Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Sarmatian]

...

In terms of political and military doctrines. It doesn't mean that 150,000,000 Russians think the same way. I thought it was pretty clear given the rest of my post.

Ask, and ye shall be answered.

[Gregoshi]

Let's stick to discussing the Ukraine and not UrMomma please. :focus:

[Fisherking]

It's quite naive to base someone's long term foreign policy on a speech, which was clearly intended for domestic audience, most of which can not understand the strategic importance of Crimea.

If we were to do that, that we would have to assume that US is actively planning to invade:
1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Cuba
4. Syria
5. Belarus
6. Zimbabwe
7. Burma

... because they were mentioned in the "Axis of Evil' or "Outposts of Tyranny" speech.

You know, the US has no coherent foreign policy. What usually gets offered up to the public is some well meaning idea that is a disaster looking for a place to happen but will make a bundle of money for those who are well placed.

Putin is the current leader of Russia. Bush is no longer in office. So Evil Empires is just so much tripe. Obama will deal with those his handlers tell him to deal with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRlfyR4v0rE


I supported the Ukrainians in their bid for a less corrupt government. Russian or Western interests played no part in it from my point of view.

I am not a fan of the interim government taking them either east or west in their policies. The problem with revelations are that they usually get hijacked.

I could even stand behind a fair vote in Crimea seeking independence. I am very skeptical of what has occurred there. I see it as nothing more than a thinly veiled Russian land grab.

I don’t think the EU or Russia have a legitimate role in Ukrainian politics other than the guarantee of their national boundaries.

As for NATO, my view is that it was taken over as a US policy tool after the cold war but realistically the Russians have little to fear from that direction, that may not be of their own making. At least for now.

I don’t see Putin as the devils step-son any more than I see Obama as the anti-Christ. I see them as self serving politicians, which may well make them just about the same.

I still expect Russia to grab more land. I don’t see any justification for that.

This east-west rivalry and those who try to justify it is just paramount stupidity. It most surely can lead to a war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's quite naive to base someone's long term foreign policy on a speech, which was clearly intended for domestic audience, most of which can not understand the strategic importance of Crimea.

A speech to both houses of Parliament, long, detailed and clearly intended for the ears of foreign diplomats.

Putin laid out his legal, moral and idealogical justification for the annexation - all are worrying.

Especially worrying is his reference to God judging the Soviet Government for the transfer of "Russian" lands to Crimea - it implies that the current borders infringe on "natural" boundaries - which further implies that Putin has a Divine Mandate to restore these lands to Russia.

Powerful stuff - and not good news for Ukraine, because he may well be looking to annex the South East next, and unlike a leader in a democracy he doesn't have to do it before the next election. Mind you, annexing Crimea will likely win him that election anyway.

[Brenus]

You know what: I agree with PVC. It is as worrying than the Western Speeches, when they proclaimed their moral Rights and Duties, and all theses Great Principles to go to war and as they did in the past, the right to do whatever they want for the good.
And when 2 blocks are equal certain of their "legal, moral and ideological justification for the annexation"/interventions, that is the path to confrontation.

So, instead to escalate the problem, perhaps it is time for talks, communication to take off. Not sure it will be enough to bring back Crimea in Ukraine but it might help in what left of Russian Ukrainians to wish to join Russia.

[Sarmatian]

You know, the US has no coherent foreign policy. What usually gets offered up to the public is some well meaning idea that is a disaster looking for a place to happen but will make a bundle of money for those who are well placed.

Putin is the current leader of Russia. Bush is no longer in office. So Evil Empires is just so much tripe. Obama will deal with those his handlers tell him to deal with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRlfyR4v0rE

I'd disagree with the assessment that US has no coherent foreign policy. That doesn't mean that every single administration holds the exact same view and would approach every single issue from the same point of view, but there have been so many constants in the US foreign policy that it would be foolish to disregard them.

Evil empire actually make an interesting example in that regard. I omitted two countries from that list - Iraq and Libya. Iraqi government was toppled during Bush administration, Libyan under Obama and there was serious danger of Syria becoming another example in that regard.

I'll respond to NATO-Russia relations in my reply to Seamus, because it will tie in nicely to that.

Seamus, I'm sorry, I've read your post but didn't have time to reply, and you've raised some interesting point.


Actually, that is just about exactly what I think happened. Nor is this just the "go to" response of the apologist. I encourage you to read Graham Allison's The Essence of Decision (used it as a focal piece for my dissertation). His treatment of the decision-making process in government during a crisis is scarily enlightening. It becomes clear that far more than rational evaluations come into play and that decisions are made often because of various internal political agendas that have zero to do with the issue at hand.

You have me at a disadvantage now, as I haven't read that piece of work. Remember that I live in a 3rd world country where Amazon doesn't offer deliveries.
I'll try to respond the best I can from what I've been able to gather from the second part of your post. Now, I'd agree that during a crisis irrational evaluations are put forth to decision makers, perhaps even more than rational. During Cuban crisis, I'm sure there was chaos when politicians tried to decide on the best course of action, both in Moscow and in Washington. That was a crisis in the true sense of the word. It happened fast, it got out hand quickly and the stakes were as high as they get. Considering Iraq, there was a year and half between 9/11 and the invasion, so there was ample time to take into account all aspects. What we have seen though, is that most of that time was spent methodically organizing support for an invasion, even though allied intelligence agencies were giving different information.

I feel it is highly unlikely that US intelligence agencies, which may not be the best but certainly are most funded, got that one completely wrong and disregarded information all other intelligence, from Paris to Beijing.



I have little doubt that such factors, in reverse of those applied by the USA, applied to the CCCP's efforts in those instances you cite. Nor do I blame the decisions made as acts of evil. I find the comm0-disctatorship of the Soviets anathema because it stifles the individual so badly and works so inefficiently -- but their foreign policy efforts were actually a bit more consistent than ours and clearly motivated by their sense of self preservation. I have often thought that THAT is why "trust but verify" went over so well with them.

As to the fear factor, the Sov's truly did think that NATO could come after them and possibly destroy them. One NATO member, operating alone under different management, had come perilously close to doing so. Equally, however, the West really did fear that we would not be able to stop a massive Soviet attack short of the use of nuclear weapons -- which were anathema to us for any number of psychological reasons.

I pretty much agree with this assessment. USSR hardly could've pulled an invasion of USA, but European NATO members could have been invaded theoretically. In USA, I believe, there was more fear about domino effect of additional communist revolutions in Europe and elsewhere, which could have left USA isolated on the world stage, and, potentially, even bring one to USA.

That line of thought is perfectly logical up until 1990's, possibly even before. With the dissolution of the CCCP, the threat of a communist invasion was gone. It didn't have the calming effect it should have had. Instead, it brought unprecedented enlargement of NATO and a general increase of US interventionism around the world.


As to the War on Terror, the whole thing is a bit nebulous. Warring on an idea/concept/cause cannot be accomplished solely by military means. The 9-11 attackers very much shattered our illusions that we were fundamentally safe on our relatively peaceful continent -- even though the numbers lost here do not hold a candle to the civilian "collateral" casualties caused in our response. Yet we could not not respond -- a frustrating dilemma. We then tacked on all sorts of other projects -- such as Iraq -- that were AT BEST tangentially related to countering Islamist terrorism. We still haven't achieved the appropriate combination of military, investigative, financial and diplomatic force required.

I feel that the war on terror was a convenient excuse to further other US interest. The public demanded some kind of response. The opportunity was there to do something to which there would have been much more opposition a year or two earlier. There was never any connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, nor did Iraq harbour terrorists. Relationship between Saddam and fundamentalist movements was strenuous at best.

We can argue that Afghanistan was a mess for various reasons, but at least there was a clear link between the government and terrorists. In Iraq, no such connections existed.


Now, to go back on the principal reason why I tend to mention American foreign policy decision in relation to Russian. Indeed, they do not excuse what Russia did in Ukraine, but, at least in my opinion, they're illustrative as an example that what Russia did in Ukraine or Georgia isn't indicative of their desire to dominate the world, or proof that they're led by a megalomaniac, or that they want to grab indiscriminately as much land as they can. It is, from where they're standing, a rational decision which they didn't make easily and likely which they didn't wish for in the first place. It is that the possible alternative, for them, was much worse.

Powerful nations across the globe want influence. Denying them influence comparable to their power is actually detrimental to stability. That is especially true for Europe and Russia. Russia is the elephant in the room that everyone's trying to ignore, hoping that if they ignore it real hard, it will go away. Stability of Europe for the last few centuries was based principally on four nations, Russia, Germany, France and to a slightly lesser degree, UK, as they've had to balance their interests on the continent with their global interests. Anything involving security and stability of Europe that doesn't involve all of them is inherently flawed.

In addition, any conflict, even small scale, between Russia and USA will be felt by us all, especially us Europeans, irregardless of whether we're involved directly. In that sense, I blame USA more than Russia, as Russian actions were a response to US actions. Staple of Russian foreign policy in relation to the west since Gorbachev was "No more NATO on our borders". Why the need to push for more NATO members? Why Ukraine and Georgia? Does it enhance the security of core NATO members that much it is worth doing the one thing Russia made clear will ruin relations? Even against the wishes of local populations? Against the wishes of core NATO members? Even Kissinger said multiple times that Ukraine shouldn't be a NATO member and we would be hard pressed to find a more experienced person when it comes to global politics...

That's why I stand by what I've said earlier - until western, in particular US, politicians are willing to accept that Russia will wield considerable influence comparable to its power, this won't be the last crisis of this type.

[gaelic cowboy]

In addition, any conflict, even small scale, between Russia and USA will be felt by us all, especially us Europeans, irregardless of whether we're involved directly. In that sense, I blame USA more than Russia, as Russian actions were a response to US actions. Staple of Russian foreign policy in relation to the west since Gorbachev was "No more NATO on our borders". Why the need to push for more NATO members? Why Ukraine and Georgia? Does it enhance the security of core NATO members that much it is worth doing the one thing Russia made clear will ruin relations? Even against the wishes of local populations? Against the wishes of core NATO members? Even Kissinger said multiple times that Ukraine shouldn't be a NATO member and we would be hard pressed to find a more experienced person when it comes to global politics...

That's why I stand by what I've said earlier - until western, in particular US, politicians are willing to accept that Russia will wield considerable influence comparable to its power, this won't be the last crisis of this type.

So there not allowed to decide if they want to join themselves?????

