PDA

View Full Version : Ukrainian government falls apart


Mr Grimsdale
16th Sep 2008, 10:32
This should give Western governments and NATO something to think about...
BBC NEWS | World | Ukraine's government falls apart (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7618147.stm)

It's been on the horizon for a while and now it's happened. Global financial crisis, Russia flexing it's muscles and now this.

Rainboe
16th Sep 2008, 11:01
What should we be thinking about? It's for them to sort out their own affairs!

Mr Grimsdale
16th Sep 2008, 13:43
Totally agree it's an internal thing, likewise about Georgia (read on), but this is politics so it spills over and affects the rest of us.

It should give the West something to think about because:
1. The Ukraine has been talked about for the last couple of years as pro-West following the election of Victor Yushenko.
2. The front runner to replace Victor Yushenko is the current PM, Julia Timoshenko who based on her comments regarding the Georgia is pro-Russian.
3. Large numbers of ethnic Russians in Georgia.

Now I'm not suggesting Russia is about to annex the Ukraine but don't you think there's more than a teeny weeny chance of the Ukraine no longer wanting to join NATO?

And all this after the great Mr Milliband visited the Ukraine a month ago to say how naughty Russia was and how the pro-West Ukraine is part of our gang now. Of course someone else (pro-West) could be elected but with Yushenko's rating down at ~10% it doesn't look like the people are on his side.

Ripline
16th Sep 2008, 16:00
Just "Ukraine", please - not "the Ukraine". Or "the Georgia", come to that!

Thanks.

Ripline - from the Oxfordshire :=

West Coast
16th Sep 2008, 16:30
If a change of government provides an artificial external block to membership in NATO, then Italy's sixty something changes of government since WWII should be a cause for revocation of membership.

Evening Star
16th Sep 2008, 17:17
What should we be thinking about? It's for them to sort out their own affairs!

Quite.

Except that the government that fell apart was the result of a western backed coup that effectively replaced the government of a Russian backed coup. Realistically nobody is going to leave alone.

Arguably the sensible thing would be to reverse Khrushchev's idiosyncratic transfer of Russian speaking Crimea to Ukraine. From the Russian perspective this would defuse a lot of the reasons for being involved in Ukrainian affairs. Great idea other than transferring part of country on ethnic or language grounds has a bad history ... do I hear Sudentland? Meanwhile, our politicians in the west are talking out of their collective posteriors.

Well, it keeps the diplomats in gainful employment.

Rainboe
16th Sep 2008, 18:40
I don't think many people are greatly concerned by Ukraine internal politics. If they have a democratic election and lean toward the west and want to join NATO, then that is most excellent. If they democratically don't want to join NATO, then OK fine. What we don't want is a country that joins NATO then starts behaving hostile. There is no problem. Let them sort themselves out and we'll see what comes out in the wash.
Except that the government that fell apart was the result of a western backed coup that effectively replaced the government of a Russian backed coup.

How do you 'back' a coup? I'm sure the west had sympathy for the one with the pockmarked face (that really wasn't a very nice trick, was it?), but I think you'll find the west offers sympathy and assistance to friendly governments, and that's about it. I think you'll find people are far more worried about capitalistic markets right now!

Evening Star
16th Sep 2008, 19:38
How do you 'back' a coup?

"Fund[ing] US consultancies, pollsters [... and ...] diplomats" in a "a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise ... used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes" (US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa)). Meanwhile for the previous election, "international election monitors raised allegations of widescale fraud ... [a]ccording to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) ... there were "highly suspicious and unrealistic" turnouts in key Yanukovych areas" (The Orange Revolution (http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/041206/story.html)). Have fun with Google and see if you find anybody who sincerely believes either election was free of outside influence, pressure or money that renders the word 'election' a farce and amounts to outside influence to achieve a desired result (aka coup?).

