Crimean vice-premier: Crimea is now part of Russia; only Russian troops are legally armed

[muriel_volestrangler]

As EU leaders huddled in Brussels on Thursday morning for an emergency summit to address the Ukraine crisis, the Crimean regional government took matters into its own hands and announced it would hold a referendum on whether the region should officially join Russia on 16 March.

At a press conference in Sevastopol, Rustam Temirgaliev, the Crimean vice-premier, said the referendum was being held purely to ratify the decision of the Crimean parliament to join the Russian Federation, and the parliament had appealed to Russia to assist with this.

He said Crimea was Russian with immediate effect: "From today, as Crimea is part of the Russian Federation, the only legal forces here are troops of the Russian Federation, and any troops of the third country will be considered to be armed groups with all the associated consequences."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-european-leaders-emergency-summit

Also:

Ukraine crisis: Gunmen preventing OSCE monitors from entering Crimea

Gunmen were preventing a group of 40 military observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) from entering Crimea on Thursday for a monitoring mission, a Western diplomatic source said.

"They are stuck but they are not turning back. They are not being allowed in by two groups of armed people - very professional, very well-trained," the source said.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/world/story/ukraine-crisis-gunmen-preventing-osce-monitors-entering-crimea-20140306

Russia is a member of the OSCE (as is Ukraine).

[jakeXT]

1. Emergency rule without asking everybody?

The 57-nation OSCE works on consensus, so most monitoring missions would have to be approved by all nations, including OSCE member Russia. But a provision of its regulations allows member countries to ask others to send unarmed military monitors in case of emergencies, and Baer said that Ukraine made use of that rule.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/osce-to-send-military-observers-to-crimea/article17297359/

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. What Russian troops?

According to Russia, there are no Russian troops!

[geek tragedy]

3. Looks like Russia has decided to annex Crimea, now the question is what kind of

penalty they will pay and what will be done to prevent them from gobbling up other neighbors

[sabrina 1]

4. Where did it say 'Russia has decided to annex Crimea' in either of those articles?

Here's what I read, that the Crimean authorities are appealing to Russia to allow them to become part of Russia.

That their leaders have declared their independence from Ukraine.

Now people here have been yelling all over the place that when a people WANT something we should respect it.

So I'm sure they will respect the people of Crimea the same way they respected the Kiev protesters.

[geek tragedy]

6. crimea is under russian military occupation.

but, wevs, Mother Russia gets Crimea, I guess that's the price that has to be paid for a truly independent Ukraine.

[polly7]

35. ...............

For example, Martin’s denunciation of Russia for “invading” Ukraine is based on Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.

Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/03/propaganda-rules-the-news/

[geek tragedy]

36. those troops don't have the right to operate outside their bases nt

[polly7]

37. I imagine when the Crimean people are asking for help,

those troops have the right to operate anywhere there is trouble for them.

Or would you rather see a Libya-type 'no fly-zone' slaughter type situation instead?

[geek tragedy]

38. yes, they'll be greeted as liberators and flowers nt

that's some serious PNAC thinking there

[polly7]

41. Laughable.

Should the troops in the Crimea ignore them, and let those who they fear and who have already stated their intentions for them re their language, etc. impose their will unopposed? I'm sure you'd like to think so. Crimea has long associated with the Russian culture ...... it's their right to ask for and receive support, whether you want to deny them that, or not.

The only PNAC thinking is yours.

[geek tragedy]

43. Crimea is part of Ukraine. Russian troops are NOT authorized to occupy Ukrainian territory.

That is illegal aggression.

Russian troops should not be intervening in internal Ukrainian politics. There is NO indication that ethnic Russians in the Crimea are facing any kind of danger, certainly not immediate.

Only the extremely gullible would think the Russian troops are there to protect Crimeans from danger rather than seizing land for Russia.

[polly7]

44. Extremely gullible is believing people who associate with Russian culture have no right

to ask for aid and protection from a violent uprising meant to forcibly integrate them into a singularly restrictive Ukrainian society.

