Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[DevilsAvocado]

I wonder if Germany will re-think phasing out nuclear power.

They must do something. I can't remember the source (much news lately), but I think it was on the telly they said that Germany/EU has since 2009 been planning for lesser dependency on Russian gas, and that they've built a network of 'hubs' that will allow for EU members to 'reallocate' its resources depending on supply and demand.

After the Russian-Ukrainian Gas Crisis of 2009 the EU decided that the existing external measures regarding gas supply security should be supplemented by internal provisions for emergency prevention and response, such as enhancing gas storage and network capacity or the development of the technical prerequisites for reverse flow in transit pipelines.

Current/planned Russia-EU pipelines:

That will be supplemented by the Southern Gas Corridor with a capacity to deliver 60 to 120 billion cubic metres per year.

There is also development of an Africa-Europe Energy partnership and the EU-Norway energy dialogue.

 

[Czcibor]

I'm curious as to what action PF Eastern European members think should be taken by their local governments. "Wait and see" might be appropriate on the other side of an ocean or two, but I don't think such is the lesson of history if one lives somewhere between the Baltic and Black Seas. More defense spending? Less? Regional alliances?

Lithuania just voted doubling its tiny military spending. (concerning actual moves)

If get the feeling right:
-Russian behaviour is surprising because of scope but not shocking, they behave in roughly this pattern all the time. (just not all minor hostilities is newsworthy in the USA/western part of the EU)
-We see that we're going to have a standoff with Russians anyway, just the question is whether Ukraine would be occupied already occupied or not.
-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)
-Normal idiotic behaviour of our politicians as usual (Kaczyński, biggest opposition party leader just said that he is willing to accept American troops on our soil, but not German)

 

[mheslep]

I wonder if Germany will re-think phasing out nuclear power.

I take it your point is that Germany might consider making nuclear weapons in response to an aggressive Russia? Like Israel, Germany could have zero commercial nuclear power plants and retain the expertise to make a weapon quickly. They have plenty of coal if the only concern is electric power. In any case, the question alone highlights the consequence should serious doubts arise about US military supremacy and a US willingness to use its abilities to support others.

 

[mheslep]

Lithuania just voted doubling its tiny military spending. (concerning actual moves)

...

Interesting. I'm happy to see that. If others follow suit the aggregate could be significant in two ways. First, it (several countries increasing defense spending) might deter a theoretical future Russian military move to the west if expansion was the main Russian motivation. Second, a force buildup changes the Russian (stated) calculation: aggressive behavior on their part leads directly to heavily armed nations on/near its western borders, the outcome Russia ostensibly says it does not want, where as prior to Crimea there were none.

A large caveat may be lie in the nature of pending(?) buildup. Effective military force in the 21st century has to contain some serious offensive component. Hunkering down in the bunker with purely defensive measures, e.g. the Maginot Line, was ineffective a hundred years ago and certainly ineffective today. Those would be defenders must include a way to reach out and hurt Russia as a means of defending themselves. Those kinds of weapons (i.e. missiles) are much more controversial.

 

[lisab]

I take it your point is that Germany might consider making nuclear weapons in response to an aggressive Russia? Like Israel, Germany could have zero commercial nuclear power plants and retain the expertise to make a weapon quickly. They have plenty of coal if the only concern is electric power. In any case, the question alone highlights the consequence should serious doubts arise about US military supremacy and a US willingness to use its abilities to support others.

I see your point about retaining capability for weaponry, but my point was aimed at energy dependence. Nuclear power has never been fully embraced in Germany, but after Fukushima there was public outcry to abandon nuclear energy -- and it was successful. IMO it was a reactionary and short-sighted decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany

Problem is, that makes Germany more dependent on foreign energy (yes I know they are moving strongly towards renewable sources, but those sources can't supply a thriving economy yet). So if Russia raises gas prices sky-high, essentially cutting off resources as you suggested in post #480, German households might get pretty chilly in coming winters.

This isn't just a German issue - but it brings attention to their decision to phase-out nuclear power.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
This isn't just a German issue -
...

I wonder if this is how WW1, et al, started...

I agree. It's a global issue.

Although a resurgence of imperialism was an underlying cause, the immediate trigger for war was the June 28, 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia, and international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon spread around the world.

