Ukraine

[Zarathud]

Indeed it did. If not for the arms and aid provided to Russia and England before we entered the war it may have been lost and certainly would have been a far greater challenge. Some part of me hopes that Russia (the people anyway) remember just how much military might we are able to produce once we decide that we must.

Only if the Chinese are still willing to sell us the parts.

[malchior]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

So if I'm extrapolating that right lend-lease support to the Soviets actually turned out to be a bit of a mistake and enabled the USSR to race into Eastern Europe and set up the cold war...

[Isgrimnur]

Which was pretty much my point.

If not for the arms and aid provided to Russia and England before we entered the war it may have been lost and certainly would have been a far greater challenge.

Speaking of lend lease and aid provided in accord with this program, Tuyll noted that the Soviet Union would have survived without it but the victory would not have been so complete.

[Rip]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

So if I'm extrapolating that right lend-lease support to the Soviets actually turned out to be a bit of a mistake and enabled the USSR to race into Eastern Europe and set up the cold war...

Not really, we didn't give them that much that directly lead to the cold war beyond their lives. A major portion of the aid was food stuffs and the like. Military equipment was much more limited than to countries like England. They were still in pretty terrible shape at the end of WW2.

There were a number of people, the most notable being Patton that wanted take out Russia as well and I am not certain he was wrong, but lacking the political will we chose not to. Either way the aid to Russia was a necessary evil to make the war winnable. While I may not be thrilled with a world that includes Communist Russia it is a far better one than one that would include Nazi Germany.

So not a mistake by any measure. Not following Patton's advice may have been somewhat of a mistake but politically an unavoidable one.

[Rip]

Which was pretty much my point.

If not for the arms and aid provided to Russia and England before we entered the war it may have been lost and certainly would have been a far greater challenge.

Speaking of lend lease and aid provided in accord with this program, Tuyll noted that the Soviet Union would have survived without it but the victory would not have been so complete.

Sorry, thought it was sarcasm, my meter most be on the fritz again.

[El Guapo]

I'm happy that the rhetoric coming out of Putin the past day or so (from what I've read) is more consistent with a plan to stick to Crimea than a plan to invade eastern Ukraine. I hope that's not just wistful thinking on my part.

[GreenGoo]

I disagree with some of the things Rip counters with, but I'm not going to get into a long running and wordy debate on specifics.

Mostly I wasn't swayed by his counter arguments, although a did see a few valid points, or at least possibly valid.

I look forward to continuing to read this thread, as it is covering a historical event with one of the big players in the world.

[El Guapo]

I just hope that the Breen don't intervene.

[Holman]

Here's what I think I'd like to see:

1) Stabilization of the current status quo. Putin keeps Crimea but we don't recognize it.
2) Ukraine joins NATO, leaving no ambiguity about the success of future land grabs.
3) We continue to make Russia pay via sanctions economic, diplomatic, and technological. Russia loses any hope it had of joining a 1st-world economic recovery. Putin withers on the vine.

In other words, Putin just bought Crimea at the price of Russia's economic progress for the full period that he or his political proteges remain in office.

Any rhetoric that Putin is coming for the West is overblown and unhelpful. He's not that crazy, and anyway it's way beyond his capabilities. The politician who says Putin is setting his sights on Alaska is just tossing red meat.

[El Guapo]

There's an issue with Ukraine joining NATO while (in the eyes of almost the whole world) Crimea legally remains part of it. Because legally Crimea is still part of the Ukraine (and indeed, would be part of NATO), it's legally under foreign occupation. By admitting the Ukraine in those circumstances NATO would be committing to defend all of the Ukraine, not just the parts not under occupation. Technically the Ukraine could probably invoke the self-defense part of NATO at any time following admission due to the occupation of Crimea. And in any event, Ukrainian troops could waltz into the Crimea (again, still legally territory of the Ukraine), get shot at, and then invoke Article 5.

NATO's probably not going to want to take that on. Indeed, that may well be part of Putin's rationale in invading Crimea - to secure the territory and (by destablizing the territorial integrity of the Ukraine) making it more complicated for NATO to admit the Ukraine. That's something that the invasion of Georgia achieved as well.

[Carpet_pissr]

But if they cut their losses, and move to grant legal secession (or whatever it's called in foreign affairs terms) of Crimea, then they could be free and clear of that obstacle.

I doubt many people think that Ukraine will magically get control of Crimea back somehow, in the near to medium future, so it may be in their best interest (if joining NATO is part of that) to accept what has happened and act based on the current status.

[El Guapo]

But if they cut their losses, and move to grant legal secession (or whatever it's called in foreign affairs terms) of Crimea, then they could be free and clear of that obstacle.

