Ukraine Crisis

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

As for the talking points it gives to Putin... Listen, Putin, would be declaring Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill fascists today, if that were to suite him.

Churchill, in fairness, was one of the worst mass murderers of the 20th century depending on how responsible you hold him for the Bengal famine and for the various unnecessary and ineffective British strikes on civilian targets in occupied Europe (as opposed to the more effective American bombing campaigns).

[Nhoj]

As for the talking points it gives to Putin... Listen, Putin, would be declaring Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill fascists today, if that were to suite him.

Churchill, in fairness, was one of the worst mass murderers of the 20th century depending on how responsible you hold him for the Bengal famine and for the various unnecessary and ineffective British strikes on civilian targets in occupied Europe (as opposed to the more effective American bombing campaigns).

That however does not make him a fascist.

[free my dawg]

Though I expect it to be thoroughly parodied and referenced until well after its expiration date like the infamous apology thread, I feel I should announce something. I'd make a big effortpost about this, but I'm rather tired and have work to do so I'll condense it to the important parts:

• Yes, I see how my "sage" is insufferable to some. To a large extent that was the point of it, though I've long passed the point where I'm getting tired of and annoyed by my own forum persona.
• A lowdown on my actual views: Very left-wing, though rather more nuanced than I let on. I mostly dumbed them down in a misguided effort to combat/make fun of the dominant political perspective on this forum (progressive liberalism) which I'm finding more and more annoying.
• I'm currently receiving weekly therapy for reasons unrelated to what I do on the forum, though I find that in some ways Atlas is a bit of a coping mechanism for me.
• I won't be posting (or more likely, maybe posting once every couple days) for a while, though I fully expect to return in full force at some point. Hopefully my affected forum schtick will have mostly died by that point, though given past attempts at "reforming" I shouldn't make any absolute promises. I will most definitely continue to lurk on the forum and if my hiatus lasts long enough will probably be a zombie voter in Atlasia (and since it's barely connected to Atlas I'll probably stay in that game Lumine's doing).

[Velasco]

PoR does not exist at this point as a unit. It has broken into multiple pieces, its most popular politicians (even in the East) have been expelled. Whom are you suggesting the government should incorporate? And why would they want to be incorporated into a government that will not be a government within a month. I am afraid, your "suggestions" cannot be even formulated in a way that anybody in Ukraine would be able to understand. Who should be incorporated into what?

I don't recall any 'suggestion' apart from expelling Svoboda or a previous comment about reaching some compromise with politicians or personalities from the region. I don't know if the government can incorporate some elements from the PoR or others expelled from that party. If it's possible, perhaps it would be a better solution trying some form of 'national unity'. Is it unrealistic? On the other hand, I'm getting the impression that someone or something has to fill the void in Donetsk and the other places.

Apparently, Khodorkovski was in Kharkiv before the attempt against the mayor because he's promoting a 'Russia-Ukraine' forum. He says he expect that Ukraine will succeed because it would be helpful for the democratization of Russia. It seems that the local Euro Maidan group has been meeting with Anti Maidan activists. The spokeswoman of the Kharkiv Euro Maidan says that it's necessary taking into account and respecting the interests of Russian speakers in order to keep the unity of Ukraine. I wish them luck, what else could I say?   

[ag]

PoR does not exist at this point as a unit. It has broken into multiple pieces, its most popular politicians (even in the East) have been expelled. Whom are you suggesting the government should incorporate? And why would they want to be incorporated into a government that will not be a government within a month. I am afraid, your "suggestions" cannot be even formulated in a way that anybody in Ukraine would be able to understand. Who should be incorporated into what?

I don't recall any 'suggestion' apart from expelling Svoboda or a previous comment about reaching some compromise with politicians or personalities from the region. I don't know if the government can incorporate some elements from the PoR or others expelled from that party. If it's possible, perhaps it would be a better solution trying some form of 'national unity'. Is it unrealistic? On the other hand, I'm getting the impression that someone or something has to fill the void in Donetsk and the other places.

Apparently, Khodorkovski was in Kharkiv before the attempt against the mayor because he's promoting a 'Russia-Ukraine' forum. He says he expect that Ukraine will succeed because it would be helpful for the democratization of Russia. It seems that the local Euro Maidan group has been meeting with Anti Maidan activists. The spokeswoman of the Kharkiv Euro Maidan says that it's necessary taking into account and respecting the interests of Russian speakers in order to keep the unity of Ukraine. I wish them luck, what else could I say?   

They have already incorporated in the government several personalities from the region. Interior Minister (Avakov) grew up and spent his entire political career in Kharkiv. Social Policy Minister (Denisova) is, in fact, from Crimea. All the governors are local. The only two parties that agreed to join the provisional government were the Batkyvshchyna and Svoboda - nobody else wanted to touch it. Half the government is, really, non-partisan. As for the ex-PoR politicians - they are either badly discredited (the Yanukovich crowd), irreconcilable with Ukraine´s existence (Tsarev) running for presidency (Tihipko) or in intensive care (Kernes).