[Gilrandir]

Then, when Russia, having signed an agreement with a legitimate Government of Ukraine sees openly hostile forces over-taking power with “kill the Russian” propaganda, and running in the arms of an hostile coalition, which has proved several time to be an offensive weapon used to enforced Western (so anti-Russian) Politic, what the Russians should have thought?


There has never been the kind of propaganda you speak of on Maidan. There were Russians (from Russia) on Maidan, Russian flags were flying above some tents, Russian was heard aplenty there. The population of Kyiv is predominantly Russian-speaking and they helped Maidan in every possible way.
If you mean "Putin TV propaganda turning the protesters into anti-Russians" then you are right.

[Gilrandir]

I am not a fan of the interim government taking them either east or west in their policies. The problem with revelations are that they usually get hijacked.

I am not a fan of such radical moves on the part of an interim government either, but you must understand a difference between an interim government and an interim government at war. The latter can't shut themselves in to the news from outside and keep chanting:"This is not our business, we must hold an election".

[Gilrandir]

A speech to both houses of Parliament, long, detailed and clearly intended for the ears of foreign diplomats.

Putin laid out his legal, moral and idealogical justification for the annexation - all are worrying.

Especially worrying is his reference to God judging the Soviet Government for the transfer of "Russian" lands to Crimea - it implies that the current borders infringe on "natural" boundaries - which further implies that Putin has a Divine Mandate to restore these lands to Russia.

Powerful stuff - and not good news for Ukraine, because he may well be looking to annex the South East next, and unlike a leader in a democracy he doesn't have to do it before the next election. Mind you, annexing Crimea will likely win him that election anyway.
Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939 (of perhaps earlier, in 1938?). The same rhetoric on vicissitudes of ethnic brethren in other countries, call to save them from oppression of any kind and claiming that Danzig is a German city (like Sevastopol is a Russian one).
Unfortunately my computer skills are not that good, so I can't give a link or something like that. Perhaps others will find the speech in question and corroborate or correct what I say.

[Brenus]

“If you mean "Putin TV propaganda turning the protesters into anti-Russians" then you are right.” No. I mean Western Media saying Pro-European against Pro-Russian.

“Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939” Ooops Hitler… That is Western Propaganda I was referring to as well….

[Gilrandir]

“Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939” Ooops Hitler… That is Western Propaganda I was referring to as well….
You mean no similarity whatsoever?

[Sarmatian]

So there not allowed to decide if they want to join themselves?????

Did you not read the post????

Even if a nation wants to join a political or military alliance, it doesn't have to be accepted if the effect is detrimental to the overall stability. But, in the case of Poland and Baltic nations, NATO wanted them in, their population was in favour of it overwhelmingly, so it's all fair and good. I don't have a problem with that.

Ukrainian population, on the other hand, never expressed interest in joining. NATO membership never got above 20% support, it usually varied between 5-15%. NOT entering NATO was supported by 30-50+% (from the top of my head, it may be a few percentages more or less in either case). Even with that Yuschenko was pushing for it, and USA was pushing for it from their side. After Yuschenko's defeat, they kept at it, financing and supporting political parties that wanted NATO membership and applying pressure on other NATO members that thought Ukraine in NATO isn't such a good idea. Similar stuff with Georgia.

Why was it done? Ukraine in NATO doesn't bolster NATO security, Ukrainians don't want it, a good chunk of European NATO doesn't want it and it will most surely antagonize Russia. Why the needless poke in the eye?

[Husar]

Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939 (of perhaps earlier, in 1938?).

I (http://theocddiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/hitlerOBAMA_2.jpg) can (http://nachrichtenbrief.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/burnhamhol.jpg) totally (http://www.hermes-press.com/obama_hitler1.jpg) see (http://ideafix7.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama_poster_hitler_yesweca2.gif) how (http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2013/04/obama_hitler_godwins_law.jpg) that (http://www.politifake.org/image/political/small/1212/sound-familiar-obama-hitler-politics-1355748951.jpg) immediately (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H6J2iKE60Es/UHQKIfYIFYI/AAAAAAAAQhk/1dCaiXf_3AQ/s1600/Merkel+Hitler3.jpg) discredits (http://www.allmystery.de/i/t96ff0a_angela.merkel.hitler.jpg?bc) someone (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wXDLSE2Tp-w/UuKXaA-scdI/AAAAAAAAF1Y/6OhJNN7-IhE/s1600/Oleg+Tyahnybok_Ukraine_Maidan.JPG) forever (http://www.rockcitynews.com/photos2b/antibushwar2/images/hitler,sharon,bush.jpg).

Every (http://images.derstandard.at/t/12/20070423/hitler.jpg) time (http://perlbal.hi-pi.com/blog-images/674421/mn/129372760177.jpg) someone (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ach.jpg) says (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Uy2jpMqNnio/TIrIUuPHNXI/AAAAAAAAAmA/drljdO_XM34/s400/Ahmadinejad%2Band%2BHitler.jpg) it (http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/1/52246/620730/ahmadinejad_hitler.jpg), it (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M-KUxA1kqos/Ux80RPUzfWI/AAAAAAAAhoE/bxJf6wLnCls/s1600/putin_hitler.jpg) has (http://www.yalibnan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/putin-the-new-hitler-300x399.jpghttp://www.yalibnan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/putin-the-new-hitler-300x399.jpg) to (http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/Ukraine/putinHitler.jpg) be (http://dwpexamination.org/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-image-uploads/woowoo/2013/04/hitler.jpg) true (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6LRhdYWBh6U/TYe6GzW3_7I/AAAAAAAARnQ/BlWfqa43ReU/s400/Cameron%2B2.jpg), and (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kJarVuKMPAQ/TE8vdfJr6UI/AAAAAAAANFg/ymUMCY80y4Y/s1600/camerondavidnazi.jpg) it (http://images.dangerousminds.net/uploads/images/HILTERSKINNY.jpg)'s (http://shireencnm.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hitler-and-kji.jpg) not (http://conservativepapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Hitler_Jintao1.jpg.scaled10001.jpg) like (http://blog.balder.org/billeder-blog/EU-Barroso-Hitler-Stalin-Jede-Zeit-Ihre-Diktatoren.jpg) people (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mXOJsfJyd74/SXyaPEF-LsI/AAAAAAAABq8/4iOoUJImrCw/s400/Barroso+fascist.JPG) make (http://editorialminuto.webs.com/chavez-hitler.jpg) these (http://www.analitica.com/va/politica/imagenes/3196487.jpg) comparisons (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_m7dDvVYKO2c/SYRYBLT1-wI/AAAAAAAAI1Y/--ywfAjOsno/s400/CHAVEZ+HITLER.gif) lightly (http://martinzender.com/1zenderature_uploads_final/TheresaHitler.jpg).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sarmatian:

Here (http://www.academia.edu/592889/Making_a_Difference_Allisons_Three_Models_of_Foreign_Policy_Analysis) is a decent downloadable précis of Allison's 3 perspectives.

The point of the multiple perspectives is that numerous constraints and "interior" political agenda influence decisions and that those constraints are persistent. Thus it is NOT necessarily true that decisions made over the course of months have had time to "revert" to the rational. There were, almost certainly, elements in the US government who wanted to "finish the job" in Iraq -- Schwarzkopf felt that stopping short of Turkish border in Gulf One was the wrong choice for example -- and that segment was reinforced by the neocons who saw the neutralization of Iraq and Afghanistan as the means to "cloister" the greatest threat in the region, Iran. That made for a whole lot of minds predisposed to see what they wanted to see in the data (and in our case to put our faith in a humint resource who had an axe to grind against Saddam and wanted to seem valuable (and get a better payoff) package after defecting) despite skeptical opinions from numerous NATO allies regarding the quality of the intelligence.


Regarding the Ukraine etc.

Sarmatian is making a good point about the Russian idea of defense. Is it paranoid of them to be so aggressive when defending their interests within Eastern Europe? Probably. On the other hand, as students of history you are all aware of WHY Russia tends to be a bit paranoid about invasions. or strong opponents sharing their borders. Presuming that they will act like "us" is a little silly. This Russian attitude has not always been well addressed in our foreign policy interactions with them.

[rvg]

Sarmatian is making a good point about the Russian idea of defense. Is it paranoid of them to be so aggressive when defending their interests within Eastern Europe? Probably. On the other hand, as students of history you are all aware of WHY Russia tends to be a bit paranoid about invasions. or strong opponents sharing their borders. Presuming that they will act like "us" is a little silly. This Russian attitude has not always been well addressed in our foreign policy interactions with them.

Actually, it's not a good point at all. In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned. The West was viewed through a very pragmatic lens. It is not until 2004 or so when Putin regained control of the media that "the world is out to get us" attitude started making a comeback. But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

[Montmorency]

But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

The world is only as deep as one can see...

[Gilrandir]

A lot of pictures to disprove what I say

In my post I didn't speak of likening ANYONE to ANYONE. It is too general. I spoke of likening the particular speech of Person 1 to the particular speech of Person 2. I heard some abstracts (translated) which seem to bear out this likening. I was interested if anyone (for Germans it seems easier) could provide it in full so that we all of us could draw our own conclusions.

[Gilrandir]

Ukrainian population, on the other hand, never expressed interest in joining. NATO membership never got above 20% support, it usually varied between 5-15%. NOT entering NATO was supported by 30-50+% (from the top of my head, it may be a few percentages more or less in either case).

According to latest polls the figure of those who wish to join NATO is 75%. In southeast it is 57-45%, in the center - 80%, in the west - more than 90%.

[Sarmatian]

According to latest polls the figure of those who wish to join NATO is 75%. In southeast it is 57-45%, in the center - 80%, in the west - more than 90%.

That's understandable given the situation, but it's a momentary spike. It will drop back to more manageable levels as soon as the crisis is over.
People will naturally assume that NATO membership would have protected them during this crisis, unaware that it was the possible NATO membership that was the prime reason for the crisis itself.

Irregardless of NATO membership, Ukraine will have to work with Russia, and taking cues from Finland rather than Poland and Baltic states would have been much better.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, it's not a good point at all. In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned. The West was viewed through a very pragmatic lens. It is not until 2004 or so when Putin regained control of the media that "the world is out to get us" attitude started making a comeback. But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

One does not shift a cultural pattern of thinking/acting/value in the space of a decade, except, perhaps, with the then maturing generation who are less a part of the previous experience. This self=protectiveness (paranoia) has been a characteristic of the Russian mindset for centuries. Russia, at least when not the CCCP, often embraced relations with the West. Cordial, even friendly, relationships does not necessarily mean that this mindset was discarded.

