What is going on in Kiev?

The pro-russian gunmen most likely are just Russian military with no insignias. I mean, doesnt look like these guys are civilians with grandfather's hunting rifles.
IMAGE(http://g3.delphi.lv/images/pix/520x360/4a3d7e5b/krimaprokrievu-kaujiniekipie-lidostas-44258793.jpg)

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhjWpO_CIAAvRfh.png)

They're being transported in military style vehicles with no license plates.
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhjjw3WCEAEO5lm.jpg)

Same guys showed at the Sevastopole airport but didnt linger around, apologizing, saying they thought Ukranian forces had been sighted there, then left.

Crimean parlaiment is like black box atm. These gunmen take away all means of communications whenever members of parliament enter. Parliament voted on making referendum on splitting Crimea from Ukraine. As well as elected new prime minister who right away announced that he sees Viktor Yanukovich as the rightful president of Ukraine.
Viktor Yanukovich is residing now in Kremlin sanatorium near Moscow.

Russian helicopters have crossed Ukranian border. Border posts confirm this, saying, 3 flying vehicles had permissions to enter but more than dozen have entered.
Guy films the copters with his phone.

Meanwhile, in Moscow a new law is being prepared that'd make it easier to annex new territories to Russian Federation. Currently it needs bilateral agreement with the country. New redaction allows for a simple referendum in the territory in question.

So.. it's kinda clear where this is all going.

Most wrote:

So.. it's kinda clear where this is all going.

Unfortunately, it is.

Most wrote:

Russian helicopters have crossed Ukranian border.

Well, if Russia keeps Crimea, but the main part of Ukraine splits off, maybe that might be the best solution for everyone, anyway?

Frankly, I dont know enough about ukranian moods and attitudes. Crimean Tatars (10-15% of population, i think) might be thinking differently, they suffered a lot already from Stalin, deported a whole bunch of them Siberia for decades before they could return just to find that Kremlin had pumped huge Russian contingent in their home region.
Of course, many ukranians might feel that the ousting of Yanukovich was traumatising enough and would be willing to sacrifice it. Disputed Crimean region will be a huge stop sign for effective EU joining talks, Europe certainly doesnt want that within its borders.
Russia seems to bank on it and is bullying hard while the situation is still fluid. No one wants a real war though, Ukraine is not Georgia, military potential is much larger, they'll not back down easily.
Perhaps they shouldnt have given up their nukes in 90ies.

So instead of the Soviet Republic it's now the Russian Federation? Is this just a rebranding of the same old thing?

Russian Federation is the official title of Russia, it consists of around 80 "federal subjects" which is basically just provinces.
However, Putin has been pushing hard for Eurasian Union which would consist of many former USSR states, as a kind of counter force to European Union. It's not working too well though, even the closest dictator-buddies of Putin's dont want to crawl too deep into a bed with him, suspecting that such partnership would be mostly one way street.

Mostly? Lol.

Malor wrote:

Well, if Russia keeps Crimea, but the main part of Ukraine splits off, maybe that might be the best solution for everyone, anyway?

I largely agree. It's never that clean, of course. As I said earlier part of why the Balkan Wars happened was because Serbians wanted to protect their own living in Croatia and Bosnia. And visa versa. There's a lot more to it than that, but having people of your "tribe" (religion, race, literal tribe, whatever) behind the border of another country can lead to conflict. Turkey and Greece literally forced their citizens to move to the other country after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire because of this concern.

ABC News is reporting that Russian troops have entered Crimea and deployed to take over the airports and the Crimean Parliament after the Russian Parliament approved intervention. Troops have been seen in convoys coming from Russian bases, and reportedly are landing at airports.

Troops were there long before Russian parliament approved anything.

Russian politicians swarmed into Crimea yesterday, basically passing out Russian passports.
Members of Ukranian special forces who beat up and killed the protesters, journos in Kiev are officially given Russian citizenships and promised jobs in Russian police.

Number of houses of Crimean Tatars are marked with signs of "traitor".

It seems that Latvia and Lithuania have invoked NATO article 4 calling for emergency meeting. Cant find any local sources confirming it yet though.

Irrespective of how bad this is (and it is terrible), the fact remains that Crimea is clearly inside Russia's sphere of influence.

I suspect that we will protest and levy sanctions, but any sort of military intervention is clearly not in the cards.

