Ukraine agrees to host NATO war games
Source: AFP
Kiev (AFP) - Ukraine's parliament on Tuesday approved a series of joint military exercises with NATO countries that would put US troops in direct proximity to Russian forces in the annexed Crimea peninsula.
"This is a good opportunity to develop our armed forces," acting defence minister Mykhailo Koval told Verkhovna Rada lawmakers ahead of the 235-0 vote.
The decision came as NATO foreign ministers gathered in Brussels for a two-day meeting dominated by concern over the recent buildup of Russian forces near Crimea that US officials estimate had at one point reached about 40,000 troops.
NATO has sought to reinforce its eastern frontier after Russia's takeover of Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula and amid concerns about Kremlin's emboldened foreign policy.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/russian-pm-medvedev-visits-crimea-reports-075219445.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,094 posts)Why does my heart get heavy with this news?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)and under the circumstances, they will all be defecting to Mother Russia within 10 years. Except the 1%, who will win by default everything that is left after the banksters and oil barons have stripped and fracked the hell out of Europe's breadbasket.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Presumably Ukraine will pay upfront for these exercises.
When Russia offered surveillance flights in an effort to prove they didn't have troops massed along the 1400 mile border under the Russian/Ukrainian open skies agreement, for which there are fees payable , Ukraine wanted the fees on tick / pay you later.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Here is a report...NBC news....1000 miles of border with no build up.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 04:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Russian troops in camo :
Boing !
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)war mongering at its best:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/03/31/intelligence-sources-play-an-early-april-fools-joke-on-nbc-news/
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Changed the pic to another.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Lars28
(84 posts)The islamic terrorists haven't done much of anything lately, so Western governments need to revive the old bogeyman.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Lars28
(84 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)Lars28
(84 posts)I don't think so.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)now
Lars28
(84 posts)He has a limited military objective: to restore Crimea to Russia. NATO doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)
...by blackmailing them for gas and oil.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And as long as the Ukraine is dependent on Russia for Energy, the only sovereignty they will have is what Russia gives them (and why support for war with Russia is big among US elites, but lukewarm at best among our fellow NATO allies).
A good example of this is the US and Saudi Arabia. Does the US protest when the House of Saud Executes someone? Does the US protest Saudi Arabian support for Pakistan and the Taliban? No, why? That is OUR source of energy.
And if you believe the US will be self sufficient by 2017, you would be correct, the US is headed for self sufficiency by 2017 do to fracking, and returning to being heavily dependent on Arabia oil by 2020. The "Tight" oil fields have a life span of less then five years, with most of the oil gone within 18 months of any wells be drilled. The sheer level of drilling will increase US oil output over the next 2-3 years, but by then the US will hit a wall, as every well previously drilled drops in production, the new wells being drill will bring in less and less oil. i.e. more and more wells will be drilled, but each new well will bring in less oil then older wells did when they were first drilled AND the oil produced from such existing wells will decline rapidly.
Yes, Fracking is a bubble, but unlike economic bubbles this one is known and predictable.
For more on Fracking and the Fracking bubble:
http://shalebubble.org/
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/u-dot-s-dot-shale-oil-boom-may-not-last-as-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power
name not needed
(11,660 posts)Response to name not needed (Reply #18)
Post removed
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)the rest of Ukraine and keep his mouth shut.
If he has what he wants, then that should be no problem.
Yesterday evening, I talked to my 92-year-old Mom. She does great for her age, thank you.
She graduated from high school in 1939, and she was a very solid student.
She told me that they were taught that the Russians were paranoid. She's paid attention to them ever since and she thinks that her old-time teachers were right.
I was ecstatic when the Soviet era ended, but I thought that the West moved in too quickly and forced too much change during the Yeltsin years. Nevertheless, I have had continued hopes for a peaceful, reasonably normal international relationship between Russia and the West.
I no longer have hope of seeing that normal relationship in my lifetime. I'm 58.
We in the West have at times been idiots, but I write with great sadness that my Mom's high school teachers were probably right about Russia, and, in addition, that Putin behaves like a punk.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You have to understand that area knows as the "Steeps". i.e. from Poland to the Pacific.
Remember this rule of Geography: Rivers unite people, mountain divide people. Large oceans divide people, but small seas act more like Rivers in that they unite people.
