WikiLeaks Cables Foreshadow Russian Instigation of Ukrainian Military Action 479
Now that Russia has sent troops to seize the Crimean Peninsula, international politics are tense and frantic. An anonymous reader notes an article from Joshua Keating at Slate, which points out that some of the diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks illustrate how this situation is not at all unexpected. Quoting a cable from October, 2009:
"... pro-Russian forces in Crimea, acting with funding and direction from Moscow, have systematically attempted to increase communal tensions in Crimea in the two years since the Orange Revolution. They have done so by cynically fanning ethnic Russian chauvinism towards Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, through manipulation of issues like the status of the Russian language, NATO, and an alleged Tatar threat to 'Slavs,' in a deliberate effort to destabilize Crimea, weaken Ukraine, and prevent Ukraine's movement west into institutions like NATO and the EU."
The article points out another cable from a few days later, which was titled, "Ukraine-Russia: Is Military Conflict No Longer Unthinkable?"
Re:The only thing I care about. (Score:2, Informative)
They even had non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. A mistake that the Russians have ultimately paid for with 20 million of their lives.
Therefore the Russians in power don't praise the Nazis. The Ukrainians do.
Re:The only thing I care about. (Score:5, Informative)
You say this as if the other side doesn't have its own Nazis. Here [citysites.ua] is what the synagogue in Simferopol looks like, a day after its takeover by the local pro-Russian "self-defense force". The text says "Death to Jews".
Also, Crimean Tatars are not happy about Russian takeover for a good reason stemming from their own recent history. You might want to look it up on Wikipedia.
Oh, and the guy they've put in charge of Crimea? He has statues of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky in his work cabinet.
Re:The only thing I care about. (Score:4, Informative)
After Stalin caused the death of millions of Ukrainians I can see why they would prefer the Nazis. The lesser of two devils.
Re:The only thing I care about. (Score:5, Informative)
They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.
You would be surprised to hear that many democratic countries in present-day Europe apart from the Nazi-Germany itself fought alongside the Nazis in WWII, including Italians, Finns, Romanians, Bulgarians and Norwegians. And these were the real-deal WWII genociding, totalitarian, Führer-hailing Nazis – not some modern-day, nostalgic Neo-Nazis, who don't even know how to genocide. And apart from those countries that fought alongside them, in the 1930s Nazis had large amounts of supporters in every Western country, and their policies were widely regarded as progressive, modern and necessary. Nowadays we know that the Nazi policies led to ruin, but the masses of the 1930s did not and thought they were behaving rationally. Do you think human thinking has changed much in mere 80 years?
Re:Well ... what do you expect (Score:5, Informative)
US invaded Iraq, tried to reform the government, and eventually left.
Russia invaded Crimea, and may soon attempt to annex it [infowars.com].
That's a big difference, legally and morally.
Well, to be fair, Crimea was part of Russia until 1964 when Nikita Khrusjtsjov arbitrarily gave it away to Ukraine (according to some historians he did so while drunk). The majority of the people there identify with being Russian. Not saying Putin is right, but he is welcomed by many there.
Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple (Score:3, Informative)
Really? How was that little fiasco in Georgia resolved, again? Oh yeah - Russia ensured the safety of ethnic and national Russians, and withdrew.
Re:Soviet Union (Score:4, Informative)
There was no need to bribe Ukraine. Ukraine was 100% under Soviet control. No one knows why exactly the transfer happened. I believe it was meant to represent a display of friendship between Ukraine and the Soviet leadership. Back then no one would have imagined that the republics could split some day. For example, Russian nationalists are crying crocodile tears because of some territories lost to Kazakhstan during the partition of USSR, though Crimea is the most hurtful thing for them.
Re:Still far from... (Score:5, Informative)
Not really, This law [cornell.edu] defines a WMD for the purpose of domestic law enforcement as basically needing to expel something or cause damage by a projectile being expelled. A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't. However, a rock in a slingshot might be.
It's tricky narrowing down a definition because it relies on devices defined in section 921 [cornell.edu] also and that specifically mentioned a starter pistol as a firearm if it can_be modified to shoot a projectile propelled by an explosive device even though it hasn't_been.
Originally, the term entered popular vocabulary by the use in the Safwan cease fire agreement with Iraq with the first gulf war. How it has changed to include a pencil sharpener or some silly irrelevant objects I don't know.
They cannot stop with Crimea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well ... what do you expect (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the US had every right to invade Iraq. After the first Gulf War the cease fire conditions called for UN inspection of Iraq for chemical weapons. Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn. He continuously sent fighters into the no flight zone also. Violations of the cease fire agreement were so numerous as to make it a joke. Look at it as simply a continuance of the original conflict.
As I recall it, Saddam said the UN inspectors were welcome, as long as there were no American inspectors there, because he was convinced they were CIA spies. Hans Blix felt this was reasonable, the Americans said "hell no" and used their permanent security council status to block any agreement to carry on without any US presence on the ground. In effect, it was the US that stopped the inspections.
Re:They cannot stop with Crimea (Score:4, Informative)
This is overstating things. Water rights are an old story in many places. People work out having other countries upstream of them, even unfriendly ones. Hell, even India and Pakistan manage. And the only *land* access to the Crimea is over the Isthmus of Perekop, but it is quite accessible across the Kerch Strait, which is very narrow (less than three miles wide), and is serviced by frequent and regular ferries. There are proposals to bridge it as well (it's been bridged in the past).
Re:Well ... what do you expect (Score:5, Informative)
Please elaborate a bit more on your first sentence. I don't live there, so I have to rely on Wikipedia etc., but the population of Crimea is around 2 million, out of which 58% (1.16m) are Russians and 12% (0.24m) are Tatars, with 24% Ukraininans.
If 100% of Sevastopol (population of 380'000) were Russian, that still leaves 780'000 Russians vs 240'000 Tatars for the rest of Crimea. I'd say if anything, Crimea on the whole is ethnically Russian.
Maybe you're referring to the historical development. But I don't see how 3 centuries of Tatar rule take precedence over 4 centuries of Bulgarian rule, 2 centuries of Kievan Rus' rule (both slavic) and all the others (Greeks, Goths, Huns, ....) before the Tatars arrived in the 15th century. And for the Russian rule since the 18th century, afaict the whole pretext for the subjugation was that the Crimea was slavic lands.
Re:Well ... what do you expect (Score:3, Informative)
The Soviet Union shipped ethnic Russians to live in many "Soviet Republics," including the conquered and annexed Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. They did that as a means to pacify the annexed territory. Those populations are now serving as an excuse for Russian intervention and occupation. Can we expect to see Russia annexing those territories again due to the presence of Russian minorities? Is this the Sudetenland all over again? Does the world learn?
Re:The only thing I care about. (Score:1, Informative)