Ukraine 2014

[RoryAndersonCDT]

One thing I'd appreciate is if we make sure to be respectful of each other's positions, nationalities and histories. This thread is stronger if we don't focus on our political and national differences but rather focus on the events as they unfold.

If men who have shared interests who talk over an internet forum can do so civilly and respectfully it shows hope for the future. [:D]

Both sides are being fed a diet of propaganda from our news media.

Crimea is a place where Russia has fought heroically for 100s of years; I can understand that for Russia the price of Crimea has already been paid in blood.

As Russian invasions go, this has been astoundingly bloodless. And must have been planned out in advance; to be used in the case of significant political turmoil in Ukraine. As the quote goes: "Russians don't take a dump without a plan" [:)]

[YaroslavUSSR]

ORIGINAL: Alex1812

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
And of course Russia/Soviet Union was just innocent bystander. [:D]

It's another question, but yes, it's also very interesting [;)]

Alex1812, there is no sense in disputing with local folk on political themes. Save your nerves. They see only whay they want to see (on CNN), they listen only what they want to listen (on CNN). They have already forgotten how they had bombed and invaded Sebia, Iraq and Libya. On the contrary, they think that our eyes and ears are full with propaganda. The truth is that both the USA and our country follow their geopolitical interests. They want to weaken, divide and conquer us, we defend ourselves and sometimes counter attack. Unfortunately, our contry is not as strong as the USSR.
"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia." I would also add "Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded".
The only thing that unites us is our hobby - awesome DRM-free games at Matrix an Slitherine.

[mikmykWS]

You realize we have better things to do than having to moderate a forum right?

This conversation needs to get more constructive and what is posted needs to stay within the bounds of the forum rules. Its drifting and I don't want to have to lock into down over something stupid.

Thank You.

Mike

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Yeah. We definitely aren't going to solve geopolitical issues here in this thread if the UN can't! [:)]

This thread started as a clearinghouse for information regarding the situation in Ukraine; with the intention of helping to develop Command scenarios and an attempt at providing a 'as the events unfold' view of the crisis.

Please don't just jump into this thread to insult people. There are good people on both sides here!

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Also if you would like to discuss things off the forum I run a chat room located at https://jabbr.net/#/rooms/baloogan [:)] We would appricate a Russian (edit: or anyone's!) perspective on recent events!

[jdkbph]

Alex1812

Yes, it's funny and you are absolutely right. There is very interesting analogy:

First World War was started by Western countries
Second World War was started by Western countries
Cold War was started by Western countries too

Umm...

<big edit>

I should have kept reading.

JD

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan
One thing I'd appreciate is if we make sure to be respectful of each other's positions, nationalities and histories. This thread is stronger if we don't focus on our political and national differences but rather focus on the events as they unfold.

If men who have shared interests who talk over an internet forum can do so civilly and respectfully it shows hope for the future. [:D]

I agree, but also feel there's room for opinion and civilised argument as that helps form understanding. I've yet to state my nationality/ethnicity here, not that it should matter. While I do state facts as I understand them as well as my opinions, I try to be civil and use objective (as possible) references to back up facts likely to be disputed or not widely known. I'm no authority on this (or anything [:D]) so don't claim to be accurate or right.

Both sides are being fed a diet of propaganda from our news media.

Well, yes and no. This is being covered by free and state-controlled press from various nations. IMO some reportage is clearly propaganda or heavily biased, others much less so or not at all. Some press organisations blur the difference between opinion and verifiable facts, others make that distinction clear. It's a mixed picture. We tend to follow the press we like, so it's often a subjective issue. I do feel we'd have a better world if people demanded their press verified all reported facts and claims.

FWIW there's a relevant leader in the Economist which some might find interesting. A "leader" is press jargon for opinion BTW. [:)]

Crimea is a place where Russia has fought heroically for 100s of years;

Correct, as well as others, notably the indigenous Tatars.

I can understand that for Russia the price of Crimea has already been paid in blood.

Sure, but the same could be said of many imperial conflicts, e.g. the Portuguese in Angola for 500 years. That wouldn't justify a re-invasion, at least by the widely accepted standards of today.