I did not mean to say that Russia views all around it as enemies -- that was the Soviet "Collective Security" thinking, a policy now discarded.

[Sarmatian]

But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

Oh, for Christ's sake, stop playing the "I used to live in Russia so my opinion is correct" card, please. What gives you special insight? You were close friends with Yeltsin? You're present during meetings, when Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and the rest make decision? They confide to you?

Give it a rest and move on.

[rvg]

One does not shift a cultural pattern of thinking/acting/value in the space of a decade, except, perhaps, with the then maturing generation who are less a part of the previous experience.
It can happen just fine under the right circumstances. Having a totalitarian empire unravel within a span of six years can do wonders for clearing people's heads. Not everybody of course, but most get message.


This self=protectiveness (paranoia) has been a characteristic of the Russian mindset for centuries.
Because Russia has been ruled by tyrants for almost the entire span of its history.


Russia, at least when not the CCCP, often embraced relations with the West. Cordial, even friendly, relationships does not necessarily mean that this mindset was discarded. I did not mean to say that Russia views all around it as enemies -- that was the Soviet "Collective Security" thinking, a policy now discarded.
Well guess what, it's the Soviet-style thinking that is back now. Not some centuries-long cultural stuff, but good old-fashioned Cold War mentality is back. It's been dominant for close to a decade now.


Oh, for Christ's sake, stop playing the "I used to live in Russia so my opinion is correct" card, please. What gives you special insight? You were close friends with Yeltsin? You're present during meetings, when Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and the rest make decision? They confide to you?

Give it a rest and move on.

If you can give insight into Russian soul, so can I. Only better.

[Myth]

Has any one of you drank 3 liters of vodka with a guy named Vladimir Smirnoff and then have him drive you around? No? Then can it and bow down to my ultimate knowledge of Russian culture!

[Brenus]

“You mean no similarity whatsoever?”! And? Hitler probably did beautiful speeches about the love of mothers for their kids, so because Hitler said so, you can’t love you kids, or your country?

“In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned” Yeah, and happened: Kosovo, Missile shield. Poland joined in NATO and all the “coloured” revolutions around Russia. Russia didn’t provide any weapons to the Taliban (might change), swallowed humiliations after humiliations, then, oh! Surprise! This one was one too much.

“But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...” I was an eyewitness in 3 wars and I saw merely nothing, especially in mountains or forests…

“good old-fashioned Cold War mentality is back. It's been dominant for close to a decade now.” Agree, and in both sides. See some comments in this thread.

“Only better.” Only to you. Nothing singular, I always think my opinion is better than the others'.

[gaelic cowboy]

Did you not read the post????

Even if a nation wants to join a political or military alliance, it doesn't have to be accepted if the effect is detrimental to the overall stability. But, in the case of Poland and Baltic nations, NATO wanted them in, their population was in favour of it overwhelmingly, so it's all fair and good. I don't have a problem with that.

Ukrainian population, on the other hand, never expressed interest in joining. NATO membership never got above 20% support, it usually varied between 5-15%. NOT entering NATO was supported by 30-50+% (from the top of my head, it may be a few percentages more or less in either case). Even with that Yuschenko was pushing for it, and USA was pushing for it from their side. After Yuschenko's defeat, they kept at it, financing and supporting political parties that wanted NATO membership and applying pressure on other NATO members that thought Ukraine in NATO isn't such a good idea. Similar stuff with Georgia.

Why was it done? Ukraine in NATO doesn't bolster NATO security, Ukrainians don't want it, a good chunk of European NATO doesn't want it and it will most surely antagonize Russia. Why the needless poke in the eye?


I read it and was not impressed, essentially your understanding a particular geopolitical reality does not mean it has to be tolerated.
The West tried any amount of resets and accords over the years, its the russians who are poking everyone else in the eye for years.

The Soviets claim this deal which no one has ever seen anywhere AND the states in question had/have a right to forge there path.

Post-soviet thinking about some lock on the future of any states is essentially an acceptance of a kleptocratic norm.

Since the russians are already incapable of sustaining there favored "stability" without a crackdown then its not really stable is it.

Basically I care not a whit for the the eyes of a proven autocrat like Putin, poke away I say.

[Sarmatian]

If you can give insight into Russian soul, so can I. Only better.

Never did or claimed that. My posts dealt with political doctrines and consistencies in Russian foreign politics. You're the one who claimed special insight based on the fact that you were born and/or lived in Russia.


I read it and was not impressed.

That's your problem.



The Soviets claim this deal which no one has ever seen anywhere AND the states in question had/have a right to forge there path.

Having a right to choose means leaving them alone to make that choice, not spending millions to fund movements and parties or supporting revolutions, against the wish of the people in question.

The greatest irony is that Ukrainians already tried that. Yuschenko was hailed as democratic savior, western minded, progressive politician who will make Ukraine a NATO member. People in the streets, fighting for democracy and less corruption. At the end of his term, his approval rating was less than average shoe size in UK. Timoshenko fared only slightly better, not even being jailed by Yanukovich was enough to wash her.

We'll see how long it takes for this one.


Since the russians are already incapable of sustaining there favored "stability" without a crackdown then its not really stable is it.

I care not a whit for the the eyes of a proven autocrat like Putin.

I already know your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

[rvg]

Never did or claimed that. My posts dealt with political doctrines and consistencies in Russian foreign politics. You're the one who claimed special insight based on the fact that you were born and/or lived in Russia.

"Russian mindset is completely different..." -- these are your words from this thread. So yeah, you're claiming insight alright. So am I, but at least I have a damn good idea of what I'm talking about.

[gaelic cowboy]

That's your problem.

Actually its the worlds problem now



Having a right to choose means leaving them alone to make that choice, not spending millions to fund movements and parties or supporting revolutions, against the wish of the people in question.

Yea cos Russia never does any of that kind of stuff???




The greatest irony is that Ukrainians already tried that. Yuschenko was hailed as democratic savior, western minded, progressive politician who will make Ukraine a NATO member. People in the streets, fighting for democracy and less corruption. At the end of his term, his approval rating was less than average shoe size in UK. Timoshenko fared only slightly better, not even being jailed by Yanukovich was enough to wash her.

We'll see how long it takes for this one.

So what there entitled to there own choices, why does Russia get to pass judgement on politician x y or z.





I already know your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

and I totally oppose your thinking also.

The world will not return to a form of stability if we accept Putin's imaginary reality.

[Sarmatian]

"Russian mindset is completely different..." -- these are your words from this thread. So yeah, you're claiming insight alright. So am I, but at least I have a damn good idea of what I'm talking about.

Poorly chosen words, perhaps, which conveyed a slightly different message than I wanted. I thought it clear from the rest of my post that I was talking about political decision making. If it wasn't, I made it explicitly clear in the very next post.

If that's not enough, I'll repeat it again - I refer only to political decision making and political and military doctrines. I don't claim any special insight into frame of mind or soul of 150,000,000 Russians. I don't believe one can. I don't know how to say it any clearer than this.


Actually its the worlds problem now

Mine? No. I'm admitting from the start that I'm a euroweenie who doesn't believe in borders at all and am not willing to die for politicians on either side.


Yea cos Russia never does any of that kind of stuff???

Never said that. Russia isn't more innocent than US/West in that regard and the difference in the level of meddling is explainable by the fact the Russia considers its near abroad to be its own backyard, USA considers the entire world as its own backyard.. It just isn't the evil empire everyone's considering it to be, but like US and some other countries, it is prepared to meddle in other countries to further its own interest.


So what there entitled to there own choices, why does Russia get to pass judgement on politician x y or z.

Look above.


and I totally oppose your thinking also.

I know you do. I'd love you for it you were using arguments to do so, like Seamus, instead of repeating outdated political slogans. I might even learn something.


The world will not return to a form of stability if we accept Putin's imaginary reality.

That's not imaginary reality. Russia has the muscle to project power in its near abroad.

[Sarmatian]

Another leaked conversation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te2E1R5YHBI), this time between Timoshenko and Sufrych.

Timoshenko explains how she will use all her contacts to make the world destroy Russia so "only scorched earth remains". When asked about 8 million Russians in Ukraine, she said they should all be "shot in the head". Very juicy conversation. Sufrych initially denied it happened, but Timoshenko confirmed it, except the part where she says Ukrainian Russian should all be shot, which she claims was edited in by the FSB.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's understandable given the situation, but it's a momentary spike. It will drop back to more manageable levels as soon as the crisis is over.
People will naturally assume that NATO membership would have protected them during this crisis, unaware that it was the possible NATO membership that was the prime reason for the crisis itself.

Irregardless of NATO membership, Ukraine will have to work with Russia, and taking cues from Finland rather than Poland and Baltic states would have been much better.

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

Second - I expect that the annexation of Crimea will have a lasting effect on Ukraine, forcing it Westwards rather that trying to tread the line between the EU and Russia. And hey, NATO membership would have protected them.

[HoreTore]

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

I want to marry you now, PVC.

[Montmorency]

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

The scourge of conservativism!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

Well thank you so much Henry Higgins.

[Husar]

The Soviets claim this deal which no one has ever seen anywhere AND the states in question had/have a right to forge there path.

Which Soviets? And do you mean the well-documented promises made by Western leaders?
There is a relatively sober article from 2009 right here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

I wouldn't quite say noone has seen anything, a very simple google search turned this up, maybe you just didn't want to look for it?

[gaelic cowboy]

Which Soviets? And do you mean the well-documented promises made by Western leaders?
There is a relatively sober article from 2009 right here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

I wouldn't quite say noone has seen anything, a very simple google search turned this up, maybe you just didn't want to look for it?

bring out the paper which says Poland couldnt join Nato or the EU

The countries themselves made the choice.(as they were entitled too)

There was no agreement beyond a few spooks jawing with each other, the former communist nations signed no such agreeements.

[gaelic cowboy]

Never said that. Russia isn't more innocent than US/West in that regard and the difference in the level of meddling is explainable by the fact the Russia considers its near abroad to be its own backyard, USA considers the entire world as its own backyard.. It just isn't the evil empire everyone's considering it to be, but like US and some other countries, it is prepared to meddle in other countries to further its own interest.

Russia's backyard is quiet bloody, this near abroad strategy is a complete mess.

I understand how and why there messing about lately but I just don't believe it should be tolerated.



That's not imaginary reality. Russia has the muscle to project power in its near abroad.

Will it be MORE or less stable if Putin does anymore of this craic then???

