Post: #1

Article here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26465962

Quote:MPs in Crimea have asked Moscow to allow the southern Ukrainian region to become part of the Russian Federation.

Parliament said if its request was granted, Crimean citizens could give their view in a referendum on 16 March.

Post: #2

Now that Crimea is going to be a part of Mother Russia again, it's time to celebrate dancing a waltz...

Post: #3

Well, then without Russian troops on its soil Ukraine will be free to join NATO. No need to wait past 2047.

Post: #4

(03-06-2014 11:27 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  Well, then without Russian troops on its soil Ukraine will be free to join NATO. No need to wait past 2047.

Sure thing! The very minute Ukraine tries that, Russian Army takes the Eastern part of the country. Sure!

Post: #5

Look forward to seeing Khrushchev's mistake being rectified.

Post: #6

(03-06-2014 11:27 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  Well, then without Russian troops on its soil Ukraine will be free to join NATO. No need to wait past 2047.

yep that is why maybe Putin should have waited . He had time on his side..2047 is a long time. Many future elections to win a pro Russain gov't.Now even pro Russian regions are united against him... and minus the votes that would come from Crimea the opposition will be stronger. But of course the suffering of Austerity measures can turn future voters to say.."Putin was right".
But I think it might be that he has accepted that ukraine is lost and wants what is most important to Russain national security.. Crimea.He gets it..he controls the Black sea. It also is a thorn at NATO'S back.

Post: #7

@Rex I am by no means a military strategist but I think it would be difficult to join a military alliance such as NATO with the Black Sea fleet holding such a strong position on the coast line.

I could definitely see them moving closer to the alliance but allowing them to become a full-fledged member seems like it would be a foolish move for NATO.

Post: #8

(03-06-2014 03:22 PM)Blunt Wrote:  @Rex I am by no means a military strategist but I think it would be difficult to join a military alliance such as NATO with the Black Sea fleet holding such a strong position on the coast line.

I could definitely see them moving closer to the alliance but allowing them to become a full-fledged member seems like it would be a foolish move for NATO.

I am also just idly speculating here, but I actually hold the opposing view. NATO has more to gain than lose from proximity to Sevastopol and Black Sea fleet. As we know from various instances of history, docked ships are the easier to destroy with a surprise attack. And what better place to launch such an attack than from just a few hundred miles away? If this ever takes place, I say Russia better invest in state-of-the-art anti-aircraft systems and swarm them all over Crimea.

Post: #9

looks like someone already wrote aguide on "how to bang Crimea":

http://survincity.com/2013/02/crimea-how-to-bang/

Post: #10

(03-06-2014 03:22 PM)Blunt Wrote:  @Rex I am by no means a military strategist but I think it would be difficult to join a military alliance such as NATO with the Black Sea fleet holding such a strong position on the coast line.

I could definitely see them moving closer to the alliance but allowing them to become a full-fledged member seems like it would be a foolish move for NATO.

The biggest obstacle for Ukraine to join NATO, is the fact that it's defensive and security institutions are probably filled to the brim with Russian agents and spies that would leak informations to the Russian Federation. Such is the case with most of Russian bordering areas.

In order for a country to join NATO, it must be highly determined to do so (not only in words) and clear the mess in it's army, security agencies, government and parliament.

So Ukraine is light years far away from NATO. At least as an equal partner.

However, NATO is already present in black sea, so why would west invest further with such an unreliable subject ?

Post: #11

(03-06-2014 03:27 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 03:22 PM)Blunt Wrote:  @Rex I am by no means a military strategist but I think it would be difficult to join a military alliance such as NATO with the Black Sea fleet holding such a strong position on the coast line.

I could definitely see them moving closer to the alliance but allowing them to become a full-fledged member seems like it would be a foolish move for NATO.

I am also just idly speculating here, but I actually hold the opposing view. NATO has more to gain than lose from proximity to Sevastopol and Black Sea fleet. As we know from various instances of history, docked ships are the easier to destroy with a surprise attack. And what better place to launch such an attack than from just a few hundred miles away? If this ever takes place, I say Russia better invest in state-of-the-art anti-aircraft systems and swarm them all over Crimea.

It goes by the premise that NATO is defensive..Russia can move to block to Bosphorus faster from Crimea than any other base it has. I assume Russia would put a half dozen subs and mined the Bosporus in a war.Its Not like the US or old NATO allies can keep many ships in the blacksea..by law only 2 frigates are allowed in the black sea.So that gives Russia an advantage from the get go. Means NO air craft carriers can legally enter.
If a situation comes about of war where legalities are thrown out..by the time the carrier gets there the lane will be mined.

Post: #12

An article from Foreign Policy magazine about pensioners in Crimea and their support for Putin.

Putin is My Sugar Daddy

Quote:"I feel nothing but warmth for the Russian army," he says, punctuating his words with a raised fist. "If the Russian tanks come here, we'll welcome them. Putin is a dictator, yes, but let me tell you: I'd like to live under the wing of this dictator. He is smart and strong. Pensioners live well under him."

The crowd -- consisting of mostly elderly men and women of Crimea -- bursts into cheers. They shout the usual Russian-media talking points about the rising wave of fascism, the danger of homosexuality, and the Western press, but it does not take long for their true fears to come out about how they will be treated by a Kiev that will lean toward the West.

"They threaten us that they won't give us gas, electricity, water. Why is that? What are we to do?" asks Antonida Ivanova, a 75-year-old pensioner.

