News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[Czcibor]

Can we not "go there", and just agree to disagree? I find pronunciation threads quite painful.

OK, you convinced me. Out of sheer terror I'm willing to accept your pronunciation.

 

[lisab]

(Actually I'm not nervous about trigger happy Americans, but about pacifistic Europe)

Czcibor, this sentence has been playing in my head for a few days now, and I think I really understand it. It really made me see things from your perspective.

I soooo hope NATO holds to its commitments.

 

[Nikitin]

-We're a bit nervous about very mild reaction of western Europe. (and their perceived willingness to sacrifice someone else to avoid going into conflict)

And I'm a bit nervous about how uncooperative/hawkish Polish and Baltic politicians act towards Russia. Don't they understand their countries will be the first ones to burn in case of war?

Seriously, I suggest to our Polish/Lithuanian friends here that we drop the "Russia evil! :(" and "Baltics/Poland will be next ! :(" attitudes. Nobody is going to invade anybody, and especially not NATO countries.

Fact of the matter is; regardless if the annexation of Crimea was justified (which it was no less than the revolts of Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.), things are how they are. Morals take a minor role in the minds of the greatest politicians and leaders - it's all about strategy and advancing one own's nation's interest. Just look at Obama: He is now bending over to Lavrov and trying to get out of this mess without looking weak, as he has little interest in Ukraine.

IMO, the interesting questions here is who is going to win the power-fight in Kiev, and whether Russia will mange to federalize Ukraine.

 

[Czcibor]

And I'm a bit nervous about how uncooperative/hawkish Polish and Baltic politicians act towards Russia. Don't they understand their countries will be the first ones to burn in case of war?

Seriously, I suggest to our Polish/Lithuanian friends here that we drop the "Russia evil! :(" and "Baltics/Poland will be next ! :(" attitudes. Nobody is going to invade anybody, and especially not NATO countries.

Yes, we do. So the point of strategy is to lead into situation in which Russia can be certain that in case any invasion it might start would face whole force of NATO.

Hawk? Russia behaved so. We would merely prefer bourgeois strategy (I hope that you are familiar with game theory)

Cooperative? Sorry, but Russia taught us that it does not understand idea of cooperation with smaller nearby states, except of vassalizing or destabilizing them.

The point of the strategy is to stop Russian aggression by making it too expensive. (both in economical and political terms)

Oh yes - we also feel as much better strategy too have to struggle for Ukrainian freedom, than loose Ukraine and wonder who is next on Russian list to be destabilized/vassalized.

Does it now make sense?

By occasion: If Russia can invade Crimea and move units to its Ukraine border, I really consider as hypocritical to be surprised that nearby countries beg to be provided with additional units by their allies. If Russia didn't like additional NATO units at its border, I think its something they should have thought about before their invasion on Crimean and behaving in a way which implied that they would like to invade other parts of Ukraine.

Concerning "Russia is evil" - that would be an exaggeration, its just that some people consider a mixture of KGB and organized crime as a bit peculiar form of gov.

 

[Nikitin]

Yes, we do. So the point of strategy is to lead into situation in which Russia can be certain that in case any invasion it might start would face whole force of NATO.

Hawk? Russia behaved so. We would merely prefer bourgeois strategy (I hope that you are familiar with game theory)

The point of the strategy is to stop Russian aggression by making it too expensive. (both in economical and political terms)

Oh yes - we also feel as much better strategy too have to struggle for Ukrainian freedom, than loose Ukraine and wonder who is next on Russian list to be destabilized/vassalized.

Does it now make sense?

It makes sense if one's world-view of Russia is from the 1980's, mixed with a healthy dose of typical eastern european nationalism.

Your argument rests upon the premise that Russia is some crazy state that randomly picks out neighbours to conquer; with Ukraine being the latest victim. This is false. Russia is not crazy, and Ukraine is not a random neighbour - it has always been a part of Russia historically, culturally and economically. So the last NATO/EU propositions to Ukraine, and attempts to drag it away from Russia are seen as unacceptable. Russia's sphere of influence has fallen to its core neighbours, and the Kremlin obviously will not allow it to shrink further. It's not in Russia's interests to annex Ukraine, but it certainly is against her interests to allow Ukraine to slip away.

So in short, the (western-sponsored) events in Ukraine provoked Moscow into securing its most important assets in Ukraine as a form of risk-management. The counter-reaction from the EU was peaceful, weak and rational. Nobody is willing to hurt serious economic interests over Crimea.

As for your strategy: I am not educated in game theory, but I can tell you that your proposition for a strategy makes no sense at all - Russia already knows how hard it can push the west without repercussions, and vice versa. Obviously there's a different world between taking Crimea, an almost completely Russian region, and attacking NATO countries with extremely hostile populations.

If anything, going cold-war2 on Russia with major economic sanctions will completely stop cooperation and put Russia into "nothing to lose"-mode. Sure, sanctions would severely hurt Russia, but it would also allow Russia to use military force on non-NATO members without fear of repercussions (nobody is going to start a nuclear war).

The west is not filled with morons - they know being hawkish on Russia is shooting themselves in the foot, as it would hurt them in both the short-mid term (loss of economic opportunities, energy troubles, strengthening ties between Russia and China), as well as in the long term (not making Russia an ally). Hence the "pacifist" response is a reasonable one.

Cooperative? Sorry, but Russia taught us that it does not understand idea of cooperation with smaller nearby states, except of vassalizing or destabilizing them.

Let's return to the real world please. Nobody is going to invade your precious Poland/Baltic as Russia has nothing to gain but everything to loose.

