Ukraine 2014

[jdkbph]

I think you're missing the point. That rule book the Chinese found in their back pocket in your scenario...? In this case that's the rule book that ALL the involved parties here in this Ukraine/Crimea thing signed up to. It's not an off the cuff whim that's generating all the outcry, it's the fact that one country seems to feel that that it's OK to disregard the rules when it suits their purpose.

Moving forward in a world economy, where the cost, effort and danger of arming to the teeth to prevent such actions is impractical, requires trust in the agreements made between countries. Russia broke that trust.

I'm all about studying the histories and trying to see things from "the other side"... trying to understand why Russians (for example) think the way they do and react to certain things the way they do. But for the life of me I just can't see how they are justifying this based on the facts I know.

JD

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Demuder

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
So in 30-40 years when demographics have shifted more would it be ok for a referendum in the southwest to take the states of New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and Southern California (not as state I know) and remove them from the US and give them back to Mexico? After they were part of Mexico for a long time.

I understand you are trying to be sarcastic, but let's suppose that what you describe indeed happens sometime down the line.

Bear in mind that much of the "Hispanoisation" of Texas (and other southern states) is due to an influx of people from further south, aspiring to better lives. It's the economic strength and "soft power" of the US that attracts them. They overwhelmingly want to become Americans who gain full benefit of citizenship; sure, Hispanic Americans, but Americans nonetheless. If there were a referendum tomorrow, the outcome would probably be far more supportive of the Union even than in Sam Houston's day. However, the point is it would still be legitimate to ask - legitimately.

In fact, let's say it happens 150 years from now, so that the problem has some time to brew and fester.

Well, what would be the crisis? A period of corrupt Washington rule, where the whole country goes downhill and ordinary people everywhere become impoverished? OK, lets indulge that idea...

So, in this scenario, it's now more than a decade since the US gave up the last of its nukes in return for sovereignty guarantees by superpower Mexico [;)] and other countries. The current incumbent of the White House, President Al Yankovich, accused by many of mismanagement and corruption as well as being just plain weird, negotiates a trade deal with a neighbouring economic club, the Eurocanada Union. [:D] The population, desperate for a better life, hope - indeed expect - it will change things for the better. People in the small town of Lebanon, Kansas, start buying recipe books for paella, bigos and moussaka, and those in Green Bay can almost taste the maple syrup already!

Then, suddenly, under pressure from the current autocrat in Mexico City (let's call him El Presidente Putino for the sake of argument), the US president backs out of signing the Eurocanada deal. People are furious! This is the spark that prompts the masses to take to the streets in Washington. The protests grow, eventually prompting Yankovich to flee, and a caretaker administration (including EXISTING congressmen) takes over prior to elections. OK, the US presidential system is not the same as Ukraine's semi-presidential, but hey...

So, what happens in the the now hispanic-majority "Tejas"? Why would it feel any different from the rest of the country? Washington has served them as badly as elsewhere, though maybe the high level of local autonomy has sheltered them from the worst excesses of the kleptocrat in the White House. They're less badly off than the people in Wisconsin, but only a little. Still, maybe some would like a referendum to change sovereignty and join Mexico. That would be a legitimate thing to ask for, but there's no way it could be organised quickly nor campigned for fairly, until the chaos in Washington is resolved. Furthermore, it must still be consistent with the constitution to be accepted as legitimate both within and outside the US, as well as (most importantly) free and fair.

However, the signs are looking bad from next door. The mainstream press in Mexico refers to the new administration as Nazis and Polkists, despite the fact that they worked with those exact same congressmen until now. They claim the crisis has been caused by meddling from "The Northeast". Their TV shows uniformed members of the John Birch Society amongst the protestors in Washington. In fact it ONLY shows them, and ignores the vast throng of ordinary people. It states that these Nazis want to ethnically cleanse all hispanics from Tejas and other areas. It claims these "Nazis" and "Polkists" of "the Northeast" are entirely to blame, ignoring the fact that most countries of the NE also suffered under such regimes in history and are today utterly different. The more worldly-aware Tejanos and Mexicans know these claims are nonsense; nevertheless a proportion of people, who only watch Mexican TV, buy it.