Except for the Urals (which end just to the NORTH of Steeps, the "Natural" Border (i.e. mountains and large oceans) do not exist between Silesia (Border of Poland and Germany), the Carpathian Mountains that separate Poland from both the Czech Republic and the Slovakia Republic. Those same mountains separate Romania from the Ukraine and Poland. The Black sea separates Russia and the Ukraine from the Balkans and Turkey (The Black sea also act like a river and lake in bringing the Ukraine and Southern Russia within easy travel of Turkey). The Caucasus Mountains separates Russia from the Former Soviet States south of those Mountains (And Turkey and Iran). The Mountains of Iran separates Iran from the Former Soviet Republics of Central Asia (Through this tends to make those Republics subject to Iranian and Russian influence for both countries are easy to travel to). The Himalaya Mountains tends to keep Afghanistan isolated from Russia, as do the mountains of China (again, like Iran, China ends up sharing much of the Steeps with Russia, for both Iran and China are large countries with extensive contacts reaching into the Steeps).
Thus the "Natural" Border of Russia are the Mountains of Silesia, then the Carpathian Mountains, then the Black sea, then the Caucasus Mountains, then the mountains if Iran, the Himalayas and then the mountains of China where the Great Wall of China is located (North of the Great Wall, you are into the Steeps).
Over the above "Natural Border" you have rivers that bring people together, the Vistula for Poland, the Dnieper for the Ukraine, the Pripet Marshes for Belarus (The Pripet Marshes flow into the Dnieper but being a swamp, isolates its inhabitants from the Ukrainians to their south, Russians to their East and Poles to their west).; The Volga and the Don Rivers are the Rivers of Russians (Who then extended to the Ural rivers and then the Rivers of Siberia).
The various Tarter/Turkic/Mongol tribes who lives to the east of Russia, tended to be herders, who after 1400 were slowly replaced by Russian Farmers coming from Russia. Thus the Russians marched east, much like Americans went west, one new farm at a time, and generally going from one River to the next River on their way East to the Pacific.
As to the area from Poland to Russia, the various people are concentrated along the above rivers. Since it was easy travel from one river drainage area to the next river drainage area, the various slavic speakers mixed up with each other in those areas furtherance from each slavic speaking river. Poles and Ukrainians mixed in the area between the Vistula and the Dnieper Rivers, Russians and Ukrainians between the Dnieper and the Don Rivers. The Belarus mixed in with the Poles, west of the Pripet Marshes, Ukrainians, south of the Pripet Marshes, and Russians east of those same marshes. Russians and Ukrainians mixed it up between the Don and the Dnieper Rivers.
Thus any border between any of these countries are lines drawn in the sand. Each people have a central heartland, along their river, but once you get to far from that river, the people tend to get mixed up together. Worse, the land between these rivers is very good farm land, so everyone wants them to be farmed and in the days before tractors that meant having a lot of small farmers working those fields (Some time as free farmers, sometimes as serfs, as far as national identity being a free farmer or serf did not matter, it did matter as to who the crops went to, but not the identity of the peasant working the fields).
Till the late 1700s, when Catherine the Great put down the last of the independent pastoral tribes, raids from the Turkic/Mongol/Tarter tribes were not unusual. These tribes relied on the lack of any natural barriers to cover huge areas of land on quick raids.
Thus you have four countries, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, without any real firm natural borders. Worse, till conquered by by Russia starting in the 1400s (and ending in the late 1700s, except for the former Central Asia Soviet states, which were taken over by Russia only in the late 1800s), the same can be said of the various tribes east of the Ural River.
Thus the border between these countries are changeable, and any change will produce conflict, as will the lack of change (i.e. an area, now filled with Ukrainians, but located in Poland, or an area now in the Ukraine, but populated with Russian speakers).
It is worse in Winter, for the Pripet Marshes and the other marshes in the Steeps all freeze over and the Steeps become one flat pancake (and it was this situation what the Mongols exploited when they took over Russia in the period 1200). The Slave raids of the Turks from 1400 to the late 1700s tended to be winter raids for the same reason, no need to worry about crossing a swamp or river, all would be frozen).
Side note: More then one historian had pointed out that Napoleon and Hitler's biggest mistake was attacking Russia in the Summer, if they had attacked in winter no need for bridging equipment to continue the attack across any swamps or river they ran across. A Summer army can not take a Russian Winter, but a Winter Army can take a Russian Summer, the Mongols showed that to be the case.