In 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed the Partition Treaty, establishing two independent national fleets and dividing armaments and bases between them.[6] Ukraine also agreed to lease major parts of its new bases to the Russian Black Sea Fleet until 2017. However, the treaty appeared to be far from perfect: permanent tensions on the lease details (including often reported issue of lighthouses) control continued. The Fleet's main base is still situated in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol. In 2009 the Yushchenko Ukrainian government declared that the lease would not be extended and that the fleet would have to leave Sevastopol by 2017.[7] However, in 2010 the Russian leasehold was renegotiated with an extension until 2042 and an option for an additional five years until 2047.

Ukraine crisis: Crimean leader claims control, asks Putin for help

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-crisis-crimean-leader-claims-control-asks-putin-for-help-1414151.html?utm_source=ref_article


http://nypost.com/2014/03/01/crimean-leader-claims-control-asks-putin-for-help/

Showdown looms as Crimean leader asks Putin for troops



Protesters in Donetsk raise a Russian flag, 1 March
In Donetsk, thousands of pro-Russian demonstrators rallied outside regional government offices

[geek tragedy]

45. 'violent uprising'--the only threat to ethnic Russians is in the propaganda

factories of the Kremlin.

There is no targeting of ethnic Russians. There is no violence being committed against them

You are making excuses for Russian imperialism. I am not a Putin follower, so we will not be able to agree on anything.

Good day.

[polly7]

46. I'm not a Putin follower either, and definitely not a fan of imperialism.

I'm a fan of an autonomous people having their rights and wishes respected, if they have to ask for aid from troops already in their region to protect themselves ..... so be it.

[geek tragedy]

47. so, if the Basques or Catalans request it, the US can invade Spain

in order to protect their rights?

[polly7]

48. It that actually happening, or are you just running from what really is? nt.

[geek tragedy]

49. no, I'm challenging the utterly false notion that one country may have its troops

occupy another country's territory without the permission of the United Nations or that nation itself, absent a showing of actual and immediate danger to the people there.

One has to be supremely devoid of critical thinking skills to really suggest that the Russian troops are there primarily on a humanitarian mission as opposed to securing the Crimea as a base for the Russian military.

Really astonishingly naive and willfully blind to conclude that.

[polly7]

51. Your insults got old a long time ago.

As has your belief you know all there is to know about the Crimean people's wants and needs, despite people posting article after article of them for days.

Really astonishing though is the arrogance you deliver your bullshit, as in claiming the Russians had no right to be in Crimea when they have a fucking military base there.

And ....... the United Nations???? Seriously? What the fuck are they doing for people in areas of the world being slaughtered enmasse, raped as a weapon of war, starved, having children bayonet one another, etc, etc, etc. Come on, you can do better than that.

[geek tragedy]

52. I said Russian troops had no right to occupy Ukrainian territory.

You have the right to consciously avoid any skepticism towards Russia's actions. But that decision is not entitled to respect.

[polly7]

53. As is not a single word you say.

Your quote: Russian troops are NOT authorized to occupy Ukrainian territory.

Btw, Crimea is part of Ukrainian territory, so a big, fat FAIL saying Russian troop presence is illegal there.

In 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed the Partition Treaty, establishing two independent national fleets and dividing armaments and bases between them. Ukraine also agreed to lease major parts of its new bases to the Russian Black Sea Fleet until 2017. However, the treaty appeared to be far from perfect: permanent tensions on the lease details (including often reported issue of lighthouses) control continued. The Fleet's main base is still situated in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol. In 2009 the Yushchenko Ukrainian government declared that the lease would not be extended and that the fleet would have to leave Sevastopol by 2017. However, in 2010 the Russian leasehold was renegotiated with an extension until 2042 and an option for an additional five years until 2047.

[geek tragedy]

54. I would find it really insulting

to find that the Putin Booster Club respected my opinions.

