukraine?
However, the referendum rules do not state whether there is a threshold number of votes needed for the result to be enacted.
It's always a 'crucial time' because we feel we are at risk now and the past is done with. In fact this is one of the least crucial times in modern history and we have to do what is necessary and right to keep it that way.
Russia now has the Crimea and will keep it. We can see the recent propaganda coming our way that the rest of the Ukraine is corrupt, dangerous, terrorist, etc. in order to give Russia credibility to enter the rest of the Ukraine.
Will Europe make sacrifices in their energy needs in order to block the Russian bear? sacrifice hasn't been necessary for western Europeans for the last couple of generations so they hope the problem, and the Ukrainians, will just quietly go away. Putin is banking on this reaction of course.
But perhaps Europeans have more spine than we give them credit for. Their plan for action should Russian extend further into the Ukraine is where the crucial part lies.
There was no Nazi government propped up in Ukraine (and certainly not a totalitarian one). The majority of the protestors are pro-EU democrats trying to escape Russia's sphere of influence. Besides, it's not exactly a new strategy on Putin's part to utilize trumped-up ethnic rivalries in order to undermine and bully former Soviet states.
Yeah, and the Syrian opposition are democrats, too. lmao, dude, you're a hoot.
I just showed how neither the acting heads of state nor the Ukrainian Parliament are dominated by nationalists in any sense of the term.
While I feel there is merit to the notion that it's always a crucial time, I don't agree that this is one of the least crucial times in modern history. I think that case could have been made before the protests got too heated in Ukraine, but especially since the Ukrainian government was brought down, I think we are at an extremely crucial time in modern history. I think part of the problem is that we don't tend to look at the problem from the other side of the issue. There has been quite a bit of talk about bringing Ukraine into NATO. That would be a very big problem for Russia. I would mean that the military might of the United States would be right at their doorstep. It would mean that if Ukraine decided to deny them access to their base at Sevastopol, there would be very little they could do about it. For Russia, this would mean a big decline in their power, after already having conceded so many former countries in their sphere of influence to NATO. That's what Russia is looking at. A leader of Russia at this point, cannot ignore this and would have to act strongly to prevent this from happening. That's the problem.
As the Russian minister pointed out at the UN yesterday. The present Ukrainian government is illegitimate, having taken its position by force through violence, toppling the elected government and driving the president out, firing upon his caravan as he fled. That's not democracy.
Indeed, and them with the more extreme wings weren't (and hopefully aren't) representative of the majority of the population.Svoboda is a Ukrainian nationalist group, you're right on that account; however, it in no way is representative of Ukraine's new government.
The party which has led the movement is the pro-EU conservative "Fatherland" party.
Both the acting president and the PM are members of this party, and it and Yanukovych's old Party of Regions are the largest two parties in Parliament.
It accounted for 8% in the parliament based on the previous electons, unfortunately like I already explained these elections have nothing to do with the situation that we have now. Svoboda's Tyagnibok is one of the main 2 winners of the revolution, together with Yatzenuk, (2 and not 3 as I don't consider Klichko as someone that has future in Ukraine's political life).Svoboda, on the other hand, only accounts for 8% of MPs.
What do you suggest should be done? The opinion of the 'Russian minister' is neither here nor there. The Ukrainians can work it out for themselves.
Here's some history.
BBC NEWS | Europe | Bush backs Ukraine on Nato bid
It all depends on how this Crimea situation is handled, and that alone is not 'crucial', though it all depends on western reaction. If the western democracies are strongly united against further advancement by the Russians then the situation can be diffused, though with the loss of the Crimea. Overall that is no big deal.
As the article form the BBC shows, among others, that the Germans, the French, the US Democrats and certainly the Russians, were against having the Ukraine in NATO. We can understand why but will the Germans and French respond with more vigor against Russia this time? It seems clearly in their own best long term interest to do so.
This entire situation can be easily handled if the west stays firm for the next couple of weeks and are planning now for their response to what might happen next. Russian should never be allowed to advance further into the Ukraine. If they do then the situation will definitely become crucial. Cheers.
It's not just an opinion, its what actually happened, and the government that stands wasn't elected, as the one that got toppled was. I do agree that this is a Russian/Ukrainian issue, and they should work it out themselves, but then its already too late for that.
How is it a Russian issue as to what goes on in the Ukraine? It is an international issue, if anything.
I agree that it depends on how the situation is handled, and that's exactly why it is crucial. But no need to quibble over that detail.
I also agree that it's possible tensions can be diffused if cool heads prevail. The likely annexation of Crimea and the rest of Ukraine becoming a part of the EU will mean some differences in the way business is conducted. Actually I think that if that happens, and Ukraine DOES NOT become a part of NATO, that might be a good thing, because it would mean that the issue would be somewhat settled and would therefore result in more stability, if both sides leave it at that. However, if there is an attempt, in the short term to bring Ukraine into NATO, that will be a problem and instability in the area will continue, with the possibility that the conflict could erupt into a global conflict. Having said that, if Russia is allowed to have Crimea, they should be able to tolerate, although with some discomfort, the rest of Ukraine being in NATO. That's only in the long run though, and if that's what the people of Ukraine ultimately want.
I believe that if, as Kerry as seemed to indicate, the US and Europe try to impose SUBSTANTIAL sanctions on Russia for the annexation of Crimea, then that will be a problem for both sides. As I stated before, Germany in particular gets close to 40 percent of it's natural gas from Russia. The imposition of substantial sanctions would almost certainly mean a disruption in those supplies. Although I think it will hurt Russia more, Europe and the US will feel a substantial bite as a result. Why? It would mean an increase in energy prices for Germany, who has been the engine of the European economy. German exports will become more expensive which will depress demand and the already fragile European economy will suffer significantly and likely go into an depression. The US will likely have to use the power of the Federal Reserve to prop up the European financial system as it did back in 2008. This will put increased stress on Federal Reserve which will decrease confidence in the global financial system, and could likely send the US economy, which is still struggling to recover from the effects of the Great Recession, into depression as well. Like I said, although Russia will likely suffer most, the effects on Europe and the United States will be extremely unpleasant to say the least. So I think substantial sanctions are in no one's interest.
But back to the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine. If there is a push to bring Ukraine into NATO in the short term, Russia will almost certainly respond by using what influence they have in the non-Crimean part of Ukraine to create as much instability as possible. And they may even respond by attempting to seize the parts of Eastern Ukraine where their influence is very substantial. If that happens, then things could get out of hand very fast, especially if Ukraine is actually admitted to NATO. That could lead to all out war between the US and Russia. Although I don't think this scenario is likely, it is not out of the realm of possibility, and which is why, as you have seemed to indicate, the situation must be handled properly.
The path of least resistance would be for Russia to accept leaving Crimea as an autonomous part of Ukraine for the short term, with the possibility that it could become a part of Russia in the future. In exchange they could receive the guarantee that there would be no NATO membership for Ukraine. However, honestly, if I were in Putin's position, I would settle the issue of Crimea now, and write off the rest of Ukraine. The US and Europe won't like it, but I think they would live with it, after extracting a painful, but bearable price. I think that is likely where we are headed.
Well it was just a Ukrainian issue until Russia invaded, then they became involved as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?