Crimea

[english si]

Some of Putin's language indicates that he wishes to restore the Russian Empire.  That means it's not just Georgia, it's not just Crimea, but also the possibility of Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland being on his target list as well.

The most obvious low hanging fruit is parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Transnisteria is hard to get to without invading Ukrainian Ukraine, so after Russian Ukraine - if they feel up to attacking a NATO state - is probably SE Latvia. Kazakhstan and Belarus will stay as-is, unless they are annexed Austria-like.

[Brandon]

Some of Putin's language indicates that he wishes to restore the Russian Empire.  That means it's not just Georgia, it's not just Crimea, but also the possibility of Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland being on his target list as well.

The most obvious low hanging fruit is parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Transnisteria is hard to get to without invading Ukrainian Ukraine, so after Russian Ukraine - if they feel up to attacking a NATO state - is probably SE Latvia. Kazakhstan and Belarus will stay as-is, unless they are annexed Austria-like.

Much agreed.  We'll have to see what Putin does next, but this is probably the closest we've been to WWIII since 1961.  Should Russia decide on Latvia as a target, that would bring in NATO, including the US and the UK.

[vdeane]

As far as I know, Putin's ambitions are primarily for a Russian-led Eurasian Union (to which Ukraine was offered membership), not a territorial re-integration.  The NATO states will be an interesting issue, but I'm certain of one thing - NONE of America's business/political elites want to go to nuclear war over a country like Latvia, so the west will find a way out, somehow.  They were admitted to NATO under the pretense that Russia would never be a threat again, which Putin has shown to be false.  They're still as strong relatively as they were in the cold war though.

What I find really interesting is that these tensions were essentially predicted in George Friedman's book The Next 100 Years.  The chapter on Russia is excellent.

[english si]

To show that something is fishy about the referendum:
8-18 Feb 2014 poll - 41% for union with Russia
16 Mar 2014 referendum - 96% for union with Russia

official turnout - 83%, but Ukrainian speakers and Tatars (much more the 17% of the population - over twice that) were boycotting it.

[vdeane]

To show that something is fishy about the referendum:
8-18 Feb 2014 poll - 41% for union with Russia
16 Mar 2014 referendum - 96% for union with Russia

I'd be interested in knowing more about the poll, especially since poll results are so easy to manipulate by question phrasing and sample sizes (for example, a majority of Americans support the ACA, and yet a majority also oppose ObamaCare).

official turnout - 83%, but Ukrainian speakers and Tatars (much more the 17% of the population - over twice that) were boycotting it.

Their fault for boycotting it then.  The only thing one does by boycotting an election is reduce the chances of their side winning.  Like the vote or not, it's the percentage of people who voted, not the percentage of eligible votes, that determines the result.

[corco]

official turnout - 83%, but Ukrainian speakers and Tatars (much more the 17% of the population - over twice that) were boycotting it.

Their fault for boycotting it then.  The only thing one does by boycotting an election is reduce the chances of their side winning.  Like the vote or not, it's the percentage of people who voted, not the percentage of eligible votes, that determines the result.

Wait, are you really suggesting that people should feel obligated to participate in an election held by a bunch of guys with guns? Also, and I feel like this is under talked about, don't forget that older Ukrainians were around during Soviet times, when there were elections held by guys with guns, but those elections were largely farces. I can see why they would be skeptical to participate in that sort of process- they're not taking fair elections for granted like we do.

Now, perhaps the international community should have endorsed and perhaps orchestrated the referendum, to make voters in the Ukraine more confident that the election was a free and fair election, but that's another matter entirely.

[english si]

official turnout - 83%, but Ukrainian speakers and Tatars (much more the 17% of the population - over twice that) were boycotting it.

Their fault for boycotting it then.  The only thing one does by boycotting an election is reduce the chances of their side winning.  Like the vote or not, it's the percentage of people who voted, not the percentage of eligible votes, that determines the result.

Way to miss the point that the number of votes cast wasn't equal to the number of people who voted.

[Chris]

The share of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine is much larger than the share of actual ethnic Russians. Ukrainians are an ethnic majority in all eastern oblasts, even if they are majority Russian speaking.

