The Ukraine/Russia Situation

Lawson said:

We will not support Ukraine against Russia the whilst they have significant investments in the City of London. Whilst we have put some sanctions on Russia they are very minor, and we are not stopping the purchasing of Russian Sovereign Bonds in fear that they will pull out there capital from our markets. Russia has more money invested in the City of London than the entire GDP of Ukraine, economic pragmatism dictates that we would not get involved unless there was a direct challenge to our own security or our losses could be mitigated.

edited because like a moron i got Ukraine and Russia the wrong way round.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

But should we support the Ukrainian military against the rebels in the East?

Everything I have seen suggests the opposite.

Click to expand...

Lawson said:

If only an ethnically homogeneous Ukrainian state is workable than territorial and population exchange appears the only solution, we must not force people to stay if it will only result in further violence. I fear it will also feed in to Russia's arrogance and potentially through this appeasement (which will appear as a victory in Russia) will give credence and encouragement to their suicidal selfish foreign policy.

Click to expand...

Lawson said:

That is a fair point. The violence of the pro-Russian forces is not something to be condoned, particularly the recent targeting of the Malaysian Airways flight (although saying that there is no evidence as of yet that it was them but operating on the premise it was), however the government forces have utilised comparable violent means such as killing protestors who wanted to vote in the ad-hoc plebiscite in the East. It could arguably be depicted as Russian imperialism as they are certainly sponsoring the elements as they did the terrorist nationalist organisations in the Balkans a hundred years ago, and i believe that a treaty should be drawn up for the exchange of territory to Russia with adequate compensation for the infrastructure etc that they would lose through such a treaty.

As with most of the cases we have seen in recent conflicts there is no clearly good or bad side, but i believe that the protestors in Republic Square in Kiev and their counterparts are correct to protest against the overbearing influence of Russia in the Ukraine. I recently visited Kiev and there was no ill will towards the average RUssian citizen, i heard many speak of there regret that Russians are no longer visiting because Ukraine is the only country where people from Europe and Russia can meet without a visa and it had traditionally brought people together. There are so many dark issues surrounding this that makes it more complex, both government can equally have corruption charges or aspersions cast (although the new government is better than the puppet Yanukovych) and the people of Ukraine are left as the victims. If only an ethnically homogeneous Ukrainian state is workable than territorial and population exchange appears the only solution, we must not force people to stay if it will only result in further violence. I fear it will also feed in to Russia's arrogance and potentially through this appeasement (which will appear as a victory in Russia) will give credence and encouragement to their suicidal selfish foreign policy.

Click to expand...

Rugrat said:

To many, if not all, this would be considered to be giving in. Thinking only "solutions" though I can't really see many alternatives. I just don't see any satisfactory outcome to the military approach and I don't get any sense that Putin or his rebels will ever give this up. Then again where to next? I do wonder at the ambitions and designs of some of these people

Click to expand...

Lawson said:

I wouldn't see it as ideal for this reason and i also think putting up borders between ethnic groups could only exacerbate national tension and postpone the problems of the issue rather than resolve it. We witnessed a similar solution employed in the Balkans with the exchange of ethnic populations between Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia, however this reverses the process of cultural understanding and integration which is an essential development for the modern world. I think the military option will only lead to pointless loss of life, and is an option not worth considering whilst discourse still presents itself to us as path to explore. I think this is merely another part of Putin's scheme for reasserting Russian power in the region and the re-establishment and realisation of the former Soviet sphere of influence. Georgia and Ukraine have both served to test the limits of EU and US resolve in this issues, we have thus far not made a resounding demonstration of condemnation or imposed sizeable sanctions to deter this type of behaviour.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

I don't really see where all of the accusations of Russian expansionism are coming from in relation to this situation. It seems to be to be a civil war involving the U.S./E.U. backing one side and Russia backing the other side. This started with the discussions between the old Ukrainian government and the E.U. and their discussions with Russia. The Ukrainians have a right to form agreements with whomever they want. The First side to get involved on the ground in Ukraine may have been the West (in the overthrow of the old government). If Russia's involvement was in reaction to that, then it's probably not fair to characterize the situation as being caused by Russian expansionism.

Click to expand...

Lawson said:

Whilst i believe that there is an dominant element of West vs Russia in this conflict i think the overwhelming evidence identifies Russia as the proactive force. In the Crimea the 'pro-Russian' forces were certainly no mere militia or spontaneous grassroots force as they possessed state of the art weaponry, displayed a hierarchical structure and all happened to have Russian army issued equipment, i have never seen civilian militias dressed in matching military attire.

It must not be forgotten this was sparked by the removal of Yanukovych as president who was nothing more than a puppet of Putin's, one of several he had elevated to positions of power in the former Soviet Republics. He has also conducted the assassination of Litvenenko, the poisoning of the former Ukrainian President Yushchenko, several journalists in Russia who dissented from the state line as well as assassinations of several individuals who opposed the influence of his puppets. Some have even claimed the polish aircraft that crashed in 2010 on the anniversary of the Katyn Massacre which killed key polish government figures was an orchestrated attempt to rid of opposition, although that is just conjecture there were suspicious things surrounding it, the Russian's wouldn't let Polish officials inspect the wreckage etc. There is a clear intent for the aggrandisement of RUssian territory as can be witnessed in the language and composure of Russian officials in their statements, Georgia was a clear act to test the resolve of the west to see how far he could go before America finally said no as well as giving some essential live fire training to his troops and intimidating the former Soviet Republic demonstrating that the prexisting power status quo is still in effect. A similar power move could be witnessed with the Gazprom scandal.

