CLASH OF TITANS: Russia's "Stealth" Invasion of Ukraine

domenica 14 dicembre 2014

Russia's "Stealth" Invasion of Ukraine

From February 2014, the Kremlin has begun to send “unmarked” troops of the Russian army in the territory of the Ukrainian state; moreover, Russia has sent hundreds of trucks loaded with military equipments to provide logistical support to the Ukrainian insurgents in Crimea and in other areas of the country. Therefore, experts of international relations described this operation as a Russian invisible invasion, though the troops belonged to the Armed Forces of Moscow. If the Kremlin had publicly admitted that the Russian soldiers in Ukraine had been under its command, it would appear as an act of war, punishable by international law. Therefore, starting from the revolution of February 2014, these troops of “not identified” nationality have taken control of some regions of the Ukrainian state, first of all the Crimea, then annexed by Russia through a popular referendum. Only after the annexation, Russian President Putin revealed to the international press that some groups of special troops were sent to the region to allow the referendum.

The most serious military incident involving these “undercover” troops was the shooting down of the flight MH 17 of Malaysia Airlines in the Ukrainian sky. What happened, officially, was not attributed to the direct responsibility of the troops of any state, even though international investigations have found that the explosion of the airplane with 298 people on board was caused by a surface to air missiles made in Russia. Therefore, Kiev and the Western states have blamed the “undercover” troops of Moscow, while the Kremlin has blamed the Ukrainian air forces.

Doubtless, this is a new kind of war, played by states in an indirect way to weaken the opponent "Titan".

References:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21615605-now-willing-use-russian-troops-more-or-less-openly-eastern-ukraine-vladimir-putin-has

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/russias-stealth-invasion-of-ukraine-only-washingtons-war-party-can-see-it/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/crimea-referendum-sham-display-democracy-ukraine

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/18/world/europe/ukraine-malaysia-plane-questions/

1 commento:

TeresaBortolami28 dicembre 2014 alle ore 03:48
Ukraine has voted by a large majority the revocation status of a neutral country taking a new step in the entrance into NATO, thus giving a new reason to clash with the Russia of Putin. Kiev has already tried to become part of NATO in 2008 after the Orange Revolution under the presidency of Yushchenko, but resistance from France and Germany had prevented it was approved any plan. Actually it seems that the accession of Ukraine is not a priority for NATO. However, NATO could not install any base in the country as Russia said that any installation would be understood as an act of aggression. Therefore the entry of the Ukraine into NATO will therefore be a long process and full of trouble.
RispondiElimina
Risposte

A brief introduction

The political-diplomatic clashes

Are International politics always headed for growing State power in a background of “all against all” war? We obviously hope that they are not. In fact in theory International politics and diplomacy can be done for peaceful purposes or in order to improve a State condition not at the expenses of another. Nevertheless alliances or a particular geopolitical strategy also are implemented in order to isolate or to take position against a State or a group of States. An historical example about that are the attempts of Germany to isolate France through a system of alliances at the end of XIX century. In addition Germany drew up an alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy in 1882. In 1907 the answer to the will of power of Germany by France, UK and Russia was the creation of the Triple Entente that took position against the Triple Alliance.

The economic clashes

As mentioned, the clash between states can also be played on the level of economic relations. One of the leading interpreters of this policy is certainly Germany that has often led the fight on the level of economic relations: the historical periods in which it has been most evident were the '80s with the creation of the European Monetary System (E.M.S.) and in recent years with the rise of the single currency, the Euro. The E.M.S. was a monetary mechanism that forced states parties to align their currency exchange rates. It favored the German power because its currency was strong and penalized its exports in favor of states, such as Italy, which had a weak currency, and if needed, they could also devalue to encourage exports. This situation has generated strong international tensions between state parties and led to a rapid dismantling.

The cultural clashes

In a background of power politics, a state who wants to use its cultural authority has the goal to expand its sphere of influence to impose its hegemony to another civilization, not in a military but cultural way. The cultural clashes are therefore conflicts between states with different cultures and different civilizations.
The Cold War was a perfect example of this policy: the two blocks in opposition represented two very different civilizations, who preached the supremacy over the other. The creation of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO arose from the need to tie closely the states who were more similar to their own idea of civilization.