Russia has occupied Crimea and set a referendum to be held at the end of this month. As most of the peninsula's population is Russian-speaking, they will probably vote to be annexed to Russia. The Crimean parliament already agreed to an annexation unequivocally.

Will Putin be content with getting Crimea, or will he push for more? I don't know. He still doesn't recognize the new administration in Kiev, saying that they are fascists.

Putin is not going to give up unless he either gets something of value, like Crimea, or the west manages to threaten Putin with something that really hurts Russia. Diplomatic talks are useless unless you're willing to use either the stick or the carrot. I'm sceptical whether economic sanctions or boycott of G8 will do the trick. And Russia can also limit its gas supplies to Europe.

Russian nationalism and jingoism is more intense than I had thought. It will be interesting how the West responds.

Other headlines:

- Official EU policy: The Crimea cannot hold a referendum without it being organized by the Ukrainian government.
- OECD military observers were not allowed to enter the Crimea. They will try again this weekend.
- Moscow is making official excuses for the Crimea, as if it is calling the shots.
- Ukraine's parliament is going to try to dissolve the parliament in the Crimea, which had its own mini-coup shortly after the coup in Kiev. The current leader, Sergueï Axionov, is not known in Kiev.
- Hollande wants more pressure on Russia to force Moscow to back down and negotiate more reasonably.

I don't see how anyone can say Russia has claims to the Crimean peninsula when it is part of Ukraine. You can't base boundaries off of who used to own something or else most of the world's boundaries would be illegitamite. That being said, I don't think there is much the rest of the world can do to stop Puitin short of going to war, which nobody is willing to do. The only game changer would be if Ukraine decided to try and reclaim the peninsula (effectively escalating the conflict Russia started into War) and then begging other nations to help them after they started losing. Russia could also claim more of Ukraine, which Putin probably wont do. Either way, things could get very ugly. The likely outcome, however, is a longstanding feud of words with Crimea being part of Russia for the forseeable future.

Russia does it peacefullier than America did in 1988, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama

something your government doesn't want you... to .. know... * pc crash *

Edited 3/8/2014 18:25:29

I think IRL-boatbombing should be nerfed...

Edited 3/8/2014 20:09:08

You may have a valid point, but we can't really excuse the actions of one country based on the actions of another one. At least the US gave the canal back in the end, hopefully Russia does too.

Putin seizes Crimea. There is nothing the rest of the world, can or will do about it.
End of story.

Russia actually has legitimate claims to Crimea

Yeah well whatever you mean with 'claims' here, mate. I guess the BRD still has legitimate 'claims' on Elsaß-Lothringen then. The 19th century is over, you know.

Pulsius, Western (read: US, because who are we kidding) foreign policy being two-faced more often than not doesn't make Russias actions any less in breach of international law. Two wrongs don't make a right. What's so hard to understand about that? Who's the one seeing only blacks and whites here?

The tl;dr, 'shades of grey' version is this:

Take a good hard look at the West, in it's full resource-grabbing dishonest glory. Take note of all the systemic inequalitiy, all those civil rights in erosion, the emerging surveillance regimes and every single corporate sponsored market opening gunboat scumbaggery of the last 20 years. Then take a look at Putin's Russia. The Arab World. Iran. 'Communist' China.

What's your favourite 'model in crisis' for the future? Disregarding the West's largely stolen wealth, where'd you like your children to live? Also, note which non-Western powers I did not mention. And why.

Anyway, I actually agree with Hauptmann in one aspect (and I posted this way earlier than he did btw): there won't be no major war over Crimea. There probably won't even be major sanctions. Crimea will become the next South Ossetia. Next Winter, we'll all return back to fossil fuel business as usual.

I just don't think there's any reason to cheer. The time is very near where every sane person in the Western World - especially continental Europeans, the unmatched hypocrites of world politics - will look back at 'Pax Americana' with nostalgia.

Of course , Russia has very legitimate claims on Crimea. It was "gifted" to the Ukraine in 1954, since it was economical more reasonable to have it be part of only one soviet republic, rather than two. Nikita Khrushchev never expected the Soviet Union to fall and Crimea to be the centrepiece of a borderdispute between two independent nations.

Edited 3/9/2014 00:07:31

Watch this video guys, explains a bit more about Ukraine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2nklduvThs

I found it helpful to me..

^Good video.

Gnullberg - I'm trying very hard to imagine you explaining a typical Russian that his country should just do what Obama says because west is best! Your argument will certainly make a lasting impression.

Seriously though, you and your chancellor can "express your concern" to Putin as much as you want, but as long as she's not *doing* anything about it, nobody cares. If this is out-of-context USA bashing then reality dislikes the USA.

To answer your off-topic question: China, though currently having many problems, will certainly challenge the western lifestyle in future. A stable, quickly growing economy with little debt has lots of advantages to our western societies that struggle with record debt. China has many weaknesses compared to western democracies, but I prefer competition and freedom of choice to saying that the western lifestyle is perfect, doesn't need an update, and a single superpower should have cultural, political and economic hegemony over the whole world.

The time is very near where every sane person in the Western World...will look back at 'Pax Americana' with nostalgia.

Psssh, naw man. I caught Yellow Fever while I was back in Thailand and never really shook it. Doctor said the only cure is to move east, drink tea daily and become a trophy husband to an Asian girl.

Seeing as the next global financial center isn't gonna be New York City much longer and a lot of experts are pointing to Honk Kong or Singapore (some even say Beijing, yeah right :P) I might live somewhere around there, better job opportunities.