At this point Putino returns from a well-photographed bareback hunting trip in Sonora to take charge of the situation. He calls for the Nazis to be resisted, and refuses to recognise the caretaker administration in Washington or even talk to them. He offers that Mexico will reach out to the "suffering people" of Tejas. The Mexican army masses huge forces along its northern border, carrying out "exercises" in case the Polkists try to expand their territory. The deposed Mr. Yankovich resurfaces in Monterrey, claiming he's still the legitimate president and publicly asking Mexico to invade and restore him to office.

Suddenly, the streets of Galveston (where the Mexican Navy has a large base, currently leased for 30 years ahead) are full of soldiers wearing no insignia, although they use Mexican uniforms and equipment, and the APCs have Mexican number plates and ID flashes. They mostly don't speak and turn away journalists, though brief snatches of accents from Guerrero and Oaxaca can be heard. Mexico insists they are local forces, nothing to do with them. Their presence spreads across the state, and masked, armed men storm the Tejas Capitol in Austin. They claim they're "defending" it from Polkists, but won't let journalists near. They appoint a new Governor, a certain Señor "El Gnomo" Accion-Nova once known for his tattoos, hairnet, dodgy associates and failed political career, but now wearing a suit and increasingly appearing on Mexican TV as the voice of "the Tejano people". Austin is now even weirder than normal.

Journalists everywhere are harassed and prevented from doing their job, although some manage brief snippets of US soldiers besieged within their bases. "I've disarmed them all" shouts a base commander from behind his gates, past the mysterious masked soldiers that surround his base, "as I don't want any spark or loss of life. Nevertheless we intend to peacefully remain here as long as possible. Hoo-ah!". Some English-speaking Texians are interviewed, though most hide their identity as they fear repercussions. They deeply fear the new local administration. Also interviewed are a number of Tejanos who disapprove of the new situation, but fear to voice their opinions in the current climate as they'll be regarded as "traitors". Some do want to join Mexico, but fear that this fraudulent method will rob their aspirations of any legitimacy for a long time to come. The local English-language TV stations are closed down and US network TV goes off the air for "technical reasons".

The exception is Mexican TV, whose reporters only cover cheering, smiling Tejanos happy with this new development, as well as the thuggish Nazis in Washington pulling stunts like beating up a TV executive. They claim the Texians and US authorities are driving Tejanos out of their homes, but show no coverage of this. They do show footage of "refugees fleeing into Mexico", until someone points out that it's actually a US-Canada border post on a normal day and the footage is quietly withdrawn. Nevertheless, the streets of Mexico City now have regular crowds calling for support of their Tejano "hermanos y hermanas" in their hour of need. There is an element of Mexican press that covers it more objectively, but these are the small outlets that don't have a large audience. Any that grow too large are shut down or taken over by friends of Putino. Sceptics suggest their continued existence at all is only so that Putino can claim there's a free, diverse press in his country.

Next, it is announced that there will be a referendum in Tejas - in two weeks time. The choice is between Mexico and the USA. Plenty of time for campaigning, no? Posters go up across the state, showing a choice of two maps - one with a background of the Mexican flag, the other showing bloodsoaked swastikas made out of barbed wire. The "campaigning" follows the same vein. International observers are stopped at the border, and journalists - even some Mexican ones - are harassed and only allowed to cover what the armed men will allow them. Some manage to sneak away to places they're not allowed, showing where gangs of heavily-tattooed Tejanos have left peculiar identifying marks on Texians' houses. Most Texians keep a low profile, not daring to campaign or even vote, not that they'd want to justify such a fraudulent referendum anyway. The besieged soldiers, many of whom are Tejanos and Texians, remain unable to go to the polls or participate in any way.

The result is hardly a surprise - the announced percentage in favour of unification with Mexico rivals that of a North Korean presidential vote. [8|] The remaining US bases are stormed, and US ships blocked in Galveston are seized. Mexican flags replace US ones everywhere. The worldwide community is outraged, calling it a breach of international law as well as utterly reneging on the treaty whereby the US gave up its nukes. Any respect for the impressive organisational effectiveness of the act is dwarfed by disgust at its unfairness. The one saving grace is that the whole exercise remains almost entirely bloodless, separating it from the otherwise similar annexations of the past.