I doubt many people think that Ukraine will magically get control of Crimea back somehow, in the near to medium future, so it may be in their best interest (if joining NATO is part of that) to accept what has happened and act based on the current status.

Yeah, they're not going to do that. They could well get Crimea back in the medium term - probably if there's significant domestic unrest in Russia, especially if combined with anti-Russian unrest in Crimea.

[GreenGoo]

I saw the Lithuanian president warning against sanctions backfiring and uniting the Russian people under Putin and how Russians are used to economic hardship and it won't do anything blah blah blah.

I didn't understand how the current situation is better than hurting Russians economically. I mean, I heard her rationale, but the argument is that it is somehow going to be worse than it currently is? Russia literally takes Crimea, but we better not do anything or it will piss off the population of Russia? What kind of argument is that? Is that really something to take into consideration? And to hear Putin tell it, the Russian population is ALREADY united under him.

I understand Lithuania have their own concerns but...

[El Guapo]

It sounds like the argument is not "don't impose sanctions because it will hurt the Russian people", but rather "don't impose sanctions because it will only help Putin, not hurt him."

[Grifman]

I'm happy that the rhetoric coming out of Putin the past day or so (from what I've read) is more consistent with a plan to stick to Crimea than a plan to invade eastern Ukraine. I hope that's not just wistful thinking on my part.

The only thing we heard the same thing about the Crimea. Putin publicly stated that he respected the borders of Ukraine before launching his adventure. He also said that Russian troops were not involved while his own troops were admitting they were Russian. I don't believe a word this man is saying.

[GreenGoo]

It sounds like the argument is not "don't impose sanctions because it will hurt the Russian people", but rather "don't impose sanctions because it will only help Putin, not hurt him."

Oh, I totally agree, that that is the argument being put forth. I'm just not sure that it matters. Putin does what Putin wants, and he beats and jails those that disagree. Whether the Russian population is happy or sad under Putin makes no difference to me (with respect to the Crimea situation). Putin won't be overthrown by a grass roots uprising. He may be ousted by some other strong arm dude. Screwing over the people with money in Russia might have an impact on their geopolitical outlook. Those are the people sanctions are designed to hurt most. At least in my opinion.

Screwing the rich out of their wealth generation won't unite the rich under Putin. So her argument holds no weight with me. Maybe if you think the man on the street has some influence on what Putin does it might be an argument worth considering. I don't.

[Exodor]

Ron Paul: Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

It's always scary to agree with Ron Paul but I admit I have the same question.

[El Guapo]

HOLY shit is that poorly reasoned. I see where his son gets his nuanced views of foreign policy on the issue.

Residents of Crimea voted over the weekend on whether they would remain an autonomous region of Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. In so doing, they joined a number of countries and regions — including recently Scotland, Catalonia and Venice — that are seeking to secede from what they view as unresponsive or oppressive governments.

These latter three are proceeding without much notice, while the overwhelming Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine has incensed U.S. and European Union officials, and has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War.

Hmmm, can I think of any difference at all between the status of the Crimea and the examples he mentions? Any at all? Hmmmm....could it be that the military of a foreign dictatorship invaded and occupied the region, putting a handpicked successor in charge before holding a vote that no one honestly believes is fair and open? That might be a minor difference.

What's the big deal? Opponents of the Crimea vote like to point to the illegality of the referendum. But self-determination is a centerpiece of international law. Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the U.N. is to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

Yes, self-determination is important under international law. This might matter if the vote was recognized as free and fair, and therefore as an actual representation of the will of the people involved.

Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

Critics point to the Russian "occupation" of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a "triumph of democracy"?

If he honestly does not think that the Crimea is occupied by Russia - if he buys Putin's statements that the military forces in Crimea using Russian military equipment are not Russian military - he should say so instead of hiding behind scare quotes. Also I have a bridge to sell him (that would conveniently link Russia and Crimea).

I would hazard a guess that being occupied by Russia under Putin is a touch different than being occupied by the United States, as well.

Perhaps the U.S. officials who supported the unconstitutional overthrow of Ukraine's government should refocus their energies on learning our own Constitution, which does not allow the U.S. government to overthrow governments overseas or send a billion dollars to bail out Ukraine and its international creditors.

Hmmm, I really don't think anyone's made a credible argument that the Constitution prohibits overthrowing foreign governments. Pretty sure that's covered by the authorization to declare and prosecute wars. I am also totally unaware of any serious argument that foreign aid is unconstitutional (or if it's not, why sending money to the Ukraine specifically is unconstitutional).

