Putin To Use Military In Ukraine

Tyler Durden's picture

Current US foreign policy in a nutshell: Barack Obama tells Vladimir Putin "there will be costs" if Russia invades Ukraine. What does Putin do? He invades Ukraine. Only this time it's official: AP reports that the Kremlin says Russian President Vladimir Putin has asked parliament for permission to use the country's military in Ukraine. Putin says the move is needed to protect ethnic Russians and the personnel of a Russian military base in Ukraine's strategic region of Crimea.

From the Kremlin website:

Vladimir Putin made an appeal to the Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

“In connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, the personnel of the military contingent of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation deployed in the territory of Ukraine (Autonomous Republic of Crimea) in accordance with an international treaty, and pursuant to Article 102-1(d) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, I hereby submit to the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation a letter on the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the territory of Ukraine pending normalisation of the public and political situation in that country"

More from Itar-Tass

Putin also appointed Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin to be his official representative in the Federation Council when it considers his letter.


Earlier in the day, the Federation Council asked Putin to take “exhaustive measures” to protect Russians in Ukraine.


“We have urgently summoned the house Council and thought it necessary to make a statement assessing the current situation in Ukraine,” Federation Council Chairperson Valentina Matviyenko said.


She said a group of Russian senators, who had visited Crimea, had informed their colleagues about the situation in the Ukrainian autonomy and specifically in Sevastopol, the home base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.


“Today there is a real threat to the life and security of Russian citizens living in Ukraine. There is a threat to our military in Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet, and I think that Russia should not be a bystander,” she said.


The main purpose of the Federation Council’s appeal to the president is to urge him “to take exhaustive measures, all possible measures, to ensure the security of our citizens living in Ukraine, help our brotherly Ukrainian people achieve stabilisation and channel the current crisis into a civilised legal track so that the agreements that were signed by the opposition leaders and the head of state were implemented strictly,” Matviyenko said.


She noted that members of the Federation Council “asked the president to take exhaustive measures to prevent further escalation and put the resolution of the political crisis onto a legal track so that those who have grabbed power did not hurry so much and did not trample upon the rights of people and different regions of Ukraine.”


“The agreement [of February 21] clearly determined the sequence of steps. A constitutional reform first - it was supposed to be carried out with broad participation of public and political forces and regions in order to work out a consensus-based document that would be supported by all people in Ukraine. According to international practices, such serious documents should be adopted in a national referendum,” Matviyenko said.


Having expressed regret that this had not happened, she noted that “the speed with which presidential elections have been announced [in Ukraine] puts its legitimacy in question.”


“The agreement calls for forming a government of national accord, which means that it should include representatives of all political forces. In reality we see that the government, which was approved to the stomping of the Maidan, did not include all political forces and was formed from opposition parties only,” Matviyenko observed.


She also said that “the heads of regions were not summoned for consultation.” So “we can understand why there are protests in regions, except for Western regions of Ukraine,” she added.


Matviyenko called for finding “a calm, civilised and legal solution to the crisis” and stressed that “there is no need to demonstrate high political and diplomatic culture in this case because we can see that this is neither appreciated nor understood, and most importantly the security of people will not be ensured.

RIA further adds, the military use is virtually assured as it was leaders of Russia’s upper and lower houses of parliament who first called Saturday on President Vladimir Putin to stabilize the situation in Crimea and protect Russian citizens.  The leader of Federation Council, Russia’s upper house, said the use of military force in the former Soviet nation could be justified after the opposition swept into power in Kiev last weekend.

More from the RT:

In this situation it would even be possible, on the request of the Crimean government, to bring in a limited contingent [of troops] to guarantee security,” Valentina Matviyenko said.


The partition of Ukraine has become increasingly likely in recent days as heavily armed men understood to be Russian soldiers have taken control of key facilities and blocked roads in Crimea.


About 60 percent of the residents of Ukraine’s southern peninsula are ethnic Russians with the remainder of the population made up of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, who largely support the incoming regime.


The State Duma, Russia’s lower house, released a similar statement Saturday that said must Putin bring the situation in Ukraine under control.


“All available means” should be deployed to protect Russian citizens, said Sergei Naryshkin, a former head of the presidential administration and the current parliamentery speaker in the Duma.


The Crimea has been visited by a series of Russian Duma deputies in recent days, including former boxing champion Nikolai Valuev, former figure skater Irina Rodnina, and the first woman in space Valentina Tereshkova.


Pro-Russian protests calling for secession have taken place sporadically across the southern and eastern Ukraine since President Viktor Yanukovuych was toppled from power a week ago.


Meanwhile, international media has reported widespread military movements, believed to be units from Russia's Black Sea fleet headquartered in Crimea, including tanks and helicopters that began on Tuesday. Ukrainian officials have accused the Kremlin of provoking conflict and called on Russia to return all soldiers to their bases.