Crimea has had a long history, occupied by various tribes and ethnicities since antiquity, interestingly including the Ostrogoths whose language probably only died out in the last two centuries. Crimea only became part of the Russian Empire when it was invaded by Catherine the Great in 1783, breaking a treaty (with the Ottoman Empire) to respect its neutrality. There were waves of repression of the native Tatars, prompting many (possibly a majority) to flee into exile and form emigree communities which still exist today.

While Crimea was further developed and partly settled by Russia, the Tatars remained the ethnic majority until 1944 when Stalin expelled them to Central Asia, killing about half in the process. While succeeding Soviet administrations accepted this was an injustice, they did not allow a return. Since 1991 Tatars have been returning, but only a minority so far.

Russians fought valiantly in the Crimean War of the 1850s, and Russian blood was heavily spilt in the heroic struggles of WWII (in Crimea as elsewhere), as well as that of other Soviet peoples including the Tatars. Russians have been invaders as well as defenders of Crimea. I think it could be argued that Russian blood is no less important than that of Tatars or any other ethnicity there.

As Russian invasions go, this has been astoundingly bloodless. And must have been planned out in advance; to be used in the case of significant political turmoil in Ukraine. As the quote goes: "Russians don't take a dump without a plan" [:)]

I agree. In terms of human rights abuses, this is nowhere near the same scale as the annexations of East Timor, Kuwait or even Western Sahara. There is thuggery and skulduggery but not ruthless bloodshed. At least so far. The level of preparedness and organisation is impressive indeed, far more so than Indonesia, Iraq or Morocco ever managed, matched only by the restraint of the Ukrainian forces in the peninsula. Nevertheless it is contrary to international law and various agreements, and I would argue is completely the wrong way to help solve an internal political/social/financial crisis like Ukraine's at present. Such crises should have friends helping, not unfriendly neighbours helping themselves. I don't think this annexation makes the world a better place, but hey, that's just my opinion! [;)]

[NakedWeasel]

Russian troops seize Ukraine marine base in Crimea: soldiers

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 9J20140324

I don't get this. There was a referendum. A vote was held, and the Crimean's decided that they want to be Russian. The Russians annexed Crimea, without out very much violence, or fighting. The Ukrainians in general, have pretty much surrendered Crimea, like a child hands over his lunch money to a bully. They didn't seem to care about this whole affair, or could be bothered with fighting for their territory. Now, there's a few holdouts, that obviously didn't get the message that they lost. Still, no shots fired, stun grenades and Russian baddies all up in their base... Like just pack it in and get out of Russia's Black Sea Port, and try to hold on to what you've got left, already. It's kinda pathetic.


I'm just sayin...

[NickD]

deleted

[NakedWeasel]

My statement and confusion centered on the fact that there are, still, Ukrainian's being asked to leave from what is now official Russian territory. Don't misconstrue my wording for ignorance in the complexities of geopolitical affairs. I saw more of the world by the age of 18 than most people see in a lifetime. [:-]

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Russian troops seize Ukraine marine base in Crimea: soldiers

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 9J20140324

I don't get this. There was a referendum. A vote was held, and the Crimean's decided that they want to be Russian. The Russians annexed Crimea, without out very much violence, or fighting. The Ukrainians in general, have pretty much surrendered Crimea, like a child hands over his lunch money to a bully. They didn't seem to care about this whole affair, or could be bothered with fighting for their territory. Now, there's a few holdouts, that obviously didn't get the message that they lost. Still, no shots fired, stun grenades and Russian baddies all up in their base... Like just pack it in and get out of Russia's Black Sea Port, and try to hold on to what you've got left, already. It's kinda pathetic.


I'm just sayin...

There was a referendum, but it was a) not legitimate under the constitution, and b) not free and fair by any acceptable standards, being at the point of a gun and no time or opportunity to campaign for the options. This is far more reminiscent of the Austrian Anschluss referendum of 1938 which quickly followed a mostly-bloodless invasion, rather than the Scottish independence one which has been vigorously - and fairly - campaigning for a year and still has 6 months to go.

Ukraine is a barely functioning state, having been mismanaged for years. That IS the reason for the recent revolution which swept Yanukovych from power. The military is no exception, having long been starved of funds and with little ability to carry out meaningful actions. They know they cannot successfully resist any further invasion - there would be massive loss of life and they'd lose badly. Would it be worth it to gain martyrs? If you were in charge in Kiev, is that what you'd order, knowing you'd have to explain your decision to their families? This is not a case of 300 Spartans (plus the ignored 1000s of auxiliaries) fighting a losing but effective delaying action knowing there is a game-changing army mobilising. There is no such army to save the situation.