Indeed, I suspect the main reason so many of your politicians yap about the Russian threat is for personal gain. They know their irritating behaviour will not provoke the Russians too much, yet tough talk will certainly put the anti-Russian voters behind them.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

And I'm a bit nervous about how uncooperative/hawkish Polish and Baltic politicians act towards Russia. Don't they understand their countries will be the first ones to burn in case of war?

If this is your serious argument; nervousness and uncooperative hawkishness must be a most logical reaction, don't you think?

Seriously, I suggest to our Polish/Lithuanian friends here that we drop the "Russia evil! :(" and "Baltics/Poland will be next ! :(" attitudes. Nobody is going to invade anybody, and especially not NATO countries.

That's what we all hope for. I'm very glad that you have confirmed that Russia will not invade anybody, including Ukraine of course. Have you verified this idea with Mr. Putin?

If so – why does he deploy 40-60,000 troops near the Ukraine border?

Fact of the matter is; regardless if the annexation of Crimea was justified (which it was no less than the revolts of Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.),

Bull droppings, in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo there was a full-blown genocide going on, and no external power invaded to steal the land to make it theirs – as in the fake gansta coup of Putin.

People did die, in Kiev, shot by mass murderer Yanukovych special police, mixed up with 'specialists' from Russia.

Morals take a minor role in the minds of the greatest politicians and leaders

I think this is the main, one-way, problem in this case.

Just look at Obama: He is now bending over to Lavrov and trying to get out of this mess without looking weak, as he has little interest in Ukraine.

Weakness, groooan I'm all tears.

Personally I prefer the silliest wimp in the world, over a bare-chested megalomaniac who has serious problems separating Hollywood from reality.

So you mean that optional further sanctions are just a game without any interest whatsoever?

IMO, the interesting questions here is who is going to win the power-fight in Kiev, and whether Russia will mange to federalize Ukraine.

Interesting? Do you believe this is the normal stance for people actually living in Ukraine? Or are you missing empathy altogether?

 

[Czcibor]

It makes sense if one's world-view of Russia is from the 1980's, mixed with a healthy dose of typical eastern european nationalism.

Your argument rests upon the premise that Russia is some crazy state that randomly picks out neighbours to conquer; with Ukraine being the latest victim. This is false. Russia is not crazy, and Ukraine is not a random neighbour - it has always been a part of Russia historically, culturally and economically. So the last NATO/EU propositions to Ukraine, and attempts to drag it away from Russia are seen as unacceptable. Russia's sphere of influence has fallen to its core neighbours, and the Kremlin obviously will not allow it to shrink further. It's not in Russia's interests to annex Ukraine, but it certainly is against her interests to allow Ukraine to slip away.

Isn't that what you have just said a typical example of Russian nationalistic history? I mean for example "it has always been a part of Russia historically, culturally and economically". Let's think:
-Kievan Rus? Independent state East Slavic state, started presumably by Vikings. (If you use them as argument then actually Moscovian Rus shall be used be subservient to Kiev)
-Then Mongols from Golden Horde... (do not look specially Russian, but I think that their way of governance actually left some lasting impact on Russian)
-Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth...
-Yes, finally decline (from half XVIIth century) and collapse of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in late XVIIIth century made most of the Ukraine ruled by Moscow... finally this "always" started... Shortly after also Ukraine sea coast was captured from Osman Empire.
-The western edges of Ukraine become first time in history governed by Russia in September 1939, after joint Axis-Russian invasion on Poland (before being part of Poland it was part of Austro-Hungarian empire)

So in short, the (western-sponsored) events in Ukraine provoked Moscow into securing its most important assets in Ukraine as a form of risk-management. The counter-reaction from the EU was peaceful, weak and rational. Nobody is willing to hurt serious economic interests over Crimea.

Western sponsored? (aren't you here making risky assumption that western countries behave like Russia?) What about just local people being vivid seeing that nearby EU countries improved both economically and politically, while they tend too look like Russia, but even without natural resources.

As for your strategy: I am not educated in game theory, but I can tell you that your proposition for a strategy makes no sense at all - Russia already knows how hard it can push the west without repercussions, and vice versa. Obviously there's a different world between taking Crimea, an almost completely Russian region, and attacking NATO countries with extremely hostile populations.

This Crimean invasion did not make much sense, especially after alienating lukewarm Ukrainians, paying the cost of buying local population with expensive infrastructure projects and facing some economic damage (not even formal sanctions, just forcing EU to rethink its energy sources security and investing in some contingency plans) would be harmful for Russian interests on its own. But anyway Russia just did it...

If anything, going cold-war2 on Russia with major economic sanctions will completely stop cooperation and put Russia into "nothing to lose"-mode. Sure, sanctions would severely hurt Russia, but it would also allow Russia to use military force on non-NATO members without fear of repercussions (nobody is going to start a nuclear war).

Why are assuming that only wrist slap or total blockade possible? Just moderate sanctions, while possibility of treating Russia like North Korea would be used in case if it tries to continue the conquest.

EDIT:

IMO, the interesting questions here is who is going to win the power-fight in Kiev, and whether Russia will mange to federalize Ukraine.

We find it as interesting as whether as result of Russian colonial war in Caucasus next big Chechen target would be military or civilian. Your guess is?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Your argument rests upon the premise that Russia is some crazy state that randomly picks out neighbours to conquer; with Ukraine being the latest victim.

Well, current muddle looks pretty wacky to me.

Ukraine is not a random neighbour - it has always been a part of Russia historically, culturally and economically.

Your history lessons stops at 1750? Or do you use Stalin's good ol' revisionist history?

It's not in Russia's interests to annex Ukraine, but it certainly is against her interests to allow Ukraine to slip away.

And latest Crime_a move was a smart incitement in this direction, you think?

So in short, the (western-sponsored) events in Ukraine provoked Moscow into securing its most important assets in Ukraine as a form of risk-management.

