- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
...the Kremlin says Ukraine's Crimea region is now part of Russia.
A signing ceremony Tuesday between Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister of Crimea and the mayor of the city of Sevastopol made it official, the Kremlin said in a statement.
Crimea and Sevastopol, where the Russian Black Sea fleet is based, are now part of the Russian Federation, it said.
From CNN:
Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine - CNN.com
This development is not surprising for a number of reasons:
1. Russia has long viewed Crimea as constituting a crital national interest (naval base, majority ethnic Russian population, history).
2. The balance of power favored Russia in moving to regain control of Crimea. Ukraine lacked the military power to impose high costs.
3. Neither the U.S. nor Europe have sufficient interests at stake to consider military options.
4. A military approach would be impractical under any reasonable circumstances.
5. The costs of non-military measures are not likely to be so high relative to the gains Russia perceives it will make so as to reverse Russian policy. Russia also has capabilities of retaliating ranging from restricting access to its resources to withdrawing cooperation on major geopolitical matters e.g., Iran's nuclear program. It expects that its ability to complicate U.S. geopolitical goals will constrain the degree of U.S. economic and other non-military sanctions.
6. Past precedent concerning Kosovo's being separated from Serbia with NATO military force playing a role during what amounted to a civil war.
In his national address, Russian President Putin has cited a number of those factors. He did disavow intentions to become more broadly involved in Ukraine, but he has shown a willingness to act decisively where he perceives major Russian interests are at stake.
This development also speaks anew of the need for the U.S. to develop a clear and coherent foreign policy doctrine and relearn how to engage in contingency planning (military and broader foreign policy). It needs to tighten its integration with existing NATO members so as to make clear that NATO members will be safeguarded under any circumstances, even if the use of force is required. In Asia, the U.S. needs to strengthen ties with its leading allies. Japan and South Korea need to know that American commitments to their security are reliable.
Finally, to maintain military credibility in a world in which the balance of power is dynamic, the President and/or Congress need to abandon planned drastic cuts in military expenditures and manpower, even if that means reducing other expenditures, larger budget deficits than would otherwise be the case, or some combination of reallocated spending/larger budget deficits. Otherwise, the U.S. will be perceived as a great power, but one with declining capabilities. That outcome would rightly worry American allies. It could invite challenges to peripheral American interests by hostile actors.
I'm always grateful when you weigh in on these matters. Thank you for your perspective. Makes perfect sense.
Next stop on Putin's "liberation tour" Moldova.
I'm convinced sometimes Don works in the state department, he's brilliant.
Next stop on Putin's "liberation tour" Moldova.
Moldovan/Romanian 78.2%, Ukrainian 8.4%, Russian 5.8%, Gagauz 4.4%, Bulgarian 1.9%, other 1.3% (2004 census)
note: internal disputes with ethnic Slavs in the Transnistrian region
Next stop on Putin's "liberation tour" Moldova.
I do not think so.
The majority there is Romanian. Unless they are pro-Russian against their own interests?
Do you mean the Transnistrain region of Moldavia though?
If so if Transnistrain joins Russia while Moldavia joins Romania I do not see what a problem there may be about this?
References:
CIA (2014). World factbook. Retrieved from:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/md.html
I don't know the answer to this question, but perhaps some others do.
Where from and how does Crimea get its electrical power, oil and natural gas supplies, fresh water and sewage systems, food supplies, vehicle and other transportation routes, etc?
I ask this because if the only current direct land connections between Crimea and the world at large are through mainland Ukraine, wouldn't the first level of sanction that should be put up, with Ukrainian support from outside powers, be a "Berlin Wall" type structure closing off the two main transportation arteries between Crimea and Ukraine and shutting down/off the flow of "utilities" to Crimea? Wouldn't it make some sense to squeeze out the people of Crimea by making them completely beholden to Russia and Russian supplies/support in a full cold war/iron curtain type way?
I don't know the answer to this question, but perhaps some others do.
Where from and how does Crimea get its electrical power, oil and natural gas supplies, fresh water and sewage systems, food supplies, vehicle and other transportation routes, etc?
I ask this because if the only current direct land connections between Crimea and the world at large are through mainland Ukraine, wouldn't the first level of sanction that should be put up, with Ukrainian support from outside powers, be a "Berlin Wall" type structure closing off the two main transportation arteries between Crimea and Ukraine and shutting down/off the flow of "utilities" to Crimea? Wouldn't it make some sense to squeeze out the people of Crimea by making them completely beholden to Russia and Russian supplies/support in a full cold war/iron curtain type way?