Or is he arguing that the U.S. played a role in overthrowing the Ukrainian dictator? Hard to keep his stupid straight.

Other blather

Good lord. I will now say a prayer that Ron Paul has zero chance of ever being President.

I mean, ultimately I agree that Crimea's not worth a war. But the reasoning ... good god.

[Holman]

If someone were going to make an equation between the U.S. in Iraq and the Russians in Crimea, I wouldn't have figured it for the guy who was recently a GOP frontrunner.

Ron better be careful lest what he says rubs off on Rand.

[Rip]

If someone were going to make an equation between the U.S. in Iraq and the Russians in Crimea, I wouldn't have figured it for the guy who was recently a GOP frontrunner.

Ron better be careful lest what he says rubs off on Rand.

This, someone needs to tell him to shut his trap, he is his son's worst enemy.

If I were Rand the first thing I would do as president would be to reverse rendition his ass and shove him out the door over Moscow, parachute optional.

Speaking of Rand...

Nobody should be surprised that Rand Paul got so warm a welcome Wednesday, even in a city whose name is often preceded in conversation by "The People's Republic of..."

After all, the junior U.S. Senator from Kentucky and likely contender for 2016's Republican presidential nomination is following in his father's footsteps by drawing crowds of enthusiastic young followers, particularly on college campuses, wherever he goes.

And his policies -- criticizing government surveillance programs, avoiding military actions that aren't vital to national security, rethinking the war on drugs, leaving states to decide same-sex marriage for themselves, and more -- draw voters from across the spectrum, including some of Berkeley's famed lefties

"He's a serious contender," said Bruce Cain, a political expert who directs Stanford University's Bill Lane Center for the American West. "He can come to the Bay Area and plausibly look for money, which is not the case with Sarah Palin or some of the other people on the right."

The younger Paul has found that money at a series of local fundraisers Tuesday and Wednesday, and will tap into his young activist base with a speech Wednesday afternoon at UC-Berkeley's International House.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_2537 ... ty-support

[Holman]

I think Crimea is gone. Illegally so, but for all purposes done. If we could somehow force their return, the majority of Crimeans would probably insist that their rights and wishes were being violated, and that's a mess we don't need to involve ourselves in.

I do, however, think we should insist on high standards for human rights in Crimea, especially regarding the ethnic minorities forcibly repatriated to Russia by this move. In fact I think we should use this whole episode as a base to throw greater international attention on human rights, press freedom, and similar issues in Russia generally. We need to shine light on Putin and ramp up his pariah status.

The rest of Ukraine, which just overthrew a dictator, established a free(er) government, and separated from the Russian bloc, deserves our full support.

[edit: I thought I was replying to someone's post about Crimea's status just above this one, but it seems to have been deleted.]

[El Guapo]

I do, however, think we should insist on high standards for human rights in Crimea,]

Can we ask Putin for unicorns too?

[Matrix]

I do, however, think we should insist on high standards for human rights in Crimea,]

Can we ask Putin for unicorns too?

Russia is not vs people, and i am pretty sure there wont be any human rights violations in Crimea, its not African dictatorship.
In fact, i will say it with certainty there wont be any. Crime is a poor peace of land, and Russia will commit money to improve it.
Crime is gone, but it will be treated just like part of Russia.

[Rip]

I do, however, think we should insist on high standards for human rights in Crimea,]

Can we ask Putin for unicorns too?

Russia is not vs people, and i am pretty sure there wont be any human rights violations in Crimea, its not African dictatorship.
In fact, i will say it with certainty there wont be any. Crime is a poor peace of land, and Russia will commit money to improve it.
Crime is gone, but it will be treated just like part of Russia.

I doubt the Tartars share your optimism. 40% of the people in Crimea are not ethnic Russians and I doubt they will be treated the same as those that are.

[El Guapo]

I do, however, think we should insist on high standards for human rights in Crimea,]

Can we ask Putin for unicorns too?

Russia is not vs people, and i am pretty sure there wont be any human rights violations in Crimea, its not African dictatorship.
In fact, i will say it with certainty there wont be any. Crime is a poor peace of land, and Russia will commit money to improve it.
Crime is gone, but it will be treated just like part of Russia.

Oh, I agree that Crimea will be treated like any other part of Russia. In that, human rights will not be respected. I.e no free speech, freedom of assembly, or unfettered right to vote. It's a dictatorship, after all.

And Rip is right that the big exception where it won't be treated like any other part of Russia is as to the Tartars, especially if they put up any kind of a fight.

[Matrix]

I do, however, think we should insist on high standards for human rights in Crimea,]

Can we ask Putin for unicorns too?