Rainboe
16th Sep 2008, 21:18
It's all part of the fun. I guess the Rooshans interfered with the election a bit destroying the face of Yusch....Yuschcccheneko or something! I like the hairstyle of the bird. You expect her to burst into a Cossack dance with tambourines.

dead_pan
16th Sep 2008, 22:03
Its simply payback time for the Ruskies. They've realised the West is impotent when it comes to 'supporting' countries like Ukraine and Georgia.

Putin and his glove puppet Medvedev seem intent on a bit of global mischief making at the mo, although no-one possibly even themselves are sure what they are hoping to achieve other than to curry support back in the Motherland.

Re the 2004 elections in Ukraine, I recall reading that George Soros was intimately involved in backing Yuschenko - can't be ar*ed checking Google to see if it is true.

DP

Evening Star
17th Sep 2008, 20:21
It's all part of the fun.

Indeed!:ok::ok:

And one does not have to go far to find somebody who claims Tymoshenko's hair is a wig.:ooh::}

SXB
17th Sep 2008, 21:09
To address the original question - this isn't the first time this has happened since the 2004 preseidential elections, it won't be the last either.

For those who are comparing the situation in Ukraine to Georgia - please don't, it's completely different. Ukraine has a large ethnic Russian population - these are Russian people who just happen to live in Ukraine. From the point of view of the Russians (both in Ukraine and Russia) they have always known that the next presidential administration will move the country closer towards Moscow, it's just a question of how close.

For those who are unaware there are three main political figures in Ukraine -Yushchenko, Yanukovych and Tymoshenko. The first two are/were western leaning, the latter is is Moscow leaning. The first two were allies, but no more. Yushchenko (current president) is finished, his approval rating is around 10%. The latter two will probably be the main candidates in the next presidential elction - 2010 I think. Tymoshenko has been visting Putin and Medvedev recently in an attempt to secure support. Up until about 2 years ago Tymoshenko was subject to a Russian arrest warrant for fraud connected to her dealings with gas utilities in Ukraine and Russia. She's so corrupt that she doesn't even realise she's corrupt.

Russia's primary objective in Ukraine is to secure its naval bases in Crimea, everything else secondary but they'll take whatever they can....

nahsuD
18th Sep 2008, 01:42
Just "Ukraine", please - not "the Ukraine". Or "the Georgia", come to that!

Thanks.


Where is Elena to starigthen this one out. She always claimed that Ukraine does not exists. It is "the ukraina", corner of Russia.

dead_pan
18th Sep 2008, 10:11
Russia's primary objective in Ukraine is to secure its naval bases in Crimea


This is certainly the pretext however I do no believe this reason behind Russia's actions of late (South Ossetia was also a pretext - anyone who believes that Russia has in interest in the well-being of 70K of its 'citizens' living in a pro-western ex-satellite state are deluding themselves).

In short, Russia doesn't need Sevastopol. It already has a deep water naval base in the Black Sea in Novorossiysk and, if they wanted to extend their naval footprint in the region, they could always expand Sukhumi which is now effectively in greater Russia (this would certainly p*ss the Americans off).

The Black Sea is not as strategically important to Russia as it once was, bordered as it is by impoverished eastern European states to the west and Turkey to the south. This is reflected by the pretty poor state of their Black Sea fleet - the vast majority of which is laid up in Sevastopol and from the looks of it probably hasn't put to sea for years (maybe this is what they're worried about i.e. having to either decommission them or tow them all back to Russia when their lease runs out).

As I intimated in my earlier post on this thread, the Kremlin mafia have cast their eyes around the globe to see where they can begin exterting their influence with the express purpose of antagonizing the West. This is in part a response to the planned deployment of US ABMs in Poland (which are ostensibly to counter rogue or other launches from within Russia - lets not kid ourselves on this), also to send a message to the world the Russia is very much back in business.

DP

CathayBrat
18th Sep 2008, 18:35
Originally Posted by Rainboe
What should we be thinking about? It's for them to sort out their own affairs!
Originally Posted by Rainboe
It's all part of the fun.
Not fun when Putin and his puppet, who i shall call sooty, have lots of these to play with (see below), and dont seem to care what the rest of the world think of them!
http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc351/adsbarnes/NuclearBomb.jpg
Lovely pic though!