Even if Russia was given the ok in its near abroad it will still end up in a mess every couple of years.

[Husar]

bring out the paper which says Poland couldnt join Nato or the EU

The countries themselves made the choice.(as they were entitled too)

There was no agreement beyond a few spooks jawing with each other, the former communist nations signed no such agreeements.

Neither I nor the Soviets said there was a written agreement, no need to fight windmills.
The article clearly states that it was not supposed to be just their decision as existing NATO members would simply not allow them to join.
You also can't just join a private club because you're a free person, they have to let you in as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I want to marry you now, PVC.

And thanks to our Conservative PM - you can.

Except - no thank you. I had my heart broken by a Scandinavian once before and after her I said never again!


Neither I nor the Soviets said there was a written agreement, no need to fight windmills.
The article clearly states that it was not supposed to be just their decision as existing NATO members would simply not allow them to join.
You also can't just join a private club because you're a free person, they have to let you in as well.

To understand why, later, they were allowed to join you need to understand two things.

1. The Warsaw Pact was the Great Shame of the Allies, after the Poles and Czechs had fought to protect Britain's skies and Romania had unilaterally switched sides after ousting its Fascist dictator, we let them all down. So, when half a century later our former allies announce that, in fact, all if forgiven and they still want to be friends.

Well, historical resonance is a powerful force even in international Politics.

2. If there was no treaty, then the Politicians at the time had no right to speak for their successors - and the Soviets had no right to expect anything.

[Gilrandir]

The scourge of conservativism!
Thusly, no new words are allowed, aren't they?

[Gilrandir]

“You mean no similarity whatsoever?”! And? Hitler probably did beautiful speeches about the love of mothers for their kids, so because Hitler said so, you can’t love you kids, or your country?


It was not about loving anyone, it was about invading other countries to bring liberation to the oppressed ethnic brothers. Well, perhaps you could call that loving them in a peculiar way (penetration is there OK). Only such love seemed unrequited.

[Gilrandir]

Irregardless of NATO membership, Ukraine will have to work with Russia, and taking cues from Finland rather than Poland and Baltic states would have been much better.
On a second thought: while theoretically the Finland way seems perfect for Ukraine, it is hardly practicable what with Ukraine's starting position and the attitude of Russians (both average and powers-that-be).
Finland separated from Russia in 1918, so now it is almost forgotten by Russians that some day it was not abroad. While it wasn't forgotten, Russia (the Soviet Union then) tried to correct that in 1940. Moreover, Finland has always been alien to what is termed here as "Russian mindset": a different culture, history, non-Slavic (indeed non-Indo-European) language, and a location out of sight and out of mind of greater geopolitical players.
Ukraine is a different story and I have already explained the attitude of Russia to Ukraine. It is more similar to the attitude Russia has towards Baltic states or its former socialist allies. As one of the deputies (not from Svoboda) shared: "In the 1990s whenever we met Russian MPs at some official occasions they more or less openly said: "Ukrainians, stop fooling around with this independence of yours".
Russia will never tolerate Ukraine within some European foundation nor neutral. We saw that neutrality is not an option just now.

[Sarmatian]

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

And you waited this long to tell me that? I'll use "irrespective" from now on, Dr. Johnson.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LW__eE7-BA


Second - I expect that the annexation of Crimea will have a lasting effect on Ukraine, forcing it Westwards rather that trying to tread the line between the EU and Russia. And hey, NATO membership would have protected them.

Possibly. (that's a word, right?)

Irrespective of this argument, I do remember a few pages back you said that NATO bombing of Serbia was justified by actions taken after the bombing. Is Russian intervention in Ukraine also justified if Ukraine joins NATO after it?

[Brenus]

“It was not about loving anyone, it was about invading other countries to bring liberation to the oppressed ethnic brothers. Well, perhaps you could call that loving them in a peculiar way (penetration is there OK). Only such love seemed unrequited.” Right. You want to go this way, fine: REMINDER: It is not PUTIN who got 4 openly NAZI in his executive. It is NOT the Russian minority (majority in Ukraine) that wanted to kill others minorities. It is not in Crimea that the Jewish Leader asked his followers to get out because fear.
The ONLY side that shows racism for now is YOUR side…
See Sarmatian: “Timoshenko explains how she will use all her contacts to make the world destroy Russia so "only scorched earth remains". When asked about 8 million Russians in Ukraine, she said they should all be "shot in the head". Very juicy conversation. Sufrych initially denied it happened, but Timoshenko confirmed it, except the part where she says Ukrainian Russian should all be shot, which she claims was edited in by the FSB.”
And this one is the DEMOCRATIC leader, the Ukrainian Joan of Arc.

So, we can argue about legitimacy of a coup in one side and the legality of a coup in the other side as much as you want, but the Nazism in action is actually on the Ukrainian side. Without these Nazi, perhaps, perhaps, the cessation of Crimea wouldn’t have happened.

[Fisherking]

So, we can argue about legitimacy of a coup in one side and the legality of a coup in the other side as much as you want, but the Nazism in action is actually on the Ukrainian side. Without these Nazi, perhaps, perhaps, the cessation of Crimea wouldn’t have happened.


From what I can tell the demonstrations did not start as anti-Russian. Russia made them anti-Russian.

The Russians make a big deal out of the neo-Nazis but seem to overlook there own, fairly open, anti-Semitism and heavy handedness. It overlooks the fact that the guy who took over Crimea was an Organized Crime Kingpin, AKA The Goblin, with involvement in the deaths of several rival politicians.

It is just fine calling a spade a spade, so long as you are not just whitewashing the unsavory elements on the other side.

It is hard to know for sure who to blame more. Maybe the propaganda of the West is more subtle than the propaganda used by Russia. The Russian stuff is certainly much more vitriolic and fear mongering than what you see from Western outlets.

I don’t see this in black and white. You don’t need to give the Western Nations a pass but there is plenty to fault about Putin’s governance in magnifying and escalating the crises.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And thanks to our Conservative PM - you can.

Except - no thank you. I had my heart broken by a Scandinavian once before and after her I said never again!...

Oh, so the old line about Scandanavians is true then....

Once you go Scandanavian, you can never eat spicy food again.

[Montmorency]

Well, I guess Putin's personal position depends on the outcome of the Ukraine situation...

Interesting how the situation has escalated. Putin's image and America's image, plus their respective influence on the international system, are at stake to a high degree.

What about the Central Asian states? What about Azerbaijan?

Neither side will allow the other to gain a resounding political victory when it is possible to thwart them at minimal cost, but by the same token there will be no drastic steps taken by either side in the short term.

So, the ends of men must once again reach the middle.

What is the middle?

Note that I'm not asking about a diplomatic position of compromise at the bargaining table, but the natural outcome between the actions of two poles heavily constrained in their options?

[Fisherking]

Putin is in the driver’s seat. The west has no strong leader.

The danger I see is that in testing his limits he may well trigger a reaction no one wants, himself included.

Obama is a man totally lacking in principals. He said some fine things to get elected but felt no compunction to follow his own words. On the international seine he is completely out of his depth and has no credibility.

[Montmorency]

Putin is in the driver’s seat. The west has no strong leader[ship position].

Which is why blaming Obama specifically for anything makes no sense. He's a non-entity.

[Husar]

In my post I didn't speak of likening ANYONE to ANYONE. It is too general. I spoke of likening the particular speech of Person 1 to the particular speech of Person 2. I heard some abstracts (translated) which seem to bear out this likening.

But all the examples I gave are based on the idea that one aspect of person A is just like that one aspect of person B, it doesn't improve the comparison one bit.


The Warsaw Pact was the Great Shame of the Allies, after the Poles and Czechs had fought to protect Britain's skies and Romania had unilaterally switched sides after ousting its Fascist dictator, we let them all down. So, when half a century later our former allies announce that, in fact, all if forgiven and they still want to be friends.

Yes, we let down our friends and so we had to lie to our new friends to make up with the old friends. -> moral superiority!


If there was no treaty, then the Politicians at the time had no right to speak for their successors - and the Soviets had no right to expect anything.

So only written and signed contracts count and otherwise people can't expect anything? Do notorious liars and deceivers have moral superiority as long as they never signed a written contract? I'M arguing the point that the West has complete moral superiority, not legal superiority in this case.


Putin is in the driver’s seat. The west has no strong leader.

Usually when countries have a strong leader, we call him a dictator. and strong leader presidents can look very much like elected dictators anyway.


Obama is a man totally lacking in principals. He said some fine things to get elected but felt no compunction to follow his own words. On the international seine he is completely out of his depth and has no credibility.

Yeah, but the American people don't have a written, signed contract with Obama that says he will do these things, so they have no right to expect anything.

[Montmorency]

Yeah, but the American people don't have a written, signed contract with Obama that says he will do these things, so they have no right to expect anything.

While the executive has grown in power, if anything the position of the POTUS himself is actually relatively weak.

The point is that one can't really expect much of anything from Obama. Neither a statesman nor a figurehead, he ends up being little more than a glorified bureaucrat.

[Beskar]

I think all these conflicts boil down to "lesser evils".

[Fisherking]

While the executive has grown in power, if anything the position of the POTUS himself is actually relatively weak.

The point is that one can't really expect much of anything from Obama. Neither a statesman nor a figurehead, he ends up being little more than a glorified bureaucrat.

The US has no real foreign policy but it does have agendas. Under his tenure the US has participated in some very unprincipled actions. Obama gets the blame for that.

Further, he is not a non-entity. He most certainly has a strong influence on outcomes. I just see it as a negative influence, for the greater part, and as a liability.

This mostly means that we have no insight into decision making. Both he and Bush followed a neo-con agenda, with regard to the world. Just that Obama is more half hearted and hesitant in its implementation. It is those behind the seines that we need worry about, in his case.





Another leaked conversation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te2E1R5YHBI), this time between Timoshenko and Sufrych.

Timoshenko explains how she will use all her contacts to make the world destroy Russia so "only scorched earth remains". When asked about 8 million Russians in Ukraine, she said they should all be "shot in the head". Very juicy conversation. Sufrych initially denied it happened, but Timoshenko confirmed it, except the part where she says Ukrainian Russian should all be shot, which she claims was edited in by the FSB.

As to the leaked conversation, she says it is a fabrication, which given the content, I don’t find impossible to believe. It seem a little too extreme IMHO and reads much more like Russian Propaganda. Even given the anger over such a situation I find the content hard to believe.

I most definitely is a windfall to the Russian Propaganda Apparatus.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Putin is in the driver’s seat. The west has no strong leader.

