The principle of self-determination should be the overriding consideration, and the Crimean Parliament’s decision to hold a referendum on union with Russia is something which always needed to be part of a solution. But plainly this month is much too fast, and a referendum campaign which gives people an informed and democratic choice cannot be held while the Crimea is under Russian occupation and those against the proposed union with Russia are suffering violence and intimidation.
The EU needs to move towards Putin. An approach that sticks rigidly to Ukrainian territorial integrity being inviolate is sterile. An international agreement is possible, if the EU makes plain to Russia that it accepts the principle of self-determination. Agreement should then be reached on immediate withdrawal of Russian forces into their allocated bases in Crimea, and back to Russia if there are indeed extraneous numbers, and an international monitoring presence for the OSCE.
The referendum should then be scheduled for the end of this year, with guarantees of freedom of speech and campaigning, equal media access and all the usual democratic safeguards, again to be monitored by the OSCE.
The apparent pullback from violence has been very useful, but the diplomatic and economic fallout is still potentially very damaging. Following the Anschluss, Hitler held a referendum in Austria within one month of the military takeover and received 99.7% support. At the moment Putin stands open to a legitimate accusation of pulling precisely the same stunt in precisely the same timescale.
John Goss,
yes your translation is essentially accurate. There are no references to the troop movement to Poland in the ensuing discussion.
I sit in Lyon for most of the year and normally do not read Polish newspapers. The only interesting news, I found, was a reference to 12 F16 planes landing on Monday at the base in Łaska. But this story has already appeared in the MSM albeit with a considerable delay. These jets would, apart from some humanitarian bombing, hardly provide enough punch to chnage matters on the ground.
Mere posturing.
“f you know nothing about history, try to avoid wikipidia. All that you present seems superficially true, unless you ask yourself a simple question. Why should have been Germany awarded with a territory that had never belonged to it after having just lost a war where the Czechs were on the winning side (do not come up with the holly roman empire please)? If you cannot provide a sensible answer just ignore that gibberish. You probably have not even heard that Benes wanted to incorporate parts of Germany, Lausitz in particular, into the new republic. This was a crazy idea but it clearly demonstrates the balance of power at the Versailles conference.”
Valid comment. I had to use Wiki as shorthand, and am aware that the issue was not as clearcut as either side would like to believe. There was a large German population in that part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, however, and the Czechs declined to concede that German localities could be attached to Austria. If the Germans had lost the war, the Czechs certainly didn’t win it; they were on the same side. The people may not have been happy with this (see ‘The Good Soldier Schweik’ for a devastating take on the Czech soldier’s opinion of his German-speaking officers), but as usual, the people didn’t have any choice, and the post-WW1 arrangement was made without reference to their preferences.
But all I really intended to point out was that the wellbeing of Germans in Czechoslovakia was a genuine issue before Hitler came along and capitalised on it…much as the issue of Russians in Ukraine is now.
PS, I may know nothing about history, but I do know which side the Czechs were on in WW1, and you apparently don’t. Just for emphasis…
Ba’al Zevul (Let’s Nuke Russia! (Everett Mix))
Well, tell me then. Czechs did not alone win the war but at the final stages contributed towards defeating the very “bad” ones. It may come as a surprise to you that after the coup in Prague on 28th October, i.e. 2 weeks before the armistice was signed on 11th November 1918, Czechs, like the Russians in Crimea this week, used troops to secure militarily the territory of their future state. If this was not a decisive victory over Austria-Hungary then let me know what a victory means. Reading the novel by Hašek is a good start but unfortunately he died before finishing it so that the description of the war´s end is left out.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
6 Mar, 2014 – 8:05 pm
“…if I was advising the Baltic states, I would say… expel those Russian bastards NOW”.
About 60% of the population in Crimea are Russian bastards Habbabkuk should they be expelled by the minority?
I’m sure the Russians wouldn’t mind such a course of action, because they are experts in expelling populations.”
What about the Zionist Jews then?
Karel – The Czechs fought with Austro-Hungary from 1914 to 1918. The coup took place only when Vienna had surrendered and the Austro-Hungarian acceptance of peace conditions was announced. The war was over, in all but name, on the Eastern front. To claim a victory over a power which you have been (however reluctantly, but actively) supporting for four years, at the point at which the power has been ground into rubble by your then enemies, is not, in my judgement, any kind of a victory over the enemy, however happy it makes you. My assertion stands. And don’t get me wrong – the Polish and Czech performance in WW2 was heroic beyond belief.
Interesting point re. the Czechs doing what the Russians have done, though. That nationalism thing cuts both ways, doesn’t it? When the Czechs do it, great. When the Germans do it, boo…. I assume you are for the Russian annexation of Crimea, anyway, and I broadly agree that it makes some kind of sense to do it.
