Ukraine has no real borders?

[JJ Joseph]

The CIA's World Factbook has a section on the flaky borders between Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, etc: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html

 

[MikeC]

The CIA's World Factbook has a section on the flaky borders between Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, etc: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html

that is the section on Ukraine - I see nothing about borders there.

However there have been reports in the last day or so that officials in the West (specifically NATO) have (finally, IMO) acknowledged the reality that Russia & the rebels are not "controlling" the border in any meaningful manner - eg http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/nov/13/ukraine-russian-border-nato-commander-video

This is, of course, no surprise - many of the battles reported a couple of months ago were at border posts where the relatively lightly armed Ukrainians stood no chance of holding their positions. And securing lines of communication and supply to Russia is just basic good military practice for the rebels.

Edit: Got it - it is under the "Transnational issues" tab at the bottom of the page:

1997 boundary delimitation treaty with Belarus remains unratified due to unresolved financial claims, stalling demarcation and reducing border security; delimitation of land boundary with Russia is complete with preparations for demarcation underway; the dispute over the boundary between Russia and Ukraine through the Kerch Strait and Sea of Azov is suspended due to the occupation of Crimea by Russia; Moldova and Ukraine operate joint customs posts to monitor transit of people and commodities through Moldova's break-away Transnistria Region, which remains under the auspices of an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe-mandated peacekeeping mission comprised of Moldovan, Transnistrian, Russian, and Ukrainian troops; the ICJ ruled largely in favor of Romania in its dispute submitted in 2004 over Ukrainian-administered Zmiyinyy/Serpilor (Snake) Island and Black Sea maritime boundary delimitation; Romania opposes Ukraine's reopening of a navigation canal from the Danube border through Ukraine to the Black Sea

Content from External Source

Transnistria is an interesting place - it is perhaps the only area where Ukraine has a choke hold on anything "Russian" - but it is also a possible causus belli if Ukraine actually does use it to apply any pressure - an excuse for Russia to mount a "real" invasion to secure a land bridge to it.

 

[Hevach]

The world of international politics does not work in ways that make sense to normal people. By which I mean, it's not like your house and your neighbor's house, where you can check the little marker by the curb and run a chalk line and find the same line every time.

Borders all over the world are unratified, or unsurveyed, or poorly surveyed (the long "straight" border between the US and Canada actually snakes back and forth all over the place because of small survey errors or inconveniences), or nonsensically defined (a few borders are defined by rivers or mountains that stopp before the countries do, and the "bite" that Minnesota takes out of Canada is because we didn't actually know where a lake ended when we made it part of our border).

It doesn't mean the borders don't exist unless either country actively disagrees with them.

 

[JJ Joseph]

It doesn't mean the borders don't exist unless either country actively disagrees with them.

This is precisely the issue. If one of the parties disagrees, the border no longer "exists". In the case of the Canada-USA example, the border has been set down, by both sides, in legislation defining every geographic point of the border, lately verified by GPS cross reference. Nothing even close to this has been done by Ukraine & Russia, which means Russia can actually grab bits of Ukraine if it has a mind to. Once war breaks out, it's impossible to ratify boundaries until one side surrenders.

 

[MikeC]

Ukraine's land border with Russia is not ill defined - it was set by the USSR and agreed by the Russian Federation.

As per your link the only area of issue was the sea border in the Azov sea - and here is no way that anyone can argue that Donetsk is part of that!

 

[JJ Joseph]

Ukraine's land border with Russia is not ill defined - it was set by the USSR and agreed by the Russian Federation.

True, but it's not been ratified (made law) by both sides. The evolution of the Soviet Union into separate countries with borders is not finished yet. It's still just a work in progress. Ukraine was reckless to engage in internal disptes before its borders were ratified.

 

[MikeC]

"Ukraine was reckless to engage in internal disptes before its borders were ratified." - that's a stupid statement - Ukraine doesn't "engage" in internal disputes - people do, and people in all countries are always having "internal disputes". Was Russia "reckless" to engage in an "internal dispute" with Chechnya while it's borders weer not "ratified" too??

This is a meaningless polemic.

Russia was happy enough with Ukrainian borders when it signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 - this who subject is just a pro-Russian nonsense to try to justify their invasion of a neighbour.