The danger I see is that in testing his limits he may well trigger a reaction no one wants, himself included.

Obama is a man totally lacking in principals. He said some fine things to get elected but felt no compunction to follow his own words. On the international seine he is completely out of his depth and has no credibility.

He already got the Nobel, took out Usama, changed the tone with Israel, withdrew from Iraq, is drawing back from Afghanistan, would've closed Gitmo if anybody in Congress could've gotten their states to agree to take the prisoners, has kept his hands off Venezuela, and has encouraged the "Arab Spring" up to and including the NATO efforts in Libya.

He went into office stating that we would be more collegial with our allies and less the dominant voice; that he would work with both the Israelis and the Palestinians but would not promote Israel; that he would remove the USA from Iraq and draw down in Afghanistan as rapidly as possible; he asserted early on that the USA wanted to work on developing a new and less antagonistic relationship with the muslim/arab world -- how has he not kept his promises (aside from Gitmo where he was blocked).

The Obama administration has always been about bringing about health coverage for all Americans and taking us from a leadership to a collegial role in foreign affairs. So far, he is delivering on all of his stated major objectives.

[Sarmatian]

As to the leaked conversation, she says it is a fabrication, which given the content, I don’t find impossible to believe. It seem a little too extreme IMHO and reads much more like Russian Propaganda. Even given the anger over such a situation I find the content hard to believe.

I most definitely is a windfall to the Russian Propaganda Apparatus.

From what I've been able to gather, she admitted the conversation did happen, but that the part about killing 8 millions Russians in Ukraine or calls for nuclear attacks on Russia isn't true and was edited in by the FSB. She didn't deny the entire content of the conversation, based on her twitter post afterwards: "The conversation did take place, but the bit about 8 million Russians in Ukraine was edited. I actually said that the Russians in Ukraine were Ukrainians. Hi, FSB :) Sorry for being obscene."

I could be wrong, though. Is there any other statement she made about it?

[Fisherking]

He already got the Nobel, took out Usama, changed the tone with Israel, withdrew from Iraq, is drawing back from Afghanistan, would've closed Gitmo if anybody in Congress could've gotten their states to agree to take the prisoners, has kept his hands off Venezuela, and has encouraged the "Arab Spring" up to and including the NATO efforts in Libya.

He went into office stating that we would be more collegial with our allies and less the dominant voice; that he would work with both the Israelis and the Palestinians but would not promote Israel; that he would remove the USA from Iraq and draw down in Afghanistan as rapidly as possible; he asserted early on that the USA wanted to work on developing a new and less antagonistic relationship with the muslim/arab world -- how has he not kept his promises (aside from Gitmo where he was blocked).

The Obama administration has always been about bringing about health coverage for all Americans and taking us from a leadership to a collegial role in foreign affairs. So far, he is delivering on all of his stated major objectives.

He got the Nobel Prize for his potential. Laughable.

His policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have only made them worse.

I don’t see anything to brag about in the handling of the Arab Spring or Libya.

As Commander In Chief he has the power to close Gitmo any time he would like.

I see a lot of bungling and finger pointing with poor results everywhere, health care included.

Policies of drone strikes and assassination don’t inspire me. Sorry!

[Fisherking]

From what I've been able to gather, she admitted the conversation did happen, but that the part about killing 8 millions Russians in Ukraine or calls for nuclear attacks on Russia isn't true and was edited in by the FSB. She didn't deny the entire content of the conversation, based on her twitter post afterwards: "The conversation did take place, but the bit about 8 million Russians in Ukraine was edited. I actually said that the Russians in Ukraine were Ukrainians. Hi, FSB :) Sorry for being obscene."

I could be wrong, though. Is there any other statement she made about it?

I only saw a short blurb on the matter. It said, she did admit that she spoke but she denied the content of the conversation.

You information could very well be more informed than mine.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He got the Nobel Prize for his potential. Laughable.

His policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have only made them worse.

I don’t see anything to brag about in the handling of the Arab Spring or Libya.

As Commander In Chief he has the power to close Gitmo any time he would like.

I see a lot of bungling and finger pointing with poor results everywhere, health care included.

Policies of drone strikes and assassination don’t inspire me. Sorry!

Fisherking:

Do not mistake me. I voted against him twice even though both opponents were "meh." I find his policy initiatives to be wooden-headed and wrong and oppose 9 in 10 of them. I am not thrilled with the drone strikes either, or at least the overly liberal use thereof. I am by no means an Obama apologist.

All I am saying is that the American electorate, charmed by the thought of "Yes we can," did. We are getting the leadership we chose and he is doing, more or less, exactly what he said he would.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I only saw a short blurb on the matter. It said, she did admit that she spoke but she denied the content of the conversation.

You information could very well be more informed than mine.

Be careful, this kind of reasonable post could give the Backroom a reputation for civility. AND THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE?!?!!

[drone]

Obama's foreign policy is just about what I would expect from a Chicago politician with 2 years experience in the US Senate.

[rvg]

If this crisis has taught us anything it's that if you ever drop the "bad guy" baton and refuse to use it, somebody else will immediately pick it up and start swinging to his heart's content. Moral of the story: never drop the baton. It's better if we are the "good bad guy" or "bad good guy", then for someone like Putin getting the opportunity to be the true bad guy and living up to that reputation.

Can't wait for 2016.

[HoreTore]

If this crisis has taught us anything it's that if you ever drop the "bad guy" baton and refuse to use it, somebody else will immediately pick it up and start swinging to his heart's content. Moral of the story: never drop the baton. It's better if we are the "good bad guy" or "bad good guy", then for someone like Putin getting the opportunity to be the true bad guy and living up to that reputation.

Can't wait for 2016.

I fail to see how this is a disastrous turn of events for the wider world.

[Beskar]

Obama's foreign policy is just about what I would expect from a Chicago politician with 2 years experience in the US Senate.

His competition's view was "Nuke Iran". He could have done a lot worse...

[rvg]

I fail to see how this is a disastrous turn of events for the wider world.

Is the world better off today than it was two months ago?

[Kagemusha]

I have listened to the Tymoshenko phone tape and my bet is that our Russian friends might have indeed tapered a bit it, as Tymoshenko is saying that 8 million Russians in Ukraine should be nuked and that does not make exactly any sense as it would require nuking Ukraine..:dizzy2: Otherwise dear Julia does not exactly come off as sane person either.. Come to think she is ex president of Ukraine.Here is the tape:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo

[HoreTore]

Is the world better off today than it was two months ago?

I would say the situation is the same as it was.

[rvg]

I would say the situation is the same as it was.

I would say it's significantly worse and about to go even further downhill. Time will tell.

[drone]

His competition's view was "Nuke Iran". He could have done a lot worse...

Welcome to our hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlcngdW2Ju4

[Montmorency]

General reply:

Do not conflate the administration for the individual. Obama is much less than his administration. When you elect a POTUS, you are electing an administration - the man himself is hardly relevant, and this has been true for about 50 years.

[Montmorency]

Now, to clear something up: Obama could make the Chief Executive stronger in theory - there is always that possibility open to strong leaders - but for now that position is heavily-constrained, and Obama-as-man probably lacks both the skill and the desire to loosen the bonds.

[Gilrandir]

It is NOT the Russian minority (majority in Ukraine) that wanted to kill others minorities.

It is the first time I hear of any ethnicity in Ukraine wanting to kill another. Again: Maidan was a multinational phenomenon. There was no talk of exterminating ANY nationality.


So, we can argue about legitimacy of a coup in one side and the legality of a coup in the other side as much as you want, but the Nazism in action is actually on the Ukrainian side. Without these Nazi, perhaps, perhaps, the cessation of Crimea wouldn’t have happened.
You are doing what I criticized Sarmatian for: denouncing Nazis on one side and choosing to ignore Nazis on the other. I refer you to my posts about what is going on in Crimea now. And I can add some more: fugitives start to flee from the peninsula reporting bullying and hostility to any who express dislike of Russia's takeover. Admitting oneself to be Ukrainian is a worse sin. The best is yet to come.

[Gilrandir]

Come to think she is ex president of Ukraine.
Correction: ex-prime minister.

[Kagemusha]

Correction: ex-prime minister.

Thanks for the correction. To me bit of a nutter nevertheless..

[Gilrandir]

Thanks for the correction. To me bit of a nutter nevertheless..
I don't like Tymoshenko, but knowing her to be a very cautious politician I can well believe that the most startling parts of the conversation were forged.

[HoreTore]

You are doing what I criticized Sarmatian for: denouncing Nazis on one side and choosing to ignore Nazis on the other. I refer you to my posts about what is going on in Crimea now. And I can add some more: fugitives start to flee from the peninsula reporting bullying and hostility to any who express dislike of Russia's takeover. Admitting oneself to be Ukrainian is a worse sin. The best is yet to come.

....and ignoring how the interrim government has started cracking down on their own fascists(right sector leader killed during arrest) gives an even clearer picture of how selective their perception is.

[Sarmatian]

I have listened to the Tymoshenko phone tape and my bet is that our Russian friends might have indeed tapered a bit it, as Tymoshenko is saying that 8 million Russians in Ukraine should be nuked and that does not make exactly any sense as it would require nuking Ukraine..:dizzy2: Otherwise dear Julia does not exactly come off as sane person either.. Come to think she is ex president of Ukraine.Here is the tape:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo

Could be, could be. The rest of the conversation is enough to safely label her a fruitcake.


Correction: ex-prime minister.


Thanks for the correction. To me bit of a nutter nevertheless..

And possible future president.

It seems there will be three options: herself, Tyahnybok and Klitschko... and the guy who spent all his working years receiving punches in the head looks the sanest option. There's a hidden message in there somewhere, I just can't find it.

[Gilrandir]

And possible future president.

It seems there will be three options: herself, Tyahnybok and Klitschko... and the guy who spent all his working years receiving punches in the head looks the sanest option. There's a hidden message in there somewhere, I just can't find it.
There is the Communist Symonenko, the Party of Regions' bid Tygypko, the ex-mayor of Kharkiv Dobkin and some others may yet show up.
As for Tymoshenko's chances: a popular believe here is that her time has gone. The way Maidan reacted when she spoke to it showed that as plain as pikestaff. She has lost much of her popularity with the pro-western electorate (due to her long-time absence from the active politics) and is still obnoxious for the pro-Russian one.
The sanest choice I see is Poroshenko (I wonder how you guys don't get lost among all those outlandish names), though I don't know whether he will run for the office. Anyway, according to the new old constitution the role of the president will not be that significant as it used to be.