And then this:


The breakdown of the final vote:


Needless to say all of this is just for show: as we have been reporting for the past 4 days, Russian troops have long since been in Ukraine.

More importantly, it appears Putin is not very concerned about the impact his actions will have on equity futures when they open for trading on Sunday evening: but... but... the artificial "on paper" wealth effect. On the other hand, he certainly has a lot of concern to keep geopolitical events of the type that keep the price of crude high, always at arms length.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SWRichmond's picture

So the Russian "CONgress" says it's legal, so it's legal.

Whose example are we following?

tempo's picture

In the ultimate battle, Obama can out text, twitter and talk Putin. US wins and is the world power in nothing.

mjcOH1's picture

"In the ultimate battle, Obama can out text, twitter and talk Putin. US wins and is the world power in nothing."

Yes, the Kenyan can look like an impotent sap in multiple medias.   We have the leadership we deserve.

flacon's picture

Should be good for another 15 points up on the S&P. 

superflex's picture

When will the State Department, the White House and NATO issue a response on Facebook and Twitter?

Isotope's picture

At this point, I think that Putin should just start appending "Bitchez" to all of his official statements.

Arius's picture

Fuck you Putin!!!

You sucker!  you small minded person are starting a fire that will enflame the whole world .... God help US !

superflex's picture

Not quite.

The US and EU started this by sending agitators and money to the opposition.

AssFire's picture

Obama statement later today:

"If you like your Crimea, you can keep it"

At this point, the easiest way we can win a war is to deploy the FSA... as settlers.

semperfidelis's picture

If they don`t uphold the Budapest memorandum everything, including NATO treaty, is up in the air.

Headbanger's picture

No it's not. If anything this move by Russia will strengthen NATO


semperfidelis's picture

Former ambassador of the UK is „afraid” the US and UK will have to go to war with Russia if the Budapest memorandum is not upheld. 


Four chan's picture

"putin asks" lol



putin is the teddy roosevelt of russia.

semperfidelis's picture

If treaties are not upheld everything is up in the air. Ask Poland 1939.

semperfidelis's picture

I really do not see the Russian army in Kiev. But I guess anything is possible.

Buy phiz!

Or this:

Sarah Palin Warned in 2008 Russia Might Invade Ukraine if Obama Wins Election


FEDbuster's picture

Enter stage right the yappy little RINO, John McCain.....  the toothless, Jack Russell.

Manthong's picture

I don’t think Vlad will blink an eye before going into Kiev full tilt boogy.

There are a few real bad guy leaders that will likely not make it out under any circumstances.. that is a good thing.

The US Administration and the EU had no freaking idea what they were doing in destabilizing Ukraine.. idiots.

Muppet Pimp's picture

Muppets View: At the end of all of this Russia will only control the flow of Nat Gas through Ukraine but will lose their control over Tehran.  The US and Israel working with Iran behind the Scenes so Iran will finish off the Syria confilct with governement there friendly to Iran.  Iran will build a big nat gas pipeline to Europe, and ties will thaw with the US, so that US gets access to Iranian crude. Western oil companies make inroads into Iran and provide expertise to develop Iranian oilfields.  In the future Iran will compete with Russia to sell gas to Europe rather than russian hegemony over Eurasian continent Nat gas market as currently exists. Vlad can have Ukraine provided it is more or less bloodless and his soviet trade bloc may eventually provide competition to China for manufacturing or something.  Something like that.

Occident Mortal's picture

Read the BP statistical review.

The US doesn't need Middle East oil.

The US gets it's oil in the America's.

Most of the Middle East oil goes to SE Asia, Japan, China, India and Europe, in that order.

The biggest trade route on earth is the 5.8 million barrels a day of crude that flow from Russia to Europe.

Muppet Pimp's picture

My comment is based heavily on that very statistical review, i.e. the Nat Gas pipeline from Iran to the EU is pivotal and it will be built. My recollection of the darkest red cell on that spreadsheet is the one that shows how Russia presently has Europe by the balls for Nat Gas.  Concede my assertion on West access to Iranian crude perhaps incorrect or out of left field, however the importance of Iranian crude being priced in dollars should not be underestimated. Strategically, it seems like a good trade for everyone if the West lets Vlad have Ukraine provided they don't start slaughtering people, in return for Russia dropping support for Tehran.

Sending some economic opportunity in Russia's direction via manufacturing perhaps and letting them get their trade bloc going with some support might be just the ticket to avoid war over Iran & Syria. Iran needs to choose economic activity and prosperity for their people and get rid of the hardliners.

The west has got to put a stop to Russian influence in Iran and Syria one way or another.

superflex's picture


You're not a very good troll.

Say hi to Nuland for me.

Hugs and Kisses


August's picture

The agreement to which you refer is/was a "memorandum", not a treaty.