Peace.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
6 Mar, 2014 – 8:05 pm
“…if I was advising the Baltic states, I would say… expel those Russian bastards NOW”.
have you actually said that? I screened the posts above but could not find one.
If yes, not cool man not cool. As much as I hate Russian chauvinism, and as much as I now support bloody Karimov’s policy of removing Russian language from official state language, I do NOT support forcible removal of people, whatever their ethnicity is. Although majority of Russians emigrated to Baltic states during Soviet occupation and settled there, there is no right to remove them forcibly. Russians of course need to accept sovereignty of Baltic nations and their right to self determination. Right wing nationalistic policies must be avoided but in most cases assimilation of monitories require changing some of their attitude and dropping chauvinistic nature of their character.
It is fascinating how western media is now calling Russian military personnel in Crimea pro-Russian gunmen. Nothing is safe from Russian propaganda, even so called ZBBC.
Tovarish Scorgie
“Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
6 Mar, 2014 – 8:05 pm
“…if I was advising the Baltic states, I would say… expel those Russian bastards NOW”.
About 60% of the population in Crimea are Russian bastards Habbabkuk should they be expelled by the minority?”
______________________
Haven’t you got the Baltic states mixed up with Crimea?
Sigh…..never mind, Doug…..
Cheer up, Uzbek…and remember the UK’s priorities –
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/mar/06/steve-bell-cartoon-obama-cameron-ukraine
Q. What’s the difference between the owner of a hedge fund manager (such as Crispin Odey, at random – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Odey – ) and an oligarch?
A. Dunno.
Am I the only one who noticed that Crimea is not Texas and people do not keep 1.5 guns per family at their home. Appearance of 15.000 gunmen overnight (or 2-3 nights) is something that breaks laws of physics. There was no substance and then the substance appeared leaving no material trace. As far as I remember it also breaks Russian own scientist Lomonosov’s law.
May be Crimea is physical anomaly that needs to be carefully examined. Why spend billions on the research project in Switzerland when such wonderful opportunity exists in Crimea.
Ba’al Zevul
I could not care less for UK priorities on this matter. What I care is that Russian chauvinism is on rise threatening majority of neighbouring smaller nations and there is nothing to stop it.
Uzbek in the UK
Yes, I did write that (I don’t know whether it got deleted or whether someone gave the wrong reference in their “response”.
Actually, it was a little tongue in cheek, but the truth is that the Russian minorities in the Baltic states – as you say, mostly imported post-1945 – have done nothing but create trouble since independence and represent an unwelcome fifth column as well as a possible pretext for Russia to flex its muscles there some time in the future.
*****************
I think you’ve understood where most of the regulars on this blog – the ones I call the “Eminences” – are coming from. But not a man jack of them would exchange life in the UK (or wherever they post from) with life in one of the countries they appear to feel such affection and sympathy for.
Here’s a typical anti-Russian piece, aimed at the hapless Balts, who appear to be cowering insufficiently for the author’s taste –
http://news.err.ee/v/politics/6bf754c3-1d59-4958-b494-3233ed97aebd
Note (1): Piontkovsky is strongly anti-Putin
Note (2): Piontkovsky is a Visting Fellow of the Hudson Institute –
http://www.hudson.org/experts/324-andrei-a-piontkovsky
Note (3) The Hudson Institute’s president and CEO is one Kenneth Weinstein.
Who also “serves by presidential appointment and Senate confirmation as a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the oversight body for U.S. government civilian international media, including such networks as the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting.” That’s frightening.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/weinstein_kenneth
Weinstein contributed to PNAC, and the Hudson’s advisors and associates include Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Meyrav Wurmser.
Only a little research was needed to establish that the neocons are still contributing to global crises.
Habbabkuk
Whereas I have little sympathy for your sentiments, there are certain moral limits. Russians like every other minority wherever they live must be protected by the same laws which protects others. Their property must also be protected. The worst what could happen is Baltic chauvinism in response to Russian chauvinism. Russian in Baltic states must feel themselves better off there than they would be in Russia, more freedom, better legislation, better economy etc. Then there will be little incentive for them to demand Crimean scenario. Russian on the return must drop their Russian chauvinism which (in most cases) exists in Baltic states in response to right wind nationalism.
The war drums are beating less today as I guess the West are breathing in and accepting yet another defeat.
I do not quite understand why they thought they could get away with it and Russia would accept this phoney coup…. So Ukraine gets chopped up,the parts that the gas reaches will be fine and the rest will be worse off than before the… Debt still there,gas still a problem, IMF chopping their utilities and assets up in the great Kiev fire sale.
I dont see any winners apart from Putin. Obama and Kerry are beginning to look like they don’t believe their teleprompters anymore, and Hague looks like the dummie that lost his ventriloquist.
