What a contradiction Ukraine is..I feel for them in that their democratic rights are being violated and the referendum must be illegal but where are the demonstrators protesting in the streets in Crimea that we saw in Kiev..the world is outraged and yet their citizens seem happy to join Russia..the whole situation could be catalyst to war and I am wondering why?..are the troops that much of a threat? Do they really want to stay with Ukraine? Are their extenuating circumstances here or will Russia continue with their invasion to take all Ukraine? If they do then we have a real problem.

I was just hearing on the news that the turnout for the referendum in Crimea was over 80% and the vote in favour of closer alignment with Russia was around 92%.

I know nothing of the situation on the ground beyond what I hear and read but with no evidence of coercion, seems like democracy in action.

Are Russian positions on Ukraine and Crimea legal?
NO! Definitely not!
If there were no Russian troops, and plain clothed but masked pro russian or russian activists, patrolling the streets!
If there were no obvious duress, or Putin sabre rattling and Russian planes filling the skies, and russian tanks etc, doing "military exercises" on the ukraine border!
If there were no extra Russian military ships moving in and out of Crimea's warm water port!
If the crimea weren't already effectively occupied and Ukrainian troops self evidently confined to barracks, and their military equipment effectively confiscated!
If international inspectors were invited, and Ukraine allowed it?
And if the question had a refusal option as well, perhaps?
Rhrosty.

One wonders what parallel universe the author of this article (and Rhrosty) are occupying. Is he totally unaware of the history of the Ukraine, and how the Crimea and indeed most of its eastern and southern provinces were added by Stalin and later Khrushchev?

Is he to totally unaware of the fascist coup that took place in Kiev replacing a duly elected government with a bunch of right wing thugs now being feted in Washington (who organised the coup).

Does he have any insight at all as to how Washington uses its Gladio techniques to regularly undermine governments who refuse to tow its particular line. It is a very long list, and as John Pilger's latest article argues, clearly includes Australia.

Does the author (and Rhrosty) know that there were independent international observers in Crimea for the referendum and that they reported that the voting was conducted in an atmosphere free of intimidation and repression.

What part of 93% in favour of seceding from Ukraine does he not understand? And to pretend that the Kosovo secession from Serbia was legitimate and this was not is ignorant beyond belief.

There appears to be no limits to western attempts to demonise Putin and sadly OLO is no better.

It was Russian territory it was given to the Ukraine by Lenin or Stalin.

So they are just going back to where they were.

If the Russians are satisfied with only taking over Crimea this is predictable and maybe justified.

However if Russia attempts to use the same tactics to take over eastern Ukraine then this is aggression. Those who would support Russia in that are latter day Appeasers - oddly impressed with the righteousness of the Russian Army...

Ali. At best, this is a vacuous exercise- though its import is more anti-Russian propaganda ( and you managed to avoid mention of the invasion of Iraq). The closest you come to reality is “ the measure taken by Russia is a reaction to the measures taken by the West's political and ideological hegemonic system”.
The overwhelming majority of people in Crimea regard themselves as Russians ,and fearful of the consequences of the coup in Kiev, they have voted, as is their basic democratic right, to return to Russia, where they were, until ‘gifted’ to Ukraine in 1954. In Kiev, outside interference supercharged legitimate protest against corrupt oligarch Yanukovych into a Western engineered coup- Putin was too busy with his multi-billion dollar Winter Olympics. Since then, Russia has been reacting to threats to its national security- encirclement by NATO, and specifically in Crimea the Black Sea Fleet.
Plantagenet raises a valid point, but in a misleading way. When the coup leaders implement IMF/EU/ NATO measures to avoid default, and those who identify as Russians in Eastern and Southern Ukraine resist, and then appeal to Russia for help, there will be a real prospect for military conflict.

At least some here know what the Western Imperialists are up to. The Ukraine has been looted by the West since it's departure from the USSR. The West is trying to weaken and surround Russia and China to establish their "New World Order" of rule by elite corporates and bankers.

The USA tried to put nuke missiles in Georgia and now want to put them right next to Russia in the Ukraine. Would the USA stand for the destabilisation of Canada or Cubia by Russia and then put nukes right next to the USA ?

It is grand hypocrisy by the USA who have interfered and invaded dozens of countries since WW2 under the lie of preserving freedom and democracy.

Gerald Celente has a new expression for the USA and the West. Their new collective name is Dumbfukistan, because our morons are too busy following sport, Hollywood and believing our Presstitute Media to really know how they are being lied to and screwed.

Just read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins and learn about the really evil empire that wants to enslave the entire planet.

Hi Leslie

The mob "coup" - invite in the Russian Army - enforced Referendum tactic used in Crimea (with some legal and historical justification) may well be misused by Putin wherever Russian majorities are perceived. An re-expansion of the Russian Empire into the 3 Baltic states and especially Moldova-Transnistria may well be on the cards.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria#Russian_military_presence_in_Transnistria

Pete

We have heard how many voted to join Russia.
How many voted to stay with the Uktaine ?

errr whats that ? There was no such question in the voting paper !

