[Igor Antunov]

Russia is prepared to fight a war over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea to protect the ethnic Russian population and its military base there, a senior government official has told the FT.
“If Ukraine breaks apart, it will trigger a war,” the official said. “They will lose Crimea first [because] we will go in and protect [it], just as we did in Georgia.” In August 2008, Russian troops invaded Georgia after the Georgian military launched a surprise attack on the separatist region of South Ossetia in an effort to establish its dominance over the republic.

Russia later recognised the independence of South Ossetia and another separatist region, Abkhazia, but is the only major country to have done so.
The brief conflict with Georgia pitted Russia indirectly against the US and Nato, which had earlier tried to put Georgia on a path to Nato membership. The Kremlin regards the Georgian conflict as the biggest stand-off between Russia and the west since the end of the Cold War and it has fed determination in Moscow to push back against what it believes to be western attempts to contain Russia.

The warning of a similar scenario comes because Ukraine’s civil conflict has fanned tension in Crimea. On the peninsula, located on the northern coast of the Black Sea where Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is stationed, ethnic Russians make up almost 60 per cent of the population, with Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars accounting for the rest.
Volodymyr Konstantinov, speaker of Crimea’s parliament, said on Thursday that the region might try to secede from Ukraine if the country split. “It is possible, if the country breaks apart,” he told the Russian news agency Interfax. “And everything is moving towards that.” Russian media also quoted him as saying Crimeans might turn to Russia for protection.
Mr Konstantinov discussed the Ukraine crisis with Russian lawmakers including Sergey Naryshkin, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, or Duma, in Moscow on Thursday.
The Kremlin has been eager to stress that it is not interfering in Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday he was sending Vladimir Lukin, a liberal former diplomat who now serves as the government’s human rights commissioner, to Kiev as a mediator. But Mr Putin’s spokesman emphasised that this was at the request of Viktor Yanukovich, Ukraine’s president.
However, many government officials say in private that Ukraine falls inside Russia’s sphere of influence. “We will not allow Europe and the US to take Ukrainefrom us. The states of the former Soviet Union, we are one family,” said a foreign policy official. “They think Russia is still as weak as in the early 1990s but we are not.”
In depth

Kiev is facing its most serious crisis since independence in 1991 in a dispute over trade links with the EU and Russia
Apart from its military importance, Crimea is historically valued by Russians more than other Ukrainian regions because of the controversy over the decision by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – himself Ukrainian-born – to sign it over to Ukraine from Russia in 1954.
Ihor Smeshko, who steered Ukraine away from violence when he was in charge of the SBU state security service during the 2004 Orange Revolution, said the desire of the Crimeans to break away and join Russia was an artificially engineered issue. “I don’t understand how [Mr Konstantinov’s] comments, which carry an obvious threat to the territorial integrity of Ukraine, are not immediately investigated by the SBU,” he said.
The president of the Crimean Tartars’ assembly called Mr Konstantinov’s comments “treason”, further raising the possibility of ethnic conflict if Crimea were to separate.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/84909a9e-9a55 ... z2txma0Z6O

Their claims are about as strong as they can get. If Ukraine spirals further into the cesspool then I say incorporate this territory back into Russia for security reasons.

[Rei Murasame]

Haha! I called that in the Ukraine thread just earlier this afternoon. They can fight that war again, sure, and they can also lose it again for the exact same reasons as last time.

They are entering this challenge with the exact same stat disadvantages that they entered it with last time, and no plan to get around those disadvantages other than bluster. Does everyone really need to go through this socio-economic lesson a second time? Was it not taught in history classes already?

[Igor Antunov]

Are you implying NATO would come to the aid of a Non-NATO member in a majority pro-Russian region? Nonsense, there is nothing to lose, with the flick of a switch the region becomes Russian, it is already Russian in all but name. IF made official, it would be a matter of protecting it from Ukrainian fascists up north.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, what happened last time is that Western Europeans swaggered in there with an alliance and beat the Russian Empire because the Russian army was made out of serfdom and economic deprivation. This time around, there is no serfdom since the mode of production changed, but there is certainly economic deprivation and an economy in a serious downturn, so it's like the modern equivalent. And they created that themselves.

They chose to dissolve the Soviet Union. They chose to change the Russian SFSR into the 'Russian Federation'. They chose to pull the red flag down the flagpole, they chose to run a mercantile rag up the flagpole in its stead, and they chose to subject their population to unprecedented economic hardships.

