Ukraine

[RosyFuture]

I don't think it makes much difference as it's not legally binding and that goes without pointing out that all parties involved broke the "economic coercion" clause a long time ago. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances. It also quite ambiguous language that would be picked apart in an international court case "obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force,"

So what is the legal status of this document if, as you say, it is not legally binding?
(But there is no such thing as international law as there is no supra-national enforcement of any decision of any court, only the possibility of some states taking action against any state found to have violated anything. Anything deemed international law reduces, without loss of meaning, to law-between-states.)

Russia can claim an urgent threat from sectarian violence

I know you haven't said you believe this to be so, merely offering it as a possible Putin point, but I've seen no evidence of such a threat (it's also not "sectarian", that is of sects, religious, but what people call ethnic); is there any?

 

[treelover]

which live thread do you recommend then (besides urban, of course)?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-russia-and-ukraine-ready-forces-live-updates

This is the Guardian Live Update page

 

[Pickman's model]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-russia-and-ukraine-ready-forces-live-updates

This is the Guardian Live Update page

well spotted.

 

[framed]

no, it's the first step in a series of events which will lead to tears before bedtime for a lot of people in the weeks and months ahead.

This... ^^^

From what I have read here and elsewhere it looks like the point where the 'permanent revolution' theories of the Trots and Neocons converge. They misread the 'Arab Spring' and, from what I can see, they're misreading this one too...

What next, a celebration of the 'uprising' in Venezeula?

 

[RosyFuture]

troop movements, which their agreement on Crimea entitles them to do to ensure security of the Black Sea fleet and Russian citizens within Crimea. Theyre playing this by the book and not actually breaking any treaties, agreements or laws. Unlike the Kiev lot.
Theyve also been officially asked to this by the government of Crimea.

But Crimea Council is not authorised, it doesn't have the power, to ask a foreign government to move troops. Crimea Council can 'officially ask' but it can't give such a permission. Only the previous UA gov can do that - & that no longer exists.

 

[Pickman's model]

But Crimea Council is not authorised, it doesn't have the power, to ask a foreign government to move troops. Crimea Council can 'officially ask' but it can't give such a permission. Only the previous UA gov can do that - & that no longer exists.

i think we're operating in a world where the old restrictions and certainties no longer apply.

 

[Delroy Booth]

http://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.c...-dont-think-russia-wants-to-annex-the-crimea/

Good article that.

My guess is that Putin's more interested in escalating tension than fully annexing the Crimea, which is one of the many reasons why comparing this to '56 or '68 is unhelpful. As the article says, 2,000 troops isn't an invasion force it's a gesture, a big one, and what he calls "hard-nosed and heavy-handed geopolitics" but it's politics, not war. Russia could mobilise far more if they were serious about partitioning the country.

One factor the author didn't mention is Putin doing this to manage the reaction and deflect criticism domestically. He's got a resurgent far right to deal with, and not just in the form of corrupt partially incorporated figures like Zhirinovsky and the Liberal Democrats but outside that too. The Russian Communist Party, which is still the opposition and is persistently popular especially with older Russians, well they're not happy about losing Ukraine to gangs of neo-nazi's backed by the west either, so he's got that to balance. Putin's got to show a willingness to assert his strength, after all he's sold himself as a strong leader who's restoring Russia to its former glory, but at the same time has very little stomach for this to become a civil war, Syria on his doorstep. I think he's got little choice but to show some muscle or risk his own popularity in Russia. He's got to be very careful how he deal with this and not let it get out of hand.

As for the legal status of Crimea, there is no dispute over this it's Ukrainian sovereign territory. Autonomy does not change this. Military manouvers in that territory of any sort there that go beyond the agreed upon limits is on dubious legal ground. Even if you don't recognise the current de facto government that remains true. What we're seeing is pure power politics, so get ready to watch international law melt away in front of you at convenient moments.

 

[Pickman's model]

Good article that.

My guess is that Putin's more interested in escalating tension than fully annexing the Crimea, which is one of the many reasons why comparing this to '56 or '68 is unhelpful.

for the record there was no annexation in 1956 or 1968.