Putino states that that in people's "heart of hearts" Tejas has always really been a part of Mexico. He claims that the earlier treaties don't count as the government in Washington has changed (ignoring the fact that it does so every 4/8 years anyway), and that the move is entirely consistent with international law. He sees it as a fait accompli, and reckons he can weather the diplomatic and economic storm to come.

Indeed, the fact that the response will include a military buildup on the Canadian border, as well as boycotts and sanctions, will allow him to claim he's being tough in standing up to the "militarist Northeast" who want nothing other than to destroy Mexico. His ratings may soar for a while, and he may even be out of office by the time the economic effects start to bite hard. In which case his presidency will be remembered as the "good old days" at a time when his successors have to deal with the crushing problems caused by the now-substantial sanctions, and the ever increasing likelihood that they'll have to withdraw from the occupied territory or at least reach a humiliating deal. Perhaps as well as certain other occupied territories in Guatemala, which only Mexico recognises as independent states. Their large nuclear arsenal doesn't shelter them from economic pressure.

Now try to imagine that when the crises breaks out, China and India sail in with their -by that time- mighty fleets, and say "hey boys, WE know what you should do about it, because WE found this book of International Law in our back pockets". How would that make the Mexicans or the US feel ?

They'd also be bound by that exact same international law. They would be unable to legitimately annex parts of the USA or Mexico, not that they'd ever want to. The same laws protect China from Japan grabbing Manchuria again (even if it could or was minded to), or the British from recolonising India. They gain stability and safety by existing in a world with such laws, and benefit from the prosperity brought about by defence, trade and other pacts & agreements that they can rely on to be honoured. So if they object to Mexico annexing Tejas in such a way and breaching nuclear agreements, they'd be perfectly right to do so. It would be a very big deal.

EDIT ===

As @JD says above, this international law is what Russia and all other nations have already signed up to. It's not something invented on a whim by other nations, or something new just pulled out of a back pocket.

I am not trying to say that Texas and Arizona should go to Mexico, I am not even saying that what Russia did was right. What I am saying is that sometimes -almost always in fact- the World Police intervene with no regard for the intricate social and political circumstances that lead to the crisis, but only because of their economic and strategic interests.

There is no world police. While international law is quite clear, there's no official body to enforce it. The only response to breaches are either by UN-approved moves (e.g. blue-helmeted peacekeepers), or individual countries/coalitions acting in line with such laws. Most of the time it's not an issue as many countries cooperate to keep things working as they should, e.g. anti-piracy patrols and peacekeeping forces, as well as the day-to-day cooperation between states.

While the UN is useful in many ways, one of its major failings is due to the Security Council system where any permanent member can veto anything. Hence if one of the transgressors is such a permanent member (as Russia is), the UN can do little other than send a message of disapproval by showing that transgressor to be in a minority of one. Any meaningful responses will be outwith UN decisions, though of course must themselves be consistent with international law.

Just today, I read an article in the paper that the US and EU should organize their efforts (non military ones, thank God) against Russia, so that the EU secures a safe and steady energy source. Now, being Greek and part of the EU, I am all for a steady energy supply for the future. But how does that give me the right to have a say in what Crimea does in regards to who it decides it belongs to ? It is just as absurd as China decreeing that Texas and Arizona should stay with the USA (in your example above) under the pretense of International Law, so that Mexico doesn't increase it's industrial base and suddenly becomes a contender in manufacturing.

It's not really your say as an individual; international law is quite clear on the matter. It's not linked to economic policy at all, other than maybe persuading voters in a legitimate referendum. Crimea's status in Ukraine is irrespective of any trade agreements signed by Kiev. Trade deals can be used to sweeten policies, but don't affect international law at all.

Greece, like Ukraine, Russia, USA and all EU members, is signatory to the many agreements that make up international law and conventions. Sure, the country could withdraw from them, but then it would become a pariah nation without friends, and wouldn't be in a position to stop a large neighbour (with a long history of tribal and imperial occupations) invading again. The de facto occupation of North Cyprus could become de jure if there were no such laws to prevent that; instead of working towards an eventual solution, the 1974 division, property seizure and ethnic cleansing would be permanent.

