Ukraine Crisis

[Paleobrazilian]

Seek a mental health professional.

I, actually, live in Mexico. When sh**t hits the fan we will, as usual, send a crappy squadron of poor folk to the Pacific to express our support, and be done with it. It is the rest of you who will need help.

Reclaiming a territory that had been part of Russia for over two centuries is a slippery slope to invading the United States?

Actually only 1784-1954.

And the United States is supposed to take action to defend the capricious border changes set by Nikolai Khrushchev?

You swore in a treaty to do this - in exchange for taking Ukrainian nukes. Do not want to do it? Give back the nukes.

I didn't sign anything, and any such agreement requiring American taxpayers to defend a nation that does not serve their national defense isn't worth the paper it was written on. Do not hold me accountable for the Ukrainian leadership at the time being foolish enough to rely on the West for their defense when they had an adequate deterrent.


As an aside, since you seem convinced that this is 1938 redux, what countries do you suggest are next on the chopping block? Obviously Czechoslovakia and Poland were just the beginning for Godwin's dictator, and you can't argue that the Low Countries, Norway, Denmark, France, North Africa, and Russia had all been part of the German Empire prior to its dissolution.

As for the Russian dictator.... If you think he stops at Ukraine, I have 75 Brooklyn bridges in the Bronx to sell you.

Again, you put out this vague warning but do not point out any plausible places that would be next on Russia's list.

Actually, there are many reasonable guesses. Georgia (strategic place, dared to defy Putin before), Belarus (well, that would be a formality I guess), Finland (feels so 1940s), Moldova ("let's protect Transnistria")...

The work of "Eurasianists", specially Aleksandr Dugin, has been hugely influential within the Russian military. And that's very, very scary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

[Yeahsayyeah]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am aware of the huge ethnic conflicts and cleansings throughout the Kaukasus. If we go by nationalist arguments (which is quite en vogue in this thread and at other examples like Tibet) there have not been many Georgians in Abkhazia before the end of the 19th century so this was due to later Georgization and Russification and ethnic/religious cleansing on behalf of religion. After the fall of the Russian Empire Georgian nationalists claimed and occupied these territories in 1918.have not accepted Abkhazian and Ossetian wishes for independence (neither did the Bolsheviki, of course, and Stalin's minority policies is a chapter of his own, especially in the Caucasus, in an divide et impera manner.
As ethnicity concepts and alliances have often chancged in the Kaukasus and Saakashwilli is a corrupt and diehard nationalist of its own merit the Russia is allways bad and the others are always good" dichotomy is probably not the best way to describe ethnic conflicts, there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although the try to abolish Russian as official language was surely not the smartest move by the Rada, especially as one of the first measures, it seems clear that Russia is agressive conerning the status of Crimea. Strawman detected.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Appeasement is a lot more dangerous: if your objective is truly to avoid the war.

There are numerous ways to put an effective pressure on Moscow. Military engagements, big war games and threatening to mess with their borders are not among these options.

Please understand that not waving with your saber =/= doing nothing. It's not so hard to comprehend. Unless, of course, you're rooting for an armed conflict. In such case you're indeed a sorry mental case.

Today Crimea, tomorrow Berlin. Just remember that.

Really, dude, what are you getting from this?

[Boris]

Ag really fucking hates Russians, lol (Russians who hate Russia tend to be interesting people, imo)

[Franknburger]

A key difference between 1938/39 and today is that Hitler needed the war economically - there wasn't any chance of repaying the foreign debt that had been accumulated for re-armament, and was left from Versailles, without laying hand on Dutch, Belgian, French, Danish, and probably a number of other states' gold reserves.
In contrast, today, 40% of Russia's GDP, and 60% of its budget relate to trade with the West, especially the EU, and here especially oil and gas exports. While Central Europe including Germany is quite dependent on Russian energy, cutting the link would strongly affect Russia's economy and, ultimately, its military ability, and popular support to Putin's government.

While there are apparently quite a lot of people within the Russian leadership that have read the "Foundations of Geopolitics", I still haven't given up hope that many others understand the basics of (political) economics.