Arguably, the supporters of "Russia" in Ukraine are often the ones reliant for historical reasons on the communist welfare state.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20...simferopol

Post: #13

Well I'm not saying it's a good thing or going to happen anytime soon but a move like this just makes all the neighboring countries nervous as heck. So despite the previous friendly relations it will just push Ukraine away.

@rasti Yeah I guess if not for the international aspect it's a bit like New York annexing South Florida.

Post: #14

Are there actually Russian troops occupying Crimea? I have heard it claimed that these are Ukranians who are opposed to the new government.

Post: #15

(03-07-2014 05:55 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Are there actually Russian troops occupying Crimea? I have heard it claimed that these are Ukranians who are opposed to the new government.

In all likelihood they are Russian. At least, that's what my gut tells me. Some western news outlets claim they have Russian weapons and uniforms, but I don't know if that's exactly true or not. It is hard to believe anything.

Post: #16

Pentagon says 20,000 Russian troops may be in Crimea

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA261RC20140307

Quote:Ukraine's border guards have put the figure far higher.

Serhiy Astakhov, an aide to the border guards' commander, said 30,000 Russian soldiers were now in Crimea, compared with the 11,000 permanently based with the Russian Black Sea fleet in the port of Sevastopol before the crisis.

Post: #17

(03-07-2014 10:18 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Pentagon says 20,000 Russian troops may be in Crimea

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA261RC20140307

Quote:Ukraine's border guards have put the figure far higher.

Serhiy Astakhov, an aide to the border guards' commander, said 30,000 Russian soldiers were now in Crimea, compared with the 11,000 permanently based with the Russian Black Sea fleet in the port of Sevastopol before the crisis.

they are allowed 25k

Post: #18

(03-07-2014 09:48 PM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 05:55 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Are there actually Russian troops occupying Crimea? I have heard it claimed that these are Ukranians who are opposed to the new government.

In all likelihood they are Russian. At least, that's what my gut tells me. Some western news outlets claim they have Russian weapons and uniforms, but I don't know if that's exactly true or not. It is hard to believe anything.

Weapons, uniforms, and license plates of the vehicles are Russian. I'm very confident they're Russian troops following Kremlin orders.

IMO, the lack of insignia and any form of confirmation is some kind of legal trick to avoid it being considered an act of aggression/war. It's classic Russian-style manoeuvring. If there is ever a loophole in the law, Russians will find it. It's just what they do.

Post: #19

A lot of Europeans holiday in Yalta, will be interesting as obviously soon it's going to need those complicated Russia visas and stuff.

Post: #20

(03-08-2014 09:06 AM)Teedub Wrote:  A lot of Europeans holiday in Yalta, will be interesting as obviously soon it's going to need those complicated Russia visas and stuff.

not just that Crimea has a bunch of Expat Americans living there(i almost was one). Their homes might be confiscated. Not sure what Russian property laws are like tbh.

Post: #21

I can't imagine it will be a quick transition. There are lots of things to decide, like who will become Russian citizens and who will merely be a resident. Also currencies, bank deposits, border guards have to be set up and the population data has to be recorded in the Russian system. The Ukrainian side will probably not cooperate with any of that. In addition, tourist season is coming up and they won't want to rock the boat.

They'll probably be part of Russia but a separate customs/travel/monetary/tax zone during the transition period. Somewhat like Puerto Rico is to the US, I imagine.

Russian property rights have improved a lot in the past 3-4 years. It's now extremely difficult to steal an apartment without the owner knowing. If someone is registered in it, that makes practically impossible. The cadastral register (land titles registry) is now electronic and online. It isn't like in the old days where whoever held the piece of paper was the official owner.

The only theft cases I've heard of involved babushkas refusing to sell their shacks on Rublyovka, thereby preventing a bigwig from building his dream mansion complete with an 18-hole golf course.

Post: #22

(03-08-2014 01:23 PM)DaveR Wrote:  ... The Ukrainian side will probably not cooperate with any of that. In addition, tourist season is coming up and they won't want to rock the boat...

A bit late for that, isn't it?



(Russia scuttled a ship to block passage to the Ukrainian Navy.)

Post: #23

(03-08-2014 07:46 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 09:48 PM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 05:55 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Are there actually Russian troops occupying Crimea? I have heard it claimed that these are Ukranians who are opposed to the new government.

In all likelihood they are Russian. At least, that's what my gut tells me. Some western news outlets claim they have Russian weapons and uniforms, but I don't know if that's exactly true or not. It is hard to believe anything.

Weapons, uniforms, and license plates of the vehicles are Russian. I'm very confident they're Russian troops following Kremlin orders.

IMO, the lack of insignia and any form of confirmation is some kind of legal trick to avoid it being considered an act of aggression/war. It's classic Russian-style manoeuvring. If there is ever a loophole in the law, Russians will find it. It's just what they do.

Yes. The sky is blue. (The fact that people are even debating it is testament to the power of the Russian propaganda efforts. For those keeping track, Russia had stated: not invading, not interested in Crimean annexation).

BTW, most Maidan supporters believe Russian Federation special forces were also involved in Yanukovych's crackdowns last month.

Post: #24

I don't understand how the Ukrainian Navy could be blocked by a single scuttled ship. Is the port entrance really that small?

Post: #25

(03-10-2014 03:28 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I don't understand how the Ukrainian Navy could be blocked by a single scuttled ship. Is the port entrance really that small?

Yes, it's quite narrow and shallow. Sorry it's in Russian, but Yandex has much better imagery than Google:
http://maps.yandex.ru/?ll=33.511562%2C44...0.00332161

The entrance to the bay has been restricted to 400m by the tide break that you can see on the map above. Also worth noting is that the length of the Ochakov which was scuttled is 173m.