Gnullberg, you're right the world is shades of gray, but action is black and white. Whether anyone here agrees with me on Russia having a legitimate claim or not, Russia is there and unlikely to pull out.

Qi, you pretty much summed up the situation, but politics won't likely play out that way between the US and USSR. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis where Kennedy came back and claimed victory? Khrushchev had seen it as a mutual gain for both nations since the US agreed to take missiles out of Turkey, but because it was a "private agreement" and few knew about it at the time it looked like an American victory and the USSR was humiliated (not to mention the US didn't actually pull their missiles out). I'm sure Putin learned from this experience and Obama is trying to play the Kennedy role here (and losing badly).

General viewers - I never said it was right, though I do believe Russia has claims to the Crimea. I said it made sense and Russia is trying to secure its borders and expand its advantage. America has been rebuilding her empire and it's only natural that if Russia is to remain a world power they need to do the same. Hence the reason I called this a power play. Russia and US don't really care about what a handful of second rate European countries have to say in all this, though they want these second rate countries on their side because in the game of Super Powers, we're the pawns.

Come on guys, you really think anything in terms of power and politics has changed since the Cold War? I mean okay, a bit has, but the animosity towards each other and concern for national security, economic development and a strong military is still there. So what really changed?

What changed: Closer economic, political, and cultural ties as well as bigger, badder militaries and governments capable of totalitarian actions at the drop of a hat (PRISM, Patriot Act, Great Firewalls, etc.). Beauty and the Beast.

Extension to off-topic argument:

If Russia were a mere pawn on the world stage, what would have happened to Edward Snowden? He would face decades in some US prison, tortured, maybe even executed. Every single European "free democracy" turned his asylum application down, with excuses ranging from "no comment" to "applicant has to be on country's soil". Don't think the USA will do the right thing because they are good. They will only do it out of necessity.

Yeah, and Russia has not gained anything from Snowden. Russia acted solely on principle.

Nobody said Russia acted out of altruism. Russia acted out of self-interest, trying to make itself look good and the USA bad. The point is that Russia doesn't need to do what the USA says and that has good sides too.

I think Qi was implying they wanted the information Snowden has/had.

That's also a possible motivation. Snowden himself has said that he doesn't have the documents anymore. He gave them to several reporters and then deleted his own copies. If that really happened is up to speculation of course.

A somewhat similar situation to the crisis in the Crimea: America's annexation of Texas.

Mexico gained independence in 1821. Almost immediately, the Mexican government wanted settlers to deal with the Native Americans who vastly outnumbered the "Mexicans" in the north. So the Mexican government passed laws to encourage American immigrants to enter "Texas," own land, and follow Mexican law (eg, no slavery). By the mid 1830s the American population was about 40,000, the black slave population was about 5000, the Native American population was about 4000, and the "Mexican" population was about 4000. So the Mexican government changed its immigration laws, stopped trading as much with the US, and tried to crack down on Ameircans who didn't obey Mexican laws. The "Texans" declared independence with the short-lived Republic of Texas (1836-1846). Eventually, the US government (Congress and president) decided to annex Texas, as manifest destiny, nationalism, feelings of superiority (vis-a-vis Mexico and Mexicans),and jingoism ruled the day. The annexation of Texas led to the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), whereby American gobbled up half of Mexican territory.

Similarities with the Crimea:
(1) Long-term Causes of Conflict: manifest destiny, nationalism, jingoism, feelings of superiority (Russia vis-a-vis the Ukraine)
(2) Short-term Causes of Conflict: a surge in the population of the majority group followed by
the majority group ignoring or flaunting the laws of the sovereign country
(3) Result of Conflict: Republic of Texas is created, Mexican-American War unfolds vs the Russians just want immediate annexation (will there be war?)

Differences:
(1) Time Scale: Crimea's connection to Russia dates back to the 1700s! What happened in Texas occurred in about 15 years.
(2) Epochal Differences: In the 1800s, international law, diplomacy, the influences of media and world opinion, and international relations were much different. Then, it was acceptable to annex land from another sovereign state using questionable casus belli. Now, it is not (eg, War in Iraq: few would say this was a just war, and most outside of the US and the UK thought it was unjust when this war began).

Obviously, the annexation of Texas and Russia's attempts to annex Crimea are two unique events, with a whole host of differences. The above is simply a superficial delineation to illustrate that such actions are not new and maybe there are patterns (not necessarily to learn from from the perspective policy-making, but to better understand the dynamics taking place).

Imo Texas is a good example to predict how the population itself in the contested area will act. On how other countries will act it is rather old.

I think the relevant aspects in Crimea are:

1) Russia wants more power, and so do the western countries. Both parties are interested in bringing as much of Ukraine as possible under their sphere of influence. Russia has currently more means to force its interests (its military).

Russia has more at stake than the west. They have economic interests (including the planned Eurasian Union) as well as the nationalistic mainstream that wants Russia to be active on the world stage. Doing anything else would be a disappointment to these people.

2) The population in western parts of Ukraine prefers ties to Europe to ties to Russia. The southern and eastern parts of Ukraine seem to be of mixed opinion.

The Crimean population consists by majority of Russian-speaking Russian nationals who seemingly don't trust the current government in Kiev. They have strong linguistic, cultural, and historical ties to Russia. They want either more autonomy, or an annexation by Russia.

If a referendum is being held in Crimea that clearly favors an annexation, the west will face great difficulties if trying to prevent it. Managing Crimea's population should not be difficult for Putin, as the majority of them is russophile.