Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My prediction for the future:
Crimea will breakaway from Ukraine and be part of Russia. Ukraine and eastern Europe in general, will be anti-Russian and oriented more then ever towards western Europe and the United States. Russia expelled from the G8. The European Union will be working toward freeing itself from Russian energy sources and strengthen its alliance with the United States and Canada.
Questions:
1. If Russia stops at Crimea will damaged relations with Europe and USA be limited?
2. Or does Russia continue on to take other parts of Ukraine?
3. If so, will China eventually take advantage of a isolated Russia?
4. Can Russia turn to India as a possible hedge against China?
I do not think there will be any breaking from Russian energy. The South pipeline is still going as planned, and Ukraine itself relies heavily on transit revenue. Cutting Russia would cause prices to climb rapidly, and cause transit nations like Ukraine to suffer even more. Also, it is politically damaging; not many citizens think Crimea (and even Ukraine) are worth a drop in their way of life. Domestic politics are a big factor as well.
The G8 is useless and has been for quite a while. It is more symbolic than anything, it is quite out dated.
Answers/opinion:
1. Yes, I think it will be limited. The EU really is not willing to sacrifice much for the Crimea, especially given the circumstances. It is one thing if it was Estonia Russia marched into, quite another it being Crimea. If Russia holds onto the area, it will gut one important geopolitical objective for having Ukraine western orineted in the first place, to take away Russia's access to the Black Sea and Med. This is why there will be resistance to Crimea breaking away.
2. No, Russia will not advance into other areas. They have made no intention of doing so, not even logistically speaking. Everyone knows Crimea is a special case, that is why the reaction is the way it is, versus Russia taking east Ukraine or moving into Poland or something.
3. There is nothing China will take advantage of, and China knows Russia is setting the course for future China-West relations. The West has used China before as a hedge against the USSR, and now Russia. if the Russian threat is ever gone, then the West has no use for China. China always tries to fly under the radar on the world scene.
4. I do not think any hedge is needed; while they are both not friends, China and Russia certainly are not enemies, more like the neighbor you keep an eye on. Russia is concerned about China, that is for sure. India and the USSR have a history together, and this continued with Russia. But it is not nealry as close as it once was. I think the US backing of Pakistan is what drives India to the USSR and later Russia.
It was not a lame excuse, even the OSCE held Georgia at fault for the conflict. Georgia moved heavy weapons into the area and launched an attack on the disputed territories
I agree.
But in Ukraine there is no traces of a Civil War and no real damage to our people or people loyal to us.
Differences between the regions, a burnt synagogue, an attack on Volhynia governor. Yes. Far right organizations. Yes. Problems for some industrial objects in the East. Perhaps.
I'm not. Neither did the international community keep silent. Anyhow: You seem to imply that it's okay to breach international law, because the United States are breaching it sometimes. A laughable argument.
No, but the fact that US sometimes broke international laws means that the US is not qualified to accuse Russia of violating international laws.
and the so called "international community" lost such right when failing to accuse the US for breaking laws many many times.
Putin is taking a page from the Bush-Obama foreign policy of pre-emption , the policy of preemptive military action anywhere in the world to defend the lives , liberty, and security of Americans.
No, it doesn't given the fact that France, Germany, Austria and a couple of nations still get accused to act to passive.
And it's certainly not only America who's accusing Russia to f*ck sh*t up.
Bottom line is, if you didn't accuse US for bombing iraq in 2003, don't accuse Russia now. You can't selectively to choose to be silent when it works best for you.
west countries are almost synomonous to hypocrisy nowadays when it comes to international affairs.
Bottom line is, if you didn't accuse US for bombing iraq in 2003, don't accuse Russia now. You can't selectively to choose to be silent when it works best for you.
west countries are almost synomonous to hypocrisy nowadays when it comes to international affairs.
Seriously, an answer like this is quite amusing to me.
As said before: It implicates that it's okay to breach international law, as long as America violated it before.
For your claim concerning the Iraq invasion: It seemed to be (kinda) legit at first, but now we know better. Does that huge mistake of the international community legitimate an preemptive strike against Ukraine? No.
US-Obama is different from US-Bush.
The Iraq invasion 2003 was critisized by many countries.
The legality was disputed, UN finally said: illegal.
Bush was widely critisized in US after no WMDs were found.
Putin knows Crimea "annexion" is clearly illegal (he graduated
from international law) still constructs excuses,tricks and claims it's legal,
just for propaganda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.