At this point I think Russian intervention is justified. However, the public demand of surrender supported with threats is...

Well, they can do it no doubt, but they can't exactly claim the moral high ground while doing what seems like an annexation indeed, or perhaps not...

Are there any conditions to the potential surrender demanded? Or is it unconditional? If it's unconditional, I fear annexation or a puppet state does seem likely... Or something more like what happened to Germany perhaps.

I just hope no shots are fired.

We can all relax...

Putin was happy to see the $50b he spent on Sochi Olympics wasted, he has seen more than that wiped off the Micex today...all a price worth paying to defend his Russian speaking comrades.

But what is this? There's talk of expelling Russia from this year's soccer world cup!!! I can hear the panic in the Kremlin now. This crisis will be over by tea time GMT.

It sounds like Obama and Kerry really scared the hell out of Putin...................

No presidential deligation at the Parra Olympics next week. Troops have begun their withdrawl as we speak.

spyman - they overthrew a corrupt government whose President was trying to consolidate all power in himself. He was embezzling money from state funds, placed oligarch friends in powerful positions of government, had made the court system subservient to him, and was looking to expand his powers and limit the people's rights to free speech and protest. If overthrowing that regime is illegal and wrong in your eyes, then so should every coup in history. So should the Arab Spring, which overthrew corrupt autocrats in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt

"spyman - they overthrew a corrupt government whose President was trying to consolidate all power in himself. He was embezzling money from state funds, placed oligarch friends in powerful positions of government, had made the court system subservient to him, and was looking to expand his powers and limit the people's rights to free speech and protest."

What a bunch of fascist lies.

Dejan - I agree with you in your analysis on the missile shield, but you're assuming that it completely removes the nuclear deterrent. It doesn't. Russia can launch its missiles *east* instead of west and still hit the United States while avoiding the shield. It can launch them from subs beyond the shield's range. It can deliver them by aircraft as well. And that's not even getting into tactical nukes. The missile shield puts a tiny dent in the nuclear deterrent of Russia. It doesn't come close to removing it.

"Russian military forces entering another country and publicly demanding that country's own forces surrender, under threat of deadly force?"

Where is this 'demand for surrender' you clowns are prattling about? You people are just making shit up.

In the end, it doesn't matter what we think. It matters what Poland things, and Poland is scared shitless right now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-ukraine-crisis-poland-idUSBREA210KY20140302

@ Putin: How would you describe the anti-protest laws passed on 16th January? You seriously don't think they can be described as an attempt by Yanukovych to restrict free speech and protest?

Putin - it was given by the commander of the Sevastopol base, though Moscow denies it was ever given.

http://news.sky.com/story/1220272/ukraine-russia-surrender-threat-confusion

@ Putin: "Where is this 'demand for surrender' you clowns are prattling about?"

The BBC is reporting that head of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Aleksander Vitko, today gave an ultimatum to Ukranian forces in Crimea, that they have until tomorrow to surrender, or "face an assault" from Russian forces.

So more jumping the gun histrionics once again from the warmongers on here.

Poland is of course scared shitless, they don't want anti-Polish Ukrainian nationalists coming to power any more than Russia does. They've created a monster.

Jamie, do you think attacking buildings is 'peaceful protest'? They passed the law after the protesters had stolen weapons and prepared an assault on government and political party buildings. You think that's acceptable?

"The BBC is reporting that head of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Aleksander Vitko, today gave an ultimatum to Ukranian forces in Crimea, that they have until tomorrow to surrender, or "face an assault" from Russian forces."

The voice of the British Empire is once again, lying. What else is new. That report came from an 'unnamed source' in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, who as well as all know has no incentive to make shit up.

http://www.jpost.com/International/EU-pushes-mediation-rather-than-sanctions-against-Russia-344106

Get your facts straight, liars.

Putin, seriously I don't have a beef with your anti american sentiment, but everything you''ve said in this thread is factually wrong, and is contrary to reputable news sources

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

Want to try again, fuckface? Looks like you clowns are the ones making shit up.

"Russian military forces entering another country and publicly demanding that country's own forces surrender, under threat of deadly force?

= annexation."

Try again, liar. Another leftist water carrier for imperialism.

@Putin: "Jamie, do you think attacking buildings is 'peaceful protest'? They passed the law after the protesters had stolen weapons and prepared an assault on government and political party buildings."

That's a complete red herring. Attacking public buildings with weapons would already quite obviously be a violation of *existing* laws, not an excuse to pass repressive new ones.

Or are you claiming that until 16th January 2014 in Ukraine it was perfectly legal for armed groups to attack public buildings?

"Putin, seriously I don't have a beef with your anti american sentiment, but everything you''ve said in this thread is factually wrong, and is contrary to reputable news sources"

Looks like you got bad information and you're hilariously saying it's coming from 'reputable news sources', right. Anonymous quotes from the Ukraine Defense Ministry, quickly denied by the BSF is "reputable". The phone hacking British media who notoriously lied about Iraq WMDs is "reputable".

"That's a complete red herring. Attacking public buildings with weapons would already quite obviously be a violation of *existing* laws, not an excuse to pass repressive new ones."

They had been engaging in violent protests for months, Jamie. What do you expect people to do? He repealed the law less than two weeks later. So what's your excuse for the protesters behavior then? He offered the opposition a bunch of cabinet posts including Prime Minister, what's your fucking excuse?

"What a bunch of fascist lies."

I'm going to enjoy this.

My first charge - embezzlement. Tens of billions missing from state coffers.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/ukraine-search-missing-billions-yanukovych-russia

My second charge - oligarch friends. I'll admit, this is no longer the case, as he's been taking them out and putting the power in himself.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25323964

Third charge - expand powers and make the court system subservient to him.
http://carnegieeurope.eu/publications/?fa=42942&reloadFlag=1

Yanukovych deserved to be overthrown. I wish it had been done democratically according to the agreement worked out with the EU ministers, but nobody can defend his actions.

And if you read the article, the Prime Minister is worried about Russia, not Ukraine.

Well I'm obviously a fascist liar so why would you be interested in my comments? #whatever

I'm disappointed to see so many of the 'left' wing and even liberals on here being so supportive of the anti-democratic coup. Even without all the unsavoury fascist/anti-semitic/far-right involvement, this was basically the case of a mob toppling someone who, by our own conventional western standards, was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. He was not removed in a democratic way, and it is peturbing to see so many people - who normally post well-reasoned opinions - being so off form, and posting such nonsense.

I shouldn't be so disappointed though, it's what happens when people just trust what they read/hear in the bbc or whatever liberal news/propaganda bs they favor.

"My first charge - embezzlement. Tens of billions missing from state coffers."

That's not embezzlement. He's the legitimately elected government and still recognized President and he took the state money with him. Try again.
Your second link is an article about why the tycoons *support the opposition!*

The third article refers to a constitutional court decision overturning the Orange Revolution's changes to the constitution. It's a lengthy polemic and it's accusations aren't backed up by anything whatsoever.

I do enjoy how attacking buildings is a 'red herring' though. Apparently you're supposed to let your city remain occupied when a bunch of thugs are rampaging through the streets.

Socrates - Park Chung Hee was democratically elected in South Korea, as was Hitler in Germany and Chavez in Venezuela. Peron in Argentina came into power via a coup. Mubarak was violently overthrown and he was elected.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-23/the-rise-of-elected-autocrats-threatens-democracy

Being democratically elected doesn't make you invulnerable to removal.

A President isn't allowed to take state money with him, Putin.