So they should not be surprised that the European Union is expanding, and they should not be surprised that NATO will shadow that for as long as NATO continues to exist. And if NATO ceases to exist, then OSCE would pick up where they left off, with even more members, and Russia and USA would then probably quit the OSCE and we'd be back at the same situation again, just minus the USA.

But I'm not just being obnoxious, I do have a larger point to make on Russia about all this. What I would say to Russia is that if they wanted to 'protect Crimea', maybe they should try not allowing Boris Yeltsin and Michail Gorbachev to dissolve the Soviet Union, and not turning the entire region into a complete shithole. But oh, too late, all of that has already happened 20 years ago, so now the European Union has advanced eastward and is playing hungry-hungry hippos with coloured balls marked "Ukraine", and "Crimea", and "Georgia" that weren't even 'supposed' to have been in play.

This is almost entirely Russia's own fault, if they had shot Gorbachev in the face with an AK-47, this wouldn't be happening to them now. Don't forget, the Soviet Union was not defeated in combat from outside. It was defeated by Russians who inflicted defeat onto themselves. Even if the other SSRs quit, they didn't have to dissolve the Russian SFSR, but they chose to do that.

[Trolleybustoheaven]

If anything Crimea will join Russia on its own accord. Similarly there is a good chance eastern Ukraine will do the same and there will not even be needed military intervention by the Russian military.

And there is very little likelihood that Nato and US will intervene militarily. Even if they do, their intervention will only be isolated to western Ukraine, as to enter Crimea and eastern Ukraine will most certainly spark a war with Russia. Both sided do not want that, as that will create drastic consequences politically, military and economically for both sides. As both sides at the moment are dealing with bad domestic issues. Even though in all these three aspects Russia is at considerable disadvantage, yet Nato countries and US are too facing bad situation domestically. So war is undesirable to them as well at these circumstances.

So I think as of current, for both sides it is simply unimaginable to go to war over Ukraine or a succession crisis if it happens. If circumstances lead to that it will be an epic disaster for both sides. Even for eventual winner, who will be the nato countries in most likelihood.

[Canis_Lupus]

Well, what happened last time is that Western Europeans swaggered in there with an alliance and beat the Russian Empire because the Russian army was made out of serfdom and economic deprivation. This time around, there is no serfdom since the mode of production changed, but there is certainly economic deprivation and an economy in a serious downturn, so it's like the modern equivalent. And they created that themselves.
They chose to dissolve the Soviet Union.

This time around Russians have nuclear weapons. This time around Russians can obliterate the whole world. Within a blink of an eye the EU could disappear of the map. Impossible some people say. They never learn from history. Anything is possible these days. Blaming Russians for dissolving the Soviet Union is beyond ridiculous Rei. They did not have any choice. They've never had during the USSR. Now they have. They can press the button any time they feel like.

[Rei Murasame]

This time around Russians have nuclear weapons.

Well, in the previous Crimean war, no-one had nuclear weapons, and no one even had tanks or planes, so what's your point?

This time around Russians can obliterate the whole world.

Mutually assured destruction prevents anyone from using the nuclear option.

Blaming Russians for dissolving the Soviet Union is beyond ridiculous Rei. They did not have any choice.

Of course they had a choice. They could have looked Zbigniew Brzezinski in the eye and said, "No, we will not retreat from Afghanistan, no, we will in fact stay the course in Central Asia and carry out the great task that has been placed on our shoulders, we are called for this, we are called to advance the Soviet cause in Central Asia, and we will not allow these setbacks to turn into a crisis of legitimacy."

But guess what, they didn't do that.

They started whining like little bitches, about how they were tired of fighting, tired of struggling, and they wanted to try out surrender and hardcore manic neoliberal shock-therapy oligarchy to find out what would happen. Well, now they've found out what happens, Vladimir Putin happens, mail-order brides happen, and krokodil happens.

They are literally the only great power in the 20th century that decided to just test out surrendering, because of a crisis of legitimacy. I think that in all these conversations, people overlook just how absurd it really is. The absurdity of it becomes clear as soon as you compare it to literally any other regime. That it could collapse, from inside, so fast, and so completely, means that there are Russians who chose to make that happen.

[fuser]

This is just Posturing, Russia's final stance will depend on the actions of Nato/EU, if the latter are ready to go all the way for crimea Russia will have to back down.