I think we'll do whatever the EU decides...

While I certainly am not a political or military strategist, I wonder if there may be some benefit to granting the Ukraine provisional EU status, or at least the part that is not occupied/invaded by Russia.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

While I certainly am not a political or military strategist, I wonder if there may be some benefit to granting the Ukraine provisional EU status, or at least the part that is not occupied/invaded by Russia.

Being part of the EU, to my understanding, requires the potential member nation to vote on it, it requires standardizing in ways half of the Ukraine couldn't organize. There are banking regulations, security regulations. I don't see it. It's an interesting idea, but man I hate all of this.

Well, if they did that, and Russia continued to invade, then the EU would be more or less required to go to war. Politicians don't typically like backing themselves into corners like that.

So I know this isn't important in the grand scheme of things, but how about those Olympics? What a joke. It's possible it was a PR stunt and boots were on the ground while the world was paying attention to the Olympics.

Really feel like we should have had NATO troops in western Ukraine this whole time. Putin might be bold, but he's not stupid enough to take on the combined Western powers in hostile territory. How hard would it be to move a division down from Germany over the next few days?

kazooka wrote:

Really feel like we should have had NATO troops in western Ukraine this whole time. Putin might be bold, but he's not stupid enough to take on the combined Western powers in hostile territory. How hard would it be to move a division down from Germany over the next few days?

Part of why Putin feels the need to build a buffer around Russia is because we moved missile defense systems into Europe under Bush. I doubt NATO troops would be a helpful development.

DSGamer wrote:
kazooka wrote:

Really feel like we should have had NATO troops in western Ukraine this whole time. Putin might be bold, but he's not stupid enough to take on the combined Western powers in hostile territory. How hard would it be to move a division down from Germany over the next few days?

Part of why Putin feels the need to build a buffer around Russia is because we moved missile defense systems into Europe under Bush. I doubt NATO troops would be a helpful development.

I know that's what he says, but I don't buy it. You ask me, this has more to do with things like the Sochi Olympics, or the 2022 World Cup than it does with missile defenses in Poland (which I thought were a stupid idea in the first place, but whatever). If he invades Western Ukraine, then it won't be because Russia is threatened. It will be for pride. And it will cause hundreds of problems down the line if he does. I think this is the perfect time for NATO to drive in and say, "That's far enough, thank you," and let Ukraine divide itself amicably, instead of go up in flames under Putin's direction.

You know, they are a nuclear power, still. If we get into a genuine war with Russia, which could happen, things could get nightmarish in short order.

Remember, there would be multiple countries involved, many of which are capable of wiping out a substantial fraction of humanity. Open conflict strikes me as an exceptionally bad idea.

Another way of putting that: if we go to open war in Ukraine, eventually, one side or the other is going to start to lose. Personally, I think it would be Russia, but that's not guaranteed.

Once one side knows it's losing, what happens then? The depth of the potential ugly there is past my ability to easily imagine.

Malor wrote:

Another way of putting that: if we go to open war in Ukraine, eventually, one side or the other is going to start to lose. Personally, I think it would be Russia, but that's not guaranteed.

Once one side knows it's losing, what happens then? The depth of the potential ugly there is past my ability to easily imagine.

My feeling as well. I think we can beat Russia in a ground war, the issue is basically which side hits the "WE LOOSING NUKEZ NAO PLZ" button first.

I think a significant part of the reason Putin is doing this is because he knows NO-ONE wants a war, much less with Russia. I don't think he wants one, but I think he's enough of a dick to know he can do this sh*t and put the rest of the world in a no-win situation.

I'm genuinely a bit sad that the Obama administration has sounded surprised at some of the recent developments though. If they thought, after Georgia, that there was any way that Putin was going to let a neophyte government his administration has called "illegitimate" have control of a portion of land Russia considers Russian to begin with, compounded by the fact that a significant portion of their Navy is based there...

I mean, shouldn't everyone have seen this move coming a mile down the pike?

Prederick wrote:
Malor wrote:

Another way of putting that: if we go to open war in Ukraine, eventually, one side or the other is going to start to lose. Personally, I think it would be Russia, but that's not guaranteed.

Once one side knows it's losing, what happens then? The depth of the potential ugly there is past my ability to easily imagine.

