Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

The EU is stating quite clearly they will not impose minor sanctions, let alone fight, for the rights of minor east European states.

Hang on - because the EU didn't start a war over a non-member, that's all the proof you need that they won't lift a finger to help a member state? That's quite the extrapolation.

WakeUp

gandalf wrote: »

What is needed is the Ukraine to invite NATO to station troops on their soil to help "keep the peace". That is Putins worst nightmare and it should now be realised to show him that instead of his actions protecting "Greater Russia" it will in reality weaken them.

That coupled with stringent widespread economic sanctions. Lets not have another "Peace in our time" moment. You face down "strong men" with strength not compromise.

I would disagree. Ukraine is not a member of NATO or the European Union it isnt up to either the defend them. Placing nato troops in Ukraine is a bad idea and will not help the situation only make it more dangerous.

Iwasfrozen

WakeUp wrote: »

I would disagree. Ukraine is not a member of NATO or the European Union it isnt up to either the defend them. Placing nato troops in Ukraine is a bad idea and will not help the situation only make it more dangerous.

In 1994 the United States and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances pledging to protect Ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for disarming their nuclear weapons which they did in 1996. If if the US will not now honor that pledge why should countries like Iran or North Korea give up their nuclear weapons?

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In 1994 the United States and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances pledging to protect Ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for disarming their nuclear weapons which they did in 1996. If if the US will not now honor that pledge why should countries like Iran or North Korea give up their nuclear weapons?

As of today Iran doesnt have any nuclear weapons unless you know something I dont. How do you equate US promises of protection to Iranian maybes and North Korean nukes? neither of those countries would forgo anything based on a promise of US protection that doesnt make any sense. The assurances given to Ukraine in the bmsc already existed within a framework of the UN charter, CSCE. and parts of the npt. The agreement is of political value as its Ukrainian specific but it doesnt guarantee anything, Nowhere in the Budapest Memorandum does it guarantee military intervention on behalf of Ukraine it just isnt there a casus beli it is not.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hang on - because the EU didn't start a war over a non-member, that's all the proof you need that they won't lift a finger to help a member state? That's quite the extrapolation.

No, because the EU didn't bother with even minor sanctions to defend a state whose borders had been guaranteed by several members, that sends a clear signal they wont lift a finger to help Estonia.

No one asked the EU to declare war - that's a hefty extrapolation on your part. They were expected to pull together enough moral courage to at least object enough to an invasion of a sovereign European state to pull together some sanctions. Everyone agrees those sanctions would be at worst relatively minor consequence to the EU as a whole - whereas even those campaigning against sanctions acknowledge they would be an "existential" issue for Russia.

When they cant even do that, do you seriously think their pledges to fight to defend Estonia bear any weight at all? Why would an English, German, Spanish, Italian or French soldier fight and die for a border in Estonia when all the same arguments for inaction with regards to Ukraine would apply all the more to Estonia?

That said - there is a very real threat that Europe might end up having to pay a very heavy price indeed for not sending a clear message early.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hang on - because the EU didn't start a war over a non-member, that's all the proof you need that they won't lift a finger to help a member state? That's quite the extrapolation.

While I wouldn't agree with Sand, it's clear that there are those in Eastern Europe who feel the same way - hence the Visegrad pact.

For example: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/03/us-ukraine-crisis-baltics-idUSBREA221J520140303

However, the EU is a civilian, not a military power, so it's more that they're NATO members that would, and should, count here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

No, because the EU didn't bother with even minor sanctions to defend a state whose borders had been guaranteed by several members, that sends a clear signal they wont lift a finger to help Estonia.

If we're going to do that sort of simplistic extrapolation, we can equally conclude that the EU would refuse to do anything if Russia invaded Germany.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not excusing the lack of sanctions; I'm pointing out that your extrapolation makes no sense. You're saying that the EU has precisely the same set of responsibilities to a non-member as it does to a member state. That's utter nonsense.

No one asked the EU to declare war - that's a hefty extrapolation on your part.

I was responding to your phrase "...let alone fight..." - if you didn't mean fight in the sense of military action, fair enough; but given that you explicitly contrasted fighting with sanctions, it wasn't actually that unreasonable an extrapolation.

They were expected to pull together enough moral courage to at least object enough to an invasion of a sovereign European state to pull together some sanctions. Everyone agrees those sanctions would be at worst relatively minor consequence to the EU as a whole - whereas even those campaigning against sanctions acknowledge they would be an "existential" issue for Russia.

Everyone doesn't agree with that at all. Sanctions against Russia have the potential to have non-negligible consequences for EU member states. Again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been imposed anyway; I'm criticising the Monday morning quarterbacking of believing that imposing sanctions is a consequence-free exercise.