I don't think any sponsorship was needed; Ukraine has been robbed by pro-Russian-Puppets to the brink of financial collapse. People are fed up, that's all.

The counter-reaction from the EU was peaceful, weak and rational. Nobody is willing to hurt serious economic interests over Crimea.

Weakness, groooan I'm all tears, where is my bare-chested-megalomaniac-bear-hunting-he-man!

As for your strategy: I am not educated in game theory,

So what are you educated in? Bear hunting?

but I can tell you that your proposition for a strategy makes no sense at all - Russia already knows how hard it can push the west without repercussions, and vice versa. Obviously there's a different world between taking Crimea, an almost completely Russian region, and attacking NATO countries with extremely hostile populations.

Why avoid Ukraine all the time?

If anything, going cold-war2 on Russia with major economic sanctions will completely stop cooperation and put Russia into "nothing to lose"-mode.

Is this a threat? I thought you said that Obama is weak and he doesn't care – this looks like serious stuff, almost like a bear-hunting-he-man, gosh...

Sure, sanctions would severely hurt Russia, but it would also allow Russia to use military force on non-NATO members without fear of repercussions (nobody is going to start a nuclear war).

Wow, this is a threat. I can tell you know very little about "game theory".

So, your hypothesis is that once Russia is severely hurt by sanctions – it can do whatever it wants to non-NATO countries, without fear of any repercussions? Is this something you worked out together with Steven Seagal? Because it sounds more like one of his "fights" in Hollywood, than anything connected to reality...

Indeed, I suspect the main reason so many of your politicians yap about the Russian threat is for personal gain.

Of course, there's trillion$ to make in the "yap business", a no-brainer.

They know their irritating behaviour will not provoke the Russians too much, yet tough talk will certainly put the anti-Russian voters behind them.

More advanced "game theory" in highest dimensions.

Sigh

 

[Nikitin]

Lol devil's avacado. congrats, you're on my ignore list.

Isn't that what you have just said a typical example of Russian nationalistic history? I mean for example "it has always been a part of Russia historically, culturally and economically". Let's think:
-Kievan Rus? Independent state East Slavic state, started presumably by Vikings. (If you use them as argument then actually Moscovian Rus shall be used be subservient to Kiev)
-Then Mongols from Golden Horde... (do not look specially Russian, but I think that their way of governance actually left some lasting impact on Russian)
-Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth...
-Yes, finally decline (from half XVIIth century) and collapse of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in late XVIIIth century made most of the Ukraine ruled by Moscow... finally this "always" started... Shortly after also Ukraine sea coast was captured from Osman Empire.
-The western edges of Ukraine become first time in history governed by Russia in September 1939, after joint Axis-Russian invasion on Poland (before being part of Poland it was part of Austro-Hungarian empire)

No, just fact. The duchies around Kiev were undeniably rus. While it's true the golden horde weakened them enough for the Lithuanians to take over in the 14th century, 300 years later the areas were conquered by Muscovy (another rus state) and remained there for 400 years. So please let's not pretend Ukraine (except perhaps Western Ukraine), which by the way means "border land" in Russian, does not have deep connections with Russia.

Western sponsored? (aren't you here making risky assumption that western countries behave like Russia?) What about just local people being vivid seeing that nearby EU countries improved both economically and politically, while they tend too look like Russia, but even without natural resources.

Obviously I was referring to the massive amount of EU support given to the revolutionaries in Kiev. I didn't say the orange-revolution mob didn't want to get rid of Yanukovich.

This Crimean invasion did not make much sense, especially after alienating lukewarm Ukrainians, paying the cost of buying local population with expensive infrastructure projects and facing some economic damage (not even formal sanctions, just forcing EU to rethink its energy sources security and investing in some contingency plans) would be harmful for Russian interests on its own. But anyway Russia just did it...

"buying local population".. lol.

Half of my family is from Crimea; trust me, Crimeans don't need any persuading to vote for Russia. As for how much sense it made: I agree Putin should've used Crimea as a bargaining chip, but I guess events got out of hand. At any rate while it would be better to get all of Ukraine, I'd say taking over the most strategically important chunk (by far) was a good enough deal.

As for EU and its energy supplies: It depends on how threatened the EU feels by the Russians, as the current energy deal is mutually beneficial. At any rate, it will take many many years for new pipelines/LNG terminals/green power plants etc. to be put in place.

Why are assuming that only wrist slap or total blockade possible? Just moderate sanctions, while possibility of treating Russia like North Korea would be used in case if it tries to continue the conquest.

What do you mean with moderate sanctions? Like banning obscure banks from doing business in the EU? As I said, sanctions that actually hurt (i.e. energy exports, technology imports etc.) are likely to start a ****-storm which is not beneficial for the west. I mean, it's not like Putin is going to bend over, see his faults and submit himself to intimidation.

I mean, it's OK using sanctions against countries like Iran because they can't respond and the west doesn't really care about their cooperation/power, but starting it with Russia is a different world entirely.

EDIT:
We find it as interesting as whether as result of Russian colonial war in Caucasus next big Chechen target would be military or civilian. Your guess is?

You mean Chechen terrorists? And what's the point with this comment? You think I want Russia to rule Eastern Europe again or something?

Honestly, I think ordinary Ukrainians are much better off if Ukraine stays neutral and retains good relations with both Russia and the EU. And I think a federalization of Ukraine might help achieve that, as it would seriously ease the confrontations between Easterners and Westerners and thus put the foundation for dialogue.

 

[Czcibor]

No, just fact. The duchies around Kiev were undeniably rus. While it's true the golden horde weakened them enough for the Lithuanians to take over in the 14th century, 300 years later the areas were conquered by Muscovy (another rus state) and remained there for 400 years. So please let's not pretend Ukraine (except perhaps Western Ukraine), which by the way means "border land" in Russian, does not have deep connections with Russia.