[HoreTore]

I wonder how you guys don't get lost among all those outlandish names

We just call all of them Ivan. Makes things easier. So, we have blonde girl-Ivan, boxing-Ivan, and so on....

[Sarmatian]

There is the Communist Symonenko, the Party of Regions' bid Tygypko, the ex-mayor of Kharkiv Dobkin and some others may yet show up.
As for Tymoshenko's chances: a popular believe here is that her time has gone. The way Maidan reacted when she spoke to it showed that as plain as pikestaff. She has lost much of her popularity with the pro-western electorate (due to her long-time absence from the active politics) and is still obnoxious for the pro-Russian one.
The sanest choice I see is Poroshenko (I wonder how you guys don't get lost among all those outlandish names), though I don't know whether he will run for the office. Anyway, according to the new old constitution the role of the president will not be that significant as it used to be.

The problem is see is Tyahnybok. During a crisis, nut jobs like himself tend to get a lot more support, so it is entirely plausible he will get enough to get to the run-off. In the run-off, I see most people supporting the other candidate. The question is who will that second candidate be. I don't believe any Party of Regions candidate would get there. They're disorganized and seen as too pro-Russian for the current situation. Timoshenko just might get enough support. Klitschko is, well... Klitschko, he'll get some votes but not enough.

Who's Poroshenko, what's his story?


We just call all of them Ivan. Makes things easier. So, we have blonde girl-Ivan, boxing-Ivan, and so on....

Russians are called Ivan. These are Ukrainians. There's a difference, you ignorant Swede.

[HoreTore]

Russians are called Ivan. These are Ukrainians. There's a difference, you ignorant Swede.

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and drinks vodka like a Russian, it's a Russian. So, Ivan.

[rvg]

...There's a difference, you ignorant Swede.

I see what you did there... :2thumbsup:



Who's Poroshenko, what's his story?
He's Ukraine's Willy Wonka. Also an ex-PM.

[Kagemusha]

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and drinks vodka like a Russian, it's a Russian. So, Ivan.

My Swedish friend certainly makes a point there. :yes:

[rvg]

My Swedish friend certainly makes a point there. :yes:

Let's call him Sven.

[Gilrandir]

Who's Poroshenko, what's his story?


He was close to Yushchenko during the Orange revolution, got some ministerial posts (foreign affairs, economy, the chief of national bank) even when Yanukovych was prime minister but later was apparently disillusioned in Yushchenko's insipidity and moved out of his orbit. He owns a confectinary enterprises network (perhaps someone heard of "Roshen" since its plants are in Europe (Hungary, I believe) as well as in Russia).
Well, you can find more information on him if you like - I don't want to be blamed in keeping secret some particularly unpleasant fact about him (that is there are some as much as about any Ukrainian politician). I cannot deny he was an active pro-Maidan figure. Yet currently he is the most balanced option likely to get support in different regions of Ukraine. Recent polls call him a leader of presidential race (22%).

[Gilrandir]

Russians are called Ivan. These are Ukrainians. There's a difference, you ignorant Swede.
Actually, Ivan is as much a Ukrainian name as Russian.

[Gilrandir]

I don't believe any Party of Regions candidate would get there. They're disorganized and seen as too pro-Russian for the current situation.
They started to play their old tune of the second official language. Is THIS a timely call likely to instill unity among people in times of turmoil?
The latest news of Tygypko: his party is quote surprised unquote by his decision to run for the presidency. He quote started too soon without consulting anyone within the party unquote.

[Kagemusha]

Actually, Ivan is as much a Ukrainian name as Russian.

Now there is a real cause for war. Fight to the last who gets to be called Ivan! Maybe Putin could get for once run for his money in 1vs 1 against Klitschko ~;)

[Gilrandir]

Now there is a real cause for war. Fight to the last who gets to be called Ivan! ~;)
To differentiate I suggest calling the Ukrainian Ivan "the nazi Ivan" and the Russian Ivan "Ivan the Deliverer".

[Kagemusha]

To differentiate I suggest calling the Ukrainian Ivan "the nazi Ivan" and the Russian Ivan "Ivan the Deliverer".

Nah! Too long, lets just put Putin and Klitschko in the cage to settle it once and for all.I would pay good money to see that..

[HoreTore]

All vodka-drinkers are Russian and called Ivan. End of story.

Yes, that includes you, Ivan-musha.

[Gilrandir]

Nah! Too long, lets just put Putin and Klitschko in the cage to settle it once and for all.I would pay good money to see that..
Putin will send an unidentified fighter sporting no insignia. In case he loses he will claim there was no Russian participant in the fight. And then he will call a referndum on who was the winner.

[Kagemusha]

All vodka-drinkers are Russian and called Ivan. End of story.

Yes, that includes you, Ivan-musha.

Labelling a Finn as a vodka drinker is heresy. We drink anything and i mean anything with alcohol content from engine coolant to eau de cologne..We are not picky like that, you,you Svensson.:inquisitive:

[Gilrandir]

Labelling a Finn as a vodka drinker is heresy. We drink anything and i mean anything with alcohol content from engine coolant to eau de cologne..We are not picky like that, you,you Svensson.:inquisitive:
You were within an ace of calling him son of a Sven.

[Sarmatian]

Putin will send an unidentified fighter sporting no insignia. In case he loses he will claim there was no Russian participant in the fight. And then he will call a referndum on who was the winner.

You're wrong about one thing...

Putin never loses.

12573


Labelling a Finn as a vodka drinker is heresy. We drink anything and i mean anything with alcohol content from engine coolant to eau de cologne..We are not picky like that, you,you Svensson.:inquisitive:

Yeah, what's wrong with Sven? He's a bit touchy these days.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We just call all of them Ivan. Makes things easier. So, we have blonde girl-Ivan, boxing-Ivan, and so on....

Ooh...oooh...I saw that one! Balboa kicked his ass despite the steroids.

[Kadagar_AV]

:furious3: :soapbox: :furious3:

You only feed HT's life long dream of being a Swede.

[Fisherking]

Back to Ukraine, and Mr. Obama’s latest speech:


"Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neigbors, not out of strength, but out weakness.

"Ukraine has been a country which Russia had enormous influence for decades, since the break-up of the Soviet Union, and we have considerable influence on our neighbors, we generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them.

The fact that Russia felt compelled to go in militarily and laid bear these violations of international law indicates less influence not more.

"So my response then continues to be what I believe today, which is: Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States. ," said Obama.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-im-concerned-about-loose-nuke-being-detonated-manhattan_786009.html


It is hard for me to imagine a more arrogant statement when dealing with a leader who will only take this as a challenge

Stinging Russian pride is not going to put an end to the crises.

Russia may be reduced in overall influence but it is still the country with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and a military approaching the size of that of the USA.

[Fisherking]

Oh yeah?

And just where is that wonderful manufacturing base they used to have?

It has been primarily a service economy for the last 30 year. Things are not what they used to be.

[rvg]

Oh yeah?

And just where is that wonderful manufacturing base they used to have?

It has been primarily a service economy for the last 30 year. Things are not what they used to be.

This very true but only relevant if the West actually follows up on the threat of serious sanctions. US sanctions alone won't be enough, EU has to join in.

[Sarmatian]

Back to Ukraine, and Mr. Obama’s latest speech:


It is hard for me to imagine a more arrogant statement when dealing with a leader who will only take this as a challenge

Stinging Russian pride is not going to put an end to the crises.

Russia may be reduced in overall influence but it is still the country with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and a military approaching the size of that of the USA.

He could have been more diplomatic, true, but he also needs to send a strong message to everyone involved. Strong messages are safer than strong actions.


Russia has to know that if it continues into Ukraine, Moldova, or the Baltic States it will set in motion the arms buildup and strategic deployments that could again lead to a world war. Like previous world wars we would be hostages to events and eventually dragged in (especially if it happens sooner and not later) on behalf of western Europe whether the general public wants it or not. Like previous global conflicts, the USA is unstoppable once the entire nation is put on a total war footing. Every advantage Russia has historically enjoyed, we enjoy it more.

Russia knows this, or I hope they know it, and Obama is only saying what must be said.

Two problems:

1) You enjoy the advantages on your turf, they on their turf.

2) If you outperform the Wehrmacht, nukes are gonna start flying and then you both lose. And pretty much the rest of us with you.

[rvg]

2) If you outperform the Wehrmacht, nukes are gonna start flying and then you both lose. And pretty much the rest of us with you.

Which is why the nukes won't start flying. As long as Russia proper is not under threat of total military takeover there is no need to worry about nukes.

[Sarmatian]

Which is why the nukes won't start flying. As long as Russia proper is not under threat of total military takeover there is no need to worry about nukes.

That may be true, but I'm not sure USA can beat Russia in its "near abroad", with the current military set up.

[rvg]

That may be true, but I'm not sure USA can beat Russia in its "near abroad", with the current military set up.

Well we certainly won't push the red button regardless of how the conventional warfare plays out. While Russia is basically impossible to swallow whole, ripping small chunks out of it (like East Prussia or Crimea) should be very doable. There's no need to kill the bear, just give it a black eye or two.

[Sarmatian]

Well we certainly won't push the red button regardless of how the conventional warfare plays out. While Russia is basically impossible to swallow whole, ripping small chunks out of it (like East Prussia or Crimea) should be very doable. There's no need to kill the bear, just give it a black eye or two.

Red button won't be pushed if it's a local conflict, I agree, but can USA defeat Russia in a local conflict? Without instituting draft, putting economy on war footing and so on...


That is kind of my point. Europe would be burning before we were really making a difference, as in the past. But in the long run they would have to nuke us or surrender when a twenty million man draftee Army is making its way East across a thrice-or-more decimated Germany.

Its a scenario that I am sure is hanging over many world leaders' heads as Putin keeps taking these risks.

Do you have any idea how many ships it takes to transport food every day for 20 million men?

[rvg]

Red button won't be pushed if it's a local conflict, I agree, but can USA defeat Russia in a local conflict? Without instituting draft, putting economy on war footing and so on...

I'd say so, at least capability is certainly there. It won't be a walk in the park of course, but even from the perspective of pure attrition we have more manpower, resources and allies than Russia could ever master. They can be all jedi, but it won't allow them to ignore the laws of numbers. As for instituting the draft, even when the draft was active about 90% of US military consisted of volunteers. Civil War, WW2, Vietnam, you name it. it's unlikely that we'll need to administer any drastic changes to the economy as our economy totally dwarfs the Russian one.