It would certainly be wrong to suggest the West orchestrated the overthrow of Yanukovych as this was the popular expression of the Ukrainian people; all of the Ukrainians i spoke to during my visit and all those at my university firmly opposed his regime which was completely criminal, corrupt and only sustained by Russian sponsorship. the storming of his palace demonstrated the type of individual he was. Any leader who has to turn the guns of the security forces upon the people they are meant to protect is an illegitimate ruler, now he has gone in to hiding in Russia (supposedly with considerable embezzled and stolen Ukrainian funds) and is refusing to face charges. The people wanted Ukraine to join the EU, the president defied the will and interests of his people by seeking to accept the Russian offer which he also gave to Belarus (i think that is the former soviet republic he gave it to) which represented the same power structure bond and patronage of the Soviet times.

I apologise if any of this is incoherent, it is hard to condense such a complex issue into a few lines but this is just my opinion on the matter and i think you are certainly correct to take an open approach on the matter, we should not throw ourselves behind a government whose integrity and legality cannot be readily assured.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

Most of what you are saying is conjecture. If there is evidence that Russia is the proactive party in this situation, I haven't seen any.

It's not certainly wrong to suggest that the West were involved in the coup, it's not certainly right, but it's not certainly wrong either.

Click to expand...

Lawson said:

A lot of the things said about Stalin were conjecture at the time and can only be proved in hindsight with access to the documentary record, even then holes exist however there are good grounds for presumption. Whilst there is neither time or space to delve in to the evidence surrounding these claims, there is plenty of discussion dedicated to it online and in current academic discourse, there is simply an overwhelming amount of evidence to justify such claims Litvenenko and Yushchenko are without doubt as are the murders of Russian journalists, the others you could suggest they are not a hundred percent however the overwhelming evidence points to the correctness of such a presumption. The fact that Russia has sponsored the terrorist organisations rathe than pursued discourse is evidence of their proactive role in the violence, the fact the encouraged Yanukovych to utilise violent means against his own people, sought to coerce Ukraine in to an economic alliance against the will of its people, and moved their own troops into Crimea very weakly masquerading as a spontaneous militia is all evidence of them exacerbating the situation and leading to the violent confrontations we have witnessed. Russian foreign policy is not the way you conduct international diplomacy, it is suicidal, reckless and promotes violent aggression.

The use of the word coup is inappropriate in this situation, by definition it was undoubtedly a revolution because it had the popular support of the Ukrainian people, this was not an isolated enclave enforcing its reform upon the masses.

Putin undoubtedly has a grand scheme for the expansion of Russian influence, there is abundant evidence with the economic alliance, coercion in through their commercial enterprises such as Gazprom, the support of puppet regimes and intimidation of opposition movements, as well as the advance of Russian troops in to Crimea and Georgia.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

That is all conjecture though.

As for this specific situation in Ukraine, Why do you call the rebels terrorists? The evidence indicates that the rebels are attacking military targets and the army are attacking civilians, well the definition of terrorist doesn't fit the rebels if they only target the military, but it fits the army if they are attacking civilians.

If the revolution was stirred up by the U.S. in some way, that would make the term "coup" more appropriate than revolution.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

That is all conjecture though.

As for this specific situation in Ukraine, Why do you call the rebels terrorists? The evidence indicates that the rebels are attacking military targets and the army are attacking civilians, well the definition of terrorist doesn't fit the rebels if they only target the military, but it fits the army if they are attacking civilians.

If the revolution was stirred up by the U.S. in some way, that would make the term "coup" more appropriate than revolution, and if they exercise control over the formation of the new "revolutionary" government, it's surely much more like a coup than a true revolution.

Click to expand...

Blue Valkyrie said:

I know there is no point in even replying to you on this subject, but why do you ignore the hundreds of cases where the rebels have kidnapped, abused, executed, imprisoned, and tortured local civilians ? Even a local politician they disembowelled, weighed down and chucked in the river.

Terrorists no doubt.

I can't be bothered to say anything else on this, putins propaganda wall is too strength sapping to be honest.

Click to expand...

Lawson said:

But it isn't all conjecture there is an abundance of evidence for these claims and only through the most extreme and blind approach could you possibly find an alternative view. Are you denying that Litvenenko or Yushchenko were not subject to poisoning by Putin's regime? or denying their role in the deaths of Russian journalist, the evidence for all three is manifest.

Whilst there may be rebel elements there are undeniably terrorist factions; deliberately targeting a civilian jet is a terrorist action, they undoubtedly intended it as a target because anyone idiot from the ground could identify whether it was a military or civilian aircraft when it comes to one of that size, their conduct with the wreckage afterwards has been disgusting; contaminating the scene, attempting to restrict access, moving the bodies and hiding the black box which hinders investigation.

Whilst the U. S. may have provided moral encouragement it would still be a revolution because it was the popular expression of the Ukrainian people, Yanukovych was a figure who could only cling on to power through Russian patronage and the support of the Russian minorities in Donetsk and Crimea. Once things went against Russian interests suddenly everything flairs up and Russia disrupts the situation, there was absolutely no need to send troops in to the Crimea or sponsor these rebel groups, the justification Russia has provided is complete whitewash. Only through jaded Russian lenses could the revolution ever be considered a coup.

Click to expand...