[Хahar 🤔]

Want to get China on our side? Promise them all of Siberia if they would side with us against Russia if it were to actually come to anything. If it was the US/Europe/China/Japan agianst Russia they would probably be more likely to back down.

This isn't the 18th century; military conquest isn't actually a legitimate diplomatic instrument anymore.

[ag]

Ag really fucking hates Russians, lol (Russians who hate Russia tend to be interesting people, imo)

I love Russians. I have most of my family there, for god´s sake. I am being offered a great job in Russia right now that I would have been severely tempted to take - it is great on all counts, except that it is in Russia. This is, in fact, the main reason I so much hate the regime that is screwing that country.

[MATTROSE94]

Not actually suggesting we do it but maybe the US and NATO should send some troops into Georgia at their request to take back the lands that Russia illegally took from them?

I guess you want to start World War 3 then.

[ag]

Ok. Let me set certain things straight.

Yes, I have been (deliberately) going somewhat over the top in this thread. Part of the reason, I need to vent - and better do this here, where I am, mostly, anonymous. In Russian all these days I have been a paragon of moderate reason and realism - gets very tiring after a while, believe me. Especially, when, truth be told, you are, indeed, in a state of severe panic.

There is a reason for that panic: unlike most of you, guys, I am seeing what is happening IN Russia. Ukraine is quite dear to me (most of my ancestors come from that country, and I spent a few delightful trips there), but, in the end, it is not what I know or care too much about. And, in any case, I am, actually, quite optimistic about Ukraine: if it manages to protect itself from Russia and stay, mostly, whole (with or without Crimea), it has a great future ahead. It is Russia, the country that I, really, love (believe it or not), that is looking extremely bad - and, indeed, dangerous.

There are many things that are scary there. But the main one is that the regime has been extremely successful in gradual nazification (I use the word advisedly) of the Russian society. Few of you guys, yet, realize what sort of a monster has been growing up there. This is just a first roar. It will be a lot worse, trust me.
 

[Middle-aged Europe]

Yeah, to get back to Planet Earth for a moment... the Russian position does make sense from a Russian point of view. They feel like have been duped.

On February 21, Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the leaders of Batkivshchyna, UDAR, and Svoboda as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland that a national unity government will be formed which consists of Yanukovych's Party of Regions and the three aforementioned opposition parties. Yanukovych also agreed to hold presidential election in December of this year.

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/671350/publicationFile/190027/140221-UKR_Erklaerung.pdf

A day later, Yanukovych is suddenly removed from office. Subsequently, a government led by Batkivshchyna and excluding the Party of Regions is installed and elections are set for May. The Russians feel like the West and the Ukranian opposition have broken the rules, so they don't feel obliged to follow the rules themselves in this matter.

That being said, the Russian position is of course not a very realistic one and stems from a state of denial. After all, Yanukovych was removed from office by a majority vote of parliament, just like the new Ukrainian government was voted in by the parliament.

The Russians are clinging - and this was confirmed by Putin's statement from today - to the fiction that the agreement from Feb. 21 is still in place and must be honoured. This leads to hilarious claims like the one that the Ukrainian parliament is recognized as a legitimate institution, while the government who was elected by the same parliament isn't.

Russia expected from all Ukrainian members of parliament to feel bound by the agreement (and to be precise, an Russian interpretation of the agreement) no matter how the situation evolves and despite the fact that only three Ukrainian MPs actually signed the agreement themselves. In essence, Putin expected the Ukrainian MPs to act like United Russia MPs in the Duma.

So, now we have to deal with the fact that Putin's expectations weren't met.

[ag]

Not actually suggesting we do it but maybe the US and NATO should send some troops into Georgia at their request to take back the lands that Russia illegally took from them?

I guess you want to start World War 3 then.

He wants to avoid it.

[ag]

Yeah, to get back to Planet Earth for a moment... the Russian position does make sense from a Russian point of view. They feel like have been duped.

On February 21, Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the leaders of Batkivshchyna, UDAR, and Svoboda as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland that a national unity government will be formed which consists of Yanukovych's Party of Regions and the three aforementioned opposition parties. Yanukovych also agreed to hold presidential election in December of this year.

