Ukraine tests new diplomatic row with Russia over Black Sea Fleet
 

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2....6558&PageNum=0

If you do not like the source, just take the reported news info from it by content and you'll be fine.

I wonder if the Ukraine really considers this to be acceptable for russia and really expects them to comply. It should be clear for every observer that no nation in place of Russia could comply with these demands without seriously damaging its military interests and also losing it's face:

Full enough of high spirits to pull the tiger's tail? Could become another cold winter in the Ukraine, eventually. Why such unwanted provocations...

They'll wait until Crimea would quit the Ukraine. Next step of Yuschenko would be total ban on Russian language in Crimea and Ukrainisation of Sevastopol. Locals are already arguing with Ukrainian authorities - they even call their Yuschenko-posted chief of city administration a GAULEITER :)

Stupid Hruschev - donated best land of all ex-USSR to Ukraine!

One must be fair ... it is as good a time as any, right after that whole Georgia thing. Western sympathy towards ex-Soviet republics is raised, and so that will produce at least some pressure on Russia not to go roughshod.

Setting the Ukraine's differences with Russia aside for a moment, is this really a provocation? International law forbids belligerent vessels to shelter in neutral ports. As long as Russian forces are occupying Georgia, the Urkraine should not be allowing any ship invovled into port. And that applies even if Russia and the Ukraine were the best of buddies right now.

Recall that the Ukraine wants notice of what ammunition the ships have before they are allowed to put in and that the Moskva may have been seriously damaged and set alight. The Moskva and at least one Nanchucka have reportedly expended SSMs.

The problem is what kind of status of forces agreements are in effect in the Black Sea Fleet bases. Somehow I don't think they'll be treated the same as a random neutral port...

Further, even if legally this can pass, imagine a similar situation with China/NK, Japan and the United States. Think the United States would have taken this well?

Finally, from what little is available, there is no sign that this new rule is linked to Georgia. That is, even if the Russians immediately move everyone out of Georgia, it isn't like this dictate will lose effect.

That makes it worse for the Ukraine, not better. All the more reason for them to take affirmative steps to protect their neutrality.

Care to elaborate on that? I really don't see the issue there. If a state is engaged in a war, and warships stop at a port to repair and rearm, the state which allowed the belligerent state to use its port is no longer a neutral. Why would it be any different if any of the above states are involved?

Umm, that's what they've been saying from the beginning. I just googled this now:


http://www.smartmoney.com/news/ON/in...10-000212-0824
KIEV (AFP)--Ukraine's foreign ministry Sunday threatened to prevent Russian warships off Georgia's coast from returning to their base in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol.


"Ukraine reserves the right...to forbid the ships and vessels that may be involved in these actions from returning to Ukrainian territory until the settlement of the conflict," it said in a statement on its website.
It was referring to warships from Russia's Black Sea fleet, based in Sevastopol.

If Ukraine allows Russia to lease their base, and presumably to use it even in a time of conflict (otherwise, that base can get very useless..., so it is hard to believe the Status of Forces agreement would not cover that), and all of a sudden you revoke this, most people consider it treacherous, and de facto non-neutral.

Not the issue. The issue of this thread is that Ukraine's move is stupid and provocative to Russia. It is obvious how Ukraine's sudden move, even if one can justify it is for neutrality, will be seen as provocative by Russia. Just as a similar move by Japan while the US is at war with China/NK would be seen as a betrayal, even if Japan can substantiate that such a decision is allowed under the Status of Forces and other agreements.. Heck, back in the 80s NZ didn't want ships with possible nuclear capability to visit their ports, and the US blew.

The timing is telltaling. The Black Sea fleet has been an issue of constant conflict since the Ukraine became independent. The arrangement how to divide the fleet and share facilities always has been a fragile compromise.

since the Ukraine depends on gas from russia, and Russia already in the past has demonstrated its willingness to use shortcuts of energy as a diplomatic weapon, I consider it to be stupoid to provoke the russiansat this time, in this manner, right in the middle of a running conflict. The Ukraine has nothing to win in this, but quite some to lose. Russia - is almost invulnerable in this row. If they make minor concessions here - then only to keep the currently high-flying balls a bit lower. I am sure that Ukraine will feel their revenge in the next heating period.

Problem is, contrary to what most media reports, the russians would have every right to increase gas prices.
Ukraine still pays far below world market levels, a leftover from USSR days.
Now if Ukraine wants to be part of the west, why not charge it the same price?

An example, if lets say Columbia gets something very cheap from the US because Columbia is a US ally, and suddenly would embrace Chavez and ally itself with him, would the US not increase prices?

Very rarely are prices for anything set by the US government. To increase them in your scenario Washington would have to get the civilian companies involved to voluntarily agree to it, and not only to the Colombians directly, but to anyone that might resell the item to the Colombians as well.

Not necessarily. Basing rights would be useful in a case where there is a conflict in which the Ukraine is allied with Russia or at least doesn't mind taking sides. But, in this case Russia is picking on an immediate neighbor of the Ukraine, so the Ukraine has every reason not to choose sides.

As for the status of forces agreement, I haven't been able to find the text of it, certainly not in English. News reports regarding it simply state that the agreement allows the fleet to continue to stay there until 2017. I cannot find any evidence that the agreement includes a committment which would require the Ukraine to get involved in a war against Georgia. If you have such evidence, please reference it directly and specifically instead of alluding to it generally.

The hypothetical US vs. China/DPRK situation is a great example of my point--that an act that is neutral is being perceived as provocative because of people's biases. In a US vs. China/DPRK situation, if Japan did not allow us to use their bases, Americans would feel dissapointment and anger because we would have expected Japan not to be neutral, but to take our side. But we would not feel provoked. Why should we? There is nothing provocative about neutrality.

In the NZ case too, again, this proves my point. The US was upset about it but never considered it a provocation. War between either the NZ or Japan and the US is unthinkable.

The Russia v. Georgia situation is different because many people already see hostility between Russia and the Ukraine, whereas there is no perceived hostility between the US and Japan (or the US and New Zealand). There are even conspiracy theories out there that the Ukraine has sold SA-5s to Georgia for use against Russia. Because people expect to see an antagonism here, they see a provocation where there is in fact just the opposite.

That is correct, I should have mentioned that detail.

In an Administration that has stated that their policy is "either you are with us or against us", neutrality can be provocative in itself.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/0...ack.on.terror/

That was just bluster on Bush's part. The actual policy statement of the Bush doctrine is "we will make no distinction between nations who harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves." Unless a state provides some sort of support or protection to a terrorist organization, the state does not provoke the US.

Note that India refused to allow its territory to be used by our military against Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet not only were we not provoked by it, but it had very little impact on our relations at all.

Today, the acceptance for a nation's "neutrality" seems to stand and fall with wether it's territory is needed for a.) energy trafficking and b.) geostrategically making use of it, or not.