Kiev

[Worthy4England]

I aaid they'd been offered membership of NATO, not that they were members, based on ghe dact they have a Membership Action Plan in place with them, that I assume is "what to do if you want membership".

I'm not sure you could say there was a coup, given the President left the Government leaving it leaderless and he was voted out by a Parliament on which he had a majority.

I didn't say the EU weren't involved with Ukraine, I said what was happening with NATO wasn't anything to do with the EU (particularly).

Other than you don't like the EU, why shouldn't an independent nation be able to talk and form partnership with whosoever they wish?

[Hoboh]

I aaid they'd been offered membership of NATO, not that they were members, based on ghe dact they have a Membership Action Plan in place with them, that I assume is "what to do if you want membership".

I'm not sure you could say there was a coup, given the President left the Government leaving it leaderless and he was voted out by a Parliament on which he had a majority.

I didn't say the EU weren't involved with Ukraine, I said what was happening with NATO wasn't anything to do with the EU (particularly).

Other than you don't like the EU, why shouldn't an independent nation be able to talk and form partnership with whosoever they wish?

This current situation is all to do with the EU pressurising Ukraine into its sphere of influance not about NATO or it would have kicked off years ago.
This is the bribe on offer

(Reuters) - Ukraine would see the economic benefits of a free-trade deal with the European Union within weeks of signing the accord, helping the near-bankrupt nation's standing in the eyes of its creditors, the EU's trade chief said on Friday.
Despite the upheaval since pro-EU Ukrainians drove the Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovich from power, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht told Reuters that Brussels' offer of a comprehensive trade deal was Ukraine's for the taking.
"The offer stands, that's very clear. We are ready to sign when Ukraine is ready to sign," De Gucht said in an interview following a meeting of EU trade ministers in Athens. "The benefits will be seen a couple of weeks after the signature."

Unrest erupted in Ukraine after Yanukovich abandoned the proposed trade pact with the European Union in November and turned instead towards Moscow, which offered a $15 billion (8 billion pounds) bailout and cheaper supplies of natural gas.
Compared to billions of dollars in cheap loans, even the EU's offer of unfettered access to the 28-nation bloc's 500 million consumers could not compete, crushing Brussels efforts to build closer relations with its eastern neighbours.

But in a dramatic turn of events at the weekend, Ukraine's parliament voted Yanukovich out of office and set early presidential elections for May 25.
That gives the European Union a second chance to offer Ukraine a deal that De Gucht said would save Ukrainian exporters almost 500 million euros ($685 million) a year in cuts in EU import duties and mean a historic shift away from Russia.

De Gucht said it was up to Ukraine and EU leaders to decide whether they sign the association agreement now or after the May elections. Whatever the choice, Brussels is ready to implement the free-trade deal immediately and the European Parliament has agreed to approve it, De Gucht said.
In the long run, Ukraine's economic output could grow an additional 1 percent a year annually because of increased exports in goods and services, as well as more European investment in Ukraine, according to an EU study.
Under the accord, the EU will open access to its market more quickly than Ukraine, so the country will enjoy better access to the bloc than the EU will get in Ukraine in the first few years.

'UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY'

One reason Yanukovich rejected the deal in November was because he said it would cost Kiev $500 billion in trade with Russia over the coming years, while implementing EU legal and other standards would cost another $104 billion.
De Gucht countered that Ukraine would be free to continue to trade with Russia, while Ukrainian companies would receive technical help and funds to help adapt to EU regulations and bid for lucrative EU public works contracts.

Russia is trying to maintain its influence over Ukraine and other newly-independent states it dominated during the Soviet era, especially those with energy pipelines and large ethnic Russian communities.
Moscow is offering Ukraine membership of its customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, an area that Ukraine could not be a part of if it joined the EU's pact because Belarus and Kazakhstan are not members of the World Trade Organisation.
Trade officials in Ukraine's Economy Ministry were not immediately available to comment but a Ukrainian trade diplomat said new government would lean towards the EU.
"European integration is now the main strategy priority of Ukraine. Not the Customs Union, but European integration."