My feeling as well. I think we can beat Russia in a ground war, the issue is basically which side hits the "WE LOOSING NUKEZ NAO PLZ" button first.

I think a significant part of the reason Putin is doing this is because he knows NO-ONE wants a war, much less with Russia. I don't think he wants one, but I think he's enough of a dick to know he can do this sh*t and put the rest of the world in a no-win situation.

I'm genuinely a bit sad that the Obama administration has sounded surprised at some of the recent developments though. If they thought, after Georgia, that there was any way that Putin was going to let a neophyte government his administration has called "illegitimate" have control of a portion of land Russia considers Russian to begin with, compounded by the fact that a significant portion of their Navy is based there...

I mean, shouldn't everyone have seen this move coming a mile down the pike?

Yeah, I agree. And I think it means that for all the investment and sacrifice of civil liberties, it means that our intelligence service isn't any better than it was in 2001. Possibly even worse.

As for nukes, I don't see them as much of a threat right now. When it was Freedom (crying eagle) vs. Socialist Brothers (determined beard), there was an existential struggle. If one side or the other felt that they were losing, then their way of life would have been so threatened that extreme responses that risked the lives of everyone involved might have been plausible. When we're talking about a limited battlefield over Putin's future Black Sea dacha, I'm less concerned about the threat of nuclear annihilation. That said, I'm not agitating for open conflict. I'm agitating for a what is essentially a giant dick-measuring contest, one where Uncle Sam has the biggest, floppiest dick of all. If Putin intends to "repatriate" more border nations, and throw Eastern Europe into chaos, then he needs to be put in check. And if all that takes is for NATO to drive a few tanks into Kiev (at the invitation of the Ukranians, of course), and say, NATO will not be a pushover about this, then I'd say it's worth it.

kazooka wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
kazooka wrote:

Really feel like we should have had NATO troops in western Ukraine this whole time. Putin might be bold, but he's not stupid enough to take on the combined Western powers in hostile territory. How hard would it be to move a division down from Germany over the next few days?

Part of why Putin feels the need to build a buffer around Russia is because we moved missile defense systems into Europe under Bush. I doubt NATO troops would be a helpful development.

I know that's what he says, but I don't buy it.

How would an American feel if Russia was deploying missile defense systems and troops to Mexico? Putin already has taken on the combined Western powers on his border, with the invasion of Georgia, and walked away with nothing but harsh words sent in his direction. Ukraine is not hostile territory to the Russians - it used to be part of the Soviet Union, and it's a very long way from Germany. A NATO move in Ukraine means a supply line a thousand miles long, and it would take at least a couple of months to get any kind of reasonable force there because the infrastructure is so limited. The Russians already have good transportation links, are only a few miles from their supply lines, and are already deployed. NATO has no viable strategic options.

Aetius wrote:

NATO has no viable strategic options.

THAT'S NOT WHAT CALL OF DUTY TAUGHT ME. DAMN YOU MAKAROV!

I'm genuinely a bit sad that the Obama administration has sounded surprised at some of the recent developments though.

I think that's just the soundbite for the rubes. As we've seen, Obama is a liar of rare caliber.

And if all that takes is for NATO to drive a few tanks into Kiev (at the invitation of the Ukranians, of course), and say, NATO will not be a pushover about this, then I'd say it's worth it.

Some of the most appalling slaughters in history have been started exactly that way, in assuming that the other side is not really committed to its aggression. "Oh, they won't really attack us" probably isn't the idea that's killed the most people in history, but I bet it's in the top five.

Malor wrote:

Some of the most appalling slaughters in history have been started exactly that way, in assuming that the other side is not really committed to its aggression. "Oh, they won't really attack us" probably isn't the idea that's killed the most people in history, but I bet it's in the top five.

It certainly looks like Russia has that idea at the moment.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/uemTblR.jpg)

Prederick wrote:

I'm genuinely a bit sad that the Obama administration has sounded surprised at some of the recent developments though. If they thought, after Georgia, that there was any way that Putin was going to let a neophyte government his administration has called "illegitimate" have control of a portion of land Russia considers Russian to begin with, compounded by the fact that a significant portion of their Navy is based there...

I mean, shouldn't everyone have seen this move coming a mile down the pike?

The surprise is diplomatic theater akin to catching a young child with their hand in the cookie jar. I don't think this actually surprised anyone.