2014 Ukrainian Maidan Revolt: News, Views, Photos & Videos

delft said:

Besides having the Nuland coup less than 24 hours after a political compromise was reached in Kiev that was signed by the ambassadors of Germany, France and Poland the US has made the European countries look irrelevant. It would be much better for the European countries if free and fair elections were to be held in Ukraine because those would be likely to sweep away the current 'government' .

Click to expand...

Delft, it was not a "coup."

That word has a very definite meaning:

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

Whatever else you may think, the Parliament of the Ukraine, which itself was legally elected, met together and followed the Ukrainian Constitution to the letter, and impeached and then removed Yanukovich from power, finalizing it on February 22.

That was what legally removed him...it was not illegal, and that vote and procedure was not violent.

The violence on the streets leading up to it (on both sides) were not what created the interim government in Kiev. The Parliament did and it did it legally, and peacefully in chamber. Now, clearly the protests and the reaction to hem on both sides influenced this...but protest leaders and their adherents did not storm the Parliament, hold guns to the members and force them to vote. They did so as duly elected members of the Ukrainian Parliament.

Now, the Ukraine will continue to follow its constitution and there will be exactly what you call for, "free and fair elections to be held in Ukraine ."

We shall see who wins those...but they will be voted on by the people of Ukraine...which at this point, though it may be open to the Crimea by the Ukraine, will most likely not include the Crimea.

There are those, particularly the Russians, who want to frame what happened as a "coup," in order to give them justification for what they did. But that is propaganda and meant to justify what Putin is doing, nothing more. Putin clearly had no intention of allowing the Crimea (and perhaps other parts of the Ukraine) to go all in with the EU and thereby risk losing Russia's critical Black Sea Fleat port there. He simply was NOT going to allow that to happen.

As it is...if he moves on any other part of the Urkaine, then it will be him who is seeking a coup. He has already accomplished a coup in the Crimea...but it is one I doubt anyone in Europe or the US can do anything about in the long run. All the talk about "punishing," Putin is likely to remain just that...talk.

Obama is weak and will not be able to form or hold a coalition to enforce his new "red" line. Europe is too tied to Russian energy to risk that being turned off and the counter economic sanctions Putin would impose if they tried to do the same to him.

This is the truth of the situation...on both sides.

delft said:

How would they pay for such a ship, for her maintenance, for training her crew?

Click to expand...

Well Turkey is not Greece or Spain they have a economy which is growing a very fast pace and thier development has been extremely good in the last few years

Take a look at future of Turkish navy and quickly you can see there is a lot of hardware to come

8 x Ada Class
4 x TF-100
1 x LHD
2 x Moships
2 x RATSHIPs
6 x SSK
2 x LST
8 x LCT
1 x Replenishment tanker

This is on top of the huge naval they already have

Where is the money and crews coming from? The $20 billion defence budget and it's increasing year on year

Turkey could easily get few DDGs no problem for them they are a full standing NATO member and have a respectable standing in the world especially the muslim world they need them items

Let's ask ourselves who is next after Ukraine? Romania or Bulgaria? Putin is ex-KGB he wants to see USSR satellites states back in Russia

delft said:

How would they pay for such a ship, for her maintenance, for training her crew?

Click to expand...

Some time ago I read about the plans for a cozy Turkish frigate, then forgot even the name of the project ... now I used google and check this: and Does somebody know what's the TF2000 status now? (it's off-topic, I know and I'm sorry)

Jura said:

Some time ago I read about the plans for a cozy Turkish frigate, then forgot even the name of the project ... now I used google and check this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does somebody know what's the TF2000 status now? (it's off-topic, I know and I'm sorry)

Click to expand...

First of all we need to understand Turkish naval stratedgy

They don't have experience to build advance stealth ships so they start right from the beginning and don't miss anything out

They first called for Ada Class which is 8 units to give them knowledge and experience to build corvette sized warship

After this they will build 4 x TF-100 FFG using the knowledge they have gained from Ada Class

Then they will move onto larger FFG called TF-2000 which calls again for 4 units plus two extra

UK already offered Type 26 to Turkey for TF-2000 model but Turkey rejected it because they are going to do this on thier own

So the call is like this

8 x Ada Class (2 operational with one laid)
4 x TF-100 based on Ada Class but larger with VLS
4-6 x TF-2000 true air defence FFG

So total build will be 16-18 highly advanced surface warships

asif iqbal said:

They first called for Ada Class which is 8 units to give them knowledge and experience to build corvette sized warship

After this they will build 4 x TF-100 FFG using the knowledge they have gained from Ada Class

Then they will move onto larger FFG called TF-2000 which calls again for 4 units plus two extra

Click to expand...

In May of last year (2013) they decided that the principle AAW missile would be SM-2, and they would proceed with the design phase. After the design phase will be the construction of a single vessel for test and evaluation, followed by the production of the other five as I understand it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Phase I design studies will apparently start soon, according to Jane's in February:

Jane's said:

Turkey expects to pick up the pace on its next-generation TF-2000 anti-air warfare frigate programme in the second half of 2014 with the launch of Phase 1 design studies.