It gets all those things from Ukraine. As in, the pipelines and all that come by land from the connection between the crimean peninsula to the territory of Ukraine.
But Ukraine gets most of it's gas from Russia. Not sure about petrol or electricity.
But it's not impossible to build new energy pipelines from the territory of Russia to the crimean peninsula. It's not that hard.
And I don't think Ukraine will cut off utilities to Crimea. It's not just against human rights but also because it'll hurt a lot of ukrainian supporters, around 250k crimean tartars and about 450k ukranian ethnics. So... that's not an option. It's the reason why Crimea was moved to Ukraine's administrative territory in the 1950s under the USSR. Economical and administrative reasons.
Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine
I don't know the answer to this question, but perhaps some others do.
Where from and how does Crimea get its electrical power, oil and natural gas supplies, fresh water and sewage systems, food supplies, vehicle and other transportation routes, etc?
I ask this because if the only current direct land connections between Crimea and the world at large are through mainland Ukraine, wouldn't the first level of sanction that should be put up, with Ukrainian support from outside powers, be a "Berlin Wall" type structure closing off the two main transportation arteries between Crimea and Ukraine and shutting down/off the flow of "utilities" to Crimea? Wouldn't it make some sense to squeeze out the people of Crimea by making them completely beholden to Russia and Russian supplies/support in a full cold war/iron curtain type way?
From CNN:
Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine - CNN.com
This development is not surprising for a number of reasons:
1. Russia has long viewed Crimea as constituting a crital national interest (naval base, majority ethnic Russian population, history).
2. The balance of power favored Russia in moving to regain control of Crimea. Ukraine lacked the military power to impose high costs.
3. Neither the U.S. nor Europe have sufficient interests at stake to consider military options.
4. A military approach would be impractical under any reasonable circumstances.
5. The costs of non-military measures are not likely to be so high relative to the gains Russia perceives it will make so as to reverse Russian policy. Russia also has capabilities of retaliating ranging from restricting access to its resources to withdrawing cooperation on major geopolitical matters e.g., Iran's nuclear program. It expects that its ability to complicate U.S. geopolitical goals will constrain the degree of U.S. economic and other non-military sanctions.
6. Past precedent concerning Kosovo's being separated from Serbia with NATO military force playing a role during what amounted to a civil war.
In his national address, Russian President Putin has cited a number of those factors. He did disavow intentions to become more broadly involved in Ukraine, but he has shown a willingness to act decisively where he perceives major Russian interests are at stake.
This development also speaks anew of the need for the U.S. to develop a clear and coherent foreign policy doctrine and relearn how to engage in contingency planning (military and broader foreign policy). It needs to tighten its integration with existing NATO members so as to make clear that NATO members will be safeguarded under any circumstances, even if the use of force is required. In Asia, the U.S. needs to strengthen ties with its leading allies. Japan and South Korea need to know that American commitments to their security are reliable.
Finally, to maintain military credibility in a world in which the balance of power is dynamic, the President and/or Congress need to abandon planned drastic cuts in military expenditures and manpower, even if that means reducing other expenditures, larger budget deficits than would otherwise be the case, or some combination of reallocated spending/larger budget deficits. Otherwise, the U.S. will be perceived as a great power, but one with declining capabilities. That outcome would rightly worry American allies. It could invite challenges to peripheral American interests by hostile actors.
Where are you getting these scenarios? Russia annexes a region, Romania annexes another country... what's the angle. How are you getting these thoughts? What ... I don't even know.
Mornin' CJ. :2wave: This should give you an idea. But Putin has counted for it.....so it appears.
Vote to join Russia could leave Crimea without water, electricity.....
As Russia’s stranglehold on Crimea tightens, the Ukrainian province to the north is warning it could make life on the peninsula miserable if the coveted region chooses sides with Moscow in Sunday's referendum.
Pro-Moscow officials in Crimea, who favor secession from Ukraine, have said they will seize all utilities and assets owned by the Kiev-based Ukrainian government if the referendum goes as expected. But Crimea's electricity, freshwater and natural gas all flows in from the province of Kherson, where leaders warn they will shut everything off if the referendum they say is illegitimate, goes forward.
Crimea's freshwater flows in from the Kakhov Reservoir in Kherson via the 250-mile North Crimean Aqueduct. The peninsula’s vast orchards and vineyards rely on mainland water supply for their livelihood, as do the people in Crimea’s cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol, Kerch, Sudak and Feodosia.