With same bending of history I could insist that Poland is a continuation of Great Moravia and use that argument as justification to rule of Czech and Slovakia. I don't see how you could use this claim of being continuation of Kiev Rus, when the actually southern part of Ukraine, where indeed there not so weak Russian ties, are caused by very recent colonization of Crimean Khanate. The parts which kept their population more stable as continuation of their prior state, are the orange part of the country.

"buying local population".. lol.

Half of my family is from Crimea; trust me, Crimeans don't need any persuading to vote for Russia. As for how much sense it made: I agree Putin should've used Crimea as a bargaining chip, but I guess events got out of hand. At any rate while it would be better to get all of Ukraine, I'd say taking over the most strategically important chunk (by far) was a good enough deal.

I mostly mean this bridge that you are going to build. And syphoning funds there in increase of salaries and retirement money.
So far already some Crimean Tatars applied in Poland for political asylum.

As for EU and its energy supplies: It depends on how threatened the EU feels by the Russians, as the current energy deal is mutually beneficial. At any rate, it will take many many years for new pipelines/LNG terminals/green power plants etc. to be put in place.
What do you mean with moderate sanctions? Like banning obscure banks from doing business in the EU? As I said, sanctions that actually hurt (i.e. energy exports, technology imports etc.) are likely to start a ****-storm which is not beneficial for the west. I mean, it's not like Putin is going to bend over, see his faults and submit himself to intimidation.

I thought about banning something more serious than now. A case when Russia lost something, but not all access to trade.

I mean, it's OK using sanctions against countries like Iran because they can't respond and the west doesn't really care about their cooperation/power, but starting it with Russia is a different world entirely.

Not different world. Just one size bigger corrupted oil rich autocratic kleptocracy, which would be indeed harder to contain.

You mean Chechen terrorists? And what's the point with this comment? You think I want Russia to rule Eastern Europe again or something?

No, I mean Chechen resistance movement. I mean for you fate of Ukraine is "just interesting", but you must remember than for me whether simmering colonial war in Caucasus would erupt sooner or maybe later may by the same logic be "just interesting".

Honestly, I think ordinary Ukrainians are much better off if Ukraine stays neutral and retains good relations with both Russia and the EU. And I think a federalization of Ukraine might help achieve that, as it would seriously ease the confrontations between Easterners and Westerners and thus put the foundation for dialogue.

So far they trusted you and gave their nukes for guarantee of territorial integrity. Why should they trust you one more time?
Actually such ideas you could have suggested before invasion, (and in that time they could have been even reasonable) now seems a bit too late for expecting good will and taking into consideration Russian aims. Now it would be harder to achieve.

By occasion - you say that Putin's Russia is not willing to "submit to intimidation". Well, honestly speaking - you should easily understand it because, it's the same feeling on the other side of the border. You actually deal now with moderate Tusk/Komorowski, instead of nationalistic and anti-Russia Kaczyński(s).

EDIT: Actually the thing that protects Russia now, its the fact that's a declining regional power and Americans may not be willing to risk too much resources, while they have to keep eye on China.

 

[OmCheeto]

Lol devil's avacado. congrats, you're on my ignore list.

"buying local population".. lol.

Don't laugh so quickly. A mouse whispered this tidbit in my ear the other day:

Ukraine orders its troops to leave Crimea, Russia offers better pay for them to change sides
March 19, 2014

The captain said he expects many of his compatriots to accept the Russian offer, especially those who consider Crimea home.

“The pay is five times that offered by Ukraine,” he said. “The pensions are five times better, and will be offered 20 years sooner.
...
The captain said the offers were set up to test any loyalty. For instance, 37-year-old officers were offered three-year contracts at $1,000 a month (in Crimea, $200 a month is a good wage) and told that at 40, they could receive $1,000-a-month pensions (again, Ukrainian pensions are less than $200 a month) and retire.
...

From a bit of research, it appears the average salary in Ukraine* is about $300 USD per month.
To put this in American terms, our average household income is ~ $52000 USD per year.
A 5 fold increase would yield the average American ~$250,000 per year.

Good grief. No wonder Seagal wants to be Putin's friend.

Half of my family is from Crimea

Excellent! I'm always interested in opinions of people on the front line of what's happening. Can you survey them, and share their opinions?

...
Honestly, I think ordinary Ukrainians are much better off if Ukraine stays neutral and retains good relations with both Russia and the EU. ...

I like this idea very much.

* An excellent article on the background of Ukraine, written this January, where they tell us not to call it "the" Ukraine. I like the writer's style. It reminds me of my own. Question, answer, question, answer, musical interlude, question, answer, question, answer, humor, serious finale.

Oh dear, what's this:
Max Fisher; "Some home news: Today is my last day at The Washington Post, and this is likely my final post."

 

[OmCheeto]

Does anyone know how the Czech Republic and Slovakia are doing?
And the Republics formerly know as Yugoslavia? (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Slovenia, and Montenegro)

It might be time that these two kids had different rooms...

Ukraine on alert amid pro-Russian unrest



skreeeetch....

What's this?

But an AFP reporter saw several hundred protesters surround a group of 15 ultra-nationalist Right Sector group members and force them to march down a steep hill on their knees in what appeared to be a humiliation ritual that drew no police response.

Never mind. My faith in humanity has been restored.

 

[OmCheeto]

Not only silly...

The silliest, and oddest thing I read today, was that Viktor Yanukovych didn't learn to speak Ukrainian until he was in his 50's.

How would you feel if Fredrik Reinfeldt had not learned Swedish until a week before he was elected?