[polly7]

56. Awww. ............ freeper talk!

I was supposed to have wanted Hussein and Gaddafi's babies, too. Old, lame, tired, pathetic. I'd try something new if I were you.

[geek tragedy]

57. get back to me when you're willing to entertain the possibility

that Russian troops occupying an area of strategic military value is something other than a humanitarian mission.

[polly7]

58. Nah ....... I've heard everything you've had to offer. Not believable,

your insults didn't help either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. They have to have permission to use the troops outside their bases

According to paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine “Military units shall conduct their operations in the areas of disposition in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, obey its legislation and refrain from interference with Ukraine’s domestic affairs”. According to paragraph 2, Article 8 of the same Agreement, “Military units shall conduct exercise and other combat and operative training within the limits of training centers, training areas, positioning and dispersal areas, firing ranges, and, except forbidden zones, within the designated airspace as agreed with Ukraine’s competent authorities”.
...
The Russian side also violated paragraph 5, Article 15 of the said Agreement that reads: “Movements related to activities of military units outside of their areas of disposition shall take place following an approval by Ukraine’s competent authorities”.

http://mfa.gov.ua/en/news-feeds/foreign-offices-news/18617-shhodo-porusheny-chinnogo-zakonodavstva-ukrajinita-ukrajinsyko-rosijsykih-ugod-vijsykovimi-formuvannyami-chf-rfna-teritoriji-ukrajini

[pampango]

63. Thanks for that information and the link. Now we know why they wear no insignia. n/t

[The Magistrate]

55. Despite The Comedy Stylings If Some Replying To You, Sir

That would seem to be the case.

Some wriggle room is being left by the claimed attachment being pronounced by the local body, and not by the Russian government itself; this leaves the latter free to disown the former in future should that prove necessary or advisable.

A couple of points apparently need stating, given the profound misunderstandings displayed in comment here.

First, the autonomy of the Crimea as an autonomous region of the Ukraine does not convey to the local government any right to bar Ukrainian armed forces from the region, any more than, say, the state of Alabama would have the right, as a sovereign state within the United States, to bar Federal troops from its soil. The statements by the Crimean authorities have no legal force whatever. The only thing which gives them any weight at all is the presence of Russian armed forces.

Second, the agreement under which Russian troops are quartered on bases leased from the Ukraine conveys no right whatsoever for Russian troops to operate outside the base areas, with perhaps some leeway for needs of immediate self-defense. It certainly conveys no legal right for Russian troops to leave their bases to 'protect' ethnic Russians resident in Crimea, and their doing so is a violation of their lease and of international law, under which it is certainly an act of aggression against a sovereign state.

Russia is likely to emerge from this in possession of the Crimea; I do not think there is much doubt of that. But the best color they could put on doing so would be the 'we stole it fair and square' line which has long been the rallying cry of imperialist acquisition, and no one should be in any doubt that Russian acquisition of the Crimea is an act of imperialism, an expression of Great Russian chauvinism, and a clear breach of international law.

[geek tragedy]

60. Indeed, the question is not the occurrence of the crime but rather

the penalty to be suffered.

What Russia has really succeeded in doing is scaring not only the remainder of Ukraine, but also the Baltic States etc into the arms of Western Europe on a permanent basis.

And, indeed, if Crimeans can welcome Russian soldiers into their autonomous region, then certainly Estonia can invite a NATO tripwire force and fighter jets into its territory.

The bear will find himself fenced in with barbed wire instead of shrubs, all for the privilege of owning a single bush of berries he was free to graze upon at his will.

[LittleBlue]

5. Well this is embarrassing

Now Obama has to either relent or go full anti-democratic against the wishes of the Crimean people.

[geek tragedy]

7. you think a vote conducted while under military occupation from an external power

without international observers is going to be a PR victory for Mother Russia?

[LittleBlue]

8. Why not?

We're claiming that the parliament had a legit vote to oust Yanukovych when surrounded by a mob. How is this any different?