Russia is not vs people, and i am pretty sure there wont be any human rights violations in Crimea, its not African dictatorship.
In fact, i will say it with certainty there wont be any. Crime is a poor peace of land, and Russia will commit money to improve it.
Crime is gone, but it will be treated just like part of Russia.

Oh, I agree that Crimea will be treated like any other part of Russia. In that, human rights will not be respected. I.e no free speech, freedom of assembly, or unfettered right to vote. It's a dictatorship, after all.

And Rip is right that the big exception where it won't be treated like any other part of Russia is as to the Tartars, especially if they put up any kind of a fight.

Well ya, the free speech meaning is in Russia is very different from most of the world. Crimea knows they going under Dictatorship. I am just saying that it wont be as bad as African countries when i think of human rights violations. Russia is dictatorship and thats what Crimea will get.

[El Guapo]

Russia doesn't have a unique definition of free speech, it's just one country among many that denies the basic right of free speech.

And sure, there are countries that are worse on human rights. Though I'm sure that the Tartars are worried about being the next Chechens.

[Isgrimnur]

Have they tried not being Tatars? /s

[El Guapo]

U.S. to expand anti-Russia sanctions

[Defiant]

Is there any discussion going on about making sure those who want to leave Crimea (for mainland Ukraine) being free to do so? (and if so, will there be any compensation or funding for their relocation?

[Isgrimnur]

Russia is issuing passports in Crimea.

Russia has begun issuing Russian passports to residents of Crimea, saying they are now Russian citizens.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has said the Foreign Ministry will start introducing a visa regime for Russians wanting to visit Ukraine.

Russia said it would study Ukraine's move before deciding whether to introduce a visa regime for Ukrainians.

Apparently, this has just been ramping up past efforts:

Russia has been handing out thousands of passports in Ukraine over the past few years, mostly to ethnic Russians living in the east of the country, as well as in Crimea. Members of Berkut, the now-disbanded special operations forces that were deployed against the Euromaidan protesters in Kiev, have been offered Russian passports, too. Recent reports also indicate that passportization in Crimea has accelerated since the start of the crisis, and Russian lawmakers introduced a bill in late February that is intended to simplify the process of obtaining Russian citizenship.

[Rip]

Well along with the new sanctions I noticed this.

U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday announced more sanctions on people and one bank in response to Russia's annexation moves, as well as a new executive order that authorizes possible further sanctions on what he called "key sectors" of the Russian economy.

SO you guys can quit asking me if that would be legal. It's an executive order that as we all know throws legality out the window. I would imagine we can sanction/seize pretty much whatever we like now.

See now that wasn't as hard as you guys tried to make it.

[Isgrimnur]

So you're saying that an executive order, on its face, is an illegal exercise of power?

[GreenGoo]

So you're saying that an executive order, on its face, is an illegal exercise of power?

I think he's saying that it's not illegal when the President does it.

And for the record, we were talking about hitting private companies and possibly persons.

Is a trade embargo (for example) going after private industry or the country? And in any case, sanctions are not necessarily and probably aren't going to involve seizing privately held assets.

I have not read the details on this new executive order, assuming any are available atm.

[Isgrimnur]

The ones available so far.

EO 13660

EO 13661

[Rip]

So you're saying that an executive order, on its face, is an illegal exercise of power?

No I am saying that in practice an executive order is above the law and makes any discussion about whether actions it takes are legal or not mute.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-garri ... 70819.html

President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.

[Isgrimnur]

Seeing as the executive order cite the legal justification on which they are based, anyone that could prove standing should have plenty of justification to challenge said orders in court.

[Isgrimnur]

And here is the latest in PDF form. It hasn't been prettied up yet.

[Rip]

Seeing as the executive order cite the legal justification on which they are based, anyone that could prove standing should have plenty of justification to challenge said orders in court.

National security, case closed.

[Grifman]

Well along with the new sanctions I noticed this.

U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday announced more sanctions on people and one bank in response to Russia's annexation moves, as well as a new executive order that authorizes possible further sanctions on what he called "key sectors" of the Russian economy.

SO you guys can quit asking me if that would be legal. It's an executive order that as we all know throws legality out the window. I would imagine we can sanction/seize pretty much whatever we like now.

I'm not sure how you get that we can legally seize any assets we want. It mentions sanctions against sectors of the Russian economy but that's totally different from seizing the assets of private individuals and Russian companies that have nothing to do with the Crimean annexation.

I know the US can target sanctions at certain individuals and govt entities and govt related companies/banks. It's not clear to me that we can seize the assets of an individual Russian citizen or a Russian company with no links to the issue. If you can show me that, fine. But so far you've still shown nothing.