Progress on the programme has been effectively stalled since a feasibility study for TF-2000 was completed by the Defence Industries Undersecretariat (SSM) in 2010. However, Mustafa Seker, head of the SSM's naval systems department, told IHS Jane's that the design process was now set to move forward following a long-awaited green light from the SSM's executive committee in late 2013.

"We have now got the necessary decision to start the TF-2000 Phase 1," he said.

Click to expand...

Miragedriver said:

Last Saturday I speculated on this thread that we would probably have a de facto annexation of Crimea within a week. This article from the Daily Telegraph reports that steps are being taken in that direction. These are very troubling times we are living in.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

sorry to be in kind of late on this. The legality of this to me is not clear. There were at least people in Crimea who didn't want to be part of Ukraine part at the dissolution of Soviet Union. If they actually held a referendum, I think the likely outcome would've been not joining Ukraine, but they didn't have any support at that time. So at this point, we know that Russia wants Crimea to be like South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Sounds like Russian occupation to some, but if the Crimeans really don't want to be part of Ukraine, who are we to say they are not allowed to hold referendum on determining your own fate? Ukraine doesn't want a vote, because they know the likely result, so they say such referendum is unconstitutional. In my life time, the famous Quebec Referendum in 1995 ended in failure, but in that case Canada allowed Quebec to hold it's own referendum. But obviously most countries don't allow for this. Otherwise, catalonia would not be part of Spain, Iraq will be 3 countries and Tibet would've left China a long time ago.

Rutim said:

It's hard to lose so much in such a short time as Russia did this time. I think we can sum up a few things which happened to them in the last week:

- intrest rate rising and as a consequence rubel lost 8% (that's how much the're going to lose on export and how much more they'll pay for imprted goods in short and basic way) with 11 billion $ burned
- stock exchange loses resulting in real money
- foreign investment will surely drop a bit after they said they won't hesitate a moment with it's nationalisation in case of war
- US or EU didn't even start putting sanctions on Russia (and in US case they will surely put some!)
- EU countries will try to diversify their gas and oil supplies
- EU will give a 'green light' for shale gas mining and extraction
- the base in Sevastopol will be still their as it was before
and the most important
- they now have a sworn enemy in the form of Ukraine for many, many long years

All without firing a single bullet!

Is there any positive information for them right now?

Now ask yourself and judge if it was just tiny 'miscalculation' or a 'big mistake' or a bit 'hot-headed' decission made.

Click to expand...

well, that's the thing. You can do far more damage to Russia by causing international investors to panic on their economy without sending anyone in. Once you get a sinking rubles, crashing market in MICEX/SELT, crashing Russian bonds, that's when Putin will pay attention. You notice how fast he ruled out military action in Ukraine as soon as these things started to happen?

If you look at the map below, you would easily understand why Russia has no intentions on giving up Crimea. Black Sea is relatively small, with Crimea almost in the middle of it. Modern anti-ship missile batteries stationed on peninsula could hit practically anything in the area. Because of confined space and high missile threat NATO would not be able to operate carrier battle groups in Black Sea, therefore Russian southern flank would be largely secured as only other real threat could come from Turkey, which is more and more reluctant to stick its neck in confrontation against Russia.

tphuang said:

There were at least people in Crimea who didn't want to be part of Ukraine part at the dissolution of Soviet Union. If they actually held a referendum, I think the likely outcome would've been not joining Ukraine, but they didn't have any support at that time.

Click to expand...

It was not a matter of not having support. At that time, with the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was a Republic in the old USSR. When it dissolved it became its own nation and the Crimea was a part of that nation, There was not option or opportunity for them to split off.

A few years later, in exchange for the Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons within its borders left over from the USSR, Ukraine, the US, the UK and Russia all signed a treaty that in exchange for the hand over of the weapons, all the other three nations would guarantee the Ukrainians borders as they existed then...and their security.

tphuang said:

So at this point, we know that Russia wants Crimea to be like South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Sounds like Russian occupation to some, but if the Crimeans really don't want to be part of Ukraine, who are we to say they are not allowed to hold referendum on determining your own fate?

Click to expand...

There is no legal instrument for them to do so. They are a part of the Ukraine and are bound by the Ukrainian constitution which has been recognized by the people of Ukraine (who voted it in overwhelmingly at the time), the international community, including Russia who guaranteed those borders. If they want a legal way to do that, then they need to follow Ukrainian law, within the Ukrainian Constitution, and if there is no avenue written in there to do so, then they need to convince the overall people of the Ukraine to vote such a method into law.

Now, OTOH, if there was abject abuse of those people in Crimea, by a tyrannical government that they then rebelled against, won that rebellion, and thereafter receive the recognition of the international community...that would be another thing. But that is not what has happened. Instead, you have another nation, and one with clear self interests in the area, who has come into those borders, occupied them, and then had the parliament of that province, under conditions of foreign armed military within their borders, vote to secede. IMHO, that is not a path we want to see the world go down in terms of legitimacy. It would invite adventurism and conquest on the barest of pretexts.

tphuang said:

You can do far more damage to Russia by causing international investors to panic on their economy without sending anyone in. Once you get a sinking rubles, crashing market in MICEX/SELT, crashing Russian bonds, that's when Putin will pay attention. You notice how fast he ruled out military action in Ukraine as soon as these things started to happen?

