Meeting many of Ukraine's leading politicians tomorrow - is it next on Russia's hit-list?

Tomorrow I hope to meet, talk and listen to many of the Ukrainian MPs who are coming to Westminster. In addition the PM is making a statement at 12.30 in the House on the issue of the Crimea and the Russian agression. I shall be there.

The Ukrainians are rightly concerned that their country as a whole could be next on Putin's list, now that the effective land grab and annexation of the Crimea has taken place. Sanctions are a good start by the West, in response, but clearly this is a fluid process. My other concern is the small region of Transdneister in Moldovia. The concern is that Putin's new doctrine might extend to incorporating the Russian-speaking region of Transdniester.
A fuller assessment of the story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10721463/Ukraine-the-next-possible-flashpoints.html

Todays Ukraine debate & my question to William Hague - echoes of 1938?

In parliament today we debated Ukraine, amnd sought assurances from the Foreign Secretary that three key things were happening:
- we are doing everything diplomatically to resolve this
- that we are applying more pressure on Russia both to deescalate the situation and discourage it from doing more damage
- and generally seek answers both as to the Russian position, the consequences of their annexation and our options for the weeks ahead. The debate is set out in full below. I asked William Hague the following question:

Guy Opperman (Hexham):

In 1994 Russia and all other key countries signed the Budapest memorandum, which preserved Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the clear breach by Russia of the 1994 memorandum, and how do we avoid reaching a situation in which we all feel the creeping threat of 1938?

The reason why the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is important is this: it is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear-powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. Later, China and France statements of assurance as well. The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996. In short it is clear that Russia is in breach of an internation agreement, and its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, and in clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Full debate is here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/258/

This Ukraine "referendum" is a farce even by the standards of Putin's Russia

97% of the Crimea voted to split from Ukraine and go back to Mother Russia. But we are right in the EU to reject the findings. This is somethoing dreamt up by Putin, enforced by Putin and seekeing to solve propblems elsewhere that Putin cannot control. History teaches us that when a country has domestic problems at home, particularly economic, it creates a smokescreen elsewhere. Remember the Argentinian Falklands invasion to smokescreen domestic economic woes in Buenos Aires? Similar comments could be made about many other conflicts not least the First World War.

On the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.

A second question asked whether Ukraine should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.

Crimea is presently an autonomous republic within Ukraine, and transferred from Russia in 1954
It has:
Ethnic Russians - 58.5%
Ethnic Ukrainians - 24.4%
Crimean Tatars - 12.1%

There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.
As with all referenda it is the question which is key. Hence why the Scottish question is so fair, and the Crimea question so biased.

Last week I met with Ukrainian MP, Andri Shevchenko, in London. He made it clear that Ukrainians see the Crimea as the first step of future Russian agression. Ethnic Tatars, who make up 12% of the population, mostly boycotted the election. Sanctions are going to follow, and we have a debate in the House of Commons and a statement by William Hague tomorrow.