According to a statement on the Defence Ministry website that ship is still loyal to Ukraine
17:45: BBC Monitoring The Ukrainian navy's flagship, the Hetman Sahaydachny, remains loyal to Ukraine and is "proudly flying the Ukrainian flag", Rear-Adm Andriy Tarasov says in a statement published on the Defence Ministry's website. The Hetman Sahaydachny frigate is currently docked at a naval base on Crete, Greece, on the way back to Ukraine from an anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, the statement says.
There's no real way of knowing the absolute truth though
There are also rumours that the newly appointed head of the Ukrainian Navy has defected although some people are saying it may have been a forced defection
Since the Navy Chief has made his choice, all Ukrainian ships must obey his orders.
Yes I think Putin has noticed that. He constantly sends his ancient soviet era bombers to test our defences.
If only someone could invent a nuclear fusion reactor, we could solve global warming and turn Russia, Iran etc. in to third word nations overnight. They would have to sell their nukes just to pay the bills.
I agree we should develop fusion power, but we don't really any any Iranian oil anymore thanks to politics...
The "opposition" is the majority but was fragmented and displaced by a united minority. The problem was basically you have a country that is 3/4s ethnically Ukrainian with a Moscow leaning president. This is a recipe for instability given the history. Maybe partition is the only realistic option long term.
A fair number of those ethnic Ukrainians also speak Russian and are thus Pro-Russian.
As for the last elections for parliment in 2012, the Pro-Russian Parties* got 217 seats (48.77% of the seats) and 43.18% of the vote, while the Pro-Europeans/Ukrainians*** got 173 seats (38.88% of the seats) and 49.97% of the vote.
Can anyone explain how (apart from vote rigging and simialr) methods, why the Pro-Russian parties got more seats but less vote and the Pro-Europeans/Ukrainians got more votes for less seats?
However there are also 43 independents who got elected, which further complicates things.
As for the recent presidental elections of 2012, the Pro-Russians (Viktor Yanukovych, Petro Symonenko, Inna Bohoslovska) got 39.29% of the First Round and 48.95 of the Second Round while the Pro-Europeans/Ukrainians (Yulia Tymoshenko, Serhiy Tihipko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Viktor Yushchenko, Volodymyr Lytvyn, Oleh Tyahnybok, Anatoliy Hrytsenko, Oleksandr Moroz, Yuriy Kostenko, Liudmyla Suprun 56.69% of the First Round and got 45.47% of the Second Round.
I agree splitting the country is the only option...
*Party of Regions and Communist Party of Ukraine
*Fatherland, UDAR and All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"
Yanukovich is still the democratically elected President of Ukraine. If some Ukranians didn't approve of him rejecting the EU in favour of Russia, then they should vote him out at the next election.
For the US/UK/EU to back the undemocratic coup and say that Yanukovich has lost legitimacy because he took a decision that wasn't popular with a section of the population... That's like saying Tony Blair lost legitimacy and deserved to have been deposed when all those thousands of people marched to protest his decision to invade Iraq.
I also have little doubt that Western intelligence were orchestrating the Kiev protests, to get rid of the Russophile incumbent... Why else would 'Wanted' posters for Yanukovich have appeared in English, not Ukrainian or Russian?
Well to be fair, they should have known that will be promised closer ties with the EU, history has shown the opposite from the start by backing off NATO, renewing Russian Naval leases.
This was not a Undemocratic Coup though, there is a lot of support within the country, although it is really more of a power suruggle with some external support between the Pro-Europeans and the Pro-Russians.
To put it this way, Imagine if Tony Blair got all his support from Northern England, Scotland and Wales (and was a Northern Working Class Socialist) and won the election by a bitterly divided country and the Southern English Supporters of David Cameron overthew him, that is what Ukraine is like, only with external ties at play...
Maybe Ukraine would be better off if Putin had the Crimea and the Kiev government controlled the rest. Its if he takes the industrial part as well, then they will lose out. Taking the Crimea is a lot easier to justify though as it was part of Russia up until 1954.
There is speculation that Russia is hoping to repeat their Georgia strategy and provoke western Ukraine in to attacking the Crimea. So far they are not falling for it.
I think it would be better for Russian Speaking Crimea, Southern Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine left the country to leave the reminder to join the EU...