De Gucht said the EU's offer was not directed against Russia. He said the so-called association agreement with the European Union, which includes the free-trade deal, was a special opening for modernising Ukraine's sick economy.
"Much more important is the dynamic that would result from such an agreement and yes it would influence the judgment of international investors and creditors with respect to Ukraine," said De Gucht, a Belgian lawyer.

Ukraine has said it needs $35 billion in emergency financing to survive 2014 and 2015 and De Gucht reiterated the EU's offer of financial support for Kiev, although he did not give details.
"What is of importance is to bring together all the elements to give Ukraine a new future. That will imply financial support because they are in a very dismal financial situation," he said.
"It is also about this deep and comprehensive free-trade agreement, which gives them a unique opportunity to come closer to European standards and modernize their economy."

Asked if Ukraine could ever join the European Union, De Gucht said: "If and when the conditions are met to sign the association agreement...then we take it from there."

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Western powers were working on a financial plan for Ukraine whose numbers "won't be small" and won't hinge on Kiev first agreeing upon a long-term International Monetary Fund agreement, whose financial conditions Kiev has had difficulty complying with.However, she said the money was contingent on the new Ukrainian government pursuing economic and political reforms.

Statement by President Barroso on Ukraine
The EU has been offering its sincere assistance to facilitate political dialogue between the sides and de-escalate the situation. We continue to believe that constitutional reform, formation of a new inclusive government and creating conditions for democratic elections constitute the only way-out of this deep and long-lasting political crisis. We have made it clear we stand ready to support Ukraine on this road of reforms, towards democracy, stability and prosperity. We have made it clear that our offer of political association and economic integration remains on the table, and does not constitute the final goal in our cooperation.

Little wonder Putin is p*ssed off by the EU overtures.

Given what has happened recently to leaders during and after revolts you surely cannot be surprised the President took temporary leave, a President who BTW had little choice other than to step back from a proper bloodbath given the 'peaceful protests were being hijacked by ultra right wing groups.
It's a nice idea that next time Camoron, Georgie boy and the Clegg are overseas we vote them out because obviously they have to be 'in country' to be 'in power'.

Looks like this is the Russian view as well;

For his part, the Russian ambassador was unapologetic and unbending. Churkin said that Viktor Yanukovich, the ousted president of Ukraine, remained the legitimate head of state, and he described the leaders of the new government in Kiev as "radical nationalists" and anti-Russians.
He asked other council members to imagine that the US Congress had impeached President Obama while he was out of the White House and on a trip to California. "Would that be democratic?" he said.
He also reminded the French that they had imposed measures to prevent peaceful protesters from wearing masks in the street, and the Americans that their former president Ronald Reagan had invaded Grenada in 1983 to protect 1,000 Americans. "We have millions living there [Russian speakers in Crimea] and we are protecting their concerns."

You are very correct I dislike (bit mild that) the EU and 90% of what it stands for.
I have no problems with independent countries forming working mutual trade and possible defence agreements with others but that is not what the EU is about is it? The UK, France, Spain Germany etc are NOT free independent countries who can negotiate with anyone are they, no thanks to the undemocratic EU they are not.

The unelected, undemocratic, dictators of the EU are pushing this continent closer to a mass war than it has been for 70 years.
Civil unrest is boiling just below the surface in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France is almost there as well, there's more and more this side of the channel want out yet what do the EU do? Why bring in more and more financial and industrial backward countries, push money and loans to them then let their people romp across Europe unfettered.
Your right I feckin' hate the EU.

[Worthy4England]

Any chance you could answer a question without three pages of random quotes that occasionally by some dint of fluke support the point you're trying to make?

Regardless of whether you like the EU or not, if the Ukriane exercise a democratic right to join it and the EU want to offer membership, then they should as an independent country, be able to join it.

This thread is supposed to be about the Ukraine not the EU, but with your single mission in life, you've managed to make it all about the EU, which it isn't.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Anyway... the interesting point for me is what's going to happen in the east? Crimea is sorted - ther'll be a plebescite/referendum at the end of this month which will go ~70% in favour of autonomy/independence/union with Russia (however it's phrased), but I suspect the Donbass will have a longer struggle. No doubt the citizens of Donetsk and Kharkiv will try to have a similar plebiscite, but the former hetmanate lands to the west of Donetsk, from Poltava westward, will be split 50-50, which is where it will get interesting, because unlike the Crimea there is no natural boundary for the tanks to roll up to...unless of course they take the Dneiper as the natural boundary, but that will necessitate swathes of naturally Ukrainian soil: Zaporotsia, and Chernikhev included. Hmmmm.