That's the point of international law - it benefits all of us. The world still has deep problems, but it's a whole lot better than before such laws existed. It brings the stability to improve economies and conditions, albeit with temporary hiccups, like in Greece recently. It allows crises and differences to be resolved in a framework of fairness and pragmatism. If everyone abandoned it, it would mean hurtling back to a troubled past instead of steadily progressing to a brighter future. Maybe Norway would cash in in its oil wealth for high-tech nuclear-armed stealth longboats, and start pillaging the shores of Europe. Spain might again grab chunks of South America, and we may even have to expect a new Spanish Inquisition. [X(] Do you really want to live in a world heading in that direction?

There could be a legitimate process of Crimea changing sovereignty (or Scotland, Catalunya, maybe even Crete [;)]), but this is definitely not it.

[mikmykWS]

Jeebus, Marie and the Carpenter! Are they giving out points for word count or something[:)]

[NakedWeasel]

A highly entertaining read, however! Well done, guanotwozero! There's some super-funny stuff there!

[mikmykWS]

Not a huge fan of political stuff these days I guess. [:)]

Mike

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Hahaha [:D] quite a good read haha!

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Jeebus, Marie and the Carpenter! Are they giving out points for word count or something[:)]

Err... yeah, oops! Sorry 'bout that - once I started typing the words just kept flowing... [8|]

[Agathosdaimon]

http://time.com/39705/russia-invasion-ukraine-likely/

this is worrying but also not really being reported that much - so what is going on, will Russia make further incursions in Ukraine?

[Agathosdaimon]

It was this article i read today that got me worried, but it may just be sensationalising things - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/ ... 6867240935

[guanotwozero]

Certainly Obama's concerned enough about what he knows to speak out against the current buildup.

For those trying to understand Putin's motivation and possible next steps, there's an interesting analysis here.


Prior to invading the east, there are probably a number of steps that have to happen:

1) The far-right in Kiev have got to act up, so Russian news can report on the 'Nazis' and 'chaos' there. A cynic might say that agents provocateurs are at work.

2) Notable Russian-speakers from the east must call for a form of 'self-determination' that would justify a an invasion. Former president Yanukovych has just called for that.

3) International journalists in the likely target regions must be restricted, e.g. by groups of armed 'concerned local citizens', so that the reality on the ground cannot be easily reported. This has not yet happened.

[beserko]

[TSkoopCRP]

Here's the Auto save for the scenario crash from the discussion here at grogheads about crimea 2014 http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?t ... 246386#new

[beserko]

[:@] Well it looks like a done deal. Can you believe the gall of Russia demanding Ukraine break up into a "federation" plus everybody has to accept the Fait accompli of annexing Crimea. Oh don't forget Ukraine cannot join NATO.

What exactly did the west get out of this? Nothing . What kind of deal is this?
Putin will go after the Baltics and Moldavia next because Nato is spineless.
So much for the treaty of Budapest and international law. They will probly even drop the sanction's too. You just watch.

Give in to a bully and he will just keep coming back. You have to punch him in the nose if you ever want to be free.

[guanotwozero]

Nah, I doubt it. It's not within anyone's gift to give away Crimea except Ukraine itself, and I don't see that happening. Likewise I don't see the EU or the US agreeing to back any new constitutional arrangement for Ukraine that Ukraine itself doesn't want.

This time I don't think Russia will just get away with it scot-free, as there's genuine anger on the part of so many countries that have influence in the world. The only compromises are likely to be short term so as to remove the threat of further invasion, and maybe some sort of guarantee of the rights of Russian-speakers (which should have equal rights anyway). As long as Ukraine can continue as an independent country, then external helping hands can assist in fixing its economy. The recovery of Crimea is not the immediate priority, but is not something that will be abandoned either.

I do think this is a turning point as so many countries realise that Russia's not going to be a reliable partner any time soon, so a steady withdrawal from economic and political involvement will ensue until it genuinely changes.

[OysterMike]

A short one.

My my, teh amount of bull,
among pro-USA posts, surely shows;
how western propaganda grows.

Makes me [>:]

[beserko]

My how Russians love their prison! Beat up a defenseless country. Makes you feel good.