The second oddest thing I read today, was that Yanukovych would only speak to Putin via an interpreter. Ok. Maybe that was the strangest thing, given his native language is Russian.

 

[Nikitin]

Don't laugh so quickly. A mouse whispered this tidbit in my ear the other day:

That's just the wage in Russia. Nothing to it, really. If the soldiers want, they can accept. If not they can decline and walk away. Still had no effect on the result of the referendum.

With same bending of history I could insist that Poland is a continuation of Great Moravia and use that argument as justification to rule of Czech and Slovakia. I don't see how you could use this claim of being continuation of Kiev Rus, when the actually southern part of Ukraine, where indeed there not so weak Russian ties, are caused by very recent colonization of Crimean Khanate. The parts which kept their population more stable as continuation of their prior state, are the orange part of the country.

Read my post again. Poland has had no control over Czech for 700 years or so. There is no bending of history involved - if you seriously can't even acknowledge the deep connections between Ukraine and Russia, there is no point debating you.

I mostly mean this bridge that you are going to build. And syphoning funds there in increase of salaries and retirement money.
So far already some Crimean Tatars applied in Poland for political asylum.

Refer to what you like; nobody there was bought. Retirement and infrastructure increasing to a national minimum is natural.

I thought about banning something more serious than now. A case when Russia lost something, but not all access to trade.

Not different world. Just one size bigger corrupted oil rich autocratic kleptocracy, which would be indeed harder to contain.

How exactly is the west supposed to intimidate Russia into submission? And why should they risk many hundreds of billions incase of evonomic war? So they can appease hawkisk EE politicians?

No, I mean Chechen resistance movement. I mean for you fate of Ukraine is "just interesting", but you must remember than for me whether simmering colonial war in Caucasus would erupt sooner or maybe later may by the same logic be "just interesting".

Please don't get emotional. I never said I didn't care about Ukrainians - fate of average Ukrainians have always been important for me. But it is indeed interesting how you stubbornly call people who murder innocents (including kids and women) for "resistance". Hah, this discussion is a waste. goodbye.

 

[Czcibor]

Read my post again. Poland has had no control over Czech for 700 years or so. There is no bending of history involved - if you seriously can't even acknowledge the deep connections between Ukraine and Russia, there is no point debating you.

Except ex. Vladislaus II of Hungary (member of Yagielonian dynasty) who died 1516...

Some connection for sure. Like Britain and the USA, but it would not justify American invasion on Scotland.

Please don't get emotional. I never said I didn't care about Ukrainians - fate of average Ukrainians have always been important for me. But it is indeed interesting how you stubbornly call people who murder innocents (including kids and women) for "resistance". Hah, this discussion is a waste. goodbye.

No problem, I wanted to use LESS emotional language, but in this case I'd have to apply the same standards also to Russian. And call their rule in Caucasus a state terrorism, while Russian so called filtration camps in Chechenya, refer simply as concentration camps. OK?

 

[Dotini]

Entertaining physical workouts on the floor of the Ukraine parliament, outwardly appearing to be fistfights, prepare the parliamentarians for resistance against invading Russian infantry.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...arliament-brawl-as-russia-warns-of-civil-war/

 

[ryan albery]

This whole discussion is missing the point of what the people who actually live there want to do. My sympathies for the Tartars to be sure, but if that's what the majority of the people who actually live there want to do... fair enough.

 

[mheslep]

This whole discussion is missing the point of what the people who actually live there want to do. My sympathies for the Tartars to be sure, but if that's what the majority of the people who actually live there want to do... fair enough.

Borders, like some aspects of the law, can not be set aside by a simple majority. I doubt, for instance, that you would extend that opinion to include the majority opinion in the US southern states circa 1860.

Anyway, the subject of local popular opinion has come up in this thread again and again.

 

[ryan albery]

Yeah, there's the 'law' laid down by people who don't live there and want to impose their rule, and I do respect the law, but I don't think the US civil war has much to do with what's going on in Ukraine.

But that is an excellent point to be considered.

 

[ryan albery]

a simple majority

Do you know what that, nowadays, really means?

 

[Salvador]

I had a read through this thread and all I can say is , even though the facts are about right most of the time , the conclusions are sometimes far off and extremely subjective or as forum members here before me already said , local.

stay focused but try to look from various perspectives , cheers.

 

[Dotini]

An ominous new phase in the ongoing Ukrainian revolution has been entered. Large parts of the east seem to be rebelling. The government is attempting to repress the rebellion with bullets, but the shooting goes both ways. Looks like big trouble ahead.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27008026#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

A Ukrainian officer has been killed in a gun battle with pro-Russian armed men in the eastern city of Sloviansk, the interior minister says.

Both sides suffered a number of casualties, Arsen Avakov said.

Pro-Russian forces took over Sloviansk on Saturday and have targeted at least four other cities, prompting Kiev to launch an "anti-terror operation".

 

[DevilsAvocado]

 

[russ_watters]

So this is pretty incredible:

Putin recognized for the first time that the troops in unmarked uniforms who had overtaken Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula before its annexation by Moscow were Russian soldiers...

"It's all nonsense, there are no special units, special forces or instructors in the east of Ukraine," Putin said.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/17/ukraine-interior-minister-says-three-pro-russian-protesters-killed-at-military/

Observations/Analysis (Opinions):
So he's admitted what most of us here already concluded: yes, those unmarked troops in Crimea were Russian. In stark terms, he's essentially admitted he invaded, conqured and annexed Crimea (though he still contradicts that, he's admitted to the details of it). Clearly, he must consider that issue settled, so it doesn't hurt him to drop the ridiculous pretext that the troops weren't Russian.