[Hoboh]

Any chance you could answer a question without three pages of random quotes that occasionally by some dint of fluke support the point you're trying to make?

Regardless of whether you like the EU or not, if the Ukriane exercise a democratic right to join it and the EU want to offer membership, then they should as an independent country, be able to join it.

This thread is supposed to be about the Ukraine not the EU, but with your single mission in life, you've managed to make it all about the EU, which it isn't.

FFS!
I suppose Russia has feck all to do with it either in your world

[Worthy4England]

Any chance you could answer a question without three pages of random quotes that occasionally by some dint of fluke support the point you're trying to make?

Regardless of whether you like the EU or not, if the Ukriane exercise a democratic right to join it and the EU want to offer membership, then they should as an independent country, be able to join it.

This thread is supposed to be about the Ukraine not the EU, but with your single mission in life, you've managed to make it all about the EU, which it isn't.

FFS!
I suppose Russia has feck all to do with it either in your world

I see despite managing to remove 15 pages of random quotes from such dignitaries as "Bozza154", you have still been unable to answer the question "if the Ukriane exercise a democratic right to join it and the EU want to offer membership, then they should as an independent country, be able to join it."

It's a fairly straightforward question.

[Prufrock]

Not specifically about Ukraine, but the Litvinenko JR decision was interesting. Basic gist of it is that TMay really, really doesn't want to piss Russia off, to the extent that they can assassinate somebody James Bond style, in London, and basically get away with it.

Looks a pretty good time to be a developed nation sitting on a shit-load of shale gas that you've managed to use to basically meet your own energy needs and have got to the point where you're looking to start big-time exporting.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Not specifically Ukraine either, although prompted by it.
Does anyone else feel like punching our peerless foreign minister Mr Well.I.am Vague. Every time I've seen him in the last week he's looked as pleased as punch to be preening in front of the world's tv cameras, desperately trying to hide his glee behind his ever-so-serious-but-childlike facade.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I sometimes wonder if politicians are deliberately obtuse.
Here f'rexample is Menzies Campbell and Hague acting like Laurel and Hardy

"It's difficult to take the protestations of President Putin seriously in the light of the incident, recently reported, that Russian soldiers fired warning shots over the heads of Ukrainian soldiers seeking to go about their lawful business, then threatened to shoot them in the legs if they did not desist..."
"...I commend the Ukrainian authorities for refusing to rise to [the] provocation..."

They are of course referring to this, where it quite clearly seems to me that any provocation occuring here lies squarely on the Ukrainian side > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26432253

[Montreal Wanderer]

I sometimes wonder if politicians are deliberately obtuse.
Here f'rexample is Menzies Campbell and Hague acting like Laurel and Hardy

"It's difficult to take the protestations of President Putin seriously in the light of the incident, recently reported, that Russian soldiers fired warning shots over the heads of Ukrainian soldiers seeking to go about their lawful business, then threatened to shoot them in the legs if they did not desist..."
"...I commend the Ukrainian authorities for refusing to rise to [the] provocation..."

They are of course referring to this, where it quite clearly seems to me that any provocation occuring here lies squarely on the Ukrainian side > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26432253

Er...so what were Russian or pro-Russian troops doing taking over a Ukrainian airbase in the first place?

[Lord Kangana]

Trying to be non-provocative of course.

I await the annexation of Kent by the French with much anticipation.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Trying to be non-provocative of course.

I await the annexation of Kent by the French with much anticipation.

Yes, silly of me....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I sometimes wonder if politicians are deliberately obtuse.
Here f'rexample is Menzies Campbell and Hague acting like Laurel and Hardy

"It's difficult to take the protestations of President Putin seriously in the light of the incident, recently reported, that Russian soldiers fired warning shots over the heads of Ukrainian soldiers seeking to go about their lawful business, then threatened to shoot them in the legs if they did not desist..."
"...I commend the Ukrainian authorities for refusing to rise to [the] provocation..."