[Firov]

ORIGINAL: beserko

[:@] Well it looks like a done deal. Can you believe the gall of Russia demanding Ukraine break up into a "federation" plus everybody has to accept the Fait accompli of annexing Crimea. Oh don't forget Ukraine cannot join NATO.

What exactly did the west get out of this? Nothing . What kind of deal is this?
Putin will go after the Baltics and Moldavia next because Nato is spineless.
So much for the treaty of Budapest and international law. They will probly even drop the sanction's too. You just watch.

Give in to a bully and he will just keep coming back. You have to punch him in the nose if you ever want to be free.

I’m curious. What makes you think NATO should become involved in this? What US, US ally, or NATO interests have actually been threatened by Russia’s annexation of the Crimea? The simple fact of the matter is, Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, nor is it a US ally. As such, it seems to me we really have no horse in this race.

Sure, the US, UK, and Russia were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which guarantees Ukraine’s borders, BUT, and this is important, that treaty doesn’t require, or even call for, military intervention on the part of the other signatories if those borders are compromised by one of the three parties through conventional means. The only direct intervention that would be required from the signatories would be if one of the of the three countries deployed nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and even that only calls for a United Nations Security Council action.

You might be able to try to make a humanitarian appeal here, but again, so far the Russian occupiers have been rather… restrained in their invasion. In fact, for the most part it has been a bloodless occupation. Russia has seemingly gone through great efforts to ensure that no lives are lost. They’re a restrictive, authoritarian government, sure, but those are hardly in short supply. So if we’re going to go in for “humanitarian” reasons, then it seems to me we’d better be prepared to invade half the world, including China, who is every bit as restrictive as the Russian Federation.

I’m not saying Russia is entirely right here. The fact is, they did violate the treaty of Budapest and have occupied territory claimed by a neighboring state. However, none of that demands military intervention on the part of any NATO members. Things would be different if Russia had occupied German, or French, or Polish territory, in which case I’d agree with you on calling for immediate and overwhelming military action, but they haven’t. From the perspective of NATO, Ukraine is an independent third party, and as such, they’re largely on their own.

All a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine is going to achieve is massive loss of life on both sides for no real gains. Aside from economic sanctions against Russia, Ukraine stands alone.

[beserko]

I still insist that if this fait accompli is allowed every other ex-soviet nation better pour money into their defenses. They already know what it's like to live under Russian occupation and it was not pleasant. As Russia is now a Kleptocracy style police state run by ex-KGB types why would any other nation want to "join".
All I am saying is if Russia launches an attack on the rest of the Ukraine, Nato and the US should at least take out their air cover plus supply Ukraine with 1st class weaponry for their defense.
That fiasco in the Crimea where Putin said there were no Russian troops involved in the occupation was another one of the traditional Russian "Big Lies". The Ukrainians didn't fight back because they wanted to show who the aggressor was.
Maybe a battalion or two of units with no military markings and armed to the teeth would help with the defense of the rest of the Ukraine. As Putin says these uniforms can be bought at any surplus store!

I suppose it's just tough luck for the Ukrainians as the world will accept this as the price for "peace". It will happen again ........

I hate bullies,I always have. They are usually cowards and when faced with someone standing up to them ,they usually run.

Sorry moderators ,I am so angry about this I think I will not post anymore personal opinions on this forum. This forum is about a wonderful game that I enjoy immensely. It is not a sounding board for personal opinions.

As for freedom in eastern Europe only time will tell.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: OysterMike

A short one.

My my, teh amount of bull,
among pro-USA posts, surely shows;
how western propaganda grows.

Makes me [>:]

I'm sure most of us here prefer accurate facts so as to best understand the situation and form realistic opinions. For that reason we should try to see through any propaganda that's there, whether "pro USA" or otherwise. Bear in mind the nature of this forum, accuracy is valued here.

Can you give any examples of what you mean?

[OysterMike]

I swear I heard this one before...
Damn them wolves and their cheating looks, always molting, always hunting.

You find your mirror yet?

LINK1: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm
LINK2: http://yandex.com/video/search?filmId=L ... ech%20IRAQ
LINK3: http://yandex.com/video/search?filmId=N ... h&safety=1
LINK4: http://yandex.com/video/search?filmId=H ... a%20speech