Oh, I see, either be an independent state or become part of Russia.

The USA has 900 Military bases around this planet and their private banking system does not yet fully control Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Iran and a few others. They want both financial and military dominance of the entire planet.

It is the West that is in financial dire straights by letting private banks create debt out of thin air that depreciates their currencies. Russia and China could crash the US economy by the simply not trading in US $. At the recent G20 meeting China lambasted the USA for living off the fumes of money printing.

In the West production is down, unemployment is way up but the financial sector is supported by "quantitative easing". When the US $ collapses the West will see hyper-inflation destroy their economies and we don't have much industry to work our way out of this mess.

Putin has the big economic cards but the USA has the weapons. Yes we are at war and only the bankers will win since they always back both sides.

Yes Plantagenet, it is known as the Sudanten principle as advocated by A Hitler.
It was applied in Georgia and was tried in Latvia but did not come off.

Ja Bazza

Du bist nicht mention der Krieg!

Pete

Would Ukraine be better off without Crimea and it's Russian speaking Eastern parts?

There are precedents. India was partitioned prior to independence. It is probably better off without Pakistan and what is now Bangladesh.

The Czechs and Slovaks were civilised about it. They agreed to an amicable divorce.

National boundaries should not be altered willy-nilly but neither should they be regarded as sacred. Sometimes parting is best.

@Steven Meyer. I agree. It is particularly the case with Ukraine because its current borders bear little resemblance to its historical situation. History is something missing from the education of most OLO commenters, especially those parts where "our" side behaves in a less than honourable fashion. William Blum has a long list of imperialistic intervention by the US and its satraps since WW2, often with disastrous consequences, eg Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya just to mention some of the more recent. Those interventions were based on lies, another fact missing from Pete's memory base.

When I first learned US history many decades ago we were told about the paramount importance of the so-called Monroe Doctrine whereby the US regarded as vital to its national interest what it defined as its "backyard", i.e. the whole of the western hemisphere.

Putin is doing no more than safeguarding what he perceives to be Russia's national interest in his backyard. Putin's views are reinforced by the wholesale breaking by the US of the agreements entered into when the old USSR broke up. He is right to be suspicious. Think how the US reacted when it discovered that Cuba might have Russian missiles 90 miles off its coast in 1962.

There is an analysis by Walt Mearsheimer in the opinion pages of the New York Times this week which is a far more subtle and realistic analysis of the geopolitics involved here that anything that OLO has managed to muster, either in its columnists or most of the commenters. I recommend that people read that before further venturing forth with their ill-informed prejudices.

James O'Neill wrote:

>> It is particularly the case with Ukraine because its current borders bear little resemblance to its historical situation. >>

And it is especially true in the case of Crimea which was never a part of Ukraine until Khrushchev gave it to them in 1954.

Hi James

Losing your memory matey?

Its John J. Mearsheimer - see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/opinion/getting-ukraine-wrong.html?_r=0

Your "Walt" error is a different political scientist called Stephen Walt - remember?

And on Monroe Doctrine you ill-remembered the US' illegitimate claims to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. See memory jogger at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base

Don't worry - the vagueness of age comes with your early onset dotage :)

Regardeth

Pete

Pete, I plead guilty to getting Mearsheimer's first name confused with his frequent co-author although what nit picking achieves is anybody's guess. Thanks for providing the link.

I did not "misremember" Guantanamo Bay. My point was that the US had one set of rules for itself, in that case protecting what it saw as its backyard, but fails to allow other nations a similar interest. Cuba was actually forced to give the US a lease on G. Bay following the Spanish American War, itself set off by the wholly false claim that Spain had blown up the Maine warship. Not the first or the last false claim used to start a war.

An interesting article from The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/crimea-crisis-russia-propaganda-media

Watching news reports it becomes quite clear that Russian
propaganda over Crimea and the Ukraine is very effective.
Validating Russia's excuse for its growing authoritarianism.

As Peter Pomerantsev points out:

"The big winner from the conceptual division of
Ukraine into "Russian" and "Ukrainian" spheres ...suits
the Kremlin...
By shutting down independent press, Russia controls more of the
story by spreading half-truths and rumours the Kremlin not
only confuses opponents but also sows unwitting support for
its case - finally by pushing the boundaries with its
version of events - Moscow's leadership can force other
countries to play by its own very pliable rules..."

As Masha Gessen states "The invasion of Ukraine is likely
to lead to an increased crackdown on political dissent
in Russia."

Anyone who thinks that times have changed and that Mr Putin
can be trusted should read Masha Gessen's book,
"Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin."

"Every time a commentator defines the battle in Kiev
as Russia versus Ukraine, a Kremlin spin doctor gets
another round of drinks."