They are of course referring to this, where it quite clearly seems to me that any provocation occuring here lies squarely on the Ukrainian side > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26432253

Er...so what were Russian troops doing taking over a Ukrainian airbase?

Three things
1. They aren't Russian troops, they are Russian paramilitary forces native to Crimea - they are equally as much citizens as those marching on the base.
2. Those marching on the base are Ukrainian naval soldiers (marines) from another base entirely
3. The obvious answer is they (the paramilitaries) took it over from the Ukrainian airmen (who are still inside, not prisoners and not being abused) to forestall any 'response' that the faction in charge of Kiev might throw their way.

there are two sides to most things you know.

Also, the western media are really ratcheting this "evil" Russian thing up, there's another clip of two Ukrainian boats stuck in port, and the commentator says "if the Russians come they only have water hoses and sheets preventing grappling hooks to save them". Really, they're fecking warships, the shot is lingering on the gun turrets as he comes out with this ridiculous bullshit...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Trying to be non-provocative of course.

I await the annexation of Kent by the French with much anticipation.

Yes, silly of me....

You see if Kent were full of Frenchmen and the Prime Minister Monsieur L'Cameroon had been ousted after he'd foolishly stopped (by using violence) demonstrations orchestrated by an English National Front in favour of installing Nigel Farage, then I could well see Sarkozy backing the Kentishmen in trying to join to France and breakaway from a resurgent national England.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I sometimes wonder if politicians are deliberately obtuse.
Here f'rexample is Menzies Campbell and Hague acting like Laurel and Hardy

"It's difficult to take the protestations of President Putin seriously in the light of the incident, recently reported, that Russian soldiers fired warning shots over the heads of Ukrainian soldiers seeking to go about their lawful business, then threatened to shoot them in the legs if they did not desist..."
"...I commend the Ukrainian authorities for refusing to rise to [the] provocation..."

They are of course referring to this, where it quite clearly seems to me that any provocation occuring here lies squarely on the Ukrainian side > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26432253

Er...so what were Russian troops doing taking over a Ukrainian airbase?

Three things
1. They aren't Russian troops, they are Russian paramilitary forces native to Crimea - they are equally as much citizens as those marching on the base.
2. Those marching on the base are Ukrainian naval soldiers (marines) from another base entirely
3. The obvious answer is they (the paramilitaries) took it over from the Ukrainian airmen (who are still inside, not prisoners and not being abused) to forestall any 'response' that the faction in charge of Kiev might throw their way.

there are two sides to most things you know.

Also, the western media are really ratcheting this "evil" Russian thing up, there's another clip of two Ukrainian boats stuck in port, and the commentator says "if the Russians come they only have water hoses and sheets preventing grappling hooks to save them". Really, they're fecking warships, the shot is lingering on the gun turrets as he comes out with this ridiculous bullshit...

The Ukraine is an independent country. If troops who owe allegiance to a legitimate government (and probably took an oath of loyalty) take over a military base in defiance of that legitimate government it is mutiny. I am trying hard to see a legal justification for the "paramilitaries" actions, Where is Crayons? BTW, I am not a supporter of ethnic Ukrainians who tend to be far to the right of my political comfort zone. Mind you Putin is pretty far away too.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I sometimes wonder if politicians are deliberately obtuse.
Here f'rexample is Menzies Campbell and Hague acting like Laurel and Hardy

"It's difficult to take the protestations of President Putin seriously in the light of the incident, recently reported, that Russian soldiers fired warning shots over the heads of Ukrainian soldiers seeking to go about their lawful business, then threatened to shoot them in the legs if they did not desist..."
"...I commend the Ukrainian authorities for refusing to rise to [the] provocation..."

They are of course referring to this, where it quite clearly seems to me that any provocation occuring here lies squarely on the Ukrainian side > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26432253

Er...so what were Russian troops doing taking over a Ukrainian airbase?

Three things
1. They aren't Russian troops, they are Russian paramilitary forces native to Crimea - they are equally as much citizens as those marching on the base.
2. Those marching on the base are Ukrainian naval soldiers (marines) from another base entirely
3. The obvious answer is they (the paramilitaries) took it over from the Ukrainian airmen (who are still inside, not prisoners and not being abused) to forestall any 'response' that the faction in charge of Kiev might throw their way.

there are two sides to most things you know.

Also, the western media are really ratcheting this "evil" Russian thing up, there's another clip of two Ukrainian boats stuck in port, and the commentator says "if the Russians come they only have water hoses and sheets preventing grappling hooks to save them". Really, they're fecking warships, the shot is lingering on the gun turrets as he comes out with this ridiculous bullshit...

The Ukraine is an independent country. If troops who owe allegiance to a legitimate government (and probably took an oath of loyalty) take over a military base in defiance of that legitimate government it is mutiny. I am trying hard to see a legal justification for the "paramilitaries" actions, Where is Crayons? BTW, I am not a supporter of ethnic Ukrainians who tend to be far to the right of my political comfort zone. Mind you Putin is pretty far away too.

And, like the western press you are missing two vital points.
1. Crimea is an autonomous region of Ukraine with its own parliament, Prime Minister and President (although being elected by the Russian speaking population, he was 'illegally' suspended by the Kievan authorities back when (forget name, her with rope for hair) was in charge.
2. Russia, like Britain in Akrotiri (Cyprus), and USA in Guantanamo (Cuba) and Suva Bay (Phillipines), has territorial sovereignity over its bases and military areas in Crimea.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Er...so what were Russian troops doing taking over a Ukrainian airbase?

Three things
1. They aren't Russian troops, they are Russian paramilitary forces native to Crimea - they are equally as much citizens as those marching on the base.
2. Those marching on the base are Ukrainian naval soldiers (marines) from another base entirely
3. The obvious answer is they (the paramilitaries) took it over from the Ukrainian airmen (who are still inside, not prisoners and not being abused) to forestall any 'response' that the faction in charge of Kiev might throw their way.

there are two sides to most things you know.

Also, the western media are really ratcheting this "evil" Russian thing up, there's another clip of two Ukrainian boats stuck in port, and the commentator says "if the Russians come they only have water hoses and sheets preventing grappling hooks to save them". Really, they're fecking warships, the shot is lingering on the gun turrets as he comes out with this ridiculous bullshit...

The Ukraine is an independent country. If troops who owe allegiance to a legitimate government (and probably took an oath of loyalty) take over a military base in defiance of that legitimate government it is mutiny. I am trying hard to see a legal justification for the "paramilitaries" actions, Where is Crayons? BTW, I am not a supporter of ethnic Ukrainians who tend to be far to the right of my political comfort zone. Mind you Putin is pretty far away too.

And, like the western press you are missing two vital points.
1. Crimea is an autonomous region of Ukraine with its own parliament, Prime Minister and President (although being elected by the Russian speaking population, he was 'illegally' suspended by the Kievan authorities back when (forget name, her with rope for hair) was in charge.
2. Russia, like Britain in Akrotiri (Cyprus), and USA in Guantanamo (Cuba) and Suva Bay (Phillipines), has territorial sovereignity over its bases and military areas in Crimea.

Tbh, I don't know what rights Russia has over airbases in the Ukraine. I presume there was an agreement at some point. I see Belbek only described as a Ukrainian airbase. I'm not sure what you mean by territorial sovereignty - the USA does not own the Guantanamo peninsulas - it has a 99 year lease to use Cuban sovereign territory. I thought Suva Bay was in Fiji.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Tbh, I don't know what rights Russia has over airbases in the Ukraine. I presume there was an agreement at some point. I see Belbek only described as a Ukrainian airbase. I'm not sure what you mean by territorial sovereignty - the USA does not own the Guantanamo peninsulas - it has a 99 year lease to use Cuban sovereign territory. I thought Suva Bay was in Fiji.