Thus Russia has no natural border, it has no Atlantic and Pacific ocean to discourage an attacking country. Worse, China and Iran had both been part of the base that was used by attackers of Russia. Genghis Khan had Northern China before he attacked Russia around 1200. Timerlane, around 1400, used his base in what is now called the Former Soviet Republics of Central Asia AND Iran, as his base to attack the Golden Horde, that then ruled Russia (Out of the attacks of Timberlane, the Golden Horde was weakened so that later on in the 1400s Russia could free itself from tribute to the Golden Horde and later take over the Horde, but raids from these Turkic/Mongol/Tartars continued till the 1800s, Russia was only able to stop the raiding into Russia for slavs by taking over Kazakhstan in the 1860s (and 1830 report, estimated that 200 Russians were captured and sold into Slavery every year in Kazakhstan).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_Khanate#List_of_raids_by_Kazakhs_on_Russia_territory
Thus Russia has fears, fears ground in geography and history. Russia does NOT fear the small nations around it, thus after the Revolution Russia was willing to accept Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuanian independence, but not if any of those countries permit themselves to be used as a base for someone else to attack Russia (Sweden used the Baltic States for this in the late 1600s and early 1700s, as did the Teutonic Knights before them). Russia does fear the LARGE Countries around them, China, Iran, Turkey, Poland, Sweden and Germany. Russia also fears those countries, not on their borders, but that have landed troops on Russian soil, such as the US, Britain and France (The US has landed troops on Russia Soil, during the Russian Civil War of 1919-1921, the US troops were only pulled out when it was found that the US Soldiers were TALKING to the Russian Communists soldiers opposing the US "Plan" for guarding supplies that had been intended for the Czar's troops from falling into Communists hands).
Russia thus has concerns with NATO on its doorsteps and will always have concerns of large armies on its frontiers. To move troops that close to Russia is asking the Russians to be paranoid. Remember the old statement "Sometimes people are Paranoid for they are people out to get them". In the case of Russia, Russia is seen as the biggest obstacle to total American domination of the planet and thus you have a group of right wingers who will do anything to weaken, if not destroy Russia, and that would make anyone living in Russia Paranoid, even if Russia did not have it geography and history to make then paranoid.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Most people here probably won't know the word "steppes," but might understand you if you describe the region as one of extensive plains, often with few trees. Or you could mention that the area looks like Kansas or Nebraska. You don't gain credibility by botching the spelling and translation of your key word.
Russia really would be served by a serious consideration of the current situation in Europe instead of referring to its distant past. Yes, many of the former Warsaw Pact countries and SSR's have joined an alliance led by Western Europe and the US. The reason for the expansion of NATO is the poor treatment those countries have received from Russia over the centuries that you describe. Russia's prior behavior drove those countries away. More of the same behavior from Russia will just drive them away further.
In fact, Russia has been behaving in a civil, peaceful manner until very recently. And what did Russia get for this? Plenty of trade, certainly, and respect. But what you don't say and may not realize, is that Russia's behavior as a normal, civilized country had caused NATO to reduce its troops and equipment in Europe. Until now, Poland and the Baltic countries have not been host to large NATO bases. As a result of recent Russian military aggression in Ukraine, NATO has moved troops and air forces forward into Poland and the Baltics because those countries wanted more protection against Russia running its tanks over the common Northern European plain. The US now has decided to send another destroyer or two into the Black Sea. None of this would have happened if Russia had sought to reassure itself of the continued use of the bases leased in Ukraine using diplomacy instead of invading with its military.
Russia had a big chance to become a normal country in the 21st century, but has throne that away by invading a neighbor. What you are saying is that Russia cannot learn from experience, that it is too old to learn. And that is really a pity because a country, like a person, that cannot learn and adjust to new circumstances will be left behind.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)that are now within the Russian Federation as the new home or homes of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and no Russian president would have had any reason to go into Ukraine in the first place.
That $50 million spent on Sochi might have been put to better use building a new home for the Russian Navy instead of building a winter resort in a place with decreasing winter.
Instead, the plan was to dominate Ukraine, whether the Ukrainians liked or not.
That's not a good strategy for any country, including ours where applicable. However, when the Philippines asked our military to leave, we did. Of course, they're asking us back in light of their problems with China.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 11:12 PM - Edit history (2)
Remember the world economy is on edge, a war with Russia means reduction in fuel to Western Europe, with no alternatives. Wheat for the Middle east would also have come into shortage (people tend to forget the "Arab Spring" followed a Russia Drought that forced Putin to ban export of Russian grain, so to keep internal Russian price for grain low, the resulting high prices is the main cause for the "Arab Spring" .
Food shortages are historically the cause of Revolutions. The Great Famine of 1787 lead to the French Revolution of 1787. The European famine of 1844-1846, lead to the 1848 Revolutions throughout Europe. The Russian defeats of 1916, and the resulting grain shortage in Russia lead to the Revolutions of 1917.
Would NATO have risked the above? Russia's economy would be worse, but no shortage of fuel or food, thus little possibility of revolution in Russia. Western Europe actually export food, so the real concern would be the Middle East. Could NATO permit another Arab Spring while fighting Russia? Would Poland agree to support the Ukraine, given Poland's overwhelming dependence on Russia Fuel? Will Turkey support a NATO attack on Russia, given the possibility of an Iranian boycott of shipping fuel (Turkey is dependent on Iranian Natural Gas for its energy and Iran has close relations with Russia).
In simple terms, would a Russian take over of the Crimea, under the cover of technically being a move of independence by the Crimea itself NOT a Russian Invasion, be held NOT to be an invasion by Turkey and Poland and thus NOT subject to defense under NATO?
Remember, NATO does have a clause (insisted on by the US) that no member of NATO is obligated to fight if its government does not want to.
Now, NATO has two section, one is the Alliance and second is to operate jointly. In the Second part, to operate jointly, the US has overall command and the right to order any Member force, assigned to NATO, to do what the US orders. Germany for decades had NO troops NOT assigned to NATO, but since the fall of the Soviet Union, has increased the units NOT assigned to NATO. France and Britain had always had units NOT assigned to NATO (And France under DeGaulle in 1961, withdrew from all such assignments, but have recently rejoined that part of the Alliance).
Turkey main fear is Iran, not only can Iran cut off its supply of Natural Gas, but Iran can supply arms to the Kurds. On the other hand Turkey tend to identify with their Turkic relatives, the Crimea Tartars, but is that concern enough for them to forget about their pocket book? I have my doubts, the same with Poland (does Poland really want the Ukraine to be part of NATO, given that any border between Poland and the Ukraine is a line drawn in the sand?).
I suspect that Poland and Turkey have BOTH objected to expanding NATO to include the Ukraine for both see the Ukraine as a problem for each of them more then they see Russia as a problem. Poland does NOT fear a Russian Armor Thrust into Poland, but Poland does fear Ukrainians terrorists attacks on land Ukrainian Nationalists insist should be Ukrainian AND on Poles living in the Ukraine.
Sidenote: I will NOT mention the Greeks, who would LOVE to do anything to frustrate Turkey, and that includes supporting Russia, even as a member of NATO. Another reason Turkey may want Ukraine out of NATO, one less way for Greece to attack Turkey. Remember it is believed the main arms supplier for the Kurds till recently was the Greeks, for the Greeks will do anything to weaken their Fellow NATO member Turkey.
Here is the clause I mention that does NOT require actual military action:
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
Notice the high lighted section, "such actions as it deems necessary". That is a broad term, which can mean doing nothing. No actual requirement that any member MUST fight, all that is required is "actions" each member deems "necessary". No declaration of war, no movement of troops, no automatic sending in of troops, ships, or aircraft.
Senator Moniyhan once commented that NATO was NEVER intended to fight the Soviet Union, but to control the Streets of Paris (and other Western Countries).
In 1998 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and then Senator Ashcroft both opposed expanding NATO for it would bring instability to Europe.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/01/world/senate-approves-expansion-nato-vote-80-19-clinton-pleased-decision.html
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Bosonic
(3,746 posts)April 1 (UPI) -- The Foreign Ministers of NATO released a statement Tuesday condemning "Russia's illegal military intervention in Ukraine and Russia's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
As a demonstration of NATO's commitment to Ukraine and opposition to Russia's actions, the foreign ministers resolved "to strengthen Ukraine's ability to provide for its own security" and to continue to suspend NATO relations with Russia.
"We have decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia. Our political dialogue in the NATO-Russia Council can continue, as necessary, at the Ambassadorial level and above, to allow us to exchange views, first and foremost on this crisis. We will review NATOs relations with Russia at our next meeting in June."
"Our goal of a Euro-Atlantic region whole, free, and at peace has not changed," the foreign ministers declared "but has been fundamentally challenged by Russia." In order to move forward, "An independent, sovereign, and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law, is key to
Euro-Atlantic security."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/04/01/NATO-suspends-civilian-and-military-cooperation-with-Russia/9331396367632/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)what's left of the Ukrainian Army after a valiant fight will retreat into southern Poland.
Might as well get to know your new friends before that happens.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)who is choosing to be owned by the Western master instead of a Russian master because the Western master has a nicer looking whip.
Lars28
(84 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)And, while I realize that allegations of far right control have been overblown a bit on DU, that's an actual rally by Svoboda supporters...aka hard-right, ultra-nationalist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazis'. You can see the Svoboda party name and symbol right there on those blue flags.
That's probably not the image you want to use to convey Ukrainian "dominance".
Igel
(35,191 posts)having lived in Georgia most of life under a master's whip, runs North.
Anything's got to be better. Might be, might not be. But it's hardly likely to be worse--and if it's just as bad, at least you get to scream in your own language.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)Response to Bosonic (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)As others have said: what a way to de-escalate.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)Neocons have to stay relevant somehow. All it took was lavishing "activists" in Ukraine with $5 billion in State Dept. money and corporate sponsorships by the likes of Chevron and Exxon.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)EX500rider
(10,517 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)If so, Step One would be inviting NATO in.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)They have no more desire to fight us than we do fight them....