Yay! The craziness of the OLD WORLD, is only 3 months away from being 100 years old.

Happy 100th anniversary everyone!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Lithuania just voted doubling its tiny military spending. (concerning actual moves)

If get the feeling right:
-Russian behaviour is surprising because of scope but not shocking, they behave in roughly this pattern all the time. (just not all minor hostilities is newsworthy in the USA/western part of the EU)

Gosh... have they been hostile all the time since 1991?

-We see that we're going to have a standoff with Russians anyway, just the question is whether Ukraine would be occupied already occupied or not.

You're not alone; this will be the normal position for most as long as Putin and his entourage are still in power (let's hope the "kitty Riot-generation" can take over and change Russia for good).

-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)

Maybe there something wrong with my information, but I don't understand this stance of "we-will-save-this-country-but-not-that-one"... I can understand your unease, but other than that, it just doesn't make sense. This is not 1938, when it comes to multilateral and intertwined relations in Europe/EU/EMU/NATO.

For example Sweden's two biggest banks Swedbank & SEB, has over 300 offices and thousands of employees in the Baltic states. I don't have the exact numbers, but it would be a fair guess that if these assets were to "be lost" in a battle with Putin, this would cause Sweden to go bankrupt, and this would without doubt start a "financial fire" in the whole of Scandinavia, which would impact the rest of EU severely (Greece would be a walk in the park in comparison).

Swedbank headquarters in Vilnius

And this is only two banks we're talking about... and what is the rest of EU going to say?

- Where is FM Linas Linkevičius?
- He has been captured by Putin.
- Oh what a pity, should we continue the meeting anyway?
- Of course!​

It doesn't work, does it?

There is no way we can have "a local little war" in EU and let the larger "high-rank" nations continue business as usual. This could never ever work in our times, there will be a "wildfire" of bad things happening, and the whole of EU will be involved in a matter of days, whether we like it or not.

But I can't see this happen (because this would mean Putin and his advisors are truly insane).

-Normal idiotic behaviour of our politicians as usual (Kaczyński, biggest opposition party leader just said that he is willing to accept American troops on our soil, but not German)

Perfectly normal, FM Carl Bildt has pledged to declare war if Putin attacks the Baltic states.
Problem: There is basically only FM Carl Bildt and DM Karin Enström left in our defense, after all the tax cuts... :)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

 

[OmCheeto]

пожалуйста = please

pronounced, "Poжaloosta"

that spider looking "ж" is pronounced like the "s" in "television".

ps. everything here is approximate.

 

[Czcibor]

Gosh... have they been hostile all the time since 1991?

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. (Last one: a few weeks ago - alleged virus) It lead to quite funny conclusion, that there are Polish food processing companies that fulfil EU standards, American standards... but are not good enough for Russia.

They quite intelligently played our politicians against each other by not giving us back remnants of our crashed presidential plane. (impossible during last 4 years)

Now Polish forums are flooded by paid Russian agitators.

Maybe there something wrong with my information, but I don't understand this stance of "we-will-save-this-country-but-not-that-one"... I can understand your unease, but other than that, it just doesn't make sense. This is not 1938, when it comes to multilateral and intertwined relations in Europe/EU/EMU/NATO.

I saw how Europe was dealing with Yugoslavia crisis. I saw how big problems were to send on French request some units to Mali and CAR. I saw stats in Germany concerning popularity of NATO. I saw how hard it was to implement any sanction first against Yanukovych and his friends, and now against Putin.

Problems:
-I'm quite nervous about reaction of more pacifistic societies in case of their politicians following game theory and making credible threats (by credible threat I would consider sending some not negligible amount of troops to threatened countries for "joint exercise")
-I'm nervous about coordination and willingness of not directly endangered countries to deploy more than moral support because coffins sent back home does not look good for sensitive societies.

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

Very good argument about economic motivation - but it works two ways, including investments in Russia.
It's more a feeling: there are permanent problems to organize minor sanction/expedition, while there is risk of needing to go big. Maybe when everyone is properly p***** o** and has his economic interests endangered such obstacles are immediately overcome. Quite possible, but this lack of certainty is not something that makes someone happy in a country that borders with Russia.


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

 

[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.