They know that in Moscow there are those who would wish for such a spark, as they'd spin it to portray Russians being attacked and so "justify" an annexation of Eastern Ukraine, maybe even the whole country so as to then annex Trans-Dniestria too. This does look remarkably like the lead-up to the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s where power-hungry nationalist autocrats sought to steadily build Greater Nations by force. Remember Crimea itself has a history of massive ethnic cleansing within living memory.

I think it would be argued that a better approach is to maintain a moral high ground, and exercise maximum restraint. Disarm local troops in bases so that they cannot respond to provovations, so any fabricated spark would clearly be an attack on unarmed men - a war crime. There is a recognition that Ukraine is effectively lost for the moment, but to maintain that dignified restraint which gains the sympathy of the world. This situation is not just the "now", but will have a major bearing on the next 10/20/30 years. Every time a base is overrun it temporarily boosts the triumphalism of the Russian ultra-nationalists, but adds longer-term respect for Ukraine in the outside world as they are thuggishly evicted from their own territory by those with overwhelming force at their disposal. IMO that latter effect will be more important in the long run, otherwise Gandhi would be less respected than those who sought to suppress his goals.

Just sayin' [;)]

[NakedWeasel]

Again, I was just stating my confusion that there are still Ukrainian soldiers there at all. They should have been ordered to return to the Ukrainian mainland days ago. Those bases are sovereign Russian territory now. They should not have to "storm" them, throw stun grenades about the place, risk shooting a Ukrainian "provocateur". Crimea is Russia now. The Ukrainians should not be there.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Again, I was just stating my confusion that there are still Ukrainian soldiers there at all. They should have been ordered to return to the Ukrainian mainland days ago. Those bases are sovereign Russian territory now. They should not have to "storm" them, throw stun grenades about the place, risk shooting a Ukrainian "provocateur". Crimea is Russia now. The Ukrainians should not be there.

Ah, but that's the point - according to Ukraine, international law and almost every other country in the world, it remains Ukrainian sovereign territory. The Russian control is de facto but not de jure. Thus the orders to peacefully resist as long as possible are probably the most effective way to highlight that it's an illegal and thuggish (though not bloodthirsty) occupation. A territory does not simply "become part of" another country by military occupation or sham referendums, otherwise you'd justify heavily-armed tyrants everywhere grabbing slices of other people's territory, like East Timor or Kuwait. International law would be meaningless. Would you really recommend we live in that sort of world, especially if someone were capable of annexing where you live?

[Demuder]

I don't have much of an opinion about the Ukraine crisis and my historical knowledge of the region dynamics is subpar, however everyone seems to miss the fact that the "annexed" territory only very recently became part of Ukraine. In fact, it could be argued that Russia (as in 18th Century Russian Empire) actually annexed Crimea directly invading the pre-existing Khanate there and thus brought it in the European realm of that time - as opposed to the eastern non-christian realm.

In fact Crimea was "given" to Ukraine only just in 1954, and that was under the impression that the Soviet Federation would exist forever, thus making no difference to Russia as to whom Sevastopol and the Crimean industrial complex (ore refineries and such) belonged to. Then of course, some 40 years later the Soviet Federation was dismantled. Again it could be argued that Crimea was "given" to Ukraine exactly then, 1994, only 20 years ago.

I am stating all this as a reminder to all those pretending, for the lack of a better term, to truly understand the dynamics of the region. This has evidently nothing to do with occupying and annexing Timor or Kuwait, although Kuwait and the whole Middle East is another prime example of the trouble caused by "cutting" and "giving" and creating "nations" by former empires. I dare say that the only "rightful" owners of Crimea are the Tatars - or the Greeks (who were ousted by the Soviets about the same time with the Tatars) if one really wants to go back.

I will not even go into the "national" and "ethnic" groups and whom they believe they should belong to. I will just say that right now in Ukraine and Crimea, live people that were born Russian (really old ones), born or became Soviet, and then became or were born Ukrainian.

