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?"
Why not just give up? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple (Score:5, Interesting)
> Kremlin had no other choices left with Ukraine.
Really? Like peaceful coexistance?
Putin is wagering it all. If he does not get at least Crimea from this (or even the whole SE of the Ukraine) he has a major defeat on his hands: Confidence in Russia fulfilling its contracts (they guaranteed Ukraine's teritorial integrity for getting back USSR nuclear weapons) will be severly damaged (also damaging their natural gas trade), the Ukraine will make life a hell for the Russian fleet in Sewastopol by subtle sabotage and the Ukraine now will definitely want to get into NATO as soon as possible.
With such high stakes he must be very sure, he can win this.
Re:The only thing I care about. (Score:5, Interesting)
They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.
You need to go back a little further and read a little history. In 1932-1933 there was a famine [wikipedia.org] caused by Russia which killed over 2 million Ukrainians. When the Germans invaded they were seen as liberators by many as they were kicking out the hated Russians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I also wonder if Russia is spinning WW2 ties with the German army to make their case look better.
Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
Thatcher sent a message to Reagan: This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East/West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country. I must ask you to think most carefully about these points. I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. You asked for my advice. I have set it out and hope that even at this late stage you will take it into account before events are irrevocable. (The full text remains classified.)
Re:The only thing I care about. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yarosh and his ilk are bad news. They are not representative of the majority of Ukrainians in the western half of the country. Given what Stalin did [wikipedia.org] to the Ukrainian population, it's understandable that there are present-day extremists who have adopted their positions from those who welcomed the Nazis as liberators. (That was a really bad decision, by the way. After Stalin had starved millions of them to death, they got stomped on by the Nazis, and then got stomped on again by Stalin towards the end of the war. They were fucked either way, but the way things worked out, they got fucked three times.)
There are lots of "they" in the movement to depose Yanukovych. There are hard-right elements within the Maidan, but they are not representative of the Maidan. (The closest American political analogies would be that the KKK is not representative of conservatism, let alone the GOP, and that Occupy Wall Street is not representative of the progressive movement, let alone the DNC.)
For what little it's worth, I think the most reasonable solution is to divide the country. Most of the land mass of Ukraine leans towards Europe, but some of that land mass, specifically Crimea, leans towards Russia. (This is in large part due to Stalin-era resettlements, but WW2 is long over, and so is the Holodomor, so it ought to be a moot point.) If Putin wants is a port for his fleet (he does), and if the Crimean region wants to ally itself with Russia (it does, by as large a margin as Western Ukraine wants to ally with Europe), then they should probably be free to leave.
The interesting question is how much more Ukranian territory Putin wants as a buffer zone between Europe and Russia. (Having a buffer zone is kind of a Russian thing. I can't say I blame them, given the history of invasions from Europe...) A partitioned Ukraine shrinks that buffer zone considerably. Taking all of Ukraine by force back into the Russian fold would, at the moment, imply a war whose costs could well exceed the worth of the natural gas reserves and the fleet. The question is -- how much territory is enough for Putin, and will the rest of Ukraine cede it?
I think this all ends diplomatically. Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor the rest of Europe, has much to gain from a civil war. Maybe all that needs to happen is Ukraine extends the lease on the port for a decade or two on the cheap. Or something to do with gas royalties. This is the sort of problem that is best solved by bankers and ballots, not bullets.
Re:Why not just give up? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Ukraine ceded control of Crimea it would gain more unity, and have less trouble separating itself from Russia and foster its ties with the EU. Crimea is an autonomous region with its own government, so Ukraine stand to lose very little from there other than having a national minority there (they still have access to the Black Sea from the mainland). Russia OTOH gains very little: They already have a fleetbase there, and a national majority that'll follow their whim, that wont change with annexation. They will, however, have to contend with a large ukrainian minority that will be none too happy of their new overlords, and who can get reinforced from their homeland easily. Also, they'll obliterate any chance of moving at Ukraine as a whole, because this action will fan anti-russian sentiment.