[LisaL]

9. Exactly.

Democratically elected parlament decided they want to be a part of Russia. So it's all legit.
Considering impeaching Yanukovych was proclaimed legit.

[stevenleser]

10. The entire international community has opposed many such votes in the past. That's why.

This was not an uncommon occurrence in the last century. Popular plebiscite held after invasion by foreign power and, surprise surprise, the population votes to be annexed by the foreign power.

This practice was held to be illegitimate before either of us were born.

[LisaL]

12. As opposed to impeaching an elected leader by a parliament and electing someone else by the

same parliament?

[stevenleser]

14. Impeachment is a Constitutional act by democratically elected members of a parliament nt

[LisaL]

15. Even when that parliament is surrounded by a mob?

[stevenleser]

17. Do you have evidence that the "mob" forced these members to vote a certain way?

I'll save you the time, there is no such evidence.

[LisaL]

18. Do you have any evidence that Crimea doesn't actually want to be a part of Russia?

[stevenleser]

33. You understand that Austrians and sudeten Czechoslovakians wanted to be part of Germany too, right?

You are now validating the arguments behind both of those annexations and invasions.

[FarCenter]

20. It would have been, had they followed the procedures of Title V, Article 111 of the constitution

http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html

[stevenleser]

31. Do you have evidence that they didn't? And if so, isn't that an issue for Ukraine's courts?

How does that validate invasion by Russia? Particularly one where Russia isn't even bothering to restore what they think is the actual order.

That's a funny justification.

[FarCenter]

40. Was Yanukovych's Ouster Constitutional?

However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers.

Pro-Yanukovych lawmakers may also argue that under the 1996 constitution, it should have been the current acting prime minister, Serhiy Arbuzov, who assumed power after Yanukovych's removal.

The 2004 constitution designates the parliament speaker as the No. 2 position.

That discrepancy may soon become irrelevant, with parliament expected to elect a new prime minister no later than February 24. That post is expected to go to either Tymoshenko, fellow Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) member Arseniy Yatsenyuk, or independent lawmaker and chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko.

http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html

If the impeachment was not constitutional, then Yanukovich is still PM and can request Russian assistance, which he has.

[stevenleser]

62. That is a question for the Ukrainian courts, not a pretext for an unprovoked war of aggression. nt

[LittleBlue]

19. And because they already have a base there

under that reasoning they would automatically lose the right to self-determinism forever.

Nah not having it.

[geek tragedy]

21. if you don't understand the difference between a popular revolt and a military occupation

I suggest you study the history of Dick Cheney.

[LisaL]

23. Popular revolt?

[geek tragedy]

26. Oh, you're in the "Ukrainians just loved Yanukovych until the West brainwashed them" camp? nt

[stevenleser]

34. The funny thing about that is, let's accept their crazy argument as fact, for a moment...

... if the people become convinced, even by supposed 'brainwashing' that their leaders are not taking them in a direction they want to be taken in, they have the right to protest, rise up and vote them out. The Declaration of Independence pretty much states that.

What is NOT OK, is for a foreign power to invade a country or province and say "Oh, they wanted to be part of us all along".

The fact that some DUers are arguing to support that is shameful.

[amandabeech]

68. It is shameful.

The situation is irregular, and as you state, it may end up in the courts.

The Feb. 21 agreement which neither Yanukovych nor Russia signed provided for a new election. It is not clear to me whether the agreement mandated a December date or whether that was an outside deadline. Nonetheless, there will be an election in late May that will bring in a new parliament. That is, if Russia does not invade in the meantime.

Ukraine seems to be doing its best to comply with its laws and to carry on until a new election is held.

But nothing that has happened gives Russia or any nation to invade and engage in acts of war.

I've been around DU for a long time. There have been many flame wars over many issues and many candidates. However, I have never had the feeling that so many people would mimic the views of American Socialists and American Communists prior to the time that you-know-who invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

[stevenleser]

69. I am having a huge fight about this with an expat Russian on my Facebook page.

And one of the things I told him was, I did not give a pass to the President of my own country when he engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq, why would I give a pass to the President of another country?

