Ukraine crisis: Canada, U.S. tell Russia to withdraw forces

[CHIMO]

Source: The Associated Press

Canada recalled its ambassador from Moscow Saturday and suspended its engagement in preparations for the G8 Summit, currently planned for Sochi, in a move condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin's military intervention in Ukraine.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper convened a meeting of Cabinet Ministers this afternoon and spoke with U.S. President Barack Obama to discuss the tense atmosphere in Ukraine.

"Canada recognizes the legitimacy of the Government of Ukraine," Harper said in a statement. "Ukraine's sovereign territory must be respected and the Ukrainian people must be free to determine their own future. We call on President Putin to immediately withdraw his forces to their bases and refrain from further provocative and dangerous actions."



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-canada-u-s-tell-russia-to-withdraw-forces-1.2556228

---

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence

100 Years ago! Our politicians know nothing about suffering and pain. They will do it again.

[Berlin Expat]

1. Nationwide general mobilization

of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will commence at 0800 EET, 2 March 2014.

From the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. 0200 Central European Time.

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/03/2/7016921/

[rug]

3. That's 1 am EST.

[Berlin Expat]

4. Yep, you're right. I had to

think about that for a second. I live near the Polish border, and Kyiv is one hour ahead of us here.

[rug]

6. Keep your head down. This can spread fast.

They've all been waiting for a good old-fashioned symmetrical war.

[Berlin Expat]

8. Indeed. The mood here

is hardening against the Russians and I know the Poles have something of an axe to grind with the Russians.

As do the Czechs, the Hungarians, the Slovaks, etc.

I think a lot of it would depend on how far Russia goes. If they stop east of the Dnieper, fine. But if they start rolling west, to take the whole country, then things could downhill exceedingly fast.

[rug]

9. Shit.

Keep posting. We all need a dose of raw reality.

[Iliyah]

2. UK and France to follow

[cosmicone]

30. France ain't getting involved in no Russian war

it didn't turn out well for Napoleon.

[Cha]

5. K&R

[another_liberal]

7. Good catch! The First World War was going to be quick and easy too . . .

After four years, eight million dead and one entire Continent devastated, it finally ended (sort of).

At least we still have Democracy Now.

[Bill76]

10. If Canada told the Russians to leave, that's serious.

Putin must be shaking in his balaclava.

[L0oniX]

11. Nuclear duct tape is devastating.

[baldguy]

12. Those damn warmongering Canadians!

[Demeter]

13. Nobody here but the Neoliberals?

[freshwest]

17. Well, we can't afford to take care of our veterans. So we left the door open for them to take it up.

We await Canadian World Domination! Poutine for all! Mandatory Curling! Add more as you think of them...

[baldguy]

19. I happen to like poutine.

[freshwest]

20. It will be one of the benefits granted by our Canadian overlords. n/t

[Scootaloo]

26. Well in that case, I welcome our new Canuck overlords

Ah guess ah'll huffta lern ta talk like 'em b'yeh?

Soory!

[freshwest]

14. If they believe 'the Ukrainian people must be free to determine their own future' and some want to

form another government, it's just as valid as the one in Kiev. FDR was for the principle of self-determination based on how the people of nations wanted to be formed. Ukraine was created by outside forces.

That's the logic with Canada's tongue-in-cheek statement. It could be construed either way, can't be applied unequally. There is no stopping history being made. Canada likes the current government in Kiev.

The eastern and southern parts of Ukraine now feel they are being repressed. It would have been better if all this on both sides was handled in a slow, deliberate fashion without violence.

But it was not, and the chips will fall where they may, no matter what anyone says. And it really is their business, that of the Ukrainians themselves, not the EU or the USA. We can swear all we want.

I say this because it's being used by our own wingnuts, like Corker, to start egging the Russians on with sanctions. They wanted sanctions against Iran, too. The Teapublicans still want to run the Oval Office from the Senate Gym. Fuck 'em.

[CHIMO]

16. They (Harper's Government)

Believe that they are.
He, and his party are only looking at the next election and playing to the crowd.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-and-liberals-shut-out-of-conservative-led-ukraine-delegation-1.2552418

[brooklynite]

23. So, if the Southern Republicans want to form another Confederate States, that's okay with you?

[freshwest]

24. Nope. Apples and Oranges. Their history goes back before this was a country.

I thought of that as I typed it, believe me.