All in all, the move on Crimea is a provocation from Russia trying to destabilise Ukraine. They may end up getting Crimea, but if they fail to throw Ukraine into chaos, then they come out of this the loser.
Re:Well ... what do you expect (Score:5, Interesting)
The US spent a lot on color revolution efforts over the years and really wants to see some payback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]
US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (26 November 2004)
http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]
The US really wants NATO up against Russia (encirclement, containment) - like the Soviet Union used Cuba.
Re:Why not just give up? (Score:4, Interesting)
New pipeline deals with a new, split, weak Ukraine start to look amazing to the EU
The US gets NATO very near Russia under the cover of a new, split, weak Ukraine "invite".
Other parts go to Russia, Russians in the area feel safe, Russia keeps its mil happy with vital areas still been in Russian hands.
Win win win win for bankers with new 'loan' energy contracts, the USA, Russia, EU
Fun and years of extra funding for CIA, FSB and MI6 too.
Re:Why not just give up? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder the same. Crimea is historically neither Russian nor Ukrainian. It was populated by Tatars who constantly launched attacks against everyone north of them. Once they burned Moscow to ground. It was conquered by Russian Empire in 18th century culminating a rivalry that lasted for centuries. Crimea was defended by Russian Empire in the Crimean War of the 19th century. A lot of Russian blood was spilled there, and nationalist politicians in both Russia and Ukraine constantly manipulate the popular sentiment. It's a big problem for Ukraine.
However, I can see one reason why Ukraine may be reluctant to part with Crimea. It could only be a beginning of further partition of Ukraine. For example, once in control of Crimea Russia and its brethren in Ukraine could start a new campaign now to transfer the cities of Kharkiv and Donentsk to Russia, again both heavily dominated by Russians, and so on. The nationalist Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky has said many times that he sees a division of Ukrain where the west Ukraine has capital in Lviv, surrounded by 4-5 west Ukrainian provinces. No matter what happens, this conflict will go on for a LONG time...
Re:Well ... what do you expect (Score:5, Interesting)
Now thats an unfair comparison. There were never that many interest or citizens of the US in Iraq as Russians in Crimea.
Since the revolution i hoped that Ukraina and EU do the most reasonable thing: Declare that Russia can keep the military base there (in the best interest of everybody), declare that the crimea is automonous in many aspects, and make an agreement that Russian is the second official language in Ukraina, and the first in the East part and the Crimea. Make a trade agreement and offer Russia Ukraina as a marketplace to access EU. Give Russia the prospect of becoming associated (not member, but free trade) with the EU via this way.
History has no rewind button. Russian speaking population is now living everywhere in the former Soviet union, and we have seen example of discrimination of Russians in other countries (Baltic states) before, where in some it was forbidden to speak russian.
The nationalist political games which the west does not keep a safe distance from are not good.
Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" (Score:2, Interesting)
More like the recent confrontation in Georgia. Some ethnocentric asshole took charge of the country, and attempted to reorganize the nation more to his liking, at the expense of ethnic Russians and Russian Nationals. The asshole unbelievably thought that he had the backing of the West. Asshole figured out to late that this supposed "backing" didn't go so far as committing money, troops, or hardware to the oppression of Russian people.
I see the same situation here, today, in the Ukraine. Who elected that chump president, again? More than a hundred thousand Ukes have already fled the Ukraine, seeking asylum in Russia.
Maybe it's just because I don't hear the full story here in Scotland, but from what I've seen, this seems to be quite different to the Georgia situation. There has always been ethnic tension in former Soviet states due to the Soviets' reliance on resettled populations to establish control, but Ukraine seemed to be relatively peaceful on that front. The only area with any serious ethnic tension seems to be Sevastopol. The current bunch of reformers are looking to westernise increase trade with the west, not "westernise" per se, whereas closer alignment with Russia does seem to imply becoming part of a larger machine -- Russia still appears very imperialist.