[Igor Antunov]

Your Crimean war comparisons are obsolete Rei, this time Russia could hit European capitals directly. Any war would not be isolated to Ukraine. There is something politicians take into consideration before they choose to be involved in an aggressive event-their own behinds. Cost of own ass to benefit ratio is not in their favour.

This is just Posturing, Russia's final stance will depend on the actions of Nato/EU

No it will depend upon what the Crimean autonomous republic chooses to do. If it joins russia then russia will protect it and do so easily because all necessary assets to secure the region are there. Not to mention options exist as above. Nato capitals would burn if it came to all out war. NATO will intervene as it did in Georgia.

[Rei Murasame]

Basically my response would be to echo this:

So I think as of current, for both sides it is simply unimaginable to go to war over Ukraine or a succession crisis if it happens. If circumstances lead to that it will be an epic disaster for both sides. Even for eventual winner, who will be the nato countries in most likelihood.

This is actually correct. If both sides fought in the war, the damages would be immense, but NATO could still win at this stage.

But I feel like Russia would actually choose not to fight, and just let whatever is going to happen, happen. Since ironically, it might be cheaper to just not fight, and cave in. But I should emphasise again, the whole reason that this scenario exists, is because of bad choices that Russia made previously. All of this is Russia's back yard.

It's similar to how Cuba is in America's back yard, but America still lost Cuba to an internal rebellion, because America fucked up that society really badly.

[Far-Right Sage]

I agree with Igor in this instance, I must say.

The Crimea is largely ethnically Russian. These ideas of NATO launching any form of all-out war to effectively conquer and incorporate what is an ethnically Russian (and ethnically Ukrainian, but pro-Russian in the case of much of eastern Ukraine) territory are completely bombastic and fantastical. Why does everyone seem to believe all of a sudden that because a pro-Russian government in Kiev has been undermined that now it is somehow open season on the entire Russian position in Eastern Europe and Russia is powerless to stop it? Russia is not powerless. It is a significant power militarily (particularly defensively and in the region), it is a nuclear superpower, and it possesses a resolute leadership. Resolute in the clarity of its vision on maintenance of Russian strategic interests.

If NATO didn't mobilize over the thrashing of Georgia in 2008 and complete reversal of the Rose Revolution in the war's aftermath, then they will certainly not in Russia's more immediate backyard of the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, I'd say that the difference between the calamity in Georgia, and what is happening now, is that what happened in Georgia wasn't supposed to happen. Sakashvilli took it upon himself, to attack South Ossetia in the expectation that American and British support would be forthcoming at a moment's notice when the inevitable strikeback came.

So everyone was completely surprised by that, because there were no preparations for any such thing.

This Crimea thing is different, because if NATO chose to move into Ukraine to do something, it would planned by NATO, instead of the weird tail-attempting-to-wag-dog situation that happened in Georgia.

I think that Sakashvilli didn't understand the basics of aerial logistics, he seems to have expected that NATO could just show up with planes and achieve air superiority, from like the other side of the planet (several countries would do airspace denial, which would stretch the timeline), against a somewhat serious opponent like Russia, with no planning. That was just not going to happen. And even if it did happen, it would have no co-ordination, and so he'd be waiting about 28 hours for the loop to start, and by then his whole army would be completely destroyed by Russian tanks and infantry anyway, so he'd still lose.

In fact, I think Sakashvilli started chewing on his tie nervously about the time that he was informed of these kinds of facts.

[Donna]

The Crimea is largely ethnically Russian

Why would the Russian government give a shit about ethnic Russians in the Crimea when the country is economically dependent on immigration?

[Trolleybustoheaven]

The Crimea is largely ethnically Russian. These ideas of NATO launching any form of all-out war to effectively conquer and incorporate what is an ethnically Russian (and ethnically Ukrainian, but pro-Russian in the case of much of eastern Ukraine) territory are completely bombastic and fantastical. Why does everyone seem to believe all of a sudden that because a pro-Russian government in Kiev has been undermined that now it is somehow open season on the entire Russian position in Eastern Europe and Russia is powerless to stop it. Russia is not powerless. It is a significant power militarily (particularly defensively and in the region), it is a nuclear superpower, and it possesses a resolute leadership. Resolute in the clarity of its vision on maintenance of Russian strategic interests.

I dont think nato will wage war if Crimea or eastern Ukraine succeeds to Russia, but they might try to prevent succession of those territories to Russia and try to keep Ukraine intact.