It's over for Ukraine. Time to surrender and throw themselves at Putin's mercy unconditionally, maybe they will be forgiven by the Russian bear.
Ukraine's Navy refuses orders from Kiev, defects to Russia
Saturday, 01 March 2014
Ukraine’s Navy flagship, the Hetman Sahaidachny frigate, has reportedly refused to follow orders from Kiev, and come over to Russia’s side and is returning home after taking part in NATO operation in the Gulf of Aden flying the Russian naval flag.
There has been conflicting information on where exactly the vessel is, but a Russian senator has confirmed to Izvestia daily that the frigate defected to the Russian side.
“Ukraine’s Navy flagship the Hetman Sahaidachny has come over to our side today. It has hung out the St Andrew’s flag,” Senator Igor Morozov, a member of the committee on the international affairs, told Izvestia daily.
He said the flagship is on its way back to the Black Sea after drills in the Mediterranean. “The crew has fulfilled the order by the chief commander of Ukraine’s armed forces Viktor Yanukovich,” he added
If it is true, then it explains why the Milltary is very keen to stay out of all of this, Personally they should give the Russian Regions in return for the independence of Western Ukraine...
I have not heard anyone claim that the west is about to do anything meaningful about this WWII-Cold War puppet government & invasion to protect "ethnic" citizen stuff.
Proof that a man with cojones can still laugh at the west even if most of his tanks are made of cardboard.
If it is true, then it explains why the Milltary is very keen to stay out of all of this, Personally they should give the Russian Regions in return for the independence of Western Ukraine...
The trouble with that is that not everyone in the "Russian" regions of Ukraine wants anything to do with Russia
Take for example the Ukrainian and Tatar minorities in Crimea
Yanukovych won in the 2010 presidential election which was held to be free and fair by observers. If anyone has a problem with that outcome, he or she has a problem with democracy. Going back to the 1990s, while the division of the Soviet Union was inevitable, it was in many ways a pity. In an ideal world, the liberal economic reforms would have occurred - and without undue hindrance from the west - in the absence of old conservative nationalist rhetoric.
William Hague describes the events as the biggest crisis to face Europe in the 21st Century. Yes, alas, Ukraine is formally European. But no doubt a significant factor in this crisis and the manner in which people like Hague perceive it is the never ending colonialism by EU. That should never have expanded much beyond the nine member countries of the EEC. We'd all be better off. There may well be strategic concerns of a military nature on the part of the west but in all other respects any sort of intervention including economic sanctions would be wholly wrong.
Putin has never been wonderful news but I think sometimes the west doesn't accept with gratitude that he is at least a person who they can do business with. Someone could have been in his position who was far worse for us and indeed for his citizens. And I don't think any Hague or Obama could fully understand the historical complexities of his role not being in his shoes. We shouldn't underestimate his difficulties or the extent of his sophistication.
More broadly, the constant interfering in other countries' disputes is a throwback and in marked contrast to the stances of emerging nations. For example, there must come a time surely when the tiger economies and the like are required by the international communities to do more than just make money. When others are accumulating wealth like it is going out of fashion, there should be an expectation internationally that diplomatic responsibility should go with it. Every time we all pay for war and aid to tragic victims, I should imagine they hold parties in their plush offices. Only western ego and the regrettable a la carte approach to democracy makes that possible.
The trouble with that is that not everyone in the "Russian" regions of Ukraine wants anything to do with Russia
Take for example the Ukrainian and Tatar minorities in Crimea
I admit that is the case, but that is what happens when nations are split, I understand the resentment by the local Tatars in Crimea caused by the USSR, but surely apologies, compensation and maybe getting the Tatarstan Regional Government invovled might adress this?
Yanukovych won in the 2010 presidential election which was held to be free and fair by observers. If anyone has a problem with that outcome, he or she has a problem with democracy. Going back to the 1990s, while the division of the Soviet Union was inevitable, it was in many ways a pity. In an ideal world, the liberal economic reforms would have occurred - and without undue hindrance from the west - in the absence of old conservative nationalist rhetoric.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe did call the elections fair (although they still felt improvements could be made). Really the breakup of the USSR was not really democratic and was a massive diaster, that I agree with Putin, however Western Ukraine and the Baltic States would still have gone their own way...