When they cant even do that, do you seriously think their pledges to fight to defend Estonia bear any weight at all? Why would an English, German, Spanish, Italian or French soldier fight and die for a border in Estonia when all the same arguments for inaction with regards to Ukraine would apply all the more to Estonia?

Because Estonia is both an EU and a NATO member state.

Scofflaw wrote: »

While I wouldn't agree with Sand, it's clear that there are those in Eastern Europe who feel the same way - hence the Visegrad pact.

For example: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/03/us-ukraine-crisis-baltics-idUSBREA221J520140303

However, the EU is a civilian, not a military power, so it's more that they're NATO members that would, and should, count here.

And that's my point. I think it's ridiculous to point to the EU's inaction to help a non-member state as proof that it wouldn't help a member state; or to suggest that because NATO hasn't declared war to defend a non-member that it has no interest in defending its member states. Like I said: that's quite the extrapolation.

Manach

My understanding on the reason why NATO operates in Afganistan was that under the foundational treaty of that organisation an article stated in essence, an attack on one is an attack on all. Should there be an Russian move on a Nato member, like a Baltic state then this is an attack on all. AFAIR, commentators like Donald Kagan have derided the EU for lack of a military component. But this misses the point: the EU at its core is a trading block with aspirations for closer unity.
Hence it is up to bilateral or multilateral treaties between states outside the remit of the EU to deal with defence arrangements.

aloyisious

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In 1994 the United States and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances pledging to protect Ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for disarming their nuclear weapons which they did in 1996. If if the US will not now honor that pledge why should countries like Iran or North Korea give up their nuclear weapons?

Stepping away from the actuality of the present, You'd need a partnership like Nixon & Kissinger to take a leap of faith, like they did in visiting (Red) China, breaking the wall and brokering a deal, to convince either of the above states that their independence (and that of their leaders) would be guaranteed, if they also took a leap of faith.

Re Europe's hiccup, I hope that old enemies (Czar and Kaiser) might meet at the gates and come to some deal with a decades-long lifespan.

Re the Naval vessels that they have had to leave behind, I hope that the Ukrainians scuttle the ships, but not the Sub.

View

Sand wrote: »

No, because the EU didn't bother with even minor sanctions

The EU HAS already introduced sanctions and is currently considering just how far it will widen those initial narrow sanctions.

Sand wrote: »

to defend a state whose borders had been guaranteed by several members,

It is up to those member states as to what they do or don't do. The other member states have no obligation to do so (except in their capacity as UN members).

Sand wrote: »

that sends a clear signal they wont lift a finger to help Estonia.

NATO style defence is a NATO issue not an EU one. That's a separation that Ireland strongly supported - remember we won't let the EU adopt a common defence POLICY, so we are in no position to complain if the measures needed to implement such a policy aren't in situ.

Sierra Oscar

I can't see the EU going too much further with sanctions to be honest, there is already a division emerging amongst EU states regarding the foreign policy direction that should be taken on this issue.

It is all well and good for the US to impose sanctions, but the EU are far closer trading partners with Russia than the US is. Further sanctions being imposed by EU states will bring about collateral damage.

Eggy Baby!

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I can't see the EU going too much further with sanctions to be honest, there is already a division emerging amongst EU states regarding the foreign policy direction that should be taken on this issue.

It is all well and good for the US to impose sanctions, but the EU are far closer trading partners with Russia than the US is. Further sanctions being imposed by EU states will bring about collateral damage.

In conclusion, this affirms that the EU (never mind the "west") is not a body with a monolithic foreign policy, even with the changes brought about by Lisbon (the FAC, the High Rep, CSDP....).

Scofflaw

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I can't see the EU going too much further with sanctions to be honest, there is already a division emerging amongst EU states regarding the foreign policy direction that should be taken on this issue.

It is all well and good for the US to impose sanctions, but the EU are far closer trading partners with Russia than the US is. Further sanctions being imposed by EU states will bring about collateral damage.

As did the not-really-sanctions on Switzerland, but they happened anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

If we're going to do that sort of simplistic extrapolation, we can equally conclude that the EU would refuse to do anything if Russia invaded Germany.

For a man throwing around accusations of simplistic extrapolation, I'm fairly impressed by your leaps of deductive insight.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not excusing the lack of sanctions; I'm pointing out that your extrapolation makes no sense. You're saying that the EU has precisely the same set of responsibilities to a non-member as it does to a member state. That's utter nonsense.

No, I'm not - I'm saying there is two different situations, with two different expectations, with two different costs to EU member states, the majority of whom are NATO member states. And the EU resists meeting the simple, easy, relatively costless expectations on the grounds of cost - but expects its pledges to be taken seriously when it comes to the situation that will impose far higher costs on them: war.

