просто. проблема решена
Posted on 04/25/2014 9:14:33 AM PDT by FreeReign
Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov says pro-Moscow militants will lay down arms if Kiev clears occupied square and buildings.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, appears to have offered a deal to resolve the crisis in eastern Ukraine, suggesting that if the country's government clears out the nationalist protest camp in Kiev, then pro-Moscow separatists will lay down their arms.
Western officials greeted the proposal with scepticism, noting that such confidence-building measures were at the heart of an international agreement reached last week, but which failed to end the separatists' occupation of public buildings in eastern Ukraine. They said the protest camp in Independence Square in Kiev, erected in February during the uprising that toppled the Russian-backed president, Viktor Yanukovych, was already being dismantled.
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is monitoring the situation in Ukraine, reported that its team in the capital "observed the ongoing clearing of barricades in the Maidan square".
"The situation in the capital city was calm," the report added.
One western official raised the possibility that Lavrov might be seeking to use the dismantling of the camp as a face-saving way out of the crisis, but cautioned that there were few other signs of compromise from Moscow.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Most don't.
Sort of like Texas.
What about their troops LEAVING Ukraine?
Eastern Ukraine is being totally manipulated by Putin’s KGB-FSB and gangsters. there’s no “spontaneous uprising”, just Russian thugs intimidating the local population.
It’s no coincidence that the eastern part has the coal mines and industry - Russia has been greedily eyeing this area for a long time.
Too many oil/gas pipelines run thru West UK for that kind of split to last long——I expect that split is just a way-point for where Pootin would like to go.
Last chance to avoid war—Ukraine should take it before the T-90s roll.
“Uh huh. How can Russia negotiate on behalf of people they have no affiliation with.”
Russia has had a long affiliation with the people and territory of Crimea.
Just 50 years ago that territory and population were part of Russia proper as it had been sense 1784. The largest share of the population is Ethic Russian not Ukrainian, and of course until the 1990’s all of it was part of the USSR.
One could say with some accuracy that Russia has stronger ties to Crimea than does the Ukraine.
“Eastern Ukraine is being totally manipulated by Putin’s KGB-FSB and gangsters.”
The same thing happened in West Virgina during the ‘civil War’ yet West Virgina is still a separate state than Virginia. Washington has no ground to stand upon there.
“Uh huh. How can Russia negotiate on behalf of people they have no affiliation with.”
That depends upon how you define affiliation, if you do it th eway we do it in North America then the Russians were just owners of Crimea for most of the last 230 years. (up until just the 1950’s in fact)
However if you look at it the way Eurasians typically do with the eyes of ethnicity and language then Russia would point out that Crimea is 60% Russians and only 24.0% Ukrainians
Russians: 1.45 million (60.4%),
Ukrainians: 577,000 (24.0%),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
That doesn’t mean much to us, but it does mean a lot to them.
That's what Reagan would be say to Vlad right now.
“One could say with some accuracy that Russia has stronger ties to Crimea than does the Ukraine.”
Yes. People who speak with very little accuracy and spout Russian propaganda.
If this were the case, Russia would not have had to illegally annex the Crimea.
“Ukraine crisis, rbmillerjr wrote:
“One could say with some accuracy that Russia has stronger ties to Crimea than does the Ukraine.”
Yes. People who speak with very little accuracy and spout Russian propaganda.”
I don’t pretend to know a lot about Crimea or Russia, I just know in the last 230 years Crimea has only been part of The Ukraine for the last 60, and Russia for the rest. I also know that demographically 60% of the Population of Crimea identifies themselves as Ethic Russian while less than 25% see themselves as Ethic Ukrainian. Theses are not numbers or History the Ukraine even disputes, nor do they in themselves indicate the wishes of the people of Crimea which I regard as the Primary concern in which Federation they should be a part of.
But short of a legitimate vote on the matter in Crimea I don’t see any resolving of the question of who should legitimately own Crimea, and in any case it is not worthy of either our attention or money. Like it or not this sort of thing happens all the time thou-out human history and in all places in the world.
If we want to enforce some standard upon the world, the blood and treasure never mind lack of moral right would bankrupt us.
“If this were the case, Russia would not have had to illegally annex the Crimea.”
Im unaware of any clause in Russian law that makes annexing Crimea illegal. Admittedly of course I know little of Russian law, but such a thing is not something I would expect to find in Russian law. Such a breach of Russian law is in any event their business.
IF we wish to get involved we should find something of interest and value enough to us to be worth getting involved. The morality of Russians actions notwithstanding.
просто. проблема решена
Donetsk Oblast is the most pro-Russian, but Kharkhiv and Luhask are close behind. Odessa and others are definitely mixed.
that was Crimea. We’re talking about Donetsk, Odessa, Kharkhiv now and it’s not as “simple” as Crimea
Ukraine and Russia are also ethnically, linguistically and historically very close, very close indeed.
Well, all of ukraine was "Russia" for a lot of time, as was Belarus, lithuania, Finland, Poland etc. -- that's not a valid argument
Crimea was going to go to Russia no matter what
NOW, the problem is the east and south of Ukraine which has some people who call themselves ethnic Russian and many who call themselves ethnic ukrainian but speak Russian at home
It's not that simple
“Ukraine and Russia are also ethnically, linguistically and historically very close, very close indeed.”
Russia is not illegally annexing because of close cultural, linguistic, or historical ties. Russia seeks the naval yards and a land bridge via E.Ukraine to the said naval yards.
“Im unaware of any clause in Russian law that makes annexing Crimea illegal.”
One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on FR. Russian law does not supersede Ukrainian law. Crime was sovereign land of Ukraine. Period end of story. Russia took it illegally.
“Such a breach of Russian law is in any event their business.”
Of course, it is Ukrainian law that is valid in this issue. And that is no business of Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.