William Hague describes the events as the biggest crisis to face Europe in the 21st Century. Yes, alas, Ukraine is formally European. But no doubt a significant factor in this crisis and the manner in which people like Hague perceive it is the never ending colonialism by EU. That should never have expanded much beyond the nine member countries of the EEC. We'd all be better off. There may well be strategic concerns of a military nature on the part of the west but in all other respects any sort of intervention including economic sanctions would be wholly wrong.
Now here I would diagree, the EU should be used to bridge differences within Europe, including the rest for the Former USSR (including Russia) in the long run and certainly Turkey...
Putin has never been wonderful news but I think sometimes the west doesn't accept with gratitude that he is at least a person who they can do business with. Someone could have been in his position who was far worse for us and indeed for his citizens. And I don't think any Hague or Obama could fully understand the historical complexities of his role not being in his shoes. We shouldn't underestimate his difficulties or the extent of his sophistication.
Posibbly that might be the case, but Russia derserves better, somone who can reunite Mother Russia and push the country forward, while trying to get on with the West, like China...
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe did call the elections fair (although they still felt improvements could be made). Really the breakup of the USSR was not really democratic and was a massive diaster, that I agree with Putin, however Western Ukraine and the Baltic States would still have gone their own way...
Now here I would diagree, the EU should be used to bridge differences within Europe, including the rest for the Former USSR (including Russia) in the long run and certainly Turkey...
Posibbly that might be the case, but Russia derserves better, somone who can reunite Mother Russia and push the country forward, while trying to get on with the West, like China...
Thank you for having the courtesy to respond.
I fully accept your point that the election wasn't perfect - few are unfortunately - but it wasn't as questionable as earlier ones and, as you advise, was found to be broadly fair. I agree that ideally Russia would have a better leader.
On EU, we don't have the same opinion as you say. I would not have been in favour of just telling the old Eastern Bloc countries to get on with things, especially as many wanted to join EU. But I think I would have preferred some sort of informal but sharply defined economic structure connecting EU and the ex Eastern Bloc for a longer period.
Revolutionary change is often sudden in historical terms and haphazard. While fast action is often necessary to bring new systemic structures into place, I believe that there should then be a lengthy period of settlement and slow evolution. But then I tend to think that most social changes are accommodated more easily by all parties when they are not fast paced. Immigration would be a good example. Steadier might have been less fraught!
Comments
Since the Navy Chief has made his choice, all Ukrainian ships must obey his orders.
Nonsense
True but any war that does take place will just be between Russia and Ukraine
Unless, cunningly, the government of Ukraine sacks him...maybe ? Just a thought..
Edit: in fact....
Cold war! If this kicks off it's going to be very nasty and not at all cold.
The EU is hardly calling the shots at the moment. Baroness Ashton is woefully out of her depth.
I agree we should develop fusion power, but we don't really any any Iranian oil anymore thanks to politics...
A fair number of those ethnic Ukrainians also speak Russian and are thus Pro-Russian.
As for the last elections for parliment in 2012, the Pro-Russian Parties* got 217 seats (48.77% of the seats) and 43.18% of the vote, while the Pro-Europeans/Ukrainians*** got 173 seats (38.88% of the seats) and 49.97% of the vote.
Can anyone explain how (apart from vote rigging and simialr) methods, why the Pro-Russian parties got more seats but less vote and the Pro-Europeans/Ukrainians got more votes for less seats?
However there are also 43 independents who got elected, which further complicates things.
As for the recent presidental elections of 2012, the Pro-Russians (Viktor Yanukovych, Petro Symonenko, Inna Bohoslovska) got 39.29% of the First Round and 48.95 of the Second Round while the Pro-Europeans/Ukrainians (Yulia Tymoshenko, Serhiy Tihipko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Viktor Yushchenko, Volodymyr Lytvyn, Oleh Tyahnybok, Anatoliy Hrytsenko, Oleksandr Moroz, Yuriy Kostenko, Liudmyla Suprun 56.69% of the First Round and got 45.47% of the Second Round.
I agree splitting the country is the only option...
*Party of Regions and Communist Party of Ukraine
*Fatherland, UDAR and All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"
Well to be fair, they should have known that will be promised closer ties with the EU, history has shown the opposite from the start by backing off NATO, renewing Russian Naval leases.
