I can't tell who is the more sarcastic one here.

"How can you look at the violence and tensions, attempts to seize city governments, attempts to eliminate Russian language, etc and not see it as a ticking time bomb?"

A ticking time bomb for ethnic Russians in Ukraine is not the same as a ticking time bomb for Russia though. It would be like France invading Belgium because they feel the Walloons are being treated badly. Yeah sure, the Walloons speak French, but that doesn't justify France interfering in Belgium's internal affairs.

So, again, my question, what exactly is this ticking time bomb for Russia? Are you saying Ukraine is about to invade Russia? If not then I don't see this ticking time bomb, but please do enlighten me.

Russia was invited to help defend Crimean Russians by the Crimean government itself. How is that interference? If it's not justified then no humanitarian intervention is justified. In any case as Dejan pointed out, Ukraine-as-NATO state makes Russia indefensible, so it's a ticking time bomb in the sense that if Russia lets Ukraine become a forward base of NATO, then Russian power is destroyed and Russian security is jeopardized.

That's a long term strategic interest, not a ticking time bomb.

And my discussion was with ulytau who said: "Now Russia was forced to step in because it has a potential ticking bomb right on its doorstep."

He didn't say the Crimean government was forced to invite Russia in, he said Russia was forced to step in. Hence my calling it interference, as that was the point I was asking ulytau about before you felt you had to jump in.

Because your question is stupid. Russia had to sit back and watch as CIS states abused Russians in the Baltics and Caucasus in the early 1990s with impunity. Putin called it the biggest tragedy of the fall of the USSR. He's not going to sit back and allow it to happen again. Disorder spreads and has a contagion effect. We saw this with the Arab spring. Letting a country become a failed state with your co-ethnics being abused with impunity is a bad precedent for the restive republics within Russia as well as other border states. No European country would tolerate such things and neither would the United States. Hell the US invaded Panama and Grenada over the fate of a dozen or so people. If no intervention now, then when?

I'm not debating the justification of Russian intervention Putin. I just don't see a ticking time bomb for Russia. For ethnic Russians yes, for Russia no.

Now the idea the Russia should protect ethnic Russians abroad, although I can understand it, is a problematic one as then by the same reasoning Morocco can intervene in the Netherlands on behalf of ethnic Moroccans, China can interfere in the Singapore on behalf of ethnic Chinese etc. etc.

This line of reasoning leads to international chaos. It undermines the concept of states and replaces is with ethnic groups.

Singapore and Morocco do not border China and the Netherlands. The analogy fails. Having disorder on your border is a big and obvious security problem. That's why Syria and Israel invaded Lebanon in the 1980s. Ditto South Africa and Zaire in Angola. That's why Ethiopia and Kenya have invaded Somalia as we speak.

Having disorder on your border is a big and obvious opportunity to expand your sphere of influence. That's why Syria and Israel invaded Lebanon in the 1980s. Ditto South Africa and Zaire in Angola. That's why Ethiopia and Kenya have invaded Somalia as we speak.

Fixed it for you.

Right, disorder poses no security threat. That's why the Arab spring never happened.

I enjoy how you think everybody is an opportunist waiting to expand their influence except the benevolent and altruistic European countries, who don't want to expand at Russia's expense. No sir, unthinkable.

I haven't said any such thing about European countries, Don Quichote.

What I will say though is that the EU expands through negotiations and only with willing nation states. No country has ever been forced to join or align with the EU under threat of military intervention by European countries.

That's a bunch of garbage. The EU threatened sanctions against Ukraine for not kowtowing to their diktats and then used their cronies to oust the democratically elected government in a violent coup, bought and paid for in Germany, with training for thuggery in the Baltics. The EU annihilated Yugoslavia with brute force and then turned a bunch of the separatist republics into their bankers' vassals, which Slovenia is feeling the full effects of as we speak.

If you think that's "voluntary" and that EU imperialism is "kinder and gentler" we can dismiss all your whining about Russia as opportunism, pure and simple.

And now we've descended into conspiracy theory land. Congratulations, Putin - I'd wondered how long it would be before you dragged us here.

Yeah, the main reason that Yugoslavia was in disarray was because of the European Union. It had nothing to do with the mess that Tito left behind, or more in general the many occasions of internal turmoil ever since Yugoslavia was created. Dream on, delusional Putin.

redhouse1938: Palin, really? I thought internationally the verdict towards the likes of Palin is clear, unless, of course, you don't know jack shit about U. S. politics.

oscarjd74: The ticking time bomb is civil war: death, rape, revenge killings, massacres, torture, etc. at your frontier. Isn't it obvious how spill-over effects can destabilize the Russian Federation?

No, that's not obvious at all, JECE, in fact I doubt that any violence would spill over and even if it would then Russia is full well capable of keeping it in check within the Russian border, which is in fact exactly the reason that I doubt that it will spill over.

"No, that's not obvious at all"

Right, the Arab spring did not occur. Unrest in Poland didn't lead to unrest in Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia in the late 1980s. Nothing to see here.