So I imagine if some regions decided to join Russia and Nato knew that Russians will not use their military in any circumstance, they could send their military to prevent such succession if local government officials did not succumb to other coercive methods or threats. This is all possible obviously if there is a pro-western government in Kiev that will allow nato troops to enter Ukraine.

What Russians did basically with this public statement that op has showed, is that they said we are prepared to back Crimea in succession, military if needs to be. So now if Crimea does succeed it can expect Russian troops on its soil to guarantee its independence or union with Russia.

[Far-Right Sage]

Well, I'd say that the difference between the calamity in Georgia, and what is happening now, is that what happened in Georgia wasn't supposed to happen. Sakashvilli took it upon himself, to attack South Ossetia in the expectation that American and British support would be forthcoming at a moment's notice when the inevitable strikeback came.

So everyone was completely surprised by that, because there were no preparations for any such thing.

This Crimea thing is different, because if NATO chose to move into Ukraine to do something, it would planned by NATO, instead of the weird tail-attempting-to-wag-dog situation that happened in Georgia.

I think that Sakashvilli didn't understand the basics of aerial logistics, he seems to have expected that NATO could just show up with planes and achieve air superiority, from like the other side of the planet (several countries would do airspace denial, which would stretch the timeline), against a somewhat serious opponent like Russia, with no planning. That was just not going to happen. And even if it did happen, it would have no co-ordination, and so he'd be waiting about 28 hours for the loop to start, and by then his whole army would be completely destroyed by Russian tanks and infantry anyway, so he'd still lose.

In fact, I think Sakashvilli started chewing on his tie nervously about the time that he was informed of these kinds of facts.

True, Saakashvili as a strategic thinker was a non-entity.

That said however, I do believe that the Georgian case underlines the Russian determination to prevent encirclement and I would also argue that Russia is even less meek in 2014 than it was in 2008. With the onset of the past several years of a cooling in U.S.-Russian (and by extension, EU-Russian relations), there seems to be a rather erroneous idea floating about that Russia today is Russia of the 90's. There is a reason why the Clinton administration, John Major, and the usual stooge patrol in Western Europe chose to go after Yugoslavia and the Serbian people when they did, while Russia was in its weakest position since it signed Brest-Litovsk before descending into civil war. Those days are over.

We have seen increasingly bold Russian vigilance since the first years of the Putin administration in the form of the re-establishment of Russian sovereignty over Chechnya, in the form of support for its remaining allies in Central Asia, in the form of its stomping of Georgia, re-commitment to Soviet-era ties with Syria by preventing a calamity there, to internal beefing up with the purging of NGO propagandists and such.

There is no reason to believe Putin would roll over on the most important territory of all to Moscow outside of the country's own borders.

Why would the Russian government give a shit about ethnic Russians in the Crimea when the country is economically dependent on immigration?

It doesn't care about ethnic Russians in Ukraine per se. It cares about the Crimea and its Black Sea fleet for obvious strategic reasons. That a majority of the population is ethnically Russian with Russian sympathies is just a boon in that it aids Russia's broader strategic objectives.

I dont think nato will wage war if Crimea or eastern Ukraine succeeds to Russia, but they might try to prevent succession of those territories to Russia and try to keep Ukraine intact.

So I imagine if some regions decided to join Russia and Nato knew that Russians will not use their military in any circumstance, they could send their military to prevent such succession if local government officials did not succumb to other coercive methods or threats. This is all possible obviously if there is a pro-western government in Kiev that will allow nato troops to enter Ukraine.

What Russians did basically with this public statement that op has showed, is that they said we are prepared to back Crimea in succession, military if needs to be. So now if Crimea does succeed it can expect Russian troops on its soil to guarantee its independence or union with Russia.

This is essentially my take on it as well.

[foxdemon]

They are literally the only great power in the 20th century that decided to just test out surrendering, because of a crisis of legitimacy. I think that in all these conversations, people overlook just how absurd it really is. The absurdity of it becomes clear as soon as you compare it to literally any other regime. That it could collapse, from inside, so fast, and so completely, means that there are Russians who chose to make that happen.

In a world of doves, it would have been the right choice. However the Russians have proven to posterity that we live in a world of hawks. Actually, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Russians. I feel they tried to do a noble thing but their opponents (Western Europe and the USA) were just to low and dispicable to be incapable of meeting actions of such moral calibre.