 

[Coolfonz]

long oil, short equities

 

[Pickman's model]

Good article that.

My guess is that Putin's more interested in escalating tension than fully annexing the Crimea, which is one of the many reasons why comparing this to '56 or '68 is unhelpful. As the article says, 2,000 troops isn't an invasion force it's a gesture, a big one, and what he calls "hard-nosed and heavy-handed geopolitics" but it's politics, not war. Russia could mobilise far more if they were serious about partitioning the country.

One factor the author didn't mention is Putin doing this to manage the reaction and deflect criticism domestically. He's got a resurgent far right to deal with, and not just in the form of corrupt partially incorporated figures like Zhirinovsky and the Liberal Democrats but outside that too. The Russian Communist Party, which is still the opposition and is persistently popular especially with older Russians, well they're not happy about losing Ukraine to gangs of neo-nazi's backed by the west either, so he's got that to balance. Putin's got to show a willingness to assert his strength, after all he's sold himself as a strong leader who's restoring Russia to its former glory, but at the same time has very little stomach for this to become a civil war, Syria on his doorstep. I think he's got little choice but to show some muscle or risk his own popularity in Russia. He's got to be very careful how he deal with this and not let it get out of hand.

As for the legal status of Crimea, there is no dispute over this it's Ukrainian sovereign territory. Autonomy does not change this. Military manouvers in that territory of any sort there that go beyond the agreed upon limits is on dubious legal ground. Even if you don't recognise the current de facto government that remains true. What we're seeing is pure power politics, so get ready to watch international law melt away in front of you at convenient moments.

tbh it's almost certainly going to become a war of some sort and it's not entirely up to putin how much of a war it becomes. as for it being politics not war, war is - pace clausewitz - politics by other means. now that putin's done what he's done the stakes are higher and 2,000 troops can easily become 20,000 troops very quickly - they do after all have 150,000 soldiers etc on the ukrainian border.

 

[RosyFuture]

i think we're operating in a world where the old restrictions and certainties no longer apply.

you mean that now my bf may betray me??!!??

 

[Delroy Booth]

tbh it's almost certainly going to become a war of some sort and it's not entirely up to putin how much of a war it becomes. as for it being politics not war, war is - pace clausewitz - politics by other means. now that putin's done what he's done the stakes are higher and 2,000 troops can easily become 20,000 troops very quickly - they do after all have 150,000 soldiers etc on the ukrainian border.

Well of course this is exactly what Putin's wanting everyone to think, but we should start worrying about that if we see it start to happen. I think Putin's just trying to show them he's willing and prepared to throw a bit of weight around if need be, but again I don't see it as necessarily a precursor to invasion I think it's mixture between securing guarantees and demands of the new Kiev government (eg keeping the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea until 2042) and trying not to look weak back home.

 

[RosyFuture]

This... ^^^

From what I have read here and elsewhere it looks like the point where the 'permanent revolution' theories of the Trots and Neocons converge. They misread the 'Arab Spring' and, from what I can see, they're misreading this one too...

What next, a celebration of the 'uprising' in Venezeula?

Why do you say Trots? Did Trotzki misread the national revolution of the Hitlerist NSDAP? I thought it was Stalinist KPD who thought 'after them it's us'?

 

[Pickman's model]

you mean that now my bf may betray me??!!??

might do. but what i meant is that the old limits on what the crimea council can do may no longer apply.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well of course this is exactly what Putin's wanting everyone to think, but we should start worrying about that if we see it start to happen. I think Putin's just trying to show them he's willing and prepared to throw a bit of weight around if need be, but again I don't see it as necessarily a precursor to invasion I think it's mixture between securing guarantees and demands of the new Kiev government (eg keeping the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea until 2042) and trying not to look weak back home.

that might be what putin wants to do but 2,000 soldiers is to too few to prevent things getting out of hand and too many for the kiev regime to ignore.

 

[Pickman's model]

Good article that.

My guess is that Putin's more interested in escalating tension than fully annexing the Crimea, which is one of the many reasons why comparing this to '56 or '68 is unhelpful. As the article says, 2,000 troops isn't an invasion force it's a gesture, a big one, and what he calls "hard-nosed and heavy-handed geopolitics" but it's politics, not war. Russia could mobilise far more if they were serious about partitioning the country.