Just as important to Crimea is the power it gets from the Kakhov and Zaporizhiya hydroelectric power stations in Kherson, which provide the peninsula with 75-80 percent of its electricity needs. Finally, Crimea gets 35 percent of its natural gas delivered through pipelines that extend from the mainland via the Mykolayiv and Kherson regions.
Crimea’s chief gas supplier, Ukraine-owned Chornomornaftogaz, has already been targeted by the Kremlin-backed government that took power following the revolution in Kiev that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych last month. But even if they seize Ukrainian state-owned assets, including gas company Chronornaftogaz, it may prove moot if the raw resources are cut off in Kherson.
In the short term, Crimea cannot survive on its own without money from Kiev, according to observers. The peninsula gets $700 million from the national government each year, and Ukrainian economists have estimated that Crimea would need billions of dollars in new investments to integrate its economy and infrastructure with Russia.....snip~
Vote to join Russia could leave Crimea without water, electricity | Fox News
Russia wants to make Crimea a tax free zone, free market economy. Tax free zone could be bring in lots of businesses and tourism.
ITAR-TASS: Accession of Crimea and Sevastopol to Russia - Crimea should keep revenues and taxes for five years - MP
Looks like it's going to be an economic war instead of a military one.
Well, if you promise to keep it a secret then I will tell you. I have one of my people inside Putin's circle of people. He is reliable. Every now and then we meet at daylight and he tells me of Putin's next moves, clear and simple.
Seriously though. I think that is where this is going and I do not mind really for it means we join Albania too at last.
How about you though? Would you mind annexing Moldova back again?
As far as I know, the vast majority of Crimea's power comes from Ukraine. However, Ukraine relies on Russia for a fairly large share of its energy resources.
Ukraine almost certainly won't respond by cutting off power or water for two reasons:
1. Such a move would impact civilians and violate humanitarian legal instruments. Ukraine would effectively reposition itself unfavorably globally and risk losing support that it would otherwise gain.
2. Russia has the military power to quickly reverse that situation, so such a move would be temporary and not enforceable.
Ukraine is in a very difficult and vulnerable position. Politically and diplomatically it can and will reject the annexation of Crimea. In terms of practical responses, it is in no position to try to wrest it away from Russia without inviting an existential threat, so it won't attempt to do so.
It also knows that the West is not very likely to intervene militarily in Crimea or even Ukraine. Hence, it will almost certainly try to minimize any rationale for Russia to launch even a limited invasion in the East. That means reassuring Russia that it wants a constructive relationship, avoiding policy measures that would inflame ethnic Russians living in its East who might already be tempted by Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine, and perhaps even limiting any integration with the West to economic integration. The prospect of future military integration with the West might change Russia's current calculus, so Ukraine has already announced that it will not seek NATO membership. Ukraine's hope is to preserve the rest of its territorial integrity, overcome its substantial financial problems, build prosperity within the territory it still possesses through deepened economic collaboration with the West, and limit its rejection of Russia's annexation of Crimea to political and diplomatic protests. Certainly, the transitional government has adopted that stance. Should the upcoming elections produce a more hard-core nationalist government, the risk of miscalculation could increase.
No, because we're not a country that violated another country's sovereingty. Moldavia is an independent country. If Moldavia were to make a referendum to join Romania, ofc, we'll accept, but they must do it on their own. By their own volition, not Putin-style with foreign troops (or romanian troops in this case) on their territory. They may be our brothers accross the river but they have the same right to choose their own destiny and path in life as anyone of us. IF they'll ever want to part of Romania, which a lot do, they'll chose when and why, not us. It's their choice as a free and sovereign people with borders we respect.
You're making scenarios for annexation or trading international recognition... god dammit man. How cynical are you?
Afternoon Moot.Yep with Russia always holding the long term hole cards.
"Led by the powerhouse lobbying of the American Petroleum Institute, a coalition of Fortune 500 energy companies are using the Ukraine crisis to spur Congress to approve a key policy goal: Easing regulations on the export of U.S. natural gas.
Despite a decade-long boom in U.S. natural gas production, very little of America's vast gas reserves are exported.. That's because strict regulations on the transfer and storage of gas have made it impossible to profitably ship out of the U.S.
Oil and gas companies have paid Washington lobbyists millions in recent years to challenge the strict export rules.....snip~
U.S. Push For Natural Gas Exports To Help Ukraine Won't Actually Help Ukraine
Who mentioned annexations by force in Putin style? I said "join" not "invade?"
Huh?
What does this has to do with me? How am I cynical?
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?