You should see the exchange. https://www.facebook.com/steve.leser/posts/10152198287379361?comment_id=151982955&offset=0&total_comments=15&notif_t=share_comment

[LittleBlue]

25. I'd like to see your crystal ball

It must give you tremendous insight into precisely what the majority of Ukrainians and Crimeans want.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. The presence of foreign troops is the difference

The 'mob' was Ukrainian, in Ukraine. The troops are Russian, in Ukraine.

[LittleBlue]

28. The mob wasn't a vote

Whether a parliament votes under duress because of armed Russian troops or a mob with petrol bombs and Ukrainian flags, it's still not a legitimate vote.

If you were an MP, would you dare vote against the wishes of either one?

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. The 'mob' with Ukrainian flags - the flags of the country -

are quite different from Russian troops who have been removing their insignia to give RT some plausible deniability. One are the people the MPs are there to represent; the other are foreigners who have no right to influence MPs in any way.

[LittleBlue]

30. Okay, so if Republicans got fed up and surrounded the White House

You would be cool with the president fleeing and congress voting to replace Obama and Biden with Boehner?

B-but they have Murican flags, right? No, that isn't the issue. The issue is that the mob is just representative of who is in the area at the time of the uprising. It's not democratic. How many Russian-speaking, pro-Yanukovych Ukrainians were allowed to protest with them?




Look at where Kiev is located, it isn't hard to figure out why this mob wasn't representative of the population.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Plenty of Russian speakers in the protests

eg Vitali Klitschko: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1211/Ukraine-s-Klitschko-Could-pugilist-turned-politican-be-next-president

I don't know in what world pro-Yanukovych people would want to demonstrate against him, but it seems a pointless thing to suggest.

The problem with Yanukovych was his submission to Putin, his corruption, and his violence against the protesters. It's quite telling that you have now both characterised this as "embarrassing for Obama", and come up with a scenario in which Obama takes the Yanukovych role.

[LittleBlue]

42. "Plenty"

That's assuring. Not a vote, not even a poll, just an example of a multimillionaire boxer. Which is apparently enough to confer this notion of "plently" in place of a vote, and thus legitimacy.

[TwilightGardener]

50. Didn't Parliament vote to hold elections in May? It does take some time

to choose a new government, have candidates, platforms, ballots, etc. Was May not to Russia's liking?

[TwilightGardener]

11. Obama? How is this about him?

[ProSense]

13. Well, it's Obama's fault that Putin invaded Ukraine. Now,

the Russian invasion is legit because it happened. In other words, the progressive position is now pro-invasion, even if spin is required to justify it.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Well sure--we invade, bad. (And it really is bad.) Russia invades--well, hey,

they're mostly Russian anyway, Putin's just lookin' out for his peeps, you know...

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Are you a time traveller? You are confident a referendum under armed occupation

will show the true wishes of the Crimean people, that it will be to go along with the annexation, and that this embarrasses Obama?

[joeybee12]

39. Well, since the Russian troops are there, no one can get in and mointor...

I doubt I'd call what they're going to do democratic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. 1st rule of a modern coup: occupy the TV stations

13:57:

Russia's official rolling news channel Rossiya 24 is now broadcasting on the frequencies normally used by Crimea's largest private television company, Black Sea TV, Kiev-based Telekritika website reports.

14:48:

Ukrainian media officials say armed men accompanied by Russian state TV representatives have captured the state-run operator of television transmitters in Crimea. Via BBC Monitoring

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26463731

[Pretzel_Warrior]

59. Yep. This is far from over. Unless Putin suddenly drops dead.

[reformist2]

64. It actually is kind of over. But the EU/US are going to bitch and moan for months about it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

65. I'll bet you a DU bumper sticker it is not.

[Cha]

66. We'll see who ends up bitching and moaning.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. All your Ukraine belongs to us. nt