SXB
18th Sep 2008, 23:34
Deadpan
Novorossiysk has long since been proposed as an alternative home for the Russian Black sea fleet, some work has been done there but it is still a long way away from being a viable alternative. I believe the long term objective is for the port to be ready to accept the fleet once the lease expires in Sevastopol in 2017. Though that said it's geograhical position, along with the narrow channel is less than ideal for a naval base.

As to the strategic importance of the black sea, and the Russian fleet stationed there, that all depends who you are and what your objectives are. Ask the Georgians about it's importantance and see what they say, same for the Ukrainians. For the moment the Russians are projecting regional power. For the general state of the Russian navy it's true to say they are dwarfed by the US navy but apart from the americans there aren't very many other navy forces who are projecting power beyond their own shores. In Europe you only have the French and the British who are even remotely capable of stringing something together which is capable of operating a few thousand miles from home. The, much depleted, Russian Black Sea fleet is still very much a threat to those other countries in that region.

con-pilot
19th Sep 2008, 00:02
Following along with SXB's thoughts, I believe that you will never see a major US Naval force be committed to the Black Sea, just too may risks of being trapped. When I mean a major force, I am referring to a Carrier Battle Group; even if Turkey gave their permission for transit.

No, the Black Sea, naval assets wise, belongs to the Russian Navy. Therefore the Russians do not have to have a huge versatile fleet to control the Black Sea and all of the Black Sea ports, no matter who the ports belong to.

Scumbag O'Riley
19th Sep 2008, 00:54
Went to Lvov recently for a weekend with the mrs.

Only country I've ever been where seriously thought was going to be detained by immigration because they didn't like the look of me. And yes I have been to the US.

Thought the women nowhere near as attractive as on those websites that turn up when you put 'tottie prepared to sell body to unattractive mid western yank for passport' into google. And we saw plenty of those. Sad, really sad.

If you are going to put sturgeon on the menu you should have some of the stuff in the bloody freezer.

Have been to more pleasant public toilets in India.

Bit of a dump really, membership of the EU should be encouraged, for the western part anyway, as there are plenty of decent people there stuck in the wrong part of europe at the wrong time. Needs some investment and should do fine.

dead_pan
19th Sep 2008, 22:45
For the moment the Russians are projecting regional power


Cuba & Venezuela are hardly regional - they're looking for targets/allies around the world

the Russians do not have to have a huge versatile fleet

Which comes back to my point of why then bother with Sevastapol - they simply don't need it. The fact of the matter is that they are spoiling for an 'argument' with Ukraine and are using this as their excuse.

BTW there is an interview in today's FT with Victor Lukashenko - made some interesting comments about his neighbour cum political sponsor. Not sure these would go down too well in Moscow.

SXB
20th Sep 2008, 08:49
Quote:
For the moment the Russians are projecting regional power
Cuba & Venezuela are hardly regional - they're looking for targets/allies around the worldThat hardly represents global dominance, two banana republics who's foreign policy always reflects the direct opposite of whatever position Washington takes. To say Russia is isolated at the moment and enjoys virtually zero foreign support is the understatement of the year.

BTW there is an interview in today's FT with Victor Lukashenko - made some interesting comments about his neighbour cum political sponsor. Not sure these would go down too well in Moscow.I assume you're referring to Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus. He was once Russia's best friend, so much so that at one point he was seeking a union between Belarus and Russia. In recent times Belarus has also become a victim of political blackmail using oil and gas. As a result Belarus has started looking westwards for friends, another example of the inept foreign policy practiced in Moscow. Lukashenko has made a number of concessions recently but he still has a long way to go before being accepted by the west, especially with the Europeans. If he's serious in his intentions expect to see a suspension of the death penalty sometime soon. Capital punishment is a 'set in stone' red line for most European institutions.

Also, one should not discount the possibility that Lukashenko's recent comments and actions are simply a ruse to extract concessions from Moscow.