Eastern Ukraine is a bit more developed than central and western Ukraine because most Ukrainian industry is located there (mostly in the Donbass region). Losing eastern Ukraine will be a significant blow to the Ukrainian tax base. Western Ukraine is not as developed and perhaps outright poor in rural areas (there are many aid organizations in western Europe that support local communities in Ukraine).

Personally I get the impression the average Dutch doesn't really care about what happens in Ukraine. They probably don't support Russia's actions, but nobody wants to risk an armed conflict over it. We have to be realistic that accession of Ukraine into the European Union likely won't happen for decades. Many feel that Romania and Bulgaria was already a bridge too far.

[vdeane]

Now, perhaps the international community should have endorsed and perhaps orchestrated the referendum, to make voters in the Ukraine more confident that the election was a free and fair election, but that's another matter entirely.

That would have been a good idea.  I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.

[KEK Inc.]

Google Maps put a discrepancy border around the region, but seriously hints at it being part of Russia (by removing the Crimea/Russia border). 

[vdeane]

I don't recall the Crimea/Russia border being marked even before the current dispute.

[Duke87]

I don't recall the Crimea/Russia border being marked even before the current dispute.

Google often does not mark borders in open water. See also: Malaysia/Indonesia, Spain/Morocco, Greece/Turkey, Corsica/Sardinia, UK/France, Alaska/British Columbia, Denmark/Sweden...

[english si]

That would have been a good idea.  I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.

It would have done - you wouldn't want to piss off Russia without good reason, and the good reason for sanctions is that Russia invaded another country. Again.

We have to be realistic that accession of Ukraine into the European Union likely won't happen for decades. Many feel that Romania and Bulgaria was already a bridge too far.

Ukraine and Turkey are string-along candidates. They will never be allowed in, as the French will never come around, but the EU will keep dangling the carrot.

[vdeane]

That would have been a good idea.  I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.

It would have done - you wouldn't want to piss off Russia without good reason

The west has been pissing off Russia ever since the cold war ended by expanding NATO even after promising not to.  It would be like Russia expanding the Warsaw Pact to Mexico.

and the good reason for sanctions is that Russia invaded another country. Again.

Russia bringing more troops to their own base in Crimea is even less an invasion than the Union resupplying Fort Sumter after the Confederacy seceded.

[kkt]

Now, perhaps the international community should have endorsed and perhaps orchestrated the referendum, to make voters in the Ukraine more confident that the election was a free and fair election, but that's another matter entirely.

That would have been a good idea.  I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.

I don't think the west cares about Crimea as such.  It's a poor, weak province whose only strength is as a Navy base, which was Russian anyway.  That's one reason Russia is getting just a slap on the wrist.
The west does care about provinces of another country getting swallowed up, based nonexistent abuse of a minority community and fraudulent elections.  The world hoped we were past that kind of behavior, and it's been very exceptional since WW II.  And there's no need for it except Russian nationalism, they already had the naval base which is their only legitimate interest in Crimea.

[Pete from Boston]

That would have been a good idea.  I doubt that would have gotten the west to accept any result other than "Crimea stays with Ukraine" though.

It would have done - you wouldn't want to piss off Russia without good reason, and the good reason for sanctions is that Russia invaded another country. Again.

We have to be realistic that accession of Ukraine into the European Union likely won't happen for decades. Many feel that Romania and Bulgaria was already a bridge too far.

Ukraine and Turkey are string-along candidates. They will never be allowed in, as the French will never come around, but the EU will keep dangling the carrot.

There are probably a dozen reasons Turkey doesn't get in, but there are several good reasons it shouldn't, starting with an abysmal human rights record, enforced laws against free speech ("insulting Turkishness"), an ongoing century-long ethnic cleansing policy...  Ukraine looks like a model candidate in comparison. 

[US 41]

Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.

[Brandon]

Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.

Only within the Schengen Zone though.  Schengen to UK, for example, is not as easy as crossing from say, Illinois into Wisconsin.

[Alps]

Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.

Hm... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that religious bigotry is probably NOT the wisest thing to advocate in a publicly viewable forum. Oh well, sucks for you.

[kkt]

Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.