A common theme in Japanese anime is the notion that if we are to protect those people, ideas, etc which we value, then we must always be striving to become stronger so that we will be strong enough to prevail when the time comes for action. These is the appropriate way to think in our world of hawks. Regretably trying to take a concilitory and cooperative position just makes us weak in the world today.

[Groves]

Well, what happened last time is that

What happened in the 1854 war is that more allied soldiers and seamen died from typhus than were killed in combat.

Mutually assured destruction prevents anyone from using the nuclear option

It is very misleading to suggest that "mutually assured destruction" is the prevailing thermonuclear doctrine.

Your Crimean war comparisons are obsolete Rei, this time Russia could hit European capitals directly. Any war would not be isolated to Ukraine.

I think the comparison is valid but not for the reasons suggested so far.

but NATO could still win at this stage

I can't imagine what calculus has led you this unbelievably vague assumption.

These ideas of NATO launching any form of all-out war to effectively conquer and incorporate what is an ethnically Russian (and ethnically Ukrainian, but pro-Russian in the case of much of eastern Ukraine) territory are completely bombastic and fantastical.

Indeed.


Furthermore, I don't see why the Ukrainian population would desire to unite with Russia. The two countries are already mutually engaged as part of the commonwealth of independent states and any closer association with Russia would be detrimental to Ukraine's political and economic freedom. The Ukrainians benefit from the current arrangement with the Black Sea Fleet. A conflict between NATO and Russia over Ukrainian independence would likely spiral out of control and rapidly escalate until conditions verged on general war. For what rationale? To put the Russian empire back together again?

[Igor Antunov]

What Russians did basically with this public statement that op has showed, is that they said we are prepared to back Crimea in succession, military if needs to be. So now if Crimea does succeed it can expect Russian troops on its soil to guarantee its independence or union with Russia.

They gave them a green light essentially. And it is important to note that it is a measured green light, Russia has not pledged military support for Russians and pro-Russian elements in Ukraine proper-Putin has voiced that he would work with any faction in Ukraine. Russia does not want to inherit a mess as large as Ukraine. This is measured support for the Crimean Republic which constitutes less than 5% of Ukraine's population. It is the kind of support and security Russia is right now capable of effecting. And it makes sense-this is the territory that is most likely to secede and Russia has used it for centuries as a major black sea naval supply base, and continues to do so. 60% of the population has Russian passports. It was given by Soviet Leadership to the Ukrainian socialist republic on a whim in the 50's, to make the map look more consistent. It had been Russian administered for centuries.

Russia does not have to fire a single shot to see the republic join it should it choose to do so.

NATO would essentially have to commit to an anti-democratic act of aggression; invade and start ethnically cleansing every Russian from the Crimea and in that case Russia would act in defense of it. NATO does not have the political capital or military stomach to commit to such a blatant deed against another great power umbrella. It would risk fracturing itself; I don't think the likes of Germany and France would follow the Americans and their pet dogs the British into this one and neither would any NATO members that neighbor Russia-it would be like stating, "hey guys, use our cities as a battlefield. We will gleefully be the front line in this war of aggression!"

No. This is why talk of confrontation is brain-dead. NATO will intervene like it intervened in Georgia if Russia ends up having to protect Crimea from a pro-western Ukrainian rump state.

[Canis_Lupus]

....A conflict between NATO and Russia over Ukrainian independence would likely spiral out of control and rapidly escalate until conditions verged on general war. For what rationale? To put the Russian empire back together again?

The Russians aren't aggressors here. Their sovereignty and their state is under threat. We can pretend that the NATO under the U.S command is not after Russian natural resources. We can also pretend that the Russians do not know that. The problem is that they are very well aware of it. What do you expect? The Russians will hand over their vast natural resources to the U.S lead alliance without a fight? I don't think so.

As for Ukraine, it will cease to exist in the current shape and form. I agree with the most commentators in the following article.

Western Experts Compare Former Yugoslavia with Ukraine

Nikolai MALISHEVSKI | 22.02.2014 | 00:00


http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2 ... raine.html

The West is intent to divide Ukraine according to Yugoslavia scenario using for the purpose the «color revolution» technology perfected during the Arab Spring. Summing it all up, that’s how the situation in Ukraine is viewed by independent Western experts.

There are voices raised openly calling for peace enforcement like in the case of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. As the Christian Science Monitor puts it, «As with the Balkan wars of the 1990s, Europe cannot ignore this violent strife on its doorstep – and in a country whose people aspire to join the EU» (1).