This was not a Undemocratic Coup though, there is a lot of support within the country, although it is really more of a power suruggle with some external support between the Pro-Europeans and the Pro-Russians.
To put it this way, Imagine if Tony Blair got all his support from Northern England, Scotland and Wales (and was a Northern Working Class Socialist) and won the election by a bitterly divided country and the Southern English Supporters of David Cameron overthew him, that is what Ukraine is like, only with external ties at play...
I think it would be better for Russian Speaking Crimea, Southern Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine left the country to leave the reminder to join the EU...
Well what to you expect when 3 our of the 4 parties either support Putin or the reunifcation of Mother Russia?
The question is though, since they have decided to remain netural and their milltary ties with Russia, will they fight back?
How much of the Milltary is Pro-Russian, I know that there are strong milltary ties with Russia...
If it is true, then it explains why the Milltary is very keen to stay out of all of this, Personally they should give the Russian Regions in return for the independence of Western Ukraine...
Proof that a man with cojones can still laugh at the west even if most of his tanks are made of cardboard.
They are ignoring the fact that quite a few Russians did exactly the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers#Russian_volunteers_in_German_Army_forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.S._Sturmbrigade_R.O.N.A.
The trouble with that is that not everyone in the "Russian" regions of Ukraine wants anything to do with Russia
Take for example the Ukrainian and Tatar minorities in Crimea
William Hague describes the events as the biggest crisis to face Europe in the 21st Century. Yes, alas, Ukraine is formally European. But no doubt a significant factor in this crisis and the manner in which people like Hague perceive it is the never ending colonialism by EU. That should never have expanded much beyond the nine member countries of the EEC. We'd all be better off. There may well be strategic concerns of a military nature on the part of the west but in all other respects any sort of intervention including economic sanctions would be wholly wrong.
Putin has never been wonderful news but I think sometimes the west doesn't accept with gratitude that he is at least a person who they can do business with. Someone could have been in his position who was far worse for us and indeed for his citizens. And I don't think any Hague or Obama could fully understand the historical complexities of his role not being in his shoes. We shouldn't underestimate his difficulties or the extent of his sophistication.
More broadly, the constant interfering in other countries' disputes is a throwback and in marked contrast to the stances of emerging nations. For example, there must come a time surely when the tiger economies and the like are required by the international communities to do more than just make money. When others are accumulating wealth like it is going out of fashion, there should be an expectation internationally that diplomatic responsibility should go with it. Every time we all pay for war and aid to tragic victims, I should imagine they hold parties in their plush offices. Only western ego and the regrettable a la carte approach to democracy makes that possible.
Most Ukrainians fought for the allies after seeing what the Nazis will do to them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian-German_collaboration_during_World_War_II
I admit that is the case, but that is what happens when nations are split, I understand the resentment by the local Tatars in Crimea caused by the USSR, but surely apologies, compensation and maybe getting the Tatarstan Regional Government invovled might adress this?
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe did call the elections fair (although they still felt improvements could be made). Really the breakup of the USSR was not really democratic and was a massive diaster, that I agree with Putin, however Western Ukraine and the Baltic States would still have gone their own way...
Now here I would diagree, the EU should be used to bridge differences within Europe, including the rest for the Former USSR (including Russia) in the long run and certainly Turkey...
Posibbly that might be the case, but Russia derserves better, somone who can reunite Mother Russia and push the country forward, while trying to get on with the West, like China...
Thank you for having the courtesy to respond.
I fully accept your point that the election wasn't perfect - few are unfortunately - but it wasn't as questionable as earlier ones and, as you advise, was found to be broadly fair. I agree that ideally Russia would have a better leader.
On EU, we don't have the same opinion as you say. I would not have been in favour of just telling the old Eastern Bloc countries to get on with things, especially as many wanted to join EU. But I think I would have preferred some sort of informal but sharply defined economic structure connecting EU and the ex Eastern Bloc for a longer period.
Revolutionary change is often sudden in historical terms and haphazard. While fast action is often necessary to bring new systemic structures into place, I believe that there should then be a lengthy period of settlement and slow evolution. But then I tend to think that most social changes are accommodated more easily by all parties when they are not fast paced. Immigration would be a good example. Steadier might have been less fraught!