Why did the world let Putin invade Crimea?

[Satsuma]

(This probably sounds like a very naive question, but I'm always up for asking the stupid things )

So, as per the topic heading, DAK why we "let" Putin just get on and take Crimea? Why didn't we (the global community) stop him or make him leave?
Do we just not care enough? (No oil, perhaps?)
Did we not have enough resources to stop him?

I got to wondering this after a roundabout mind-drift regarding WWI and how the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand set off a chain reaction of treaties and suchlike. Presumably no such treaties existed with Crimea or we'd have been obliged?

(I appreciate "let" and "care" are very subjective/emotive terms, but I am genuinely asking DAK)

Sats

[RedSnapper]

The cost in both financial and human-life terms of trying to stop him would have been enormous. Crimea is virtually his backyard, his (massive) military resources are right there. 'We' (whoever that might be) are much further away with unfriendly territories in between.

[bungeejumper]

Crimea is virtually his backyard, his (massive) military resources are right there.

It's also a major service point for the naval vessels that need access to the Mediterranean. So it's not hard to see why it was on Putin's want-it list.

I think demography also played a part. I seem to remember hearing that Crimea was packed full of Russian speakers (who, I presume, differed from most Ukrainians in perceiving themselves as Russian or pro-Russian). I imagine that that was because of the aforementioned naval importance - Stalin was no fool - but it would have made it a tougher call for the west to deny the annexation when it happened.

BJ

[Generali]

(This probably sounds like a very naive question, but I'm always up for asking the stupid things )

So, as per the topic heading, DAK why we "let" Putin just get on and take Crimea? Why didn't we (the global community) stop him or make him leave?
Do we just not care enough? (No oil, perhaps?)
Did we not have enough resources to stop him?

I got to wondering this after a roundabout mind-drift regarding WWI and how the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand set off a chain reaction of treaties and suchlike. Presumably no such treaties existed with Crimea or we'd have been obliged?

(I appreciate "let" and "care" are very subjective/emotive terms, but I am genuinely asking DAK)

Sats

Why risk a nuclear war for half a country? I suspect that's what it boils down to.

Ask Jim Hacker about the nuclear deterrent to gain a further understanding:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2uybcd

[dionaeamuscipula]

Firstly, it is disputable whether it was an invasion, since there was prior agreement that Russian troops could be stationed in the area.

Then, there was a referendum which overwhelmingly backed separation from Ukraine by the largely ethnic Russian population.

So the Russians were quite clever about how they did it.

Voters in Western countries are generally against non-clandestine land military involvement in foreign affairs nowadays. While the reasons behind the start of WWI are complex, there was a definite feeling amongst some participants that a war in the Balkans was necessary and desirable (clearly they didn't expect the result they got). There is no similar feeling today.

There would be no way of getting any kind of agreement at the UN for military intervention. There seems to have been no great call for intervention from the Crimeans themselves.

So sanctions were chosen instead of a military option which would quite possibly have brought about a world and possibly nuclear war.

And the Crimeans were left to their fate.

DM

[Satsuma]

Thanks all for some very thoughtful and interesting replies.

Really appreciate the time taken to offer explanations and info. [Virtual] recs all round!
Sats

[UncleEbenezer]

Not just a referendum, there was history there.

Imagine yourself an ordinary Crimean. Or any other (Russian-facing) Ukrainian. You have come out of a totalitarian dictatorship into a situation of problems but also hope.

In 2004, you elect your choice of president. But soon after, he is toppled, with a suspicion of foreign agents provocateurs being behind it. You accept the new "orange" government, but then they completely fall out among themselves, and your country is a complete basketcase.

In 2010 you get another chance, and again elect your choice of president. But he gets toppled again, and this time the agents provocateurs linked to the EU and US are more than just a vague suspicion.

Is it any wonder the people turned to their powerful neighbour, as a better prospect than the anti-democratic chaos coming from Kiev and its puppet-masters?

Now, can someone explain why it's OK for Kiev to send tanks against it's own people, yet not for Damascus?

[Hardgrafter]

We let the US (read Russia) 'support' the Texans (read Russian speaking Crimeans) in their fight against the Mexicans (read Ukraine). We did nothing to stop it then. The US then Annexed Texas. Its the same story here.

We (and lots of other nations) fought and won against the Russians in Crimea 1853. Where did that get us?

[stevensfo]

In 2010 you get another chance, and again elect your choice of president. But he gets toppled again, and this time the agents provocateurs linked to the EU and US are more than just a vague suspicion.

Yes, and Barroso, the head of the EU commission, stayed strangely quiet about the whole thing, though he had been wooing the Ukrainians with an almost infantile ignorance of cold war politics.

Naturally, he disappeared very quickly, and is now working for Goldman Sachs.

It rather reminds us of Tony Blair's candidature for the post of EU President that was cancelled for personal reasons, though nothing to do with the efforts to get him brought to the Hague for War crimes. Oh no. Not at all!



Steve

[john10001]

Ukraine wasn't a NATO member and still isn't so were not protected under the NATO umbrella. Putin caught the West off guard once more just like he did in Georgia. Crimea is a special case in that it used to be Russian.

Not to say that Putin isn't a bad man but there was evidence of subversive types supporting the overthrow of a democratic government in Ukraine to one more aligned with the West and in particular the EU, causing bloodshed there in the uprising that led to these troubles.

I think Crimea is a lost cause now and part of Russia once more. This is something the West will have to accept. I don't believe we should accept Russians in Eastern Ukraine or threatening the Baltic States. Nor should we ignore the shooting down of MH17 by Russia.

When a nuclear armed state with a leader who seems to be taking his country back to the dark days of its past, and they invade a country or territory, there isn't much that the world can do, or the US, UK, NATO, unless of course we want to go to war with Russia, which means nuclear war were nobody wins.

Unfortunately assurances given to Ukraine in the 1990's haven't been respected. They gave up all their nuclear weapons as the World's third largest nuclear power with over 2000 warheads. They have since been invaded by Russia and a lot of their territory seized.

The moral of the story is that nuclear deterrents work, and NATO has largely kept Europe safe for 67 years backed mostly by the United States and nuclear weapons. When left to the EU to solve a conflict we had genocide in the Balakans. It was once again left to the UK (on the ground) and US (in the air) to solve.

[NomoneyNohoney]

...
So, as per the topic heading, DAK why we "let" Putin just get on and take Crimea? Why didn't we (the global community) stop him or make him leave?
Do we just not care enough? (No oil, perhaps?)
Did we not have enough resources to stop him?
...

This link might be of interest: it dates from the time this was happening, and towards the end explains US intervention policy
http://time.com/41490/russia-ukraine-cr ... e-mostpop2

[dspp]

MH17 isn't over, and nor are sanctions for Russia invading Crimea, Donbas, etc.

Dutch TV confronting the commander of the anti-aircraft unit which brought down Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine, on his own turf in Russia:

https://twitter.com/Nieuwsuur/status/11 ... arges.html

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/06/m ... ster-said/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... st-charges

It seems there was a reason for the precise scheduling of the investigation team's announcements re prosecutions.

- dspp

[dspp]

Charges now announced
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ine-russia

Identification etc
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... g-of-mh17/

https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/u ... ds-you.pdf

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... ivannikov/

https://www.bellingcat.com/?s=MH17