«In reality, Washington’s goal is not to push the country into the arms of the European Union, but to deprive Russia of its historical partners. To do this, the United States is prepared to ignite a new civil war on the continent», affirms Thierry Meyssan, a well-known French journalist, the founder of Reseau Voltaire political think tank, who emphasizes the fact that the Ukrainian opposition receives the weapons from outside, «It is obviously not possible to purchase weapons in Western Europe and bring them in without NATO’s green light» (2)

«The elimination of Maidan and dissipation of its activists making them scattered across the country may only aggravate the conflict» says Polish political scientist Tadeusz Olshansky, the Center for Eastern Studies (OSW, Polish: Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich), «The Ukrainian situation is similar to the events in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, when Germany provided funds to and used the family clan of Franjo Tuđman to provoke Croatian Ustasha movement into action. As a result Croatia separated from Serbia while the two peoples were incited to fight each other. The reason is the same as in the case of Ukraine- the government of Yugoslavia refused to accept under duress unfavorable conditions for association with the European Union», says another Polish researcher Emil Zin.

German experts stress the support rendered to Ukrainian opposition by Berlin, «The fact that Berlin comes to the defense of the Ukrainian protest demonstrations, even when violence-prone government opponents attack the government security forces with live ammunition, corresponds to a well-worn German government escalation strategy. In the 1990s, for example, the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) helped in the arms build-up of Kosovo gangs. These weapons ultimately benefited the infamous KLA guerrillas, who then escalated their struggle against Yugoslavian security forces, until finally Germany and NATO attacked». (4)

According to Thierry Meyssan, they are going to destroy Ukraine in a similar way. Besides «a group of young Crimean Tatars who returned from Jihad in Syria especially for the occasion» Washington uses fascist groups for the purpose, «Unlike Libya and Syria, Washington does not have jihadists on hand to sow chaos (except for Tatar extremists, but they are only located in Crimea). It was therefore decided to lean on the Nazis with whom the State Department worked against the Soviets and has organized in political parties since Ukraine’s independence». He emphasizes, «In fact, Washington, who had supported the German Nazi party until 1939 and continued to do business with Nazi Germany until the end of 1941, never had a moral problem with Nazism, not more than it has today in providing military support to jihadism in Syria». (2)

«Ukraine has been suffering a profound internal schism for some time now, one that is threatening to become one of those ugly civil wars», writes Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar at Yale University. (5) As to him, the Anglo-Saxon elites are behind the events in Ukraine being pursued by «nightmare of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis».

Evident things are realized too slowly by Europeans. According to a recent publication by European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), Europe makes a mistake by waging war against the Olympic Games and «pro-Russian Ukraine» and losing the sympathies of Russians. (6) While Europe sticks to such policy, the United States and their clients add fuel to the Ukrainian fire. In the middle of February US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt told the world that Ukraine would be pulled apart. In a few days US Vice President Joe Biden told Yanukovych in a phone conversation to take police away from the streets of Kiev. This way he actually gave a signal to extremists who provoked a new cycle of violence.

The situation is aggravated by nationalists-provocateurs who fire shots at their own comrade-in-arms from behind. It all happens against the background of inciting statements and outright intervention by Western politicians. Dalia Grybauskaitė, the President of Lithuania, said Ukraine was on the verge of civil war. The President of the United States addressed the Ukrainian military straight going around their Supreme Commander in Chief, German Chancellor came out with moral support for «peaceful protesters» trying to overthrow the government, and former Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius said Yanukovych should face am international trial. Similar statements were made in the middle of the 1990s when the events in the former Yugoslavia were on the radar screen.

More frequently Western observers compare Victor Yanukovych with former President of the USSR; they say «the President of Ukraine acts like Gorbachev before the collapse of the Soviet Union».

Endnotes:

1) Answering Ukraine's bullets // csmonitor.com

2) Meyssan T. After Yugoslavia, Ukraine ? // voltairenet.org

3) Olszanski T. Scenariusz silowy na Ukrainie // www.osw.waw.pl

4) german-foreign-policy.com

5) Wallerstein I. The Geopolitics of Ukraine's Schism

6) Meister S. The Sochi Olympics – a missed opportunity for Europe Date

[Decky]

One word Georgia.

NATO is all mouth and no trousers. When Putin sees something he wans all he has to do is to reach out and take it. If he decided that the time was right to send the trops to liberate the Crimean peninsular he would do so and NATO would cower like a whipped "musician" in front of a Cossack.