Putin asks Parliament for permission to use force in Ukraine

[cali]

Putin said the move is needed to protect ethnic Russians and the personnel of a Russian military base in Ukraine's strategic region of Crimea.

"I'm submitting a request for using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine pending the normalization of the socio-political situation in that country," Putin said in a statement released by the Kremlin.

He sent the request to the Russian legislature's upper house, which has to approve the motion, according to the constitution.

In Crimea, the pro-Russian regional prime minister had earlier claimed control of the military and police there and asked Putin for help in keeping peace, sharpening the discord between the two Slavic neighbor countries.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/crimean-leader-claims-control-asks-putin-22729336

[pampango]

1. Putin must be a secret republican. He does not give a damn what the UN says using his troops against

a foreign country. No one, including Putin, really believes that Ukraine poses a threat to Russia.

[HappyMe]

2. I heard just a little bit ago

that the Russian troops are already there.

[stevenleser]

3. Yes, he is "asking permission" for what is in effect a fait accompli

For a member of the Russian parliament to vote no, it is essentially not supporting the troops in the field.

As someone up thread already pointed out, where have we heard that before.

[HappyMe]

4. Hmmmm....

I'm wondering if Putin is just looking to swallow up the Ukraine and absorb it back into Russia. He was just waiting for an excuse.

[stevenleser]

5. I don't quite get the Russian obsession with Ukraine. I think it s a cultural thing. The one thing

I guess I do get is that any Russian leader who 'lost' the Ukraine in terms of the Ukraine going off to have a closer relationship with the EU or the US than with Russia would lose a lot of face at home.

But that still doesn't equate to all of the things Putin has done here. The Ukraine costs Russia much more than they get from them. You would think they would be looking to offload that burden to the EU or US.

[cali]

7. I suppose it's not unlike the U.S. obsession with South America

and Cuba. And yes, I know we haven't sent troops to Cuba but we sure have sent them plenty of times to nations in South America and don't forget Grenada.

[stevenleser]

9. IMO, this is like the joke explaining the difference between being involved and being committed.

Question: In a bacon-and-egg breakfast, what's the difference between the Chicken and the Pig?
Answer: The Chicken is involved, but the Pig is committed!

Since the end of the cold war, the US has been 'involved' in certain places in Latin America. Russia seems committed to the Ukraine.
---------------------------------------
The cold war and ideological conflict explains the US and USSR involvement in various places prior to the fall of the Berlin wall. I don't think that is particularly obsessive so much as it was unfortunate.

In any case, that 'justification' does not exist now. I don't think the US' involvement in any country in Latin America can be termed as obsessive since the end of the cold war.

[B2G]

8. Have you looked at a map lately?

It's a major port...and critical for the flow of oil.

[stevenleser]

10. That would justify being involved, not being obsessed. No one in Ukraine is proposing cutting off

Russia's access to these ports.

[riderinthestorm]

13. Tymoshenko was against signing the renewal of the port lease. Yanukovich was for it

and signed it almost immediately upon getting into office. It was such a close election, Russia had to have been rattled. Here's an old DU thread about it from the election day that I bookmarked ages ago... (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4259625)

They really ARE obsessed with it.

Here's an excellent overview that was posted 2/25/2014. At the end of the article, the author surmises that the Russians just won't cross that line and invade because of the ramifications (nicely laid out in the article).

And yet, here we have it. They did invade. I think that qualifies as obsessed imho.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.576212

[stevenleser]

14. Interesting stuff. I meant from a commerce perspective, but this is interesting.

No one is proposing that Russian merchant ships and oil tankers would not be allowed to use the ports. The contention by Tymoshenko is that Ukraine's Constitution seems to not allow foreign bases on their soil and so all such bases should be closed.

This opens a whole new interesting reasoning for the invasion. Tymoshenko is freed, Russia knows she is anti the Russian naval base and so they invade the entire area to protect their use of the base.

[riderinthestorm]

17. Yup. I really liked the Haaretz article for their clarity. Summed it up for me

Especially once you know the back story on the election between Tymoshenko and Yanukovich, and their respective positions on the port.

[FarCenter]

6. Was watching BBC and a commentator said Russia has 25,000 in Crimea

This is not new forces -- it is what they have under prior agreements to maintain their naval base at Sebastopol and elsewhere.

[stevenleser]

11. Perhaps, but having a base somewhere and using those troops to take over infrastructure is another

matter.

[FarCenter]

16. The gist was that the Russian military was bigger, better equiped and more organized than Ukranian's

Apparently, the Ukrainian military garrisoned in Crimea is smaller than the Russian garrison.

[jsr]

12. Approval is uncertain. There will be a long and heated debate.

[stevenleser]

15. You nailed it. I think approval took 3 minutes and parliament went even further

They want to pull the Russian ambassador from DC

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/