The Turks are mostly Muslim, but Turkey has a secular government, just like most Europeans are Christian but their governments are mostly secular.  Religion has been a private matter for individuals to decide since 1921.

It was only a few hundred years ago they thought the Protestant and Catholic countries of Europe could never, ever get along.

There are several reasons for not admitting Turkey, but the population being mostly Muslim isn't one of them.

[Duke87]

The Turks are mostly Muslim, but Turkey has a secular government, just like most Europeans are Christian but their governments are mostly secular.  Religion has been a private matter for individuals to decide since 1921.

The Turkish government has, not without controversy, been working to westernize the country for quite a while. All in the hopes of being admitted to the EU, which they see (rightly so) as offering greater opportunity than instead associating with middle eastern countries.

There are several reasons for not admitting Turkey

Such as the fact that 99% of the country is in Asia, and therefore it has no business being part of something called the European Union?

Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.

Not in all cases. Border control is mostly eliminated between countries that are in the Schengen Area, but the Schengen Area is not coterminous with the EU. The UK and Ireland have opted out of Schengen, and four countries in southeastern Europe have joined the EU but have not yet joined Schengen as some issues remain to be resolved before they can. Presumably, were Turkey to be admitted to the EU, the other member states would make sure it had reached a sufficiently stable, developed, and trouble-free state before it would be allowed into Schengen.

[corco]

There are several reasons for not admitting Turkey

Such as the fact that 99% of the country is in Asia, and therefore it has no business being part of something called the European Union?

I think it has more to do with Turkey would have the second highest population in the EU, and nobody wants to give a "fringe" country that much power. That's not even considering that all those Turks would suddenly have the right to reside in western Europe. Romania and Bulgaria were sketchy enough to admit, and those countries are about a third and a tenth the size of Turkey. Admitting Turkey would be like admitting ten Bulgarias in terms of the possible immigrant hit, and nobody is ready to do that.

[Pete from Boston]

Not to mention that Turkey is also a muslim nation. Many in Europe will feel insecure knowing that. Turkey should never ever ever be allowed to join the union. Many nations in the EU might ditch the union if Turkey was allowed to join, because they would want to amp up their national security. Remember crossing from one EU nation to another EU nation is as easy as going to a different state in the US.

Hm... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that religious bigotry is probably NOT the wisest thing to advocate in a publicly viewable forum. Oh well, sucks for you.

I don't think US 41 expressed advocacy.  I think it is stating the unspoken (or spoken) truth for much of Europe.  Turkish immigrants are constant targets of violence in Germany, for example.  Muslims in France are not permitted full public expression of their faith.  The EU is not a paradise of tolerance, if there was any idea that it was.

Turkey, on the other hand, has a long ways to go in reaching even Europe's imperfect standards, and it has nothing to do with Islam.  On the contrary, Turkey itself marginalizes public expression by practicing Muslims (women wearing the headscarf has been banned since 1924, and allowing it has been declared unconstitutional). 

Criticizing the dead fascist icon Kemal Ataturk in public has been a jailable offense, as has been questioning the decades-old campaign against Turkey's Kurdish citizens, which not long ago involved things like language bans.   Worst is the government's unrepentant denial of the Armenian genocide, a tried and convicted crime whose victims were never compensated and mentioning which is only recently possible without jail, but not necessarily without murder (see: Hrant Dink).

So no, it's not great to be a Muslim Turkey trying to get into a mostly secular/Christian EU.  But it's not good to be anything but an obedient Turk in Turkey, which is going to keep Turkey out of the EU as much as or more than a Muslim population will.

[Desert Man]

Putin behaves as if he won "the game" as they say on the "intrnetz". But no, the world community will not tolerate any nation send troops first, then annex any piece of land in the world even though this came out of a "free and fair election by their people" and Russia's advances to claim Crimea is no exception.

In reading comparisons to other land conflicts in the world: Mexico called...and they want the Southwest states back (LOL).  CA, Texas and the four corners of the southwest was formerly Spanish-Mexican lands until the Mexican-American war (1846-48), which the US were the victors and claimed the prized lands.

[Brandon]

^^ The Mexican War was a bit more complex than that, as was the Texas Annexation.  I do not find the two comparable.