About Crimea:

Crimea (/kraɪˈmiːə/) is a peninsula of Ukraine located on the northern coast of the Black Sea. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Russian: Автономная Республика Крым, Avtonomnaya Respublika Krym; Ukrainian: Автономна Республіка Крим, Avtonomna Respublika Krym; Crimean Tatar: Qırım Muhtar Cumhuriyeti, Къырым Мухтар Джумхуриети ) occupies most of the peninsula.[5][6][7] It is widely referred to with the definite article, as the Crimea.

The Cimmerians, Bulgars, Greeks, Scythians, Goths, Huns, Khazars, the state of Kievan Rus', Byzantine Greeks, Kipchaks, Ottoman Turks, Golden Horde Tatars and the Mongols all controlled Crimea in its earlier history. In the 13th century, it was partly controlled by the Venetians and by the Genoese; they were followed by the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire in the 15th to 18th centuries, the Russian Empire in the 18th to 20th centuries, Germany during World War II and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and later the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, within the Soviet Union during the rest of the 20th century.

Crimea is an autonomous parliamentary republic within Ukraine[5] and is governed by the Constitution of Crimea in accordance with the laws of Ukraine. The capital and administrative seat of the republic's government is the city of Simferopol, located in the center of the peninsula. Crimea's area is 26,200 square kilometres (10,100 sq mi) and its population was 1,973,185 as of 2007. These figures do not include the area and population of the City of Sevastopol (2007 population: 379,200), which is administratively separate from the autonomous republic. The peninsula thus has 2,352,385 people (2007 estimate).

Crimean Tatars, an ethnic minority who in 2001 made up 12% of the population,[8] formed in Crimea in the late Middle Ages, after the Crimean Khanate had come into existence. The Crimean Tatars were forcibly expelled to Central Asia by Joseph Stalin's government. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Crimean Tatars began to return to the region.[9] According to the 2001 Ukrainian population census 58% of the population of Crimea are ethnic Russians and 24% are ethnic Ukrainians.[8] The region has the highest proportion of Muslims in Ukraine.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

Historically, the region has been in many hands, and was never anything like the states that committed treason against the USA were. The South was created as part of the USA after leaving the British empire. It was never a region that had a right to secede, especially for the despicable reasons that they did, which are well-documented.

We had a civil war over the notion of owning slaves based on racism and that is not what is going on Ukraine. I see validity in the government in Kiev, and the one in Crimea.

It was tossed at Ukraine for what Stalin did, was long held by the Russians, prior to the USSR coming into existance. If you want to go the road taht the South should get to leave and keep on stealing the lives of others, there is an OP you might find interesting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024586332

Americans cannot afford to let them govern themselves, exist on our border and provoke conflicts. The ones who want to go this road are robbers and criminals in any sense of the word to the entire world.

If that sounds harsh, it is meant to be. I am not in favor of region bashing, and I am from the South myself. It has its virtues, but the GOP running most of it do not, and the sooner they and their Tenthers and Rand Pauls are put out to pasture, the better for us and the world at large.

JMHO.

[daleo]

15. Harper can send his kids to fight Russia

He ain't getting mine.

[totodeinhere]

22. Harper or Obama are not going to send troops to Ukraine. Say what you

want about either of them but neither is that stupid. But if Harper's government want's to speak out against Putin then more power to them. Putin is a bad man. Hr is the same guy who brutally oppresses GLBT's in his country.

[independentpiney]

18. I've been thinking about the centennial

and the ethnic nationalism and diplomatic blustering and blunders that lead up to August 1914. I don't believe there's any chance of this crisis developing into anything like that, as forgetful and blustering as the current crop of world leaders may seem. But it's a shame to see some of the same unresolved issues cropping up with regards to West and East Ukraine. Crimea and it's Black Sea ports have been under Russian control since 1783, I can't see Russia accepting a non-aligned, much less unfriendly government having control of it. And western Ukrainians have never been Russian oriented. My guess is Crimea secedes and becomes independent with Russian protection, western leaders deplore Russian intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state ,the Ukrainians drive some tanks towards the border, and then after a few weeks things settle down to a new normal .

[freshwest]

21. Agreed. And Corker can stuff a cork in it. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

25. Keystone Pipeline will also be approved soon, I'll bet.

Not that it's a great idea, but more oil on this (friendly) side of the world suddenly seems like something you should want in uncertain times.

[freshwest]

27. Why should it be? The oil won't go to the USA, period. Straight through to China from Canada:

President Obama Ruptures John Boehner’s Pipeline of Keystone XL Lies

By Jason Easley - July, 28, 2013



President Obama went on the offensive in a New York Times interview, and appeared to argue against Keystone XL by debunking the Republicans’ pipeline talking points...

Obama ripped apart every single one of House Speaker John Boehner’s Keystone XL lies. Boehner’s office is still putting out press releases claiming that the pipeline will create 20,000-100,000 jobs...