The circumstances leading to the Orange Revolution was arguably a disaster for Ukraine, because policies ended up taking a back seat to corruption.
Re:The only thing I care about. (Score:3, Interesting)
I talk about SS parades and monuments in Latvia. Supported and mandated by the government. I talk about the discrimination of ethnic Russians who were refused the citizenship and were stripped of some rights there. Lithuanian government pursuits the use of Soviet symbolic but does not do the same to the Nazi insignia. All of the above routinely ignored by the European Union.
Re:Well ... what do you expect (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
No, Saddam didn't want the inspectors there because he didn't want actual evidence to get out that he didn't have WMDs. He was more afraid of Iran than he was the US, and he said as much [washingtonpost.com] after he was captured and before he was executed.
Re:Paul the Octopus for president! (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, the guy certainly is predictable. It was 100% obvious that he was going to invade as soon as the "local militiamen" (who managed to organize themselves and acquire somewhat modern military equipment and uniforms in two days!) started showing up.
Who wouldn't have predicted this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone who has paid even slight attention would have predicted this.
The Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Putin is not going to walk away from that (in fact they have a lease, although it has a somewhat dubious approval).
Putin would like to keep all of Ukraine in his orbit, but I think even he has doubts about his ability to seize Ukraine with force. The West will whine about the Crimea but has no leverage and will just hope they can bluff enough to maintain the rest of the existing Ukrainian borders without having Moscow annex the eastern part, too.
The whole east/west struggle is something of a pyrrhic victory for no matter who "wins" -- Ukraine's economy is a trainwreck, and the "winner" will have to spend big bucks to keep it propped up, which nobody wants to do.
Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" (Score:4, Interesting)
The 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people - if you're an ethnic Russian in Crimea you live in Ukraine but probably have much more allegiance to mother Russia than the government in Kiev. If you're a kid in Kiev born post-Soviet era to ethnic Ukrainian parents, different deal. Ethnic Tatar, different again.
I don't want to start a heated debate, so I'll answer only this point: saying that "the 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people" is the exact mistake that brought them at this point. The Ukrainian people is all the people that dwells Ukraine: Ukrainians, Russians, Hebrews, Romanians, Poles and Tatars. The opposition parties should have been more levelheaded: if they really wanted to keep Ukraine united, they should have tried to keep the people (all of them) united. Instead they let the nationalists take a big part in the whole process, including rejecting a reasonable deal mediated by the EU [archive.org] with a president that was actually democratically elected and had a lot of support in vast areas of the country, taking three seats in the government including ministry of defence, and removing the Russian language from the list of the official languages of the country.
I'm not saying that Russia is right, but that the revolutionaries acted quite stupidly: they should have tried to wheedle ethnic minorities, not stir them up.
Re:Still far from... (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhm, no, that's nothing more than a bullshit excuse - the US did not have authority from the UN to depose the Iraqi government, they were never granted that in 1991, and they were never granted that at any time after 1991. They were given the authority to carry out specific actions in order to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but no more.
You also ignore the fact that as part of their request for help, the Kuwaiti government promised democratic elections in a free Kuwait. They never happened.
Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well ... what do you expect (Score:4, Interesting)
Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn.
The actual inspectors on the ground disagree with this assessment [wikipedia.org].
Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" (Score:2, Interesting)
As Polish citizen I remember a long history of Russian "protection".
In XVIII Russia protected orthodox minority so well that Poland ceased to exist for 125 years.
In 1920 Red Army came to protect Polish workers in farmers - it was barely stopped in bloody battle near Warsaw.
In September 1939 Red Army was forced to protect the eastern part of Poland as Hitler protected the western part
Easter Europe was further protected in late 1940-ies, then in 1956 in Budapest, then in 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
In 1970 and 1981 Poland was "protected" by its own Yanukovych-like traitors.
But then USSR was busy protecting Afghanistan...