Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[Borek]

Introducing informal embargo on some food product happens every year or two. (Last one: a few weeks ago - alleged virus)

I believe embargo on Polish and Lithuanian pork will become formal on April 7^th.

 

[mheslep]

Well keeping their nuclear plants or even building more won't help replace gas heat in the short or medium term.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

They tried to block Polish accession to NATO (including both diplomatic channels) and (almost for sure) espionage (Afera Olina). When some criminals stole mobile phones of children of Russian embassy staff, same number of Polish diplomats was beaten by so called "unknown perpetrators" in Moscow.

Being deprived of gas by Russian aggressive negotiations with Ukraine or Belarus is a standard event. Introducing informal embargo on some food product happens every year or two.

I can understand that they are upset about NATO expansions... maybe this is the main reason for the trouble in Ukraine? This mistrust is so stupid and unnecessary, Stalin and Hitler are both dead and NATO has absolutely no interest in invading Russia; that would be like blowing up your local gas station, so that you can't go to work next day. Sigh.

(Why not invite Russia to join NATO!? Well, too late now...)

I saw how Europe was dealing with Yugoslavia crisis.
[...]
(Actually I'm not nervous about trigger happy Americans, but about pacifistic Europe)

Yeah, this was a disgrace in many dimensions. Yugoslavia acted as a buffer state between the West and the Soviet Union, but I do think that current situation is quite different (and much more severe, if things go wrong). But this doesn't justify what happened, of course.

Talking about trigger-happy Americans and Yugoslavia, do you know the British pop singer James Blunt?

In 1999, he served as an armoured reconnaissance officer in the NATO deployment in Kosovo. [...] His unit was given the assignment of securing the Pristina International Airport in advance of the 30,000-strong peacekeeping force; however the Russian army had moved in and taken control of the airport before his unit's arrival. American NATO commander Wesley Clark ordered that Blunt's unit forcibly take the airport from the Russian contingent. However, after Blunt queried the order, Mike Jackson, Blunt's superior officer, and Blunt himself refused to comply fearing greater consequences, with Jackson stating that they were "not going to start the Third World War" for Clark. The airport would eventually be shared peacefully by Blunt's unit and the Russians. [...] It was while on duty there that he wrote the song "No Bravery".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh41Wxez9PE


Had Blunt followed Clark's order, and opened fire at the 250 Russian troops... we probably wouldn't have this discussion today...

Trigger-happy generals are perfect for deterrent purposes, but insanely dangerous in a situation with two or more nuclear powers involved in a conflict, there is no second opinion once you pull the trigger...

In a full-blown war between EU/NATO and Russia there will be no winners, guaranteed.

 

[OmCheeto]

...

Talking about trigger-happy Americans and Yugoslavia, do you know the British pop singer James Blunt?

...

Had Blunt followed Clark's order, and opened fire at the 250 Russian troops... we probably wouldn't have this discussion today...

Trigger-happy generals are perfect for deterrent purposes, but insanely dangerous in a situation with two or more nuclear powers involved in a conflict, there is no second opinion once you pull the trigger...

In a full-blown war between EU/NATO and Russia there will be no winners, guaranteed.

The things we find out about years later.

...A joint NATO–Russia peacekeeping operation was supposed to police Kosovo...

According to my military training, Blunt was justified in refusing the order. Amazing that people questioned this.

hmmm...

On the other hand, Clark's image, reeks of Hollywood

(hmmm...) x 2

I should contact the Captain of my ship. He always struck me as a smart man.

...If you graduates will look up and down your row, in the next 10 years, one of you in each row will have the opportunity to change history, which is not to say that the lucky one of you will seize that opportunity, for you may not.

They come when you are tired. They are as ephemeral as a butterfly that rests on all its wings slowly moving in the corner of your eye, and when you see it, you may or may not recognize it.

If you are not prepared and do not recognize the situation for the uniqueness which it is, that iridescent moment will be gone the next time you open your eyes. There will be no record the butterfly existed. No one else will ever know history could have been altered, and history could be anything other than what it is for your children than what it is now, except you in your heart will know...

I wonder what Admiral Oliver is thinking right now.

 

[AlephZero]

I don't know anything about his military career (even after reading the hagiography on Wikipedia) but it takes a special sort of musical talent to progress (?) from "MTV Europe Awards best new act" in 2005 to "Elele Magazine Teen Idol of Turkey" in 2011.

 

[OmCheeto]

Does anyone know how to get ahold of Andre?

His opinion, like Spock's, matters more, than fact...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

According to my military training, Blunt was justified in refusing the order. Amazing that people questioned this.

hmmm...

Agree 101%, but criticism only came from "one direction", Jackson was knighted and appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath and awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his leadership in Kosovo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8odVLSfbXm8 .

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8odVLSfbXm8

On the other hand, Clark's image, reeks of Hollywood

(hmmm...) x 2

Hollywood looks like a safe playground... maybe more worrying is that the man was running for office in 2004 & 2008... could you imagine this guy as President* in current mess??

*Probably only Sarah Palin would be a less appealing alternative

I should contact the Captain of my ship. He always struck me as a smart man.

...If you graduates will look up and down your row, in the next 10 years, one of you in each row will have the opportunity to change history, which is not to say that the lucky one of you will seize that opportunity, for you may not.

They come when you are tired. They are as ephemeral as a butterfly that rests on all its wings slowly moving in the corner of your eye, and when you see it, you may or may not recognize it.

If you are not prepared and do not recognize the situation for the uniqueness which it is, that iridescent moment will be gone the next time you open your eyes. There will be no record the butterfly existed. No one else will ever know history could have been altered, and history could be anything other than what it is for your children than what it is now, except you in your heart will know...

I wonder what Admiral Oliver is thinking right now.

Thanks Om! Brilliant! :thumbs::!):thumbs:

Call the Admiral and ask him what we should do, right now, please!


PS: I never liked it, but sometimes I wonder if not MWI is true after all... the whole thing has gone down the drain several times during history... we're just a bunch of lucky bastards that happened to wind up in the right fork...

 

[lendav_rott]

OmCheeto:
"Poжawoosta"
not "l" but "w"

kakoi "w" :D, it's pronounced "po-ža:-lus-ta"

 

[Czcibor]

kakoi "w" :D, it's pronounced "po-ža:-lus-ta"

I'm really more familiar with pronunciation "pa-žaw-sta".

Anyway, maybe that's matter of not pronunciation as such but its further transcription (no, I don't feel confident about writing anything in phonetic transcription of English), here is just link to a recording:
http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson3_main.php

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm really more familiar with pronunciation "pa-žaw-sta".

Anyway, maybe that's matter of not pronunciation as such but its further transcription (no, I don't feel confident about writing anything in phonetic transcription of English), here is just link to a recording:
http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson3_main.php

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

 

[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