Barely a week goes by without Speaker Boehner whining about the need to approve Keystone XL right now. What Rep. Boehner never tells anyone when he discusses the project is that he stands to personally benefit from its approval. Boehner is invested in seven tar sands companies that will benefit from the pipeline’s construction. This is why Boehner keeps lying about the values and virtues of Keystone.

It is clear that the president isn’t buying any of what Boehner is selling on the pipeline. In fact, Obama is pushing back against the Speaker’s propaganda campaign.The president appears to see the pipeline for what it really is, a gift to Big Oil. Keystone won’t create jobs. It won’t bring gas prices down, and the pipeline definitely isn’t a path to energy independence....

Full transcript at the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/interview-with-president-obama.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&adxnnlx=1375034512-jesnPnyWl3Mr7Evr7p7xgQ&

Full article here:

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/28/obama-boehner-keystone.html

to Tx4Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101669740

Of course, it wasn't on MSM, so it never happened. It should been on the front page of DU last year. I appreciate it being posted now, as the Koch brothers continue to raise hell. Let's not forget Paul Ryan's threats last year when Obama refused to approve it:

Paul Ryan Threatens To Blow Up The Economy Unless Obama Approves Keystone XL.

By Jason Easley - December, 18, 2013



...According to The Hill, “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) suggested tying approval of the Keystone pipeline to raising the debt ceiling Monday night. ‘We’ve never just done nothing,’ Ryan said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, which was being guest-hosted by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), when asked how Republicans would handle the debt-ceiling negotiations. “We want to make sure that we’re taking steps in the direction of fiscal conservatism, of fiscal responsibility. I, for one, think we need to do more in the energy sector. I believe we need to approve Keystone pipeline.”

The White House has already responded to Ryan by repeating for the billionth time that they aren’t going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. Of all the things that Ryan could have asked for the only things he would be less likely to get is privatization of Social Security/Medicare, and repeal of the ACA.

The Obama administration still hasn’t approved Keystone XL, and Ryan’s tactics suggest that Republicans believe that he isn’t going to. Ryan believes that Keystone must be approved because it is an example of GOP policy at its worst. Keystone poses a grave environmental risk. It won’t create jobs. It won’t help the economy, and it will do nothing to help make the country more energy independent.

What Keystone XL will do is make more money for the Koch brothers and big oil...

More at the link:

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/18/paul-ryan-threatens-blow-economy-obama-appoves-keystone-xl.html

The Koch brothers have also been tying up Amtrack routes used by passengers and other businesses by shipping this crud on the rails, endangering communities on the way and also causing American businesses to shutter who depend on freight by rail to get their goods to market.

They are not giving up, their money talks big, and even Charles Koch is now being forced to speak in public. It's a long road ahead and I'm glad Obama is at the helm. There is no reason to give the Koch brothers $100 Billion when we see the mischief they have been promoting.

Although some Democrats are talking against Obama for not approving it, such as pundit Ed Schultz and (maybe presidential contender) from MT, Brian Schweitzer.

I'd say it's why he's pushed so hard for alternatives and has not said no to anything that won't affect climate. There is another article in which PBO has tied Keystone to climate change. Both the links are worth the read.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Yeah...but...I always thought it would be approved. Regardless of

how it was sold on the market. The environmental concerns are huge, but nothing will really stand in the way of developing such a huge source in a friendly neighbor's land.

[freshwest]

31. But it's not our source; it's Canada's. And it won't be for us, at all. In the links you can see it

will actually drive fuel prices up.

Although I understand I see a certain fatalistic inevitability on it, and stalling it has cost Obama a lot, as the GOP has put it at the first of all CR's and bills, along with personhood, etc.

It was the reason the Koches created the Tea Party and we see they are the destroyers that keep on giving. But looking at the reasons to resist is also worthwhile.

The Koches funded so many evil laws through funding ALEC in the states. RTW, anti-choice, SYG, anti-gay, pro-theology, anti public education, privatizations, etc. How can we continue as a nation if their wealth is doubled - as it's now about $100B and this will give them $100B - not in gross business, but profit?

We might as well turn the keys over to them. It's worth the fight, but if the American people keep saying through their state legislatures, and many have - that they want it to go through - it will go through. He cannot wave a magic wand like a tyrant.

It may be that it will happen. And then it will up to us to GOTV in 2014 and 2016, or run for the hills if the worst happens and the American people give up on America and want a banana republic.

[cosmicone]

28. In other news, Saudi Arabia told the Chinese to stop eating pork. n/t