 

[JJ Joseph]

"Ukraine was reckless to engage in internal disptes before its borders were ratified." - that's a stupid statement - Ukraine doesn't "engage" in internal disputes - people do,

You're trying to deflect the issue, and we deserve a better response than that. Whenever a legal national army (e.g. Ukrainian Army) acts, it is acting in the name of the nation. You can't say that the "American people" invaded Iraq but,when the Ukraine Army attacks Ukrainian rebels, you _CAN_ say that Ukraine is attacking its own people. On the other hand, in America, the US Army is constitutionally prohibited from attacking the American people. The Ukrainian people don't have such protection and with no borders or border controls, the result is endless chaos that will go on for decades.

 

[Hevach]

Depends on how you want to play the sematics game, however, neither the original government nor the new one chose to have a rebellion. Both Ukraine and Russia had border control, Ukraine's control broke down during the rebellion, but it was not nonexistent, and certainly not before the country "chose" to pursue internal matters.

Having an unratified border with no actual dispute (Russia did not take Crimea nor dispute its standing as part of Ukraine until after the change in government - prior they paid yearly for access and made multiple statements guaranteeing the position of the border) is, on the international stage, a nonissue. A border dispute is a major incident, but Ukraine did not have a border dispute at the time.

 

[MikeC]

You're trying to deflect the issue, and we deserve a better response than that. Whenever a legal national army (e.g. Ukrainian Army) acts, it is acting in the name of the nation. You can't say that the "American people" invaded Iraq but,when the Ukraine Army attacks Ukrainian rebels, you _CAN_ say that Ukraine is attacking its own people. On the other hand, in America, the US Army is constitutionally prohibited from attacking the American people. The Ukrainian people don't have such protection and with no borders or border controls, the result is endless chaos that will go on for decades.

You selectively quoted me - and it remains the people of Ukraine who have "engaged" in this internal dispute.

Ukraine as a country has no choice - even if it did nothing - if the army did not try to suppress this armed revolt and invasion - Ukraine as a country would still be "engaged" in it.

So you set up a strawman by suggesting that Ukraine ahs a choice when it does not.

and you completely ignore my condemnation and ridicule of you characterizing this unavoidable engagement as "reckless" and do not answer why Russia was not similarly reckless for smashing the Chechen rebellion.

moreover you persist in het ludicrous myth that Ukraine's borders are not settled when they most certainly are at least in the Don basin area, despite relatively minor issues elsewhere.

It is not me who is indulging in semantics - it is you who is buying the fascist bully-boy propaganda from Moscow.

 

[JJ Joseph]

it is you who is buying the fascist bully-boy propaganda from Moscow.

Not quite, as they say. On the other hand, you appear to have bought the fascist bully-boy line from Poland (or is it NATO?). Regardless, this discussion was about the lack of a defined border, so let's try to not get too emotional. I can give one example from personal knowledge: The Russian Railways line from Kantemirovka, Russia to Chertkovo, Russia, wanders back and forth near what might be the border between Russia & Ukraine, spending considerable time in what appears to be Ukraine. Freight & people get on and off with no regard to customs or immigration. The "border" is somewhere nearby always, but nobody knows exactly where it is, and nobody has ever paid much attention to it. This is just one example of how flaky the border between Russia and Ukraine actually is. If you were a Ukrainian rebel and you wanted some fresh ammo and some cabbages from Russia, I suppose you'd just put the lot on your credit card and pick it up at the local train station (in Ukraine). For what it's worth, I apologise if I'm sounding like a "fascist bully-boy"!

 

[MikeC]

That example does not say the border does not exist - just that a historical anomaly makes the train journey a bit convoluted. There are other examples of border anomalies world wide and also all over the place!

And both the Russians and Ukrainian know full well the border is there - to the extent the Russians plan to shift the rail line so it no longer passes through Ukraine -

Currently, several short stretches of rail lines linking Moscow to southern Russia cut through Ukrainian territory for several times in Russia's Voronezh and Rostov regions.

In the town of Chertkovo in Rostov region, eastern part of the railway station lays in Russia and the western part in Ukraine, serving both Russian and Ukrainian localities

Content from External Source

the fascist bully boy is Moscow - sure everyone has an agenda, it is in Moscow that dissenting voices are actively repressed by the government, it is in Moscow that the press is government controlled, it is in Moscow that the ultra-nationalism has taken hold (Crimea ad "holy land", Novo Rossiya", "the west is against us", etc), and it is in Moscow that 1 person holds sway over the state - all these are identifiers of a fascist regime that Kiev lacks.