In addition, this whole incident did not start with an invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. In my limited view - since I only get my info from western world news agencies, the Internet and a couple of expatriate Russian friends who used to live close to the Ukrainian border - the Russian invasion pretty much ended it. One cannot disregard the civil unrest present in Ukraine the months before Russia moved their troops in, as a separate conflict. In fact, the episodes before the Russian invasion were a lot bloodier. And one of the basic issues for the unrest was exactly that, whether the country should aim for an EU-bound or a Russian-bound future.

So, from as an objective stand point as I can take, there is only two sides in this conflict, Ukraine's and Russia's. Everyone else's point of view, be it the USA, NATO or EU is heavily skewed by at least half a century's misconceptions and terribly biased by their own strategic and economic interests. International law is all fine and dandy but just like national law, it cannot be taken literally but has to be actually interpreted after taking all the relative facts under consideration.

The only problem in this case is the lack of an impartial judge with the authority to actual pass judgement - the thought of the UN in this role just makes me laugh, taking into consideration its past record in such matters. I would go as far as saying that if the UN decides to step in or if the US or NATO decide to press the issue much further they would provoke a quite justifiable violent reaction from Russia. Not so much because Crimea was rightfully annexed by Russia, but because they would be stepping in for all the wrong reasons with all the false pretenses.

[jdkbph]

This kind of thing can go on forever though. Trying to figure out who has the best claim to anything based on centuries or millenia of occupation, strife, eviction, re-occupation, etc, is just a huge rat hole. No matter who was there first, there was probably someone there before him.

At some point, lines needed to be drawn. Fair or not, this was done. The "caveat" which made this acceptable is that any disagreements there-after would be heard and adjudicated using a reasonable and reasonably acceptable forum and set of rules. This also was done (for the most part)... the ICJ (World Court) is such a body. And as far as I know, ALL the players in this Ukraine/Crimea thing signed up to this.

So the main problem, as I see it, is that Russia - whether morally/ethically justified or not - unilaterally decided that this was the way it was going to be, without reference or due consideration to international law or existing treaties and agreements.

And that is what makes what they're doing now wrong.

As for the rest of the world looking on... I hope the dude speaks for us all:

"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man."

JD

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: Demuder

In fact Crimea was "given" to Ukraine only just in 1954, and that was under the impression that the Soviet Federation would exist forever, thus making no difference to Russia as to whom Sevastopol and the Crimean industrial complex (ore refineries and such) belonged to.

And to a great extent this is the thing that annoys me the most.

As much as Russia argues that this is an issue of sovereignty or ethnicity the fact is Russia was quite happy for Crimea to belong to Ukraine, provided that Ukraine was Russia's subordinate.

Once it became clear Ukraine was lost to the west - and probably to NATO - Russia suddenly remembered its strong feelings for the Crimea.

Ukraine owning Crimea wasn't an issue 6 months ago, or a year, or 10 or even 50 years ago.
Only once Russia lost control of Ukraine.

This isn't about sovereignty, it is about domination.

It's about sending a message to those "former" Soviet states thinking of aligning with the west.
The message? "leave us, and we will crush you".

[Demuder]

But that's my point exactly. This kind of thing is not happening for ages in the area, the Crimean Peninsula was for all intents and purposes Russian except for a brief period of the past 20 something years. Lines drawn on paper are fine, but I guess anyone would agree that they are much more useful for casus beli than for actually enforcing treaties, exactly because they don't take into account a lot of geopolitical facts. Palestine was drawn as a line on a paper as well.

All reports of western reporters on site say that the referendum did reflect the public opinion in the area and before that, the people in Crimea never really felt part of Ukraine anyway. Ukraine itself, doesn't really care about losing Crimea, if they did they are the least vocal nation in the world, much less vocal than EU and NATO. In fact, I believe Ukraine's biggest fear is that having Crimea going to Russia will further kindle the separatist movement that wants half of the whole Ukraine join Russia as well. And it is not a small separatist movement, at some places it is at 50% of the population, especially east of Kiev.

So it is quite evident that the people's wishes in Crimea is to rejoin Russia. I cannot say that I have been there, but there's no evidence of a popular uprising against the Russian forces, in fact there have been many accounts of quite peaceful celebration. And apart from any second hand reports from professional reporters I do have first hand reports from people that have lived near there 10 years ago.

Taking all this under consideration, Russia had no other choice than to intervene, invade and annex.

