Going back on topic. Russian forces issued an ultimatum to Ukrainian forces to abandon their bases in Crimea. Moscow is not answering any calls from Kiev.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-ukrainian-president-russia-ultimatum-crimea-20140302,0,6104716.story#axzz2upuSBJyn

Hm I found myself with you here goldfinger:

"The only way to stop it is to have some power come in and control one side and threaten to kick the ass of the other. I'm not saying it has to be the US. I'd love for it to be the UN, actually, but there needs to be some greater power than can step in during these conflicts."

Heres the deal. If putin wants to win this he has already won. The last thorn in his side is the Ukranian Military in their bases. He doesn't want to slaughter or starve them and provoke a severe incident and take international heat. Other than that he has won. The West wont go to war, and if they did Russia has many advantages in a limited struggle. Russia has de facto control over Crimea and Ukraine isn't suicidal enough to test that. Provided a massacre of the Ukrainian military guarding their bases the game is over.

The thing NATO should do is announce that if Russian troops do not leave Crimea military funding to every neighbor on the Russian border will be increased by 50% new anti missile systems in Czech and Poland, and increased anti air protection all around and another carrier strike force will permanently join the sixth fleet. Kick them out of the G-8, take further financial measures and throw nearly everything you can at them besides whatever you keep for their next provocation.

Putin plays hardball, Bush and Obama have not so far, its time to start.

*Aside from a massacre of Ukrainian military

"The thing NATO should do is announce that if Russian troops do not leave Crimea military funding to every neighbor on the Russian border will be increased by 50% new anti missile systems in Czech and Poland, and increased anti air protection all around and another carrier strike force will permanently join the sixth fleet. Kick them out of the G-8, take further financial measures and throw nearly everything you can at them besides whatever you keep for their next provocation. "

Wow, I always knew you were imperialist scum. This just proves it.

") But you assume that even once the deterrent is in place, the West will act with aggressive intent"

You guys are unreal. Because clearly the West hasn't been acting with aggressive intent for the past two decades....

These fascists don't represent Ukraine, Obi. Keep cheering on the neo-nazis though.

http://www.thetoc.gr/eng/news/article/ukraine-to-ban-greek-as-official-minority-language

Any comment, Obi?

I'm guessing you defend all these new laws, right?

Next time Obi and Santa whine and cry about racism or minority rights, please refer to this thread. Shameless disgusting hypocrites.

Why did Russia cede Crimea to Ukraine in the first place?

My other question is this. Why a violent revolution? Why not just vote the president out at the next election? Doesn't this coup set a dangerous precedent for the Ukraine?

Anti missile shield could be seen as defensive but in fact it is not. Nuclear weapon is strategic weapon, and its best use is as deterrent weapon. Main point is that if two powers both have nuclear weapon neither side will fire it because it fears retaliation strike. If USA would choose to launch nuclear weapon on Russia or China, it would get retaliation strike from those powers. That is why USA will not risk firing nuclear weapons. BUT, if USA has a shield that can protect her from retaliation strike, then firing nuclear weapon looks very tempting. Retaliation is not possible, so why not just shoot and get rid of your enemy?

If Japan had nuclear weapon in 1945, and could launch it to LA, San Diego or some other USA city, USA would think twice before launching those strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was a gift from Khrushchov in the 50s. to shore up support about Ukrainian members of the party and also to find a way to do something with the Crimean Tatars.

@spyman - Russia gifting Crimea to Ukraine was largely symbolic, Khrushchev couldn't have imagined that this passing a territory between two parts of the Soviet Union would have caused such an incident barely 40 years later.

*60 years later

Sure he could have, he didn't care. Part of the strategy was to weaken the Russian SSR and also to hijack Beria's campaign of gaining support from non-Russians in the USSR for control of the leadership.