One factor the author didn't mention is Putin doing this to manage the reaction and deflect criticism domestically. He's got a resurgent far right to deal with, and not just in the form of corrupt partially incorporated figures like Zhirinovsky and the Liberal Democrats but outside that too. The Russian Communist Party, which is still the opposition and is persistently popular especially with older Russians, well they're not happy about losing Ukraine to gangs of neo-nazi's backed by the west either, so he's got that to balance. Putin's got to show a willingness to assert his strength, after all he's sold himself as a strong leader who's restoring Russia to its former glory, but at the same time has very little stomach for this to become a civil war, Syria on his doorstep. I think he's got little choice but to show some muscle or risk his own popularity in Russia. He's got to be very careful how he deal with this and not let it get out of hand.

As for the legal status of Crimea, there is no dispute over this it's Ukrainian sovereign territory. Autonomy does not change this. Military manouvers in that territory of any sort there that go beyond the agreed upon limits is on dubious legal ground. Even if you don't recognise the current de facto government that remains true. What we're seeing is pure power politics, so get ready to watch international law melt away in front of you at convenient moments.

according to the bbc http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26400035 there are now an extra 6,000 russian troops in crimea.

 

[treelover]

well spotted.

why do you this?, he asked for a link.

 

[Pickman's model]

why do you this?, he asked for a link.

yes. and?

 

[vanya]

Well well. The question of the legitimacy of the ‘interim’ government in Kiev seems to have penetrated some of the MSM BS Bubble.

NYT: After Initial Triumph, Ukraine’s Leaders Face Battle for Credibility
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/w...ines-leaders-face-battle-for-credibility.html

“…“You have a revolution, with unelected guys seizing power,” said Andrew Wilson, a Ukraine expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“The people on the Maidan might be right, they might be martyrs, and they have good arguments, but no one elected them,” he said. “You need to get real politics and competition and more legitimacy. Of course, the counterargument is just concentrate on economy. But the credibility question is tearing the country apart and the transfer of power cut a lot of corners constitutionally.”…”

What is a logical argument that could be made by Russia?? I would argue that,

Useless and corrupt though he is the sole remaining legal representative in the Ukraine is President Yanukovich according to the Ukranian constitution. Thus, if President Yanokovich requests Russian military assistance to protect Ukranian nationals under existential threat from a cadre of anti-russian & anti-semitic cadre of Ukrainian nationalists that have gained significant influence in the coup d’etat, then this is not a Russian invasion, but an invitation of Russian forces into the Ukraine.

Kiev either has the means to control the fascists but chooses not to or it does not have control of them, either way they are failing by their own measure to uphold the security of Ukranian citizens. Russian intervention is not being asked to overthrow the failures in Kiev, but to protect. This is R2P – Responsibility to Protect as requested by the President of the Ukraine. Maybe that is what Russia will argue at the UN tonight.

Note that the EU bods said that they ‘consider’ the authorites in the Kiev to be legitimate. Using the ‘consider’ word gives them wiggle room because if they have actually spoken to any international law expert, then they would know that Yanukovich has been deposed illegally. No document is legal if it has been signed under coercion/threat.

 

[RosyFuture]

Imperialist mouthpiece Guardian announces that anti-imperialist Right Sektor mobilise for anti-imperialist offensive in defence of the Motherland or the Fatherland or the Babushkaland for the greater glory to the heroes & for the greater glory of Ukraine:

"According to Ukrainian Pravda, Sector Right called on all its units to mobilise.
This is their statement:
'Being aware of all the dangers that are looming over the Ukrainian state, the headquarters of the Right Sector order all its units to mobilise and arm, and depending on the specific situation to coordinate with the armed forces.
'We remind all citizens of Ukraine regardless of nationality (including Russians) that our struggle is anti-imperial, not Russophobe. Russian empire will be destroyed. Urge Resistance Movement Caucasus and all liberation movements in Russia to step up their activities.'"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-russia-and-ukraine-ready-forces-live-updates 1649 GMT

Maybe Ukrainian patriotic xenophobic nationalists are not palest-yellow-&-palest-blue paper tigers when big brown bear stomps into their land. We'll see.

