Russian Parliament unanimously approves use of military force in Ukraine and action is taken!

Vladimir Putin (www.kremlin.ru)

Russia has decided to take up it military rhetoric and apparently take more direct action in Ukraine while the “Kiev Prime Minister” (not elected by the majority of the Ukrainian people) seems to hope that doing nothing militarily is his group’s best option:

March 01, 2014

Ukraine says it refuses to act with force against Russia’s “provocation” in Crimea – a southern Ukrainian region with strong ties to Russia – calling on Russia to halt all military movement in the area.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsenly Yatsenyuk said Saturday his country will not be drawn into a military conflict with Russia.

Putin proposes to send armed forces

Russian President Vladimir Putin has asked the upper house of parliament to approve sending armed forces to Ukraine’s Crimea region, the Kremlin said in a statement on Saturday.

“In connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory [in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea]… I submit a proposal on using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the normalisation of the socio-political situation in the that country,” the statement said…

Meanwhile, the newly appointed prime minister of Crimea, Sergei Aksenov, has claimed control of all the region’s security forces and has asked Russia’s president for help in restoring “peace and calm.”

Putin is quoted as saying he will not ignore the Crimean leader’s appeal for help.

Aksenov was appointed by the Crimean parliament earlier this week as tensions soared over Crimea’s resistance to the new authorities in Kyiv, who took power last week.

Many of Crimea’s ethnic Russian majority view Ukraine’s new leadership as illegal, and have welcomed what they view as Russian support. http://www.voanews.com/content/ukraine-refuses-to-act-against-russian-provocation/1861937.html

March 1, 2014

(CNN) — Russia’s upper house of parliament voted Saturday to approve the use of military force in Ukraine. The vote was unanimous. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

March 1, 2014

Ukraine says Russia has invaded, Obama appeals to Putin

March 1, 2014

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — As Russian-backed armed forces effectively seized control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula on Saturday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia requested —and received — authorization from the Russian Senate to use military force in Ukraine.

The actions signaled publicly for the first time the Kremlin’s readiness to intervene militarily in Ukraine, and it served as a blunt response to President Obama, who just hours earlier pointedly warned Russia to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Within hours after receiving Mr. Putin’srequest, Russia’s upper house of parliament, the Federation Council, voted to approve it, after a debate that warned of the apocalyptic consequences of failing to stop a fascist threat from spreading to Russia’s borders. The lawmakers direct considerable fury at President Obama and others in the West they accused of fomenting the upheaval in Ukraine. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0

The situation in Ukraine is tense and since Russia already has a military presence in Ukraine, I did not expect it to give it up for nothing. Vladimir Putin has never wanted Ukraine to join the European Union, and the current crisis exists primarily because of that.

The position of Kiev’s Arsenly Yatsenyuk is an interesting one and reminds me a bit of Mahatma Ghandi’s approach. Arsenly Yatsenyuk must know that his side has no chance against a military invasion from Russia, and presumably he hopes that not responding will reduce the tendency of the Russians to invade more. Of course, this approach did not work well for Hungary or the old Czechoslovakia in the 1960s. We will see if it will work now. The Ukrainians need our prayers.

Now, there are some reasons why Russia might hesitate to invade, but also reasons why it may feel that it must. Notice for example the following:

With tensions rising in Crimea and pro-Russian forces controlling the peninsula’s main airports, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has called on Russia to “not violate the Budapest Memorandum.” So what is the “Budapest Memorandum” and what does it have to do with Crimea?What exactly is the “Budapest Memorandum”?The “Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances” is a diplomatic memorandumthat was signed in December 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises.In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. They did so by applying the principles of territorial integrity and nonintervention in 1975 Helsinki Final Act — a Cold War-era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union — to an independent post-Soviet Ukraine.Which principles in the Helsinki Final Act, reiterated in the “Budapest Memorandum,” are relevant to the current situation in the Crimea?

In the “Budapest Memorandum,” Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged that none of them would ever use economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine to their own interest.

They specifically pledged they would refrain from making each other’s territory the object of military occupation or engage in other uses of force in violation of international law.

All sides agreed that no such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal and that the signatories would “consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.”

Is there anything legally binding about the “Budapest Memorandum” regarding Russia’s obligations to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity?

“That’s actually a much more complex question than it may sound. It is binding in international law, but that doesn’t mean it has any means of enforcement,” says Barry Kellman is a professor of law and director of the International Weapons Control Center at DePaul University’s College of Law.

“The ‘Budapest Memorandum’ follows the Helsinki Final Act and essentially reiterates its provisions. There are confidence building measures and then a host of other broader obligations – primarily negative obligations. Don’t interfere.”

Kellman concludes that there are a host of other sources of international law that oblige Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity — including the provisions of the CSCE treaty and the UN Charter. http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-explainer-budapest-memorandum/25280502.html

Some have suggested that the above agreement means that Ukraine cannot be partitioned. Yet, Russia may feel that it thus obligates it to take the WHOLE OF UKRAINE. Russia’s position seems to be that the elected president of Ukraine was ousted by an illegal, anti-Russian coup, hence Russia needs to restore the nation whole. Vladimir Putin has likely concluded that he has taken the proper legal steps in Russia, and perhaps internationally, to do what he is doing. Others will likely strongly disagree, but I suspect that Vladimir Putin already figured that would be the case.