Then he says there are no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Hmm...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah: two sentences ago! His boldness here is remarkable. IMO, he must be after one thing with these combined statements: he's asking for our tacit approval to annex the eastern portion of Ukraine.

Which the Obama administration appears to have provided:

White House officials now say that sectoral sanctions � those that cut off a portion of the Russian economy - will not be enacted unless Russia attempts a full-on invasion of Ukraine...

When asked why the United States won�t provide arms to Ukraine to assist in quickly quashing the Russia-backed elements, U.S. officials said they don�t want to risk a violent escalation or start a proxy war with Russia. The White House lauds the restraint that Ukraine itself has employed...

Obama said that Putin doesn�t want a military conflict, either, and emphasized that Ukraine should determine its relationships with other countries.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/sanctions-against-russia-for-ukraine-actions-working-and-more-may-be-on-the-way/?hpt=hp_bn3
What I'm reading in the subtext there is Obama is saying (paraphrase) "Go ahead and take what you want, as long as you do it covertly and lie about it so I can plausibly deny I can prove it crosses my red line. Oh, and Ukraine: you should continue letting Russia do this so the situation doesn't become more overt to where my plausible deniability is eroded."

In a bit of bad reporting by CNN (same article):

Sanctions against Russia for Ukraine actions working � and more may be on the way

Sanctions imposed against Russia are working as a deterrent, President Barack Obama and other White House senior administration officials said Wednesday in a detailed defense and explanation of the U.S. response to the escalating crisis in Ukraine...

�What I�ve said consistently is that each time Russia takes these kinds of steps that are designed to destabilize Ukraine and violate their sovereignty, that there are going to be consequences,� he said. �And what you�ve already seen is the Russian economy weaker, capital fleeing out of Russia. Mr. Putin�s decisions are not just bad for Ukraine, over the long term, they�re going to be bad for Russia.�

"Working" is the reporter's word, not Obama's. Obama says what the sanctions are doing (damaging the Russian economy...if we accept the cause-effect relationship), but he doesn't say they are "working". What's the difference? The purpose of the sanctions isn't to damage Russia's economy, it is to coerce Russia into stopping or reversing its invasion of Ukraine. The Russian people are not our enemy and the goal is not to hurt them. The best outcome here would be for the sanctions and threat of more to make Putin stop so that the sanctions can be lifted, minimizing the harm to the Russian people.

This is remarkable too:

Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked details of U.S. intelligence eavesdropping, asked Putin a question during the televised call-in show, Reuters reported.

According to the report, this exchange was the first known direct contact between Snowden and Putin since Russia granted Snowden asylum last summer.

Snowden reportedly submitted his question in a video clip and it was not immediately clear if he was speaking live or if it had been recorded earlier.

"Does Russia intercept, store or analyze, in any way, the communications of millions of individuals?" Snowden said, also asking whether Putin thinks improving the effectiveness of investigations justifies "placing societies .. under surveillance."...

According to Reuters, Putin said Russia regulates communications as part of criminal probes, but "on a massive scale, on an uncontrolled scale we certainly do not allow this and I hope we will never allow it."

Putin is using Snowden for propaganda. The purpose of this question is to poke the US in the eye by claiming Russia is less of a Big Brother than we are. Snowden is not a POW: he is in Russia illegally and by his own choice. That makes this treasonous, even if Snowden is too stupid to realize why Putin wanted the question and/or was coerced into giving it. Not that we'd do anything about it: the precedent is (old, but probably still relevant...) Jane Fonda's actions in Vietnam.

 

[Borg]

The Russian Crimeans can file this under "Be careful what you wish for".

Under Russia, Life in Crimea Grows Chaotic

 

[ryan albery]

Fuggin people! It all about respect.

 

[ryan albery]

Still, the 'modern world'... much respect for the people who actually live there...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Messy, confusing, distressing and very dangerous (also for American journalists).

Published on Mar 16, 2014
Ukraine: Defending the Homeland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FF03oC5zno
http://www.youtube.com/embed/0FF03oC5zno

Published on Mar 29, 2014
Russian Roulette: The Invasion of Ukraine (Dispatch Twenty)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhbbKoSH88c
http://www.youtube.com/embed/YhbbKoSH88c

Published on Apr 9, 2014
Russian Roulette: The Invasion of Ukraine (Dispatch Twenty Two)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wetleAB1XmY
http://www.youtube.com/embed/wetleAB1XmY

Published on Apr 18, 2014
Russian Roulette: The Invasion of Ukraine (Dispatch Twenty Seven)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mywTyAhlJM
http://www.youtube.com/embed/8mywTyAhlJM

Published on Apr 20, 2014
Russian Roulette: The Invasion of Ukraine (Dispatch Twenty Eight)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNig07RtWxA
http://www.youtube.com/embed/VNig07RtWxA

Published on Apr 23, 2014
Ukrainian mayor: We detained VICE News reporter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQBEH6kgwg
http://www.youtube.com/embed/HMQBEH6kgwg

Published on Apr 24, 2014
Pro Russian checkpoint on fire in Slovyans'k, April 24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZKB6TB4Utk
http://www.youtube.com/embed/yZKB6TB4Utk

Published on Apr 24, 2014
Ukrainian Special Forces in Slovyans'k, April 24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1XEAyKpDZg
http://www.youtube.com/embed/c1XEAyKpDZg

 

[Dotini]

...confusing...

Is it really so confusing? In the spirit of idealism, fun and mischief, another color revolution has been tried in Ukraine. And now it appears to be blowing up in fire and blood.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Ehh... fun and mischief... I'm completely lost...

 

[Dotini]

Ehh... fun and mischief... I'm completely lost...

The fun part was at the beginning. But sometimes revolutions continue on long after the fun stops.