Well given the history and recent events I think it is natural that Russia might want the Crimea back. Maybe Ukraine returning the Crimea to Russia is the best solution for this crisis. In return Russia promises to keep selling the Ukrainians natural cheap gas. A war would be a pointless catastrophe.

but spyman, that would be unacceptable to Ukrainians because that's just capitulating and ceding land to a warmonger.
Whether or not Russia's move was justified, it's just not possible for Ukraine to just give away their land

Gobbledydook - I'm not sure about that. Remember that the current Ukraine administration doesn't have a mandate from the people. The last time free and fair elections were held a Pro-Russian president was elected. If you held elections in the whole of the Ukraine tomorrow there is a good possibility that another Pro-Russian candidate would be elected (Especially as the others are divided). Now take out the crimea, a stauch Pro-Russian area and then hold an election. The result is more likely to be a west leaning President.

I don't usually agree that a country taking over another by force should keep its territorial gains, but in this case not a shot has been fired. Russia will almost certainly be allowed to keep Crimea, the west will avoid war at all costs. When/if Russia enters more of the Ukraine we have a bigger problem.

How much of this is just empty posturing by a bunch of Euro-crats who are about to put out by elections in May?

Good luck with that whole kicking Russia out of the G8 thing, btw.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2014/Mar-02/249002-germany-warns-against-russia-exclusion-from-g8.ashx#axzz2utc6saG0

I don't really have a strong opinion about this topic. I am just thinking out-aloud with my posts, exploring ideas. But this is what I am thinking at the moment.

Ukrainian nationalists have overthrown a democratically elected government (albeit flawed and no doubt corrupt), that happens to be pro-Russia. I don't see how other democratic liberal governments can support the actions of these nationalists. From Russia's point of view this has been a big FU to Russians living in the Ukraine. Basically the nationalists are saying that Russian's in the Ukraine don't get a voice; otherwise they would have fought this at the next election, not by staging a coup. That is a massive slap into he face to Russia. Russia has been provoked, and it has to act to protect Russia Ukrainians (plus Russia can't afford to look weak).

The nationalists have messed up. They have shown that they are not interested in democracy, which should diminish support from the west, and they have played right into Putin's hands, who now has a good excuse to annex Crimea.

Ordinarily I would be appalled by Russia's actions. If a democratically elected government had decided to align with western Europe and then Russia invaded, I would be 100% behind the Ukrainians. But in this case the Ukrainians are not blameless victims.

All that said I'll keep an open mind about this situation and revise my views if my understanding of the facts changes.

Nobody is going to annex Crimea. In the mid 1990s a Crimean party came to power that asked Russia to annex it and Russia refused. It's not going to happen now either. This kind of histrionics is really ridiculous from the West, who attacks Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Mali, but is crying outrage about the *authorization* to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine, which are being violently attacked and driven from their homes.

"Nobody is going to annex Crimea."

-Putin33, webdiplomacy.net 12:17 PM GMT+1

Redhouse, if you're going to quote Putin33 let's not forget these little gems from Friday...

“Russian military isn't in Crimea, these are self-defense forces. Somebody is spreading misinformation. “

“The people who seized the airports were not Russian soldiers, but Crimean self-defense forces.”

“Protecting the Black Sea fleet, not an armed invasion. As usual the Russophobic pro-Bandera press has no shame.”

Ladies and Gentlemen , I give you Putin33 Webdips answer to Comical Ali.

"Nobody is going to annex Crimea."

That's funny seeing as how the Duma is currently contemplating legislation that would allow Russia to do exactly that.

He meant to say:

"Nobody is going to annex Crimea,
except Russia."

Update, also shattering Putin's ideas:

Russia have given Ukrainian forces in the Crimea a 24 hour deadline (3pm GMT Tuesday) to surrender or be assaulted. It has been made clear that this only applies to Crimea region. Presumably any that surrender will be deported out of Crimea and Crimea is to be made an autonomous region of Russia. Trenches are being dug along the border.

I cannot see how this will be resolved peacefully as Ukrainian soldiers will not surrender facilities like Nuclear bases without a fight.

He (Konstantin Yeliseyev) also warned that Ukraine had information that "Russia is preparing some provocation" in the coming hours.