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/671350/publicationFile/190027/140221-UKR_Erklaerung.pdf

A day later, Yanukovych is suddenly removed from office. Subsequently, a government led by Batkivshchyna and excluding the Party of Regions is installed and elections are set for May. The Russians feel like the West and the Ukranian opposition have broken the rules, so they don't feel like obliged to follow the rules themselves in this matter.

That being said, the Russian position is of course not a very realistic one and stems from a state of denial. After all, Yanukovych was removed from office by a majority vote of parliament, just like the new Ukrainian government was voted in by the parliament.

The Russians are clinging - and this was confirmed by Putin's statement from today - to the fiction that the agreement from Feb. 21 is still in place and must be honoured. This leads to hilarious claims like the one that the Ukrainian parliament is recognized as a legitimate institution, while the government who was elected by the same parliament isn't.

Russia expected from all Ukrainian members of parliament to feel bound by the agreement (and to be precise, an Russian interpretation of the agreement) no matter how the situation evolves and despite the fact that only three Ukrainian MPs actually signed the agreement themselves. In essence, Putin expected the Ukrainian MPs to act like United Russia MPs in the Duma.

So, now we have to deal with the fact that Putin's expectations weren't met.

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

[Storebought]

Given the reaction of Germany and the UK against even temporary economic sanctions against Russia, and US reluctance to follow anything Obama says, there is nothing the west will do to stop Russia from a permanent occupation of Crimea, or even a full takeover of the country.

The Obama administration should simply drop the issue. The US -- Obama and Republicans both -- are clearly not the match for Putin. Even Russia's propaganda machine is better.

[ag]

Given the reaction of Germany and the UK against even temporary economic sanctions against Russia, and US reluctance to follow anything Obama says, there is nothing the west will do to stop Russia from a permanent occupation of Crimea, or even a full takeover of the country.

The Obama administration should simply drop the issue. The US -- Obama and Republicans both -- are clearly not the match for Putin. Even Russia's propaganda machine is better.

Well, in that case you, probably, should just give up on Europe. London will be Russian before long.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is already.

[Middle-aged Europe]

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

Yeah, that's because Russia wasn't really happy with the contents of the agreement to begin with. As far as Putin is concerned he would have preferred that everything remains status quo in Ukraine: Yanukovych stays in power and the opposition remains the opposition. They tolerated that this agreement came to be, but they didn't want to give the impression that they're happy about it by actually signing it.

And now they didn't even get the agreement that was just tolerable to them in the first place. Logical conclusion for Putin: Screw it, let's occupy Crimea!

Like I said, it's neither a realistic nor a preferable (for pretty much any non-Russian anyway) point of view. But that's how it is.

[ag]

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

Yeah, that's because Russia wasn't really happy with the contents of the agreement to begin with. As far as Putin is concerned he would have preferred that everything remains status quo in Ukraine: Yanukovych stays in power and the opposition remains the opposition. They tolerated that this agreement came to be, but they didn't want to give the impression that they're happy about it by actually signing it.

And now they didn't even get the agreement that was just tolerable to them in the first place. Logical conclusion for Putin: Screw it, let's occupy Crimea!

Like I said, it's neither a realistic nor a preferable (for pretty much any non-Russian anyway) point of view. But that's how it is.

No, it was not about the content. Putin explicitly sent as his representative a guy who was not allowed to sign anything - no matter what was there in the agreement. He wanted to keep his options entirely open. Whatever happened, he was going to find a pretext to act the way he liked.

As Lukin (Russian representative) was only flying to Kiev, the puzzled journalists asked Putin´s press officer, in which capacity was he going (everybody knew that Lukin was a nobody).  You know what was the answer? I am quoting: "in his own capacity".

[Middle-aged Europe]

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

Yeah, that's because Russia wasn't really happy with the contents of the agreement to begin with. As far as Putin is concerned he would have preferred that everything remains status quo in Ukraine: Yanukovych stays in power and the opposition remains the opposition. They tolerated that this agreement came to be, but they didn't want to give the impression that they're happy about it by actually signing it.

And now they didn't even get the agreement that was just tolerable to them in the first place. Logical conclusion for Putin: Screw it, let's occupy Crimea!