EU apologists can make themselves believe anything.

"And now we've descended into conspiracy theory land."

Another 'leftist' carrying water for Brussels. What conspiracy would that be? Where did Klitschko come from? Where did UDAR come from? Please tell me why it's a 'conspiracy' to point out the *fact* that this 'movement' was formed and funded in Germany by CDU affiliated thinktanks and that Klitschko was 'irrelevant' as recent as several years ago but now he's at the forefront of the 'opposition'.

"Yeah, the main reason that Yugoslavia was in disarray was because of the European Union. It had nothing to do with the mess that Tito left behind, or more in general the many occasions of internal turmoil ever since Yugoslavia was created. Dream on, delusional Putin."

Yeah it's a 'dream' that the EU forced through the recognition of Bosnia and Croatia when they had been in the process of negotiating a settlement prior to the recognition, and that the Bosnian recognition was illegal because the secession was illegal as it did not follow the constitutional process of Yugoslavia which took into account the rights of all constituent peoples. What followed was civil war. Yeah, it's all a dream. I forgot that 'reality' is the EU is never to blame for anything and that even though a multitude of scholars have blamed the EU for their role in Yugoslavia's dismemberment, that contradicts Europeans' self-righteous narrative so therefore it cannot be true.

Tito died in 1980, what on earth did he have to do with the collapse in 1991? He didn't leave behind a mess he left behind a functional country. Yugoslavia began a process of privatization and IMF-led restructuring that created social tensions in the late 1980s. Tito had nothing to do with that.

"Right, the Arab spring did not occur. Unrest in Poland didn't lead to unrest in Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia in the late 1980s. Nothing to see here."

The analogy you try to make doesn't hold.

Firstly, If you really believe that unrest in those countries was solely caused by unrest in neighboring countries and not by all kinds of internal frictions that already existed then you truly delusional. Unless you're saying that the Russian region near Ukraine is already unstable. I am not aware of that, so in that case please refer me to a good source about it.

Secondly, Russia is a superpower with vast resources to suppress civil unrest, whereas in the examples you mention the nations to which the civil unrest spilled had weak governments that could barely control their population even before the unrest started.

But by all means, Putin, keep acting as though I'm denying that violence can spill over in general so you can argue against that and avoid having to address my point that in this particular case it is unlikely to spill over.

Russia has already had to fight multiple counterinsurgency campaigns within their own borders in Ingushetiya, Dagestan and Chechnya that have lasted for two decades, but yeah it's "easy" to quell unrest in Russia, or anywhere else for that matter. Ask the people of Volgograd about that, or Beslan. Egypt has the largest military in the Middle East, how much help was that for them during the Arab spring protests?

And unrest in Tunisia was *directed* tied to unrest in Egypt, and unrest in Libya was *directly* tied to unrest in Mali. Civil war in Iraq has produced sectarian fighters to go fight in Egypt. Civil war in Afghanistan produced sectarian fighters to go cause trouble in Chechnya.

You see when a neighboring country is awash in guns, militants, and refugees are fleeing the violence this creates a massive strain on neighbors to provide security. This point is obvious to all except the most deluded.

Russia is not a superpower. It is at best a regional power with a grossly outdated naval fleet that is only able to project power along its borders. It was only one foreign military base and that's a tiny one in Syria. Superpowers project power all over the world.

Separation is seldom the best answer.

I'll avoid commenting on the Ukrainian case for a variety of reasons.

If nothing else, you're reducing the amount of resources available (to both new states) to tackle national projects.

Where two halves of a country are having trouble functioning cohesively, setting up a confederation makes more sense.

Russia projects military power all over the world through its large arsenal of assorted missiles, economic power through its vast reserves of energy resources and political power through its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

And given the enormous size of Russia geographically, then just being able to project power along its borders already covers most of the areas where you would expect a superpower to involve itself in.

I know, it's not what it used to be in the Cold War era, but seriously, Russia is by no means "at best a regional power".

"Russia has already had to fight multiple counterinsurgency campaigns within their own borders in Ingushetiya, Dagestan and Chechnya that have lasted for two decades, but yeah it's "easy" to quell unrest in Russia"

I didn't mean to say it was easy, just that Russia is capable of it. Your examples prove my point.

"You see when a neighboring country is awash in guns, militants, and refugees are fleeing the violence this creates a massive strain on neighbors to provide security. This point is obvious to all except the most deluded."

Again, my point is not that Russia doesn't have a stake in this, just that I wouldn't call it a ticking time bomb.

Could we perhaps keep everything to one Ukraine thread? I know that I've been guilty of cross-posting in both, but it seems to be a bit nonsensical to have essentially the same conversation in two threads.

In more recent news, this is worrying.

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/03/02/3524886/thousands-march-in-pro-invasion.html

675,000 Ukrainians have entered territory of Russian Federation. But we're expected to believe that Russia has no compelling interest to defend Ukraine.

A good article that I think you should read, Putin.

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/?insrc=hpss