Suva Bay may well be in Fiji, I mean the one in the Phillipines where the American fleet is based - its name (like hers with the hair) obviously escaping me.
Lets's not get into one of those discussions - I mean like Hong Kong was British sovereign territory and not Chinese, despite the fact it was leased. Akrotiri, Guantanamo, Hong Kong, the place in the Philippines - all belong to one country who has leased the sovereignity to another - what is in existence (or was in the case of Hong Kong, and may well have expired in not-Suva Bay) in those cases is the same with the Russian territory in the Crimea.
I'm not, by the way, in favour of what Putin is doing. I'm just aware that there is another side to all this.
Crimea was already, before shit hitting fan time, going to have a plebescite regarding being Ukrainian/Russian.
This has been brought forward (to the end of the month now), and I can well see why Russia would want to 'ensure' that Kiev did not cancel or subvert what is now going to be an overwhelming vote for association with Russia.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Tbh, I don't know what rights Russia has over airbases in the Ukraine. I presume there was an agreement at some point. I see Belbek only described as a Ukrainian airbase. I'm not sure what you mean by territorial sovereignty - the USA does not own the Guantanamo peninsulas - it has a 99 year lease to use Cuban sovereign territory. I thought Suva Bay was in Fiji.

Suva Bay may well be in Fiji, I mean the one in the Phillipines where the American fleet is based - its name (like hers with the hair) obviously escaping me.
Lets's not get into one of those discussions - I mean like Hong Kong was British sovereign territory and not Chinese, despite the fact it was leased. Akrotiri, Guantanamo, Hong Kong, the place in the Philippines - all belong to one country who has leased the sovereignity to another - what is in existence (or was in the case of Hong Kong, and may well have expired in not-Suva Bay) in those cases is the same with the Russian territory in the Crimea.
I'm not, by the way, in favour of what Putin is doing. I'm just aware that there is another side to all this.
Crimea was already, before shit hitting fan time, going to have a plebescite regarding being Ukrainian/Russian.
This has been brought forward (to the end of the month now), and I can well see why Russia would want to 'ensure' that Kiev did not cancel or subvert what is now going to be an overwhelming vote for association with Russia.

If you mean Subic Bay, the Yanks haven't been there for over 20 years. I think the whole base was destroyed by a volcano and abandoned. I think you have over-simplified Hong Kong. The original Hong Kong (it might be called Victoria Island??) was ceded to Britain by China in 1842 in perpetuity following one of the Opium Wars and so became a crown colony and British sovereign territory. Similarly Kowloon was ceded following the 1860 punitive expedition that burnt the Summer palace in Beijing. However, the New Territories were leased in 1898 (following another bit of unpleasantness) for 99 years. When in the 1980s it became evident that China would not renew the lease on the New territories, the British government concluded Hong Kong without them was not viable. They therefore began a negotiated process to return all of Hong Kong to China but with a special status. So only part of Hong Kong was British sovereign territory and China could not legally reclaim it. It was given up in the spirit of amity. New Territories were leased - you lease territory not sovereignty - the same as Guantanamo. Akrotiri is sovereign British territory by a 1960 treaty (it is not leased). Basically you cannot lump all these together as each case can be different.

[Hoboh]

Any chance you could answer a question without three pages of random quotes that occasionally by some dint of fluke support the point you're trying to make?

Regardless of whether you like the EU or not, if the Ukriane exercise a democratic right to join it and the EU want to offer membership, then they should as an independent country, be able to join it.

This thread is supposed to be about the Ukraine not the EU, but with your single mission in life, you've managed to make it all about the EU, which it isn't.

FFS!
I suppose Russia has feck all to do with it either in your world

I see despite managing to remove 15 pages of random quotes from such dignitaries as "Bozza154", you have still been unable to answer the question "if the Ukriane exercise a democratic right to join it and the EU want to offer membership, then they should as an independent country, be able to join it."

It's a fairly straightforward question.

Lost me there

Answer, yes if the majority of a country wish to join the EU which is far from clear here, with or without Putin's intervention.
The EU are clearly trying to push Ukraine into their sphere, that is wrong and Putin is quite within his rights to stand up against them.

Hell they would not get a majority for us to stay in now, but hey the knobs know best so lets keep the plebs on their knees.

All this has done is point out that the EU is a waste of money and a complete non-entity when it comes to matters on a world stage.
Europe would be better off learning to live side by side with Russia than allow it's institutions to become puppets of the US.