| > the deal was signed and not followed up on. Yanukovich left the country (illegally, BTW), before the deal could even be followed upon. There wasn't anything for the parliament to do, but appoint an acting president and call for new elections. > can you point to where it says that annexation began before Feb 21st (the earliest I can find it mention is March)? Not in the article, no. But there are plenty of sources showing that. The Girkin interviews[1] or the Crimean annexation medal[2], among others. > I would have to admit that it was EU membership, not NATO, in this case. This is a big difference. Finland and Austria are both EU countries, but they've never been NATO members. EU is a political and economic union, not a military one. Russia's claim that Ukraine becoming a EU member poses a military threat to them is dishonest at best. > and training and funding groups in the Ukraine, and having controlled the election process in Kiev (calling afoul when Russia performed the same in the Crimea) What groups? There wasn't any paramilitary training or funding, contrary to what Russia would like us to believe. The West may have supported some NGOs, but that was perfectly legal (and acceptable) way of trying to sway the public opinion, as opposed to capturing the Crimean parliament building with commandos and herding the MPs into it in the middle of the night to force them to vote for a farce referendum[3][1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcCqrzctxH4 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_%22For_the_Return_of_Crim... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUH-A3IF3h0 |
All of the sources I can find including Girkin's own testimony put him in Ukraine in April at the earliest. Can you point to something specific?
Certainly there is a big difference between NATO and the EU. The point stands that several former Warsaw nations HAVE joined NATO. The Ukraine was only set to join the EU under extremely hostile conditions to Russia (the deal with the EU would have precluded close economic ties with Russia).
Russia's claim was that the threat was to national security - and this is true - especially if they were to lose the port accesses in the Crimea. Furthermore the Ukraine controls the pipelines that deliver gas and oil from Russia. This powers 70% of Europe and is the main export and national income of Russia. The EU deal would have severely undercut Russia's ability to negotiate oil prices, which absolutely poses a national security problem. This is common among nations; for example The United States considers the Trans-Pacific Partnership key for national security concerns and interests in the Pacific region and into the future. The TPP is not a military deal.
Academi (Blackwater) was in Ukraine as early as January (this can be confirmed with Google image searches). The NGOs you mentioned made up large numbers of the Euromaiden protestors that occupied Central Square - it's also important to name names: the support of these NGOs included the CIA's USAID. Legality is questionably relevant - at least to this conversation where we are discussing whether or not it was done. Acceptable to us, yes. Not to Russia.
Russia definitely responded with direct military force. We aren't talking about that though. We're talking about installing juntas and influencing politics. As I mentioned in an earlier comment I'm not interested in whether this was right or good or bad. Merely that it was done. It was done.