The mischief was tantamount to taunting a bear with a wooden sword.

 

[Pythagorean]

US finally getting involved?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secu...astern-Europe.-Is-it-more-than-symbolic-video

 

[OmCheeto]

US finally getting involved?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secu...astern-Europe.-Is-it-more-than-symbolic-video

They have a quiz!

I scored 10/21

According to CSM, I scored below average.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

*** CRAZY DANGER ***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7OdLRz6T1c
http://www.youtube.com/embed/p7OdLRz6T1c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGTF-RY2XrQ
http://www.youtube.com/embed/IGTF-RY2XrQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qnHEunjmVk
http://www.youtube.com/embed/4qnHEunjmVk

Sweet mother of Cheesus... CIA invented the Internet in order to control the World?

So why the h**l is Russia using this utterly dangerous western stuff??

Have they lost their freaking minds??

Russian Troops Testing Ukraine Border
"[...] from their current positions, these troops could launch a complex invasion and be inside Ukraine in less than 12 hours."

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... meanwhile in another very distant part of the universe – packed by a delicate mixture of wacky paranoia, crazy conspiracy theories, and refined mass hysteria ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOnwdmpButo


And, of course – the very sharp refusal to answer the brilliant and crucial question is THE PROOF!


Sigh... I thought this kind of deranged behavior was strictly reserved for strange obscure guys in tin foil hats... not suitable for nuclear nations...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Peace in Mississippi
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/First_peace_badge.jpg/140px-First_peace_badge.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osBZq5RQxrM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0o25M-4OV4

The seven hostages are unarmed military observers from the OSCE-countries Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic and Poland. The self-proclaimed mayor in Sloviansk, Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, said the observer team included a Kiev spy (proof; he had a map).

Ukraine crisis: 'International monitors seized' in Sloviansk

I'm going fishing...

 

[Dotini]

US finally getting involved?

*** CRAZY DANGER ***

Now might be a good time to consider your worst case hypothesis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth...sis-could-escalate-to-use-of-nuclear-weapons/
"improbable though it may seem, doctrine and capabilities exist on both sides that could lead to nuclear use in a confrontation over Ukraine. Here are four ways that what started out as a local crisis could turn into something much worse."

 

[Dotini]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27222023#
Ukraine's acting President Olexander Turchynov has admitted his forces are "helpless" to quell unrest driven by pro-Russian activists in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
------------
Mr Turchynov added: "Our task is to stop the spread of the terrorist threat first of all in the Kharkiv and Odessa regions."

My advice to Mr. Turchynov would be to forget the east, and rush all available resources to Odessa. Without access to the Black Sea, Kiev's aspirations are much diminished.

 

[mheslep]

The fun part was at the beginning. But sometimes revolutions continue on long after the fun stops.

The mischief was tantamount to taunting a bear with a wooden sword.

How does working out the politics of their own country, without threatening others countries, become a taunt?

 

[Dotini]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27268775#
"Pro-Russia supporters in the Ukrainian city of Odessa have voiced their anger a day after 42 people were killed."

 

[mheslep]

I'm curious as to why there's no good arguments posted or given by the US govt, or others, against giving the Ukrainians some non trivial weapons for defense.

 

[nsaspook]

I'm curious as to why there's no good arguments posted or given by the US govt, or others, against giving the Ukrainians some non trivial weapons for defense.

What types of non-trivial weapons, anti-tank weapons, surface to air missiles? What would be our justification for this escalation to a full-blown proxy war with Russia? I can't see how it would be in OUR best strategic interest to do that.

I was active military and in the region (Pakistan,Persian Gulf) during the arming of the resistance fighters in Afghanistan in the 1979-1981 period that suckered the USSR into invading with large forces into that land creating IMO the mess that exist today as Al-Qaeda so I have personal experience on how things can go sideways from what you planned no matter how right it seemed at the time. The easy justification then was the 'Cold War' and that we could control the few radicals that went 'off the reservation' with the weapons we supplied to them. The hard-line anti-soviet officials in our government that oversaw that operation (with long term unintended circumstances) are IMO the main voice behind the current drum beat of supplying weapons to Ukraine.

 

[mheslep]

What types of non-trivial weapons, anti-tank weapons, surface to air missiles? What would be our justification for this escalation to a full-blown proxy war with Russia? I can't see how it would be in OUR best strategic interest to do that.

I was active military and in the region (Pakistan,Persian Gulf) during the arming of the resistance fighters in Afghanistan in the 1979-1981 period that suckered the USSR into invading with large forces into that land creating IMO the mess that exist today as Al-Qaeda so I have personal experience on how things can go sideways from what you planned no matter how right it seemed at the time. The easy justification then was the 'Cold War' and that we could control the few radicals that went 'off the reservation' with the weapons we supplied to them. The hard-line anti-soviet officials in our government that oversaw that operation (with long term unintended circumstances) are IMO the main voice behind the current drum beat of supplying weapons to Ukraine.

Proxy wars are fought to avoid big wars. NATO Article 5 might very well obligate the US to engage in a big war should Russia attempt to continue in the Baltics or other NATO state as it has done in Ukraine. Therefore it is in US interest, it seems to me, to do everything it can before the fact, not after, in order to prevent the day of some big war from arriving. That is, continuing on course and arriving at the theoretical day when Russia invades, say, Lithuania triggering Art 5 and then contending, 'everything possible was done in the interest of peace' would be the most egregious lie.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own accord. Prior to the invasion Afghanistan had a relatively stable monarchy and parliament, for that part of Asia, which was relatively forward looking both for women and education. It was the Soviets that destroyed the monarchy, inserted a communist government and wrecked the country. Only after the take over did the US supply weapons to the Afghans. I say Afghans because I've never seen any evidence that those weapons made it to the Arab foreigners like Bin Laden who came to fight the Soviets.