Eastern Ukraine is crucial for free Russia. If they manage to create an alternative Russian cultural space, it will be the outlet for all of us. But the only danger for that comes from the East - not from the west. Except for having to file the tax declaration and an occasional other forom in Ukrainian most people in the East have not, really, had much to do with that language. Russian is at least as predominant everywhere there, as (Castillian) Spanish is in Alicante or Galicia. Most schools and nearly all universities are overwhelmingly functioning in Russian. Yes, you have to take Ukrainian literature and history in Ukrainian - but that was the case under the Soviets as well (which, of course, means that all those who grew up in Eastern Ukraine claim to have passed the Ukrainian language high school graduation exams: their Soviet school certificates - which they happily received at the time even though they were all written in Ukrainian, as was the Soviet custom - say so). Workplaces (including government) are nearly all-Russian. So are the newspapers, TV, etc., etc.  And filling out that occasional form in Ukrainian is no harder for a Russian speaker than for a Spanish speaker to fill out a form in Gallego or in Catalan - it isn´t Basque we are talking about, the languages are related. I never lived in Ukraine in my life, never had a formal instruction in the language at all, but ,having on occasion practiced reading Ukrainian-language newspapers, I can usually figure out it  - push comes to shove, an occasional word may have to be googled.

[Frodo]

The central authorities in Kiev have acknowledged that Russia and its minions have won eastern Ukraine.

So Russia has annexed Crimea, and effectively has a friendly puppet regime in eastern Ukraine. 

[Beet]

Putin is now demanding the Ukrainian troops pull out of the region. This is Putin's endgame - fill the region with your people, then declare fait accompli, betting that the opposition will be too intimidated and psychologically defeated to resist. Keep doing this until all territorial demands are met.

[ag]

If he is allowed to get away with it (and he will be allowed to get away with it), he will continue. It would be A LOT easier to do this in, say, Narva than in Donetsk. Unlike Donetsk, Narva IS overwhelmingly Russian-populated, and many of those Russians are, in fact, Russian citizens. Everybody should understand: the only way to stop Putin is to confront him. If this is not done soon (and, I am pretty sure it will not be), we are moving towards a major international war, most likely nuclear, within the next five years. Avoiding confrontation will lead to millions of dead - and soon.

[Beet]

I have to say, if this continues I don't see anything stopping Putin from trying to reconstitute much of Tsarist Russia. That said, ag, I think the main factor will be, as I mentioned before, the local population's willingness to resist & how much they value their independence from Russia. Afghanistan and Chechnya have shown that even small, powerless populations can imposing punishing costs on a behemoth if they are determined to do so. The main reason Putin is winning is because there is very little resistance. People are either afraid or simply don't care whether they are absorbed into Russia.

[ag]

I have to say, if this continues I don't see anything stopping Putin from trying to reconstitute much of Tsarist Russia. That said, ag, I think the main factor will be, as I mentioned before, the local population's willingness to resist & how much they value their independence from Russia. Afghanistan and Chechnya have shown that even small, powerless populations can imposing punishing costs on a behemoth if they are determined to do so. The main reason Putin is winning is because there is very little resistance. People are either afraid or simply don't care whether they are absorbed into Russia.

Yes, they are scared. And so will be you.

[Beet]

You really think Putin is going to start a nuclear war?

[ag]

You really think Putin is going to start a nuclear war?

Eventually. He does not want it: he will grow into it gradually. At some point he will move in too far: be that to Estonia, to Poland, or beyond. At that point the West will respond with force. In terms of conventional force - and even more so in terms of resources available - of course, Russia is no match. But Putin is already drunk with success - and he will be even more convinced of his invincibility at that point, so he will miscalculate. Defeats will start - that will be what will lead him to first threaten, and then use the nukes. At every point almost until he presses the button he will think that the West is weak and will not dare not to surrender. And once he realizes that the West dares, he will be too enraged and too desperate to care.

[Phony Moderate]

So, essentially, you are saying that the end is nigh for mankind?

[jaichind]

I see what is going on in Eastern Ukraine in less strategically grandiose terms.  It seems to me it is mostly a way to make sure that the May elections cannot take place in Eastern Ukraine and as a result Russia and those in Eastern Ukraine hostile to the current Kiev regime can claim that the new president is not legitimate so the current stalemate will continue.

[Beet]

ag, I think you have a form of Putin derangement syndrome, although I'm not sure why. The man is capable of horrible things, but he is not that stupid.

[politicus]

I have to say, if this continues I don't see anything stopping Putin from trying to reconstitute much of Tsarist Russia. That said, ag, I think the main factor will be, as I mentioned before, the local population's willingness to resist & how much they value their independence from Russia. Afghanistan and Chechnya have shown that even small, powerless populations can imposing punishing costs on a behemoth if they are determined to do so. The main reason Putin is winning is because there is very little resistance. People are either afraid or simply don't care whether they are absorbed into Russia.