Like I said, it's neither a realistic nor a preferable (for pretty much any non-Russian anyway) point of view. But that's how it is.

No, it was not about the content. Putin explicitly sent as his representative a guy who was not allowed to sign anything - no matter what was there in the agreement. He wanted to keep his options entirely open. Whatever happened, he was going to find a pretext to act the way he liked.

As Lukin (Russian representative) was only flying to Kiev, the puzzled journalists asked Putin´s press officer, in which capacity was he going (everybody knew that Lukin was a nobody).  You know what was the answer? I am quoting: "in his own capacity".

That's guesswork.

[ag]

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

Yeah, that's because Russia wasn't really happy with the contents of the agreement to begin with. As far as Putin is concerned he would have preferred that everything remains status quo in Ukraine: Yanukovych stays in power and the opposition remains the opposition. They tolerated that this agreement came to be, but they didn't want to give the impression that they're happy about it by actually signing it.

And now they didn't even get the agreement that was just tolerable to them in the first place. Logical conclusion for Putin: Screw it, let's occupy Crimea!

Like I said, it's neither a realistic nor a preferable (for pretty much any non-Russian anyway) point of view. But that's how it is.

No, it was not about the content. Putin explicitly sent as his representative a guy who was not allowed to sign anything - no matter what was there in the agreement. He wanted to keep his options entirely open. Whatever happened, he was going to find a pretext to act the way he liked.

As Lukin (Russian representative) was only flying to Kiev, the puzzled journalists asked Putin´s press officer, in which capacity was he going (everybody knew that Lukin was a nobody).  You know what was the answer? I am quoting: "in his own capacity".

That's guesswork.

And Putin´s spokesman was just talking unauthorized nonsense, when he explicitly said that Lukin had no authority besides his own, yes?

It is "guesswork" a lot better grounded in facts than yours.

[ag]

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

Yeah, that's because Russia wasn't really happy with the contents of the agreement to begin with. As far as Putin is concerned he would have preferred that everything remains status quo in Ukraine: Yanukovych stays in power and the opposition remains the opposition. They tolerated that this agreement came to be, but they didn't want to give the impression that they're happy about it by actually signing it.

And now they didn't even get the agreement that was just tolerable to them in the first place. Logical conclusion for Putin: Screw it, let's occupy Crimea!

Like I said, it's neither a realistic nor a preferable (for pretty much any non-Russian anyway) point of view. But that's how it is.

No, it was not about the content. Putin explicitly sent as his representative a guy who was not allowed to sign anything - no matter what was there in the agreement. He wanted to keep his options entirely open. Whatever happened, he was going to find a pretext to act the way he liked.

As Lukin (Russian representative) was only flying to Kiev, the puzzled journalists asked Putin´s press officer, in which capacity was he going (everybody knew that Lukin was a nobody).  You know what was the answer? I am quoting: "in his own capacity".

That's guesswork.

And Putin´s spokesman was just talking unauthorized nonsense, when he explicitly said that Lukin had no authority besides his own, yes?

It is "guesswork" a lot better grounded in facts than yours.

Anyway, it was then that I knew that the war was extremely likely. And, unfortunately, I was right.

[MaxQue]

Everybody is missing an important point.

Cameron and Merkel shouldn't be trusted, because they are so weak.

[ag]

Everybody is missing an important point.

Cameron and Merkel shouldn't be trusted, because they are so weak.

Everybody knew that day before yesterday.

[Zanas]

Anyway, it was then that I knew that the war was extremely likely. And, unfortunately, I was right.

Wait a minute. Is there a war ?

[ag]

In any case, I may be a panicked wreck, but, at least, I know my facts here. I have known who Lukin (Putin´s emissary to Kiev in February) is for over 20 years now - and I know exactly what sending him, and not anybody else, means.  I have forgotten more about Russian politics and society then most of you, guys, know. There is a reason I am freaking out.

[ag]

Anyway, it was then that I knew that the war was extremely likely. And, unfortunately, I was right.

Wait a minute. Is there a war ?

Well, a big chunk of a country has been occupied. There has been some shooting. It is a war in my book. Though, of course, it will be worse.

You French should know more about the Drôle de guerre