On the other hand, most western analysts and news agencies focus purely on the "invasion" and "annexing" without even taking into account what the populations involved actually want or the real reasons Russia intervened. They picture Russia as some warmongering belligerent nation that woke up from its intra-Cold War slumber and starts gulping parts of Europe. I am not saying Russia is not that, but it is quite evident that in this specific case, it isn't. Under that prism, the insistence of NATO and EU on Russia standing down is quite invasive on what is actually a bilateral mater and would warrant a strong, justified response from Russia. Unless they just put up a facade with no real will behind it in order not to lose too much face.

Of course it is a very nice opportunity for the western military-industrial lobby to rekindle the fear of the Red Bear and Cold War 2.0 and have western governments go into a weaponisation frenzy. Much like what Cold War 1.0 was really

If that kind of thing interests you, a very nice report I saw a few days ago was on Truthloader about the referendum. I can't post links here yet, but you can easily find it on Truthloader's channel in Youtube.

[guanotwozero]

Earlier I posted a link to a leader in a recent edition of The Economist. It's one of the best argued opinions on the current situation that I've seen, so I'll post it in its entirety here (and hope the Economist doesn't really mind!)

ORIGINAL: The Economist 22 March 2014

“IN PEOPLE’S hearts and minds,” Vladimir Putin told Russia’s parliament this week, “Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia.” He annexed the peninsula with dazzling speed and efficiency, backed by a crushing majority in a referendum (see article). He calls it a victory for order and legitimacy and a blow against Western meddling.

The reality is that Mr Putin is a force for instability and strife. The founding act of his new order was to redraw a frontier using arguments that could be deployed to inflame territorial disputes in dozens of places around the world. Even if most Crimeans do want to join Russia, the referendum was a farce. Russia’s recent conduct is often framed narrowly as the start of a new cold war with America. In fact it poses a broader threat to countries everywhere because Mr Putin has driven a tank over the existing world order.


The embrace of the motherland

Foreign policy follows cycles. The Soviet collapse ushered in a decade of unchallenged supremacy for the United States and the aggressive assertion of American values. But, puffed up by the hubris of George Bush, this “unipolar world” choked in the dust of Iraq. Since then Barack Obama has tried to fashion a more collaborative approach, built on a belief that America can make common cause with other countries to confront shared problems and isolate wrongdoers. This has failed miserably in Syria but shown some signs of working with Iran. Even in its gentler form, it is American clout that keeps sea lanes open, borders respected and international law broadly observed. To that extent, the post-Soviet order has meaning.

Mr Putin is now destroying that. He dresses up his takeover of Crimea in the garb of international law, arguing for instance that the ousting of the government in Kiev means he is no longer bound by a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine’s borders that Russia signed in 1994, when Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons. But international law depends on governments inheriting the rights and duties of their predecessors. Similarly, he has invoked the principle that he must protect his “compatriots”—meaning anybody he chooses to define as Russian—wherever they are. Against all evidence, he has denied that the unbadged troops who took control of Crimea were Russian. That combination of protection and subterfuge is a formula for intervention in any country with a minority, not just a Russian one.

Brandishing fabricated accounts of Ukrainian fascists threatening Crimea, he has defied the principle that intervention abroad should be a last resort in the face of genuine suffering. He cites NATO’s bombing of Kosovo in 1999 as a precedent, but that came after terrible violence and exhaustive efforts at the UN—which Russia blocked. Even then Kosovo was not, like Crimea, immediately annexed, but seceded nine years later.

Mr Putin’s new order, in short, is built on revanchism, a reckless disdain for the truth and the twisting of the law to mean whatever suits those in power. That makes it no order at all.

Sadly, too few people understand this. Plenty of countries resent American primacy and Western moralising. But they would find Mr Putin’s new order far worse. Small countries thrive in an open system of rules, albeit imperfect ones. If might is right, they have much to fear, especially if they must contend with an aggressive regional power. Larger countries, especially the new giants of the emerging world, face less threat of bullying, but an anarchic, mistrustful world would harm them all the same. If international agreements are robbed of their meaning, India could more easily be sucked into a clash of arms with China over Arunachal Pradesh or Ladakh. If unilateral secession is acceptable, Turkey will find it harder to persuade its Kurds that their future lies in making peace. Egypt and Saudi Arabia want Iran’s regional ambitions to be tamped down, not fed by the principle that it can intervene to help Shia Muslims across the Middle East.