Mountains is a key factor in this. If Afghanistan and Chechnya had the geography of Ukraine they wouldn't have been able to resist for long.

[ag]

ag, I think you have a form of Putin derangement syndrome, although I'm not sure why. The man is capable of horrible things, but he is not that stupid.

He is: that is the point. I know the type well: he is a fairly ordinary KGB guy, just one who got lucky. He is not even really evil.  It is just that his understanding of the world around him is fairly limited. He thinks he is strong, and everybody else is weak. It is machismo at its extreme. Show him he is not the top dog, and he will run, tail between his legs. But it is suicidal to let him think you do not dare kick him bad: he will take that as weakness, and he attacks the weak.

[ag]

So, essentially, you are saying that the end is nigh for mankind?

Well, if the mankind is willing to hit Putin really bad really soon, then no. Otherwise: I guess, the world can survive without a few big cities. Pity, I have spent 2/3 of my life in two of them (Moscow and New York)

[Famous Mortimer]

Ukrainians won't fight because they are a (relatively) well off country. It's not worth it to give up their comfortable existence to maybe die fighting the Russians.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was a third world country. Even if a Mujaheddin died, he wasn't losing much.

[politicus]

Ukrainians won't fight because they are a (relatively) well off country. It's not worth it to give up their comfortable existence to maybe die fighting the Russians.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was a third world country. Even if a Mujaheddin died, he wasn't losing much.

That's just silly, losing your life is a big deal for everyone. Geography is the main difference, you need adequate terrain (mountains, jungles, swamps) to fight a superior enemy.

[ag]

Ukrainians won't fight because they are a (relatively) well off country. It's not worth it to give up their comfortable existence to maybe die fighting the Russians.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was a third world country. Even if a Mujaheddin died, he wasn't losing much.

That's just silly, losing your life is a big deal for everyone. Geography is the main difference, you need adequate terrain (mountains, jungles, swamps) to fight a superior enemy.

Ukrainians fought for 9 years after WWII. So did Lithuanians. But for the moment they are trying to avoid the full-scale war. Civilians try to demonstrate: they have been badly hurt in several Donetsk cities. It is too early for a partisan war to have started: let us hope it never does.

[politicus]

Ukrainians won't fight because they are a (relatively) well off country. It's not worth it to give up their comfortable existence to maybe die fighting the Russians.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was a third world country. Even if a Mujaheddin died, he wasn't losing much.

That's just silly, losing your life is a big deal for everyone. Geography is the main difference, you need adequate terrain (mountains, jungles, swamps) to fight a superior enemy.

Ukrainians fought for 9 years after WWII. So did Lithuanians. But for the moment they are trying to avoid the full-scale war. Civilians try to demonstrate: they have been badly hurt in several Donetsk cities. It is too early for a partisan war to have started: let us hope it never does.

Thats counting some very small groups in the end.

But OK, Ill qualify it: to fight succesfully against a superior enemy you need adequate terrain. A sustained partisan war in some remote forests and swamps is not enough in itself.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If Russia does a full-scale invasion (I don't think they will because they don't have to), I doubt there will be a large-scale partisan war simply due to the terrain; from a geographic standpoint Ukraine is a very easy country to roll into compared to Afghanistan or Vietnam.

[ag]

If Russia does a full-scale invasion (I don't think they will because they don't have to), I doubt there will be a large-scale partisan war simply due to the terrain; from a geographic standpoint Ukraine is a very easy country to roll into compared to Afghanistan or Vietnam.

Soviet Union needed 9 years of full concentration - with the experienced army, coming straight out of WWII. You underestimate both Ukraine and Ukrainians. But it was awfully bloody and cruel the last time - on both sides. God forbid it happens again.

[ag]

Ukrainians won't fight because they are a (relatively) well off country. It's not worth it to give up their comfortable existence to maybe die fighting the Russians.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was a third world country. Even if a Mujaheddin died, he wasn't losing much.

That's just silly, losing your life is a big deal for everyone. Geography is the main difference, you need adequate terrain (mountains, jungles, swamps) to fight a superior enemy.

Ukrainians fought for 9 years after WWII. So did Lithuanians. But for the moment they are trying to avoid the full-scale war. Civilians try to demonstrate: they have been badly hurt in several Donetsk cities. It is too early for a partisan war to have started: let us hope it never does.

Thats counting some very small groups in the end.

But OK, Ill qualify it: to fight succesfully against a superior enemy you need adequate terrain. A sustained partisan war in some remote forests and swamps is not enough in itself.

A partisan war is a horrible thing. There is a reason people do not start it lightly. If Russia continues, it may well happen. If it does, it will be a horrid humanitarian crisis, believe me.