To get back to the table, the agreement made with Yanukowitsch has to be discussed,without Yanukowitsch I s’pose.This would mean that the bit that NATO has won would vote.That’s the last thing the West wants is the people to decide.Far better they stick with their paid stooges.C’mon Yatz!
Ba’al Zevul
Are putin and his insiders neocons too? Karimov? CCP (Communist Party of China)?
Any ideas?
DoNNyDarKo
What was that agreement again? Was it something similar to that of Catherina the Great of Russia had with Austrians with regards to Poland? And look what happened to Poland after that.
‘I could not care less for UK priorities on this matter.’
I was being facetious. I don’t imagine you do, and nor would I expect you to.
‘What I care is that Russian chauvinism is on rise threatening majority of neighbouring smaller nations and there is nothing to stop it.’
Understood. And you have experience of that. The cartoon is less about the UK in particular than the West’s general tendency to calculate what will please its power groups – all of them economic. IOW we cannot exert economic leverage over Russia, because we are thinking exclusively of the short-term interests of our moneymakers. Proper sanctions would make Putin think again. And leave the small countries as they were, waiting for the next incursion by Russia.
Ba’al Zevul
You are indeed right. Cold War methods will fail this time. Russia nowadays is part of capitalist world (although not part of free market). It makes profit and could cause losses if approached Cold War alike.
Uzbek –
Is Putin a neocon? Great question! Would make a long discussion, though.
I don’t see a great conceptual difference between someone who is gung-ho for Russian hegemony, and someone who is gung-ho for American hegemony, and I don’t see a moral difference based on who you are prepared to kill to achieve those ends. In the sense of nuclear physics ( think electron and positron with equal mass but opposite charge ) maybe while Perle is a neocon, Putin is an antineocon. I don”t like either of them much.
“It’s not just that western aggression and lawless killing is on another scale entirely from anything Russia appears to have contemplated, let alone carried out – removing any credible basis for the US and its allies to rail against Russian transgressions. But the western powers have also played a central role in creating the Ukraine crisis in the first place.”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/clash-crimea-western-expansion-ukraine-fascists
Pity Craig felt the need to rush & make several Posts, as well as to compare Iraq, Libya, Syria etc, to a yet to materialised, and maybe never to be, Ukrainian “invasion”;
Strange that Craig was so very skeptical about their being Neo-Nazis in government in Kiev, and strange that he so very reluctant to accept the possibilty of third party snipers with the demonstrators.
Craig, have you apologised to Mary iro;
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/03/putin-and-international-law/comment-page-2/#comment-443770
Craig Murray:
“The principle of self-determination should be the overriding consideration, and the Crimean Parliament’s decision to hold a referendum on union with Russia is something which always needed to be part of a solution.”
I agree with you but the US/EU/UK do not and it is unlikely that they will recognise the results of a referendum no matter how fair it is.
After talks with EU heads of state Arseniy Yatsenuk has ruled out separation:
“Acting Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk immediately charged that the move was “totally illegitimate”. “Crimea,” he insisted, “is and will be an integral part of Ukraine and we urge the Russian government not to support those who advocate separatism.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-hopes-for-united-nation-fade-as-crimeas-mps-vote-to-take-situation-to-new-level-9173038.html
Ba’al Zevul
“maybe while Perle is a neocon, Putin is an antineocon. I don”t like either of them much.”
Which brings us down to the realist dimension. Was not it Machiavelli who said something like everything is acceptable to reach a goal. 500 years have passed but still pretty much relevant.
Thanks Karel. I too think it is sabre-rattling. But it also shows the grip that the US has over the UK.
It’s called realpolitik, isn’t it, Uzbek?
Here’s a realpolitician on the subject. I realise Kissinger isn’t an object of admiration to some here, but he has a good record in correctly analysing international issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html
He’s always distanced himself from the characteristically Israel-First neocon mob, too.
Kempe
7 Mar, 2014 – 4:37 am
“US versus Russia…”
“Not one word of which justifies Putin’s aggression.”
That is true but pointing out the hypocrisy of the US puts things in context.
Putin’s intervention may not be justified but it is understandable.
Another lie from the Putinistas
http://www.dw.de/much-ado-about-nothing-at-ukraine-russia-checkpoints/a-17480375
Macky
Funny enough but looking into current situation in Ukraine with an eyes of leftie westerner one misses completely the fact of ongoing Russian hegemony. While Britain and US had to in fact invade Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya for regime change, Russia does not have to go all the way through. Its muscle flexing on the border or annexation of the part of the country is enough to change power balance within one hegemonised country.
This is sort of hegemony that US could only dream of.
What the decent Russians believe – to provide some counterbalance to the slathering Putinistas
http://www.imrussia.org/en/russia-and-the-world/684-those-who-unleash-a-war-on-ukraine-will-be-damned-by-the-russian-people-russias-opposition-on-the-ukraine-crisis?utm_content=buffer7f025&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer