By sending troops into the Ukraine, (others than those stationed there by agreement) Putin has broken international law. That does not depend on the Budapest Memorandum. It would be a breach of international law whether the Budapest Memorandum existed or not. The effect of the Budapest Memorandum is rather to oblige the US and the UK to do something about it.
The existence of civil disturbance in a country does not justify outside military intervention. That it does is, of course, the Blair doctrine that I have been campaigning against for 15 years, inside and outside government. Putin of course opposes such interventions by the West, in Iraq, Syria or Libya, but supports such interventions when he does them, as in Georgia and Ukraine. That is hypocrisy. There are elements on the British left who also oppose such interventions when the West does them, but support when Putin does them. You can see their arguments on the last comments thread: fascinatingly none of them have addressed my point about Putin’s distinct lack of interest in the principle of self-determination when it comes to Chechnya or Dagestan.
The overwhelming need now is to de-escalate the crisis. People rushing about in tanks and helicopters very often leads to violence, and here Putin is at fault. There was no imminent physical threat to Russians in the Crimea, and there is no need for all this military activity. Ukraine should file a case against Russia at the International Court of Justice; the UK and US, as guarantor states, can ask to be attached as guarantor states with an interest in the Budapest Memorandum . That will fulfil their guarantor obligations without moving a soldier.
The West is not going to provide the kind of massive financial package needed to rescue the Ukraine’s moribund economy and relieve its debts. It would be great if it did, but with western economies struggling, no western politician is in a position to announce many billions in aid to the Ukraine. The chances of Ukraine escaping from Russian political and economic domination in the near future are non-existent – the Ukrainians are tied by debt. That was the hard reality that scuppered the EU/Ukraine agreement. That hard reality still exists. The Association Agreement is a very long path to EU membership.
Both Putin and the West are reacting to events which unfolded within Ukraine. Action by the West was not a significant factor in the toppling by Yanukovich – that was a nationalist reaction to an abrupt change of political direction which seemed to be moving Ukraine decisively into the Russian orbit. Ukrainians are not stupid and they can see the standard of living in former Soviet Bloc countries which have joined the European Union is now much higher . Anybody who denies that is deluded. Of course western governments had programmes to encourage pro-western tendencies in Ukraine, including secret operations. It would be naïve to expect otherwise. Anybody who thinks Russia was not doing exactly the same is deluded. But it is a huge mistake to lay too much weight on these efforts – both the West and Russia were taken aback by the strength and speed of the political convulsions in Ukraine, and everybody is still paying catch-up.
Which is why we now need a period of calm, and an end to dangerous military adventurism – which undeniably is coming primarily from Russia. Political dialogue needs to be resumed. It is interesting that even the pro-Russian assembly of Crimea region has only called a referendum on more devolved powers, not on union with Russia or independence. However I still maintain the best way forward is agreement on internationally supervised referenda to settle the position. The principle of self-determination should be the most important one here. If any of the regions of Ukraine wish to secede, the goal should be a peaceful and orderly transition. Effective military annexation by Putin, and insistence by the West that national boundaries cannot be changed, are both unproductive stances.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_democracy
The current status quo run by virtue less corporations and functionaries.
The conclusion must be that readers would be well-advised to overcome natural laziness and to read or listen to links VERY carefully, because those who provide the links do not always do so in good faith and with complete honesty.
[Personal arguments will be deleted]
@Herbie, 2:01, her ya go
https://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r103.htm
Mary
“BBC website. Wonder if he is related to the late Boris Berezovsky?”
______________________-
Admiral Denis Berezovsky is not related to the late oligarch Boris Berezovsky.
You probably know, Mary (being a musical sort of person, as you’ve told us) that there is a -happily living – Russian pianist of genius named Boris Berezovsky.
If you ask me nicely, I’ll be happy to tell you whether or not he’s related to the late Boris Berezovsky.
*******************
La vita è bella, life is good!
I have now read the Russian version, and can report that the ambiguity of the ending of para.4 is the same as in the English version.
Neither version makes it clear whether the modifier “in which nuclear weapons are used” (“с применением ядерного оружия” – “with the use of nuclear weapons”) applies both to the act of aggression and the threat of aggression or just to the latter.
N_
“But while I’m here, does anyone think the US – along with Germany’s other ally, the UK 🙂 – haven’t breached Para 3?”
___________________
Para 3 refers to “refraining from economic coercion” (on Ukraine). Aren’t you getting the US and UK mixed up with rasPutin’s Russia?
*******************
“Life is getting better, life is getting merrier!” (J. Stalin, ca. 1932)
N_
“I have now read the Russian version, and can report that the ambiguity of the ending of para.4 is the same as in the English version.
Neither version makes it clear whether the modifier “in which nuclear weapons are used” (“с применением ядерного оружия” – “with the use of nuclear weapons”) applies both to the act of aggression and the threat of aggression or just to the latter.”
_____________________
The modifier obviously applies to the act of aggression; but since it has been placed at the end of the clause and not directly after act of aggression (it could have been so placed), it obviously applies to both act of aggression AND threat of aggression.
Damn. The Slovenia playbook. Pretty slick.
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-military-russia-resign-437/
Habby
You may think that it’s not unusual for a US Assistant Secretary of State and an ambassador to decide who gets the top jobs in Ukraine, but others are entitled to see it as interference in the internal affairs of another country.
Nor was there anything legitimate about the ouster of the president.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/02/26/euromaidan-coup/
Afraid the most proved by this thread, Craig, is your showing what a hypocrite you apparently were when you denounced Russophobia – now displaying the worst version of it where Putin in responsible for everything occurring in the Ukraine where its coup started nothing, and the Anglo-Americans did nothing to stoke it up.
Herbie
“Habby
You may think that it’s not unusual for a US Assistant Secretary of State and an ambassador to decide who gets the top jobs in Ukraine,..”
__________________
You’re still being dishonest, Herbie, because you’re misrepresenting the purpose of my post. That purpose was to demonstrate that the verbatim of the Nuland telephone conversation with the US Ambassador – cited as “evidence” – in fact contained NO evidence to support claims of US string-pulling regarding the composition of the Ukraine govt.
BTW – have you checked out the figures for the Rada vote yet, as suggested?
N_, considering how the UN Charter makes use or threat of force a single thing, the implication ought to be that ‘nuclear’ modifies both.
But what that means is that Ukraine will be protected from nuclear attacks or threats. Putin’s not threatening to nuke them.
The takeaway message of Craig’s post for me is that the NATO bloc should suck it up and resort to pacific resolut
oops ion of disputes. They hate that shit, but there’s nothing else they can do.
N_
zzzzzzzzzzz
with repect, obviously!
with reSpect, obviously!
I underestimated your soporific effect.
Is south Ossetia now safe from NATO interference via Georgia? or was that just a summer cake walk? nothing to do with us, oh no Gov. nowt to do with the west.
So if Georgia is not strong enough to help itself to south Ossetia than NATO will help, will it?
Tartarstan Tuerks related to the Crimean are demonstarting in Ankara.
here is the latest freely translated, comments in brackets are mione
18:36 The white house tells us that ‘president Obama will work on the Ukraine crisis all sunday and shall correspond with allies by phone
18:37 A few hundred of proptesters in Berlin were marching with Ukrainian flags and protesting against Putins military actions visavis Ukraines problems. (were did they get all those flags from on a sunday) Plakats showed and reminded the public of Russias record of military interventions, they said “DDR 1953, Ungarn 1956, Tschechoslowakei 1968, Afghanistan 1979, Georgien 2008, Ukraine 2014?”
Trowbridge H Ford
And you don’t think that Putin’s support for the corrupt Yanukovych and his constant meddling in Ukrainian affairs for many many years might not also have stoked up things just the teeniest little bit?
And I suppose you don’t regard Putin’s interference in other neighbouring states of Russia (or members of the Soviet Union as I’m sure you and Putin would prefer to call them) has gone at all beyond what is acceptable.
Some of the babbling on whether or whether not a possible nuclear strike would/could/should occure are daft and purile. Why would Putin set off a nuclear attack next to his purse, a vast gas pipeline infrastructure that makes him millions/hour?
I see some have surcommed to the socket winding up his nuts again,just forget about the f…..r! ignore!
Habby
Thankfully we don’t have to rely on dishonest interpretations from you.
Even the BBC, whom one would expect to take as pro-western a position as possible, have been forced to conclude:
“this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals.”
“An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings – US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.”
“The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957
And still, your claim that the parliamentary ouster of the president had legitimacy remains unsubstantiated.
NATO’s ueberguru Rasmussen is briefing the press right now on the Ukraine.
http://t.co/xfwFiCQyPM
Can we trust a paywall wallstreetjournal with the headline
The US has tracked thousands of Russian troops moving into the Ukraine?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304815004579415211128721266
Thanks Nevermind:
“British Prime minister Cameron declares ‘that there would be no British ministers joining the paraolympics in Sochi due to the situation in the Ukraine’”
Fuking playground politics from agent Cameron.
A disabled neighbor with a child had her benefit capped on the false suspicion of taking a lodger in. She asked me today where the nearest food-bank was so that her child could have something to eat.
Characteristically thoughtful piece Craig, thankyou. Interested in your point that the West is not in a position to provide meaningful financial aid. The Economist this week, in an article written before Putin’s invasion of the Crimea, thought otherwise, lining up Merkel and the IMF as Santa’s elves. It also described the Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, as a nest of crooks and noted the absence of likely claimants to the throne. The Economist also thought financial aid should be laced with assistance in holding proper elections etc. These views seem in some ways well-intentioned but characteristically naive, and it is hard to see western financial aid materialising now with Putin playing hardball.
Herbie
Presidents that have their hand in the till with their cronies big time, lock up opposition leaders on trumped up charges, seek to rig parliament and then use snipers to shoot demonstrators tend to lose their democratic mandate pretty quickly. Given said President then flees the country – I would have said a Parliament which immediately sets the date for new Presidential elections has rather more legitimacy – and certainly more than the Leader of another country who currently has one of his political opponents under house arrest.
I’m afraid your hypocrisy when it comes to foreign interference in the affairs of other countries has been totally exposed by your craven support for the works of Mr Putin.
Herbie, Yanukovych was voted out by 328 to 0 of 450 Ukrainian MPs; technically, 338 should have been required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Impeachment_and_vote_to_remove
There is some question about the legality, but it looks pretty minor to me:
The following link is a Google translation of the Radio Free Europe report above (reference [168]):
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Flenta.ru%2Fnews%2F2014%2F02%2F23%2Fus%2F
I think Yanukovych was ousted legitimately, in the spirit though not quite the letter of Ukrainian law.
“Fuking playground politics from agent Cameron.”
And how else would you suggest that he shows his disapproval?
And just how generous do you think your hero Putin has been with social, pensions and health spending in Russia funded by his egalitarian 13% flat rate of income tax. When will the sclaes fall from your eyes when it comes to your hero?
Allende was elected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état
“The United States government, which had worked to create the conditions for the coup,[9] promptly recognized the junta government and supported it in consolidating power.[10] A weak insurgent movement against the Pinochet government was maintained inside Chile by elements sympathetic to the former Allende government. An internationally supported plebiscite in 1988 eventually removed Pinochet from power.”
International law, notwithstanding.
Clark
1. Were members threatened with or in fear of violence?
2. Were all members who wished to vote in attendance.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/02/26/euromaidan-coup/
Ben
You should be aware that Putin and the crowd around him have been long time admirers of the politics and economics of the Pinochet regime
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/sitemap/paid/1998/1/article/aven-putin-should-follow-pinochet/264757.html
The low flat rate income tax and near complete absence of controls over capital going overseas were of course two if the favourites of Pinochet’s Chicago boys.
Herbie
To quote your own words to me:
“I won’t waste further time with you.” (followed soon after by two further posts from you to me, but nevermind, eh!)
But before not wasting any further time on you, I’d like to congratulate you on enlisting the usually much-reviled BBC to your cause:
“Even the BBC, whom one would expect to take as pro-western a position as possible, have been forced to conclude:…”.
Unfortunately, you’ve managed to get that wrong as well. Your BBC link in fact concludes:
“The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on.”
Broker a deal.
Whereas the discussion on here was about the verbatim of the Nuland phone conversation displaying no evidence at all for US string-pulling in the formation of the new Ukraine govt.
Wakey wakey!