If the EU is unwilling to bear relatively minor costs to enforce sanctions in reaction to the invasion of a European sovereign state and the annexation of its territory, how credible are the pledges of the EU-NATO members to fight to protect states like Estonia? Who have Russian minorities. Which Russian diplomats are already making threatening noises about this week?

I.E. If Europe is unwilling and unable to do the easy, why should anyone expect it to be willing to do the hard?

I was responding to your phrase "...let alone fight..." - if you didn't mean fight in the sense of military action, fair enough; but given that you explicitly contrasted fighting with sanctions, it wasn't actually that unreasonable an extrapolation.

My position is clear, as is your misinterpretation of it. Short of interpretive dance, I'm not sure I can explain it to you any more clearly. Either you get it and disagree (which is fine) or you don't and we move on.

Everyone doesn't agree with that at all. Sanctions against Russia have the potential to have non-negligible consequences for EU member states. Again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been imposed anyway; I'm criticising the Monday morning quarterbacking of believing that imposing sanctions is a consequence-free exercise. Because Estonia is both an EU and a NATO member state.

And that's my point.

No...that's *my* point. You say sanctions have non-negligible consequences to explain why the EU is unwilling to impose them. Military action has far greater consequences. If "non-negligible" is a price too high for EU member states to pay, the costs of military action are surely out of their league.

Rightly, or wrongly that is the message that is being sent to Putin and Russia. That the EU (and I'm stressing the EU here as I believe the US has been stronger) is in danger of contributing to a significant miscalculation by sending these signals - I believe the EU would be forced to honour NATO pledges, but they are sending the exact opposite signal and wars occur when diplomats mislead themselves and each other to their real positions.

Either they disagree with Russia and think what happened to Ukraine is wrong and are willing to backup that viewpoint....or they're not. Expressing a view and demonstrating an inability to back it with minor actions makes them look weak. Either they should back up their views, or they should drop their objections to Putins actions in Crimea so they look less foolish. I'm okay with either option but they're burning up their credibility by trying to both oppose Russias actions, whilst doing noting about it.

I think it's ridiculous to point to the EU's inaction to help a non-member state as proof that it wouldn't help a member state; or to suggest that because NATO hasn't declared war to defend a non-member that it has no interest in defending its member states. Like I said: that's quite the extrapolation.

And no one has talked about NATO declaring war to defend a non-member. You're tilting at windmills on that one.

Sand

View wrote: »

The EU HAS already introduced sanctions and is currently considering just how far it will widen those initial narrow sanctions.

Have they? Did anyone notice?

NATO style defence is a NATO issue not an EU one. That's a separation that Ireland strongly supported - remember we won't let the EU adopt a common defence POLICY, so we are in no position to complain if the measures needed to implement such a policy aren't in situ.

Totally agreed - I'm not using "EU" and "NATO" interchangeably - I'm deliberately using "EU" to focus on the European members. It's OscarBravo who seems to be referring to the EU as a military alliance with mention of "member" and "non-member" when it comes to a hypothetical war to defend Estonia and Ukraine.

When the US (and Canada) is discounted, the big decision makers in the EU, are the same decision makers in NATO. The US has sent a stronger signal and is calling for stronger sanctions, the EU is doing the exact reverse. So the signals sent by the "EU" impact for the decisions likely to be made by NATO to respond...or not respond to an attack on Estonia's sovereignty.

Jonny7

Sand wrote: »

The US has sent a stronger signal and is calling for stronger sanctions, the EU is doing the exact reverse.

With less at stake, and acting as a single country, it's a little easier for the US to pass heavier sanctions

The EU situation is much more complex - some European countries will take a bigger hit than others and Moscow will retaliate to any form of sanctions

I presume that all EU countries which rely on varying levels of Russian gas exports will most definitely be looking at further options

Dannyboy83

Picture perfect, I paint the perfect picture

comongethappy

Venezuela's on board at least.

Conmaicne Mara

Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Syria, and North Korea, oh well, that'll alright then, no harm done. All pillars of international society.

Iwasfrozen

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Syria, and North Korea, oh well, that'll alright then, no harm done. All pillars of international society.

They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. I wonder does that work for countries.

Conmaicne Mara

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. I wonder does that work for countries.

We did lots of business with Iraq and Libya when Saddam and Daffy duck were in power so I wouldn't rush to judgement now I think on it.....

Iwasfrozen

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

We did lots of business with Iraq and Libya when Saddam and Daffy duck were in power so I wouldn't rush to judgement now I think on it.....

Both were useful idiots as far as the US was concerned.

Dannyboy83

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Syria, and North Korea, oh well, that'll alright then, no harm done. All pillars of international society.

There are actually reports of unrest in Central Asia & Kazakhstan in particular.

Oil-rich Kazakhstan exemplifies the region’s vulnerabilities. A founding member of the customs union, its economy is tied closely to Russia’s. On March 5th Mr Putin summoned the Kazakhstani president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, along with the president of Belarus, and told them that the Ukraine crisis risked hurting their economic bloc.

Mr Nazarbayev’s country has a large Russian population, concentrated along its 6,800-kilometre (4,250-mile) border with Russia. Russian nationalists sometimes mutter that these areas belong with Russia. If Mr Putin were asked to rescue ethnic Russians, might he amputate a bit of Kazakhstan? Mr Nazarbayev is taking no chances. After his visit to the Kremlin he ordered his army to be built up. But he is walking a fine, even awkward, line, saying on March 10th that he “understands” Mr Putin’s need to meddle in Ukraine.

In the poorer parts of Central Asia Mr Putin has even more clout. He could destroy the economies of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan by requiring visas for migrant workers, whose remittances contribute greatly to their home countries’ GNP—almost half in the case of Tajikistan. The interdependence of these economies was evident on the first business day after the appearance of Russian troops in Crimea. Not only did Russian markets and the rouble tumble; the Kyrgyz som plunged by 15% before recovering a bit.

By contrast, Russia has less influence over gas-rich Turkmenistan. Russia has long been irked by the Turkmen government’s treatment of ethnic Russians there. Might they call for protection too? Perhaps, though it looks unlikely that Mr Putin would suddenly resort to military intervention in Central Asia. Among other things, in most of the region he has enough influence without it.

But the case of Crimea has shown that Mr Putin does not need much of a pretext to justify intervention when it suits him. The leaders of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are well into their 70s, but have not revealed any plans, if indeed they have them, for their succession. If chaos were to follow their deaths, that might be when Mr Putin takes the view that local Russian-speakers are in need of his protection.

They still have awesome Potassium however.

SamHarris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Both were useful idiots as far as the US was concerned.

Eh, no they were more useful idiots from the other side. Both were very much aligned with the Soviet Union throughout the cold war, and their enmity towards the West ran up until their deaths.

SamHarris

comongethappy wrote: »

Venezuela's on board at least.

It would pretty much support Stalin if they thought it would slightly annoy the US. I'd go so far as to call their foreign policy childish - no regard for anything other than sticking a finger up to America. As though they would even really give a crap...

fergus1001

Any treaty signed by the USA is now not worth the paper it is written on because they have failed to uphold the Ukraine's borders as it promised in there treaty with them and the Russians

SamHarris

fergus1001 wrote: »

Any treaty signed by the USA is now not worth the paper it is written on because they have failed to uphold the Ukraine's borders as it promised in there treaty with them and the Russians

Meh, doubtful. It is far from the first time a nod to protect someones territorial integrity has been ignored by large states, the threat of nuclear war is more than enough of a reason for most to see why this is preferable, even necessary. The treaty never implied that the US was legally bound to go to war to protect the Ukraine from aggressors. The Ukraine is not an ally, indeed for most of its history it was quiet the opposite.

Further, it is pretty clear that even the smaller NATO states will be protected should it come to that. THAT would be far more of a test, given how much more formal and legally binding that treaty is. Though given how Russia has behaved it appears to be targeting those states yet to properly be under the Wests umbrella of protection, it is doubtful they would test attacking a real Western ally.

comongethappy

fergus1001 wrote: »

Any treaty signed by the USA is now not worth the paper it is written on because they have failed to uphold the Ukraine's borders as it promised in there treaty with them and the Russians

The 1994 Budapest memorandum did not have same force as a formal treaty.

Also, most importantly, it was not a mutual defence treaty.

Dannyboy83

SamHarris wrote: »

The Ukraine is not an ally, indeed for most of its history it was quiet the opposite.

I've a pretty good understanding of Russian culture and mentality I think.

This is the one part that boggles my mind tho.

Georgia - Former ally, Sworn Enemy
Ukraine - Former ally, Sworn Enemy

Sorry, but even if there were a media blackout in Britain tomorrow, and Britain went to war with the US... people WOULD stop and ask themselves:

"WTF is going on? There were our ally last week...Why does everyone hate us since this new guy came to power? (Indeed the US population DID ask themselves that question when Bush came to power)

I understand that the Kremlin manipulated the general population through the fascism angle (and in fact, if anyone is paying attention - there are an usually high number of stories in the Russian press e.g. Voice of Russia, concerning BANKRUPTCY).

Not sure if it's wilful ignorance or intimidation...

Conmaicne Mara

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This is the one part that boggles my mind tho.

Georgia - Former ally, Sworn Enemy
Ukraine - Former ally, Sworn Enemy

But were they allies by choice or by force? A lot of former Soviet allies were given the choice possibly get shot at by Nato or definitely get shot at by USSR, ask Hungary.