Even China should pause. Tactically, Crimea ties it in knots. The precedent of secession is anathema, because of Tibet; the principle of unification is sacrosanct, because of Taiwan. Strategically, though, China’s interests are clear. For decades, it has sought to rise peacefully within the system, avoiding the competition that an upstart Germany launched against Britain in the 19th century and which ended in war. But peace is elusive in Mr Putin’s world, because anything can become a pretext for action, and any perceived aggression demands a riposte.

Act now or pay later

For Mr Obama, this is a defining moment: he must lead, not just co-operate. But Crimea should also matter to the rest of the world. Given what is at stake, the response has so far been weak and fragmented. China and India have more or less stood aside. The West has imposed visa sanctions and frozen a few Russians’ assets. The targets call this a badge of honour.

At the very least, the measures must start to exceed expectations. Asset freezes can be powerful, because, as the Iran sanctions showed, international finance dreads being caught up in America’s regulatory machinery. Mr Putin’s kleptocratic friends would yelp if Britain made London unwelcome to Russian money linked to the regime (see article). France should withhold its arms sales to Russia; and, in case eastern Ukraine is next, Germany must be prepared to embargo Russian oil and gas. Planning should start right now to lessen Europe’s dependence on Russian energy and to strengthen NATO.

Ukraine needs short-term money, to stave off collapse, and longer-term reforms, with the help of the IMF, backed by as much outside advice as the country will stomach. As a first step, America must immediately pay its dues to the fund, which have been blocked by Congress for months.

Even if the West is prepared to take serious measures against Mr Putin, the world’s rising powers may not be inclined to condemn him. But instead of acquiescing in his illegal annexation of Crimea, they should reflect on what kind of a world order they want to live under. Would they prefer one in which states by and large respect international agreements and borders? Or one in which words are bent, borders ignored and agreements broken at will?

[Demuder]

I have read this article, I think someone had posted a link to it earlier in this thread, it is a well constructed analysis with several well made arguments. However it demonstrates exactly one of my points, that western analysts and opinion makers only take into account their own interests and suggest action only based on whether it would serve those interests.

For example, nowhere in that otherwise well researched analysis is the actual disposition of the population (the Crimean or the Ukrainian) to be found. If I remember correctly, human rights are more important than international law. And one basic human right is to be able to choose what country one belongs too. Just because Chrustschow decided 60 years ago to donate Crimea to Ukraine, doesn't mean that the Russians living there liked it. Especially so soon after a WWII where some very interesting things happened in Ukraine. But it was the Soviet Union back then, what people wanted was irrelevant.

How convincing would the arguments in that text sound if it included just one paragraph about what the almost complete majority of the population in Crimea wants ? Or even if it included another one about what the 50% of Ukraine's whole population wants ? I am first to admit that maybe I am totally mistaken (I know I am not, but for the sake of argument) and that the Crimean populace actually wants to stay with Ukraine. This analyst -and others- however simply ignores even mentioning that, he just focuses on what the US, NATO and EU have to lose, what Russia has to gain and most importantly, how that would set a bad example for the other international "boogieman", China.

Sure it is bad for NATO to have Russia with a strong foothold in the Black Sea, sure it is bad for EU to have a Russia that controls not just the source of its natural gas but also the pipe (by weakening Ukraine) but does give them the right to intervene ? And noone pauses to even consider what that intervention might mean.

There's more to international politics than where the oil and natural gas flows and who can put what military assets in a certain region, there's actual people living there and they have the right to do as they please. In this case, they might even want to trade the sinking ship that Ukraine is, for the "motherly" hug of Mr Putin's Russia. Something that the West forgets all too often, or rather, chooses to ignore most of the time.

[jdkbph]

There's a really slippery slope here.

What if the population of, say, Wisconsin decided one day that they would rather be a part of Sweden (there are a lot of folks of Swedish decent there)? Should they be able to do that? Should the US Federal Gov't, or anyone else for that matter, accept an informal referendum, even if it accurately reflected the wishes of the inhabitants, as binding? Would it then be OK for the Swedish Army to roll in and plant a flag in the middle of Green Bay, declaring the whole place annexed!

JD