[Sarmatian]

Ya, do you have any idea what I'm talking about? We don't have the troops to fight a world war in europe any time soon. If a global conflict broke out in Europe and didn't immediately go nuclear we would spend years building up while Europe got churned into a wasteland.

And we'd rebuild it all again too.

God forbid anything like that happens ever again. Hopefully we never find out.

Anyway, it's pure speculation, because there are so many unknown variables. The first one is - what would China do in that case? Maybe it would stay neutral and be proved the true winner afterwards, like USA was after WW1. Maybe it would get involved directly, maybe it would only support one side... who knows...

I don't like even to talk about it.

[Brenus]

First, when you start an open war, you don’t know where and when it stops. Bush had a banner “mission accomplished” that was a little bit hasty.

Second, why the Russians would wait for the West to be ready? It Putin has this dream to grab more lands, he will do it soon. So I can imagine few weapons to some countries might help. What if suddenly he decides to help Iran? These 2 countries under blockade can help each other’s, no? Reactivation of Afghanistan, someone? US and Allies going like US in Vietnam?

Not, of course, forgetting the winter without Russian Gaz, and our money going to Ukraine where, if we don’t want to lose the popular support, we will have to match the increase of the pensions made by the Dictator in chief. Guys, the EU asked Ukraine to cut the budget and to have austerity, so we won’t have to give them our money. Ok, they won’t be able to pay the US gaz, so what? They have to put their money where their mouths are.
One English Economist on the BBC few days ago said that Putin will win in Ukraine just in leaving the West resolving the problem and to foot the bills.

And will all European Countries followed? I have doubts. We can’t re-install the Draft that is a lost in election. Can’t buy US material that will be an immediate loss of popularity and money we are not supposed to have (only to pay Banker’s bonuses).

[HoreTore]

Ya, do you have any idea what I'm talking about? We don't have the troops to fight a world war in europe any time soon. If a global conflict broke out in Europe and didn't immediately go nuclear we would spend years building up while Europe got churned into a wasteland.

And we'd rebuild it all again too.

Nobody is ever prepared for a world war, and yet everyone is always fully prepared at the same time.

We know three things about world wars:
1. It will be long.
2. Huge armies will be deployed.
3. Millions will die.

All 3 will always happen regardless of how "prepared" the participating countries are. A conflict between Europe and Russia will be long, bloody and ultimately pointless. There is nothing that can be done to change that.

[rvg]

All 3 will always happen regardless of how "prepared" the participating countries are. A conflict between Europe and Russia will be long, bloody and ultimately pointless. There is nothing that can be done to change that.
But the alternative is to allow Putin to enslave 50 million Ukrainians.

[HoreTore]

But the alternative is to allow Putin to enslave 50 million Ukrainians.

Do we care?

Honestly?

[rvg]

Do we care?

Honestly?
I do. Honestly.

[HoreTore]

I do. Honestly.

So, where has your bleedin' heart liberal mind been during the last 25 years Ukraine has played the part as Russia's bitch?

A Ukraine controlled by Russia is nothing more than a continuation of the status quo. It does not represent something radically new, neither for the world nor the Ukrainians.

[rvg]

So, where has your bleedin' heart liberal mind been during the last 25 years Ukraine has played the part as Russia's bitch? A Ukraine controlled by Russia is nothing more than a continuation of the status quo. It does not represent something radically new, neither for the world nor the Ukrainians.
Ukraine since its independence has had 4 presidents. Only one of them (Yanukovich) was a puppet. Two of them (Kravchuk and Kuchma) served during Yeltsin years or while Putin was still consolidating power. One (Yuschenko) was an outspoken pro-Westerner.
Ukraine was always close with Russia, and there's nothing wrong with that, however Russia only had a yes-man in Kiev since 2010.

[HoreTore]

Ukraine since its independence has had 4 presidents. Only one of them (Yanukovich) was a puppet. Two of them (Kravchuk and Kuchma) served during Yeltsin years or while Putin was still consolidating power. One (Yuschenko) was an outspoken pro-Westerner.
Ukraine was always close with Russia, and there's nothing wrong with that, however Russia only had a yes-man in Kiev since 2010.

Yutschenko represented a very brief period of respite from playing the role of Russia's lapdog. And his rule disintegrated rather quickly, leading to Russia taking back its domination over Ukrainian politics.

I'd put the starting point for Russia's reaffirming of its position at Chechnya. In the years between the collapse and that war, Russia was unable to assert its dominance. Since then, it has been the top dog in the region. Former soviet state politics is a lot more about who controls the economy than about who is president, and the Ukrainian economy is firmly in control of Russia. In economical terms, Ukraine has next to nothing to offer to the states to the west, while it relies heavily on trade with Russia.

[rvg]

Yutschenko represented a very brief period of respite from playing the role of Russia's lapdog. And his rule disintegrated rather quickly, leading to Russia taking back its domination over Ukrainian politics.
Unlike Yanukovich he actually managed to serve a full term.


I'd put the starting point for Russia's reaffirming of its position at Chechnya. In the years between the collapse and that war, Russia was unable to assert its dominance. Since then, it has been the top dog in the region.
The Chechen campaign is one rare occasion where I fully supported Putin's methods as well as his goals. He did great there. Having said that, in the grand scheme of thing Chechnya is piss in the ocean with no economic value whatsoever. Georgian campaign is what propelled Russian influence.


Former soviet state politics is a lot more about who controls the economy than about who is president, and the Ukrainian economy is firmly in control of Russia. In economical terms, Ukraine has next to nothing to offer to the states to the west, while it relies heavily on trade with Russia.
If Ukraine was so utterly dependent on Russia, Putin would have had no need to invade.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He can take Ukraine without starting a war, but he will certainly begin the buildup.

I think we are already there.

You might want to rent a tank, get some driving practice in.

I direct you to the NATO thread for my thoughts on Moldova.

[HoreTore]

Unlike Yanukovich he actually managed to serve a full term.

As I said earlier, the president isn't the most important person in an oligarchy. He was a lame duck for most of his term.

The presidents before him were loyal pawns of Moscow.


The Chechen campaign is one rare occasion where I fully supported Putin's methods as well as his goals. He did great there. Having said that, in the grand scheme of thing Chechnya is piss in the ocean with no economic value whatsoever. Georgian campaign is what propelled Russian influence.

Chechnya isn't important because of its economic value.

Chechnya is important because it is the first conflict where Russia pro-actively sought to assert its dominance. All through the 90's, Russia had merely been reacting to what was happening around its borders, running around to put out the fires where they occured. Since Chechnya, it's been the border nations who have reacted to Russia's moves. That is a meaningful shift in the balance of power.


If Ukraine was so utterly dependent on Russia, Putin would have had no need to invade.

If you want to maintain the status quo, you must move quickly to assert your dominance when your underlings get uppity. Look at Britain's history for a ton of examples.

[rvg]

As I said earlier, the president isn't the most important person in an oligarchy. He was a lame duck for most of his term. The presidents before him were loyal pawns of Moscow.
I hope you realize that the USSR fell apart largely because the 1st Ukrainian president did not wish to maintain the union. He was far from a pawn. His successor wasn't a pawn either: he maintained good relations with Moscow, and there wasn't a reason not to. You call them pawns because #4 was one. That's a very inaccurate picture that you're trying to paint.


Chechnya isn't important because of its economic value.

Chechnya is important because it is the first conflict where Russia pro-actively sought to assert its dominance. All through the 90's, Russia had merely been reacting to what was happening around its borders, running around to put out the fires where they occured. Since Chechnya, it's been the border nations who have reacted to Russia's moves. That is a meaningful shift in the balance of power.
That's not true. Russia has maintained a peacekeeping force in Abkhazia since 1993.



If you want to maintain the status quo, you must move quickly to assert your dominance when your underlings get uppity. Look at Britain's history for a ton of examples.
If that were the case, Putin should have moved in back in 2004. He didn't because he couldn't. Instead he tried to poison Yuschenko and almost succeeded at killing him.

[HoreTore]

I hope you realize that the USSR fell apart largely because the 1st Ukrainian president did not wish to maintain the union. He was far from a pawn. His successor wasn't a pawn either: he maintained good relations with Moscow, and there wasn't a reason not to. You call them pawns because #4 was one. That's a very inaccurate picture that you're trying to paint.

You call it good relations, I call them pawns. I don't see a huge difference between the two.


That's not true. Russia has maintained a peacekeeping force in Abkhazia since 1993.

True, but I fail to see how that was relevant. The 1993 war was a case of provincials getting uppity, to which Moscow reacted. The 2nd Chechen was Russia moving in to assert its dominance.


If that were the case, Putin should have moved in back in 2004. He didn't because he couldn't. Instead he tried to poison Yuschenko and almost succeeded at killing him.

Putin ensured that all attempts to distance former soviet countries from Russia failed in a couple of years. What more could he want?

It does however seem like Putin has changed his image from the original "bringer of stability and order" to "saviour of the motherland"....

In any event, this is little more than Russia enforcing what has always been the case. Russia is simply ensuring the loyalty of its backyard, like what the US did in the 80's. He hasn't gone to the middle-east to dominate....

[rvg]

You call it good relations, I call them pawns. I don't see a huge difference between the two.
The fact that you call them pawns doesn't make them so.


True, but I fail to see how that was relevant.
Of course! Any fact that contradicts your viewpoint is automatically irrelevant. I know that already :laugh4:


The 1993 war was a case of provincials getting uppity, to which Moscow reacted.
This is just pure nonsense. Georgians got beaten without any involvement from Moscow. It's after they got mostly kicked out that Yeltsin moved it the peacekeepers with Georgia's consent.


The 2nd Chechen was Russia moving in to assert its dominance.
Over Chechnya, yes. So? Chechnya was part of Russia.


Putin ensured that all attempts to distance former soviet countries from Russia failed in a couple of years. What more could he want?
Which is fine.


It does however seem like Putin has changed his image from the original "bringer of stability and order" to "saviour of the motherland"....
You can only steal so much money before it starts to lose its value and meaning. He is now going after his legacy.