The other day the President said, "Do people actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into Ukraine could potentially deter the Russian army?" I think he needs to set aside the snark and read some history of asymmetrical warfare: Soviet collapse in Afghanistan, US in Vietnam, US in Iraq before the surge.

Senator McCain is one of the most prominent voices calling for weapons support. I don't know that he qualifies as "hard-line anti-soviet" anymore than many Americans were back in the cold war, but he certainly was not involved in the 1980's US-Afghan operation. Neither was Brzezinski. Whatever his opinion now, then he was in power when US policy was to deter the Soviets by pulling out of the Olympics.

With this said, there is an issue which to my mind does justify a non-interventionist US policy: the Europeans must be first take seriously their own defense, both on the part of Ukraine and by their immediate neighbors. If they will not, then what, ultimately, can (or should) the US do?

 

[voko]

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own accord. Prior to the invasion Afghanistan had a relatively stable monarchy and parliament, for that part of Asia, which was relatively forward looking both for women and education. It was the Soviets that destroyed the monarchy, inserted a communist government and wrecked the country.

Was Mohammed Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan and the immediate successor to king Mohammed Zahir Shah, a communist installed by the Soviets? Cite your sources.

 

[Chronos]

Russia had an obvious interest in securing their black sea naval base in Crimea. I seriously doubt they have any other hidden agenda in Ukraine.

 

[Borek]

Russia had an obvious interest in securing their black sea naval base in Crimea. I seriously doubt they have any other hidden agenda in Ukraine.

My understanding is that substantial part of the industry producing weapons for the Russian army is located in the eastern Ukraine.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I say Afghans because I've never seen any evidence that those weapons made it to the Arab foreigners like Bin Laden who came to fight the Soviets.

[my bolding]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone]Hekmatyar[/PLAIN] was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat. Alarmed by his behavior, Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar, "It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave."

In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein."

9K32 Strela-2

Senator McCain is one of the most prominent voices calling for weapons support. I don't know that he qualifies as "hard-line anti-soviet" anymore than many Americans were back in the cold war, but he certainly was not involved in the 1980's US-Afghan operation. Neither was Brzezinski. Whatever his opinion now, then he was in power when US policy was to deter the Soviets by pulling out of the Olympics.

Afghanistan is sadly not the only alarming case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3WofUf8m_k

"Isn't that interesting... there I am..."

With this said, there is an issue which to my mind does justify a non-interventionist US policy: the Europeans must be first take seriously their own defense, both on the part of Ukraine and by their immediate neighbors. If they will not, then what, ultimately, can (or should) the US do?

Very good question (without simple answers).

I'm certainly not a "military expert", in any way, but if we look at the simple facts:

The world's 5 largest military spenders in 2013 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (US$ Billion)

Source wikimedia

Military expenditure in EU is 266 US$ Bn + USA 640 US$ Bn = 906 US$ Bn
Active military forces in EU are 1,551,000 + USA 1,423,000 = 2,974,000 personnel

Military expenditure in Russia is 88 US$ Bn
Active military forces in Russia are 766,000 personnel

We know that Putin has spent (relatively) a lot to restore the Russian military, which was basically a pile of rusty scrap after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but how far has he gotten? And Russian personnel are drafted and most have no real battlefield experience...

So who has to be afraid of whom, really??

Putin can't win a 'conventional' war, of "brave men with big tanks", against high-tech EU/NATO/US (even if it seems to be some sort 'Shangri-La' for him and his buddy Lukashenko). Hopefully he has enough brain cells left to understand this (or brave advisors who can tell him the truth).

The above analysis builds on reason and logic, but here comes the 'scary unknowns':

We know that Putin and FM Lavrov states the CIA invented the Internet in order to control the World (), and that Russians should "stay away from internet". Are they crazy for real?? Or is this just the nuttiest propaganda in modern history?? Putin has declared that Russia can survive a technical/financial blockade, no problem, it will only take 1.5 to 2 years "for the Russian military-industry complex to reorganize"...

Good luck. Sigh.

I believe we should do everything possible to avoid any military conflict with this man, since we don't know how crazy he really is. The outcome of a 'conventional' war is already given; Putin will lose with his pants down. But then big troubles and the difficult questions will arise:

What will this man – with capacity to blow the planet in half – do then?

Does he say: "I'm sorry guys, I was a bad boy, and now I have destroyed what was left after the Soviet Union, but I can handle this, no sweat, I surrender, you win and can do what the heck you like with me and my loser country."

Or, does he say: "CIA was behind this conspiracy all the time in their strive to destroy what is left of the proud and powerful Soviet Union, but we will never surrender for the western imperialists, we will fight to bitter end, there is no option – launch the missiles, NOW!"

To me caution, sanctions and negotiations is the only way to handle this mess, everything else is too risky...


P.S: We also have to have in mind that the eastern border of Ukraine is only 500 km from Moscow... imagine the activity in the White House if Russia was about to move its strategic forces/allies 500 km from Washington... they've got to TALK!

 

[jim hardy]

...imagine the activity in the White House if Russia was about to move its strategic forces/allies 500 km from Washington...

i was around 16 in Oct 1962 when the Russian missiles in Cuba became a matter of contention.
The FEC railroad yard west of Miami Springs, where i lived , filled with troop trains, flatcars with tanks and trucks and artillery, boxcars full of arms. We kids rode our bikes out there and chatted with the GI's. We could hear the military aircraft at Miami airport.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

That must have been scary jim... it was so close all 'dimensions'...

 

[Borek]

Article in NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/w...0140504&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=52243253&_r=1

Just an angle, not a whole picture. Still, interesting.