It may be that because of Russian actions, a new treaty will be negotiated that will possibly partition Ukraine. Russia might accept that, but it really wants all of Ukraine.

Some have suggested that the Budapest Memorandum obligates the UK and USA and perhaps others to help Ukraine militarily related to an invasion by Russia. While the USA and UK have made various statements, actually threatening to fight Russia in a war has not been directly stated. Notice also the following:

Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) — Tension dramatically mounted in Ukraine’s Crimea region Friday as its ambassador to the United Nations warned Russia against any further violation of its territorial borders, a warning that came as the United States urged Russia to pull back from the region or face possible consequences.

“We are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside Ukraine,” U.S. President Barack Obama said in televised comments from the White House.

“…It would be a clear violation of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine and of international laws.”

Obama said any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be “deeply destabilizing, and he warned “the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

Even without Western support, some in support of Kiev will likely fight as the following suggests:

March 1, 2014

The Russian mobilization was cited by American military and intelligence analysts as the basis for Mr. Obama’s warning that “there will be costs” if Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty.

On Saturday morning, there was no immediate response from the White House; officials had acknowledged on Friday that Washington’s options were limited.

There was also limited response from Europe. Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, issued a statement saying that Russia’s actions in Crimea were “contrary to international law and the principles of European security.”

Mr. Yanukovych’s refusal, under Russian pressure, to sign new political and free trade agreements with the European Union last fall set off the civil unrest that last month led to the deaths of more than 80 people, and ultimately unraveled his presidency.

While Western leaders grappled for a response on Saturday, a Ukrainian military official in Crimea said Ukrainian soldiers had been told to “open fire” if they came under attack by Russia troops or others. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/ukraine.html

Vladimir Putin has tended to disrespect Barack Obama and likely has calculated that the cost for what he is doing is less than the long term costs of not taking the actions he has thus taken. Barack Obama does not want to go to war against Russia for Ukraine. The pride of the power of the USA is being broken (cf. Leviticus 26:19) and the events in the Ukraine are consistent with that.

The final time of the Gentiles is getting closer.

The propaganda war is also happening on both sides of this. While the West has highlighted protests in Kiev for the new government there, Russia is reporting about protestors in favor of Russia and who are opposed to the Kiev government in eastern Ukraine:

Thousands of pro-Russian demonstrators across eastern Ukraine and Crimea are protesting against the new government, with administration buildings being seized in several cities. Gunshots have been reported as anti- and pro-Maidan protesters clash.

Protesters in Kharkov and Donetsk stormed local government offices and removed Ukrainian flags, replacing them with the Russian tricolor on Saturday.

Between 7,000 to 10,000 demonstrators gathered in the center of Donetsk, a large industrial city in eastern Ukraine. Reportedly, protesters seized the regional administration building. While a group of demonstrators were storming the building from the central entrance, a crowd in Lenin Square in front of it kept chanting “Russia!”

The participants of the rally are demanding to hold a referendum on the future of the region, and particularly, on the status of Russian language. http://rt.com/news/donetsk-kharkov-ukraine-protest-365/

Thus, there are various ones in the east of Ukraine that are not in agreement with those in the western part. This has long been the case, but it seems now some in the east are getting more vocal.

The Bible does tell of something that will develop in the future that is a type of Eurasian Union. The late Herbert W. Armstrong even used that term. And that has been a goal of Vladimir Putin.

As I have written before, Vladimir Putin will use military action, and not just the threat of it, if he feels this will further his agenda without excessive international cost. It seems that this has started.

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

The Eurasian Union, the Kings of the East, and Bible Prophecy Is there a Eurasian union that will be formed? Is one being formed right now? Are any leaders working on that in the 21st century? Does the Bible teach that there will be a Eurasian union? If some type of Eurasian union is formed, who might it benefit and who will it destroy? A related video would be Is The Eurasian Union Rising?
Is Russia the King of the North? Some claim it is. But what does the Bible teach? Here is a link to a video, also titled Is Russia the King of the North?
Russia and Ukraine: Their Origins and Prophesied Future Where do the Russians come from? What about those in the Ukraine? What is prophesied for Russia and its allies? What will they do to the Europeans that supported the Beast in the end?
When Will the Great Tribulation Begin? 2014, 2015, or 2016? Can the Great Tribulation begin today? What happens before the Great Tribulation in the “beginning of sorrows”? What happens in the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord? Is this the time of the Gentiles? When is the earliest that the Great Tribulation can begin? What is the Day of the Lord? Who are the 144,000? Here is a version of the article in the Spanish language: ¿Puede comenzar la Gran Tribulación en 2013 o 2014? ¿Es el Tiempo de los Gentiles? You can also see the English language video The Great Tribulation Will Not Begin Before 2017.
Blood Moons and Prophecy There are four ‘blood moons’ expected in 2014 and 2015. Do they signal the Day of the Lord or the return of Jesus Christ? A related YouTube video is also available: Blood Moons, Prophecy, 2014, and 2015.
Prophecies of Barack Obama? Reasons why Barack Obama is apocalyptic and reasons why Barack Obama is not the Antichrist. This article includes many biblical and non-biblical prophecies, from around the world, that seem to discuss Barack Obama. Did Nostradamus predict Barack Obama dealing with the Antichrist? Might Barack Obama set the stage for the kings of the North and South as at least one Shiite prophecy suggests? Read it and decide for yourself if President Obama seems to be fulfilling various prophecies. Watch also the YouTube Barack Obama and the State of the Apocalypse.