ADDED: Sorry, just realised this was posted by J Ed & Eastern-Odyssey 2hrs previously.

 

[Pickman's model]

it'll end in tears, mark my words

 

[RosyFuture]

Well well. The question of the legitimacy of the ‘interim’ government in Kiev seems to have penetrated some of the MSM BS Bubble.

NYT: After Initial Triumph, Ukraine’s Leaders Face Battle for Credibility
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/w...ines-leaders-face-battle-for-credibility.html

“…“You have a revolution, with unelected guys seizing power,” said Andrew Wilson, a Ukraine expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“The people on the Maidan might be right, they might be martyrs, and they have good arguments, but no one elected them,” he said. “You need to get real politics and competition and more legitimacy. Of course, the counterargument is just concentrate on economy. But the credibility question is tearing the country apart and the transfer of power cut a lot of corners constitutionally.”…”

What is a logical argument that could be made by Russia?? I would argue that,

Useless and corrupt though he is the sole remaining legal representative in the Ukraine is President Yanukovich according to the Ukranian constitution. Thus, if President Yanokovich requests Russian military assistance to protect Ukranian nationals under existential threat from a cadre of anti-russian & anti-semitic cadre of Ukrainian nationalists that have gained significant influence in the coup d’etat, then this is not a Russian invasion, but an invitation of Russian forces into the Ukraine.

Kiev either has the means to control the fascists but chooses not to or it does not have control of them, either way they are failing by their own measure to uphold the security of Ukranian citizens. Russian intervention is not being asked to overthrow the failures in Kiev, but to protect. This is R2P – Responsibility to Protect as requested by the President of the Ukraine. Maybe that is what Russia will argue at the UN tonight.

Note that the EU bods said that they ‘consider’ the authorites in the Kiev to be legitimate. Using the ‘consider’ word gives them wiggle room because if they have actually spoken to any international law expert, then they would know that Yanukovich has been deposed illegally. No document is legal if it has been signed under coercion/threat.

good to see socialists leave all that class claptrap behind when disputes between states motivate people. Where would socialists be if they did not reduce themselves to clashes between states? Remember 1914, not 1968. Socialists must support their own capitalist government & kill & maim horribly the foreign workers & peasants that their legitimate capitalist government tells them to kill, & kill & maim horribly as many as their government tells them to do. If not we have international worker solidarity like Lenin spoke of, & we all know where that lead: Bolshevik paradise. Better to support killing foreign workers-&-peasants-in-uniform.

 

[J Ed]

it'll end in tears, mark my words

Whose?

 

[Pickman's model]

Whose?

everyone involved in this sorry mess.

 

[framed]

good to see socialists leave all that class claptrap behind when disputes between states motivate people. Where would socialists be if they did not reduce themselves to clashes between states?

I've yet to read anything from you that amounts to a political analysis (class or otherwise) of the situation, you bumbling plum...

 

[Pickman's model]

I've yet to read anything from you that amounts to a political analysis (class or otherwise) of the situation, you bumbling plum...

i think you're being a bit harsh on plums

 

[RosyFuture]

I've yet to read anything from you that amounts to a political analysis (class or otherwise) of the situation, you bumbling plum...

are only qualified analists allowed to comment? When did urban make this requirement? What counts as analist qualification? What is your analist qualification?

And you are just anti-east European because we have plums, not peaches.

 

[framed]

Why do you say Trots? Did Trotzki misread the national revolution of the Hitlerist NSDAP? I thought it was Stalinist KPD who thought 'after them it's us'?

No, after them, it's YOU!

 

[framed]

are only qualified analists allowed to comment? When did urban make this requirement? What counts as analist qualification? What is your analist qualification?

Well, I am a hypnotherapist, would you like some help?

 

[Pickman's model]

are only qualified analists allowed to comment? When did urban make this requirement? What counts as analist qualification? What is your analist qualification?

did you fail your analist qualification?