Click to expand...

Putin already used his military. He acted and occupies the Crimea. It is pretty much a fait accompli. An it is clear that Russia has no intention of giving it back or allowing it to revert.

Irrespective of the illegality...he has outmaneuvered Obama (not too hard to do IMHO) and western Europe. Even economic sanctions are going to be hard to stick right now, because Putin holds a economic/energy trump card.

Perhaps one day, if the US in particular gets stronger leadership who want to begin a years long process of reversing this, the energy needs of Europe can be addressed by the US and allow Europe to develop the spine necessary...without cratering themselves...to join in such effort. But that type of effort, if it ever happens, is years away and the longer it goes as a fait accompli and is accepted, the harder it will be to reverse it.

Jeff Head said:

It was not a matter of not having support. At that time, with the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was a Republic in the old USSR. When it dissolved it became its own nation and the Crimea was a part of that nation, There was not option or opportunity for them to split off.

A few years later, in exchange for the Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons within its borders left over from the USSR, Ukraine, the US, the UK and Russia all signed a treaty that in exchange for the hand over of the weapons, all the other three nations would guarantee the Ukrainians borders as they existed then...and their security.

There is no legal instrument for them to do so. They are a part of the Ukraine and are bound by the Ukrainian constitution which has been recognized by the people of Ukraine (who voted it in overwhelmingly at the time), the international community, including Russia who guaranteed those borders. If they want a legal way to do that, then they need to follow Ukrainian law, within the Ukrainian Constitution, and if there is no avenue written in there to do so, then they need to convince the overall people of the Ukraine to vote such a method into law.

Now, OTOH, if there was abject abuse of those people in Crimea, by a tyrannical government that they then rebelled against, won that rebellion, and thereafter receive the recognition of the international community...that would be another thing. But that is not what has happened. Instead, you have another nation, and one with clear self interests in the area, who has come into those borders, occupied them, and then had the parliament of that province, under conditions of foreign armed military within their borders, vote to secede. IMHO, that is not a path we want to see the world go down in terms of legitimacy. It would invite adventurism and conquest on the barest of pretexts.

Putin already used his military. He acted and occupies the Crimea. It is pretty much a fait accompli. An it is clear that Russia has no intention of giving it back or allowing it to revert.

Irrespective of the illegality...he has outmaneuvered Obama (not too hard to do IMHO) and western Europe. Even economic sanctions are going to be hard to stick right now, because Putin holds a economic/energy trump card.

Perhaps one day, if the US in particular gets stronger leadership who want to begin a years long process of reversing this, the energy needs of Europe can be addressed by the US and allow Europe to develop the spine necessary...without cratering themselves...to join in such effort. But that type of effort, if it ever happens, is years away and the longer it goes as a fait accompli and is accepted, the harder it will be to reverse it.

Click to expand...

1. Putin has not out maneuvered Obama or Europe. He is making good progress to, but has not yet succeeded in, salvaging a portion from what would otherwise have been an total and cataclysmic defeat dealt to him by the EU and Obama. He has not snatched victory from jaws of defeat. He has salvaged the a chance to perhaps fight another day from what would have been the end. But even if he succeeds in annexing Crimea, when all the windy hype and all the opportunistic political sniping has blown over, the west today is still far ahead geostrategically relative to Russia of where we were in November 2013, and Putin still far behind.

2. The us can not directlyt address European energy needs. The US can never compete on price in Europe by shipping natural gas on ships. The us may be able to compete on price in Asia because of Fukushima, but not Europe. The us can whittled down Russia's ability to set its European and Asian customers against each other, and hurt Russian economy by whittling down Russian profit margins. The us can offer fracking technology to Asia and Europe. But the us can't directly substitute Russian gas with American gas.

chuck731 said:

1. Putin has not out maneuvered Obama or Europe. He is making good progress to, but has not yet succeeded in, salvaging a portion from what would otherwise have been an total and cataclysmic defeat dealt to him by the EU and Obama. He has not snatched victory from jaws of defeat. He has salvaged the a chance to perhaps fight another day from what would have been the end. But even if he succeeds in annexing Crimea, when all the windy hype and all the opportunistic political sniping has blown over, the west today is still far ahead geostrategically relative to Russia of where we were in November 2013, and Putin still far behind.

2. The us can not directlyt address European energy needs. The US can never compete on price in Europe by shipping natural gas on ships. The us may be able to compete on price in Asia because of Fukushima, but not Europe. The us can whittled down Russia's ability to set its European and Asian customers against each other, and hurt Russian economy by whittling down Russian profit margins. The us can offer fracking technology to Asia and Europe. But the us can't directly substitute Russian gas with American gas.

Click to expand...

Completely agree with your point #1, however with point #2 the US can do everything you mentioned as well as directly compete with Russian natural gas exports. At what cost or price is another matter.