Bill Clinton's pals may have to take up arms to enforce his administration's agreements, but the US government has zero obligation to do so.

mickeyman's picture

Now, now, technically the British and the French upheld their treaty with Poland. They just couldn't get their act together in time to save Poland.

Suisse's picture

The US senate must ratify treaties. This cannot be enforceable in the US. 

Lost Word's picture

Still a choice, even if not a treaty.

kchrisc's picture

"...will strengthen EUROPE."

All fixed.

Socratic Dog's picture

"If they don't uphold the Budapest memo"?

If they DO uphold the Budapest memo, it's WWI redux.

This has strong echoes of the runup to WWI.  Very strong.  Tear up the fucking paper and move on, fercrissakes.  It isn't worth 20 or 40 million dead.

snr-moment's picture

In 1938 when Germany invaded the Sudetenland, noone did anything.  How'd that work out for ya?

Go Chuck Hagel GO!

snr-moment's picture

The fools. Why are they cheering?

max2205's picture

Fuck the EU!  End quote

KickIce's picture

Politician's families should be on the front lines.

victor82's picture

Putin was pissed that his Health Care plan was cancelled, and he could only afford a Bronze plan.

Taint Boil's picture



The same old US war script, some things never change.

Volaille de Bresse's picture

Yup it seems the Obozo administration still uses the old "regime toppling for dummies" book the Bush mafia bought on Fleabay. Alas (or fortunately for the balance of power on this planet), Barak now faces Putin while Bush (or whoever pulled his strings) had to deal with the impotent Yeltsin.


BIG difference... Maybe it's time to burn the book? I mean Georgia failed Syria failed Venezuela don't look too good and Ukrainia seems to be a scream.

swmnguy's picture

US Foreign policy hasn't changed since Kissinger and why would it?  Kissinger's still running it, personally and through proxies.  Look at how many people influential in DC and the media have at least one very close connection to Henry Kissinger.

Another thing I'd suggest is that maybe none of these failed states we've been so industrious in creating is a failure?  You may be misunderstanding the true goals of these Kissinger acolytes.  Their true goals will not be the stated ones.  Remember the old catchphrase, "Realpolitik?"   You can throw out everything they say, and just look for similariities that suggest a trend. 

So ignore the rhetoric and what do you see?  Could it be possible that the goal of US Foreign Policy is to surround Russia and China with a ring of fire, violently chaotic failed states?  Could it be concidence that the very states we've put to the torch are atop huge petroleum resources, or are positioned astride critical passage points?  Could it be that the US always cozies up to the most violent and unreasonable parties in every situation?  Why?  Perhaps because those are the armed loonies who simply won't come to a solution, because what we want is chaos, and what we don't want is any sort of solution?  Would it be our goal to hide behind our oceans, disrupt any competitor's chance to take a part of our power, take physical resources like oil and at least keep it away from a competitor?  Would we shrink from using a scorched-earth policy to keep the rest of the world divided, distracted and weak, for our benefit in access to resources later?

More to the point, you need to think, Would Henry Kissinger do something like this?  Ever see Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove?  Any resemblance spring to mind?

angel_of_joy's picture

You don't win, if you cannot HOLD the ground...

swmnguy's picture

That assumes that we agree on the meaning of "win."  If the goal is to create blood-soaked chaos and keep it going as long as possible, and the target is the civilian population, the ability to plant a bomb in a dumpster constitutes "holding the ground."

James_Cole's picture

That assumes that we agree on the meaning of "win."  If the goal is to create blood-soaked chaos and keep it going as long as possible, and the target is the civilian population, the ability to plant a bomb in a dumpster constitutes "holding the ground."

Yes, cheneys famous quagmire quote. These guys have plans, they are insane plans, but well orchestrated. 

Lost Word's picture

Cheney and the well orchestrated 9-11 false flag inside job treasonous US military attack against the US.

Maybe a distraction from that Truth being further recognized,

leading to the popular overthrow of the NWO plan.

The Treasonous US military will save us now?

nope-1004's picture

I can't wait to see Obamas "costs" that he threatened verbally against Putin.  Prolly just hot air.  "You're up Barry!"



lewietheparrot's picture


I liked this:

" Could it be that the US always cozies up to the most violent and unreasonable parties in every situation?  Why?  Perhaps because those are the armed loonies who simply won't come to a solution, because what we want is chaos, and what we don't want is any sort of solution?"

Also, it might be partly because 'the armed loonies' are most like us-----

the two seem to fit like hand with glove

thanks for a great line

yatikto's picture

taking a minority that's violent and elevating it into a ruling class is a classic colonization strategy.

Because they are a minority they will always need colonizers support and will nurse an inferiority complex to beat down everyone else.

mickeyman's picture

In "The Next Hundred Years", the Stratfor guy comes out and says that the US goal in Eurasia is maximizing chaos. Everything else is theatre.

Cacete de Ouro's picture

Wait until the US cunts try to destabilize Brazil to get at the resources