In any event, this is little more than Russia enforcing what has always been the case. Russia is simply ensuring the loyalty of its backyard, like what the US did in the 80's. He hasn't gone to the middle-east to dominate....
Which would have been okay if he didn't annex Crimea. There are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed. he crossed it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd say so, at least capability is certainly there. It won't be a walk in the park of course, but even from the perspective of pure attrition we have more manpower, resources and allies than Russia could ever master. They can be all jedi, but it won't allow them to ignore the laws of numbers. As for instituting the draft, even when the draft was active about 90% of US military consisted of volunteers. Civil War, WW2, Vietnam, you name it. it's unlikely that we'll need to administer any drastic changes to the economy as our economy totally dwarfs the Russian one.

Incorrect. During the entirety of the draft era 1917-1973, inductees constituted the bulk of America's armed forces during conflicts, even though their were a significant number of volunteers. There was, however, relatively little in the way of draft-dodging and opposition to the draft prior to 1965. The most common attitude was, "when called, I will go."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I can't stand old people who stand to lose nothing who like to play vicarious warlord with the lives of others.

Do you include Putin in that category? He went straight from university into government service, non-military.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you include Putin in that category? He went straight from university into government service, non-military.

The extent to which KGB was non military at the time is debatable.

But, yeah.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The extent to which KGB was non military at the time is debatable.

But, yeah.

He never worked in the border guards, strictly first and second directorates

[Gilrandir]

You call it good relations, I call them pawns. I don't see a huge difference between the two.


Imagining someone a pawn clearly presupposes imagining a chessplayer moving it. There was none during the terms of Kravchuk and Kuchma. Yeltsin had plenty of his own problems to pay more than a cursory attention to Ukraine. If it had been otherwise he could have had more benefits from the Crimean crisis of 1992-1994, wouldn't have allowed division of the Soviet Black Sea navy in 1997 and many other things. Besides, Yeltsin had a different from Putin attitude to Ukraine. As Yeltsin once said: "When I wake up every morning and go to bed every night I ask myself: what I did for Ukraine?" Perhaps those are just words, yet Russia started to tighten its grip on Ukraine only in Putin's times. You can sit down to a game of chess only when you are sure your house is secure enough.

[Brenus]

“You can sit down to a game of chess only when you are sure your house is secure enough.” Yeap. The problem is that it was not chess (I thought that as well). It was poker. Ukrainian Revolution hackers hadn’t the right cards (or Europe/USA) and now Putin has picked a new hand and call the bluff. And he is taking the pot.

Putin reacted to a crisis. He didn’t initiate and I still think he didn’t control it, none of the players did. It just some went too fast and they were outflanked by the Crimean reactions. Because, again, some just seems to forget that there is a population in Crimea, with weapons, and they didn’t shoot at the “invaders”. No David Vincentovic there (for the oldest of us remembering the series).
Again, the Crimean Annexing made fewer casualties than the Liberation of Panama (to stay in the same kind of scenario) or Granada. But I suppose than Panama and Granada (was the pretext of American Lives in danger? Hmmm, it was, wasn’t it?), being USA de facto annexing other countries is UTTERLY different.

[Gilrandir]

Putin reacted to a crisis. He didn’t initiate and I still think he didn’t control it, none of the players did. It just some went too fast and they were outflanked by the Crimean reactions.
It would be OK if it was purely Crimean reaction. It was orchestrated by Putin. He fanned the smouldering flames to a leaping height.

[Fragony]

It would be OK if it was purely Crimean reaction. It was orchestrated by Putin. He fanned the smouldering flames to a leaping height.

Disclaimer: never mistake me with someone who knows what he's talking about. This is a question not a claim. Isn't it the EU who fanned the flames. A russian leader can't look weak, and these EU-muppets cheering on the Ukranians seems like a pretty big bitchslap to me, in international politics a mighty provocation. Musing: putin would have looked weak if he wouldn't have reacted in a semi-acceptable way, so it was taking Crimea.

I mean http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ

Is that guy absolutily insane? How could Putin not react? The broken English is bad enough as it is, but can someone send this guy to Siberia to cool of a little?

[Gilrandir]

Isn't it the EU who fanned the flames. A russian leader can't look weak, and these EU-muppets cheering on the Ukranians seems like a pretty big bitchslap to me, in international politics a mighty provocation. Musing: putin would have looked weak if he wouldn't have reacted in a semi-acceptable way, so it was taking Crimea.


Putin went on beyond just fanning and cheering.

[Sarmatian]

....and ignoring how the interrim government has started cracking down on their own fascists(right sector leader killed during arrest) gives an even clearer picture of how selective their perception is.

Just to get back on this -

It appears he wasn't killed while resisting arrest, he was simply assasinated. He was dragged out of the car not far from a caffe in Rovno by two unnamed assailants and, after they verified he wasn't wearing a vest, shot twice in the chest.

[Fragony]

Putin went on beyond just fanning and cheering.

Hasn't yet it seems, going to be interesting if he takes 'their' part of Ukraine as well. I would blame tne EU for thinking they could annex the west of Ukraine, it isn't like the EU isn't desperate for the popular support they are greatly in need of. The French don't want Brussels, the Dutch don't want Brussels, the Germans are very germanly reserved, the English are way beyond disgust. I kinda like it that Putin is showing how big their dick is.

[Husar]

I mean http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ

Is that guy absolutily insane? How could Putin not react? The broken English is bad enough as it is, but can someone send this guy to Siberia to cool of a little?

He certainly seems a little stoned and as though he went there just to have the masses cheer for him once in a lifetime.
I couldn't be bothered to watch it the first time it came up and it was just the boring "you and I are awesome"-speech I expected.
Lots of words, no substance, who is he anyway, I never heard fo him before?

[Fragony]

He certainly seems a little stoned and as though he went there just to have the masses cheer for him once in a lifetime.
I couldn't be bothered to watch it the first time it came up and it was just the boring "you and I are awesome"-speech I expected.
Lots of words, no substance, who is he anyway, I never heard fo him before?

That's total europhile Verhostadt, who I suspect set this all in motion. No way Russia could put up with that without making a reaction.

[Brenus]

“It was orchestrated by Putin.” So, you are now telling that Putin organised the revolution, pushing the Ukrainian extreme-right to seize power with the help of the USA and the EU? He kicked out one Pro-Russian President in order to create a reaction on Crimea, and then he could take Crimea. This guy is a GENIUS!!!
I am sure he is behind the crash of the Malaysian plane in order to cover-up the Crimean Operation. And he is probably behind the killing of Diana Princess of Wales and the kidnapping of Maddie in Spain…

[Gilrandir]

“It was orchestrated by Putin.” So, you are now telling that Putin organised the revolution, pushing the Ukrainian extreme-right to seize power with the help of the USA and the EU? He kicked out one Pro-Russian President in order to create a reaction on Crimea, and then he could take Crimea. This guy is a GENIUS!!!
I am sure he is behind the crash of the Malaysian plane in order to cover-up the Crimean Operation. And he is probably behind the killing of Diana Princess of Wales and the kidnapping of Maddie in Spain…
I spoke about Crimean events.

[Fisherking]

Guys,

Don’t get your panties in a wad, good guys are only in the movies.

Putin is no cleaner than the neo-Nazis or the neo-con scum behind them.

It is the Great Game and Ukraine is its latest victim.

What you fail to recognize is that some people really do care.

Yes, many are victims of western nationalistic propaganda and some of Russian propaganda.

If you have picked one side over another you are a dupe.

The tension and propaganda only makes it harder for the Ukrainian People to get rid of the bad elements and try to replace the with someone honest, provided there are some.

[GenosseGeneral]

Just to get back on this -

It appears he wasn't killed while resisting arrest, he was simply assasinated. He was dragged out of the car not far from a caffe in Rovno by two unnamed assailants and, after they verified he wasn't wearing a vest, shot twice in the chest.

It was a very shady thing; the MVD (ministry of the interior) claimed that his death occurred during a raid on an illegal cigarette workshop. They also claim that that guy shot himself, yet shooting into the chest is not the way I would commit suicide with a gun.

After all, this might be part of a crackdown on the Right Sector, as also other member of that organisation were arrested yesterday morning, though also released again in the evening. But my theory on this is, that it is more of a feud inside the Ukrainian political right than a true crackdown on extremists.
After all, it was just this sunday that the head of the Right Sector declared to run for President and the formation of their own political party. They possibly have become a political danger for the Minister of the Interior's Svoboda party, both as as a danger for Svoboda's foreign image and as competitors for votes and support by nationalists.

Oh, as someone here already stated, Poroshenko seems to be the strongest candidate at this point. Interesting, he certainly has the ressources for a successful campaign in his hands. I know about his involvement in the Yushtshenko government and read he was linked to quite some corruption cases.

[Brenus]

“I spoke about Crimean events.” Still a genius! Holly Bing Bang! If the Russians are able to organise this fast in a hostile territory the taking of an entire big piece of land without shooting one bullet, the world belongs to them.
You are now explaining that the populace in Crimea was just manipulated in 1 or 2 weeks by a massive propaganda (or perhaps hypnotised by RT) and that is why they welcome the Russian Troops?
Can you explain what and how Putin did this major stroke?

[Gilrandir]

“I spoke about Crimean events.” Still a genius! Holly Bing Bang! If the Russians are able to organise this fast in a hostile territory the taking of an entire big piece of land without shooting one bullet, the world belongs to them.
You are now explaining that the populace in Crimea was just manipulated in 1 or 2 weeks by a massive propaganda (or perhaps hypnotised by RT) and that is why they welcome the Russian Troops?
Can you explain what and how Putin did this major stroke?
Anti-Ukrainian propaganda on Russian TV started about a year ago when Yanukovych announced that he will sign the notorious AA with EU in November 2013. Since then the hysteria has only been gathering momentum, first directed at showing how Ukraine will lose economic-wise, then it focused on blackening the protesters and calling Yanukovych a milksop for not being able to crush the protests in the bud, then the Nazi-labeling was (and is) in full swing.
In the Crimea the seeds fell on the grateful soil as most Crimeans have always been too ready to listen to what Moscow says. In 1990, they even introduced Moscow zone time despite the natural inclusion into another time zone. Sevastopol did this trick again now.
As for the promptness with which Russians acted, it shows that they have been (and maybe are) following a carefully laid plan prepared, I guess, after the Orange revolution, when Putin saw how precarious his influence on Ukraine might prove. He was just waiting for a propitious moment.

[Brenus]

Yeah, sure... If you want to believe this instead to face the reality, carry-on.
But the way, welcome in Europe... BBC news this morning: IMF and EU asked your prices for gaz to go up 15% and to cut your pension of 50% (I hope for your pensioners I miss-heard the 50%). That is if you want the bail-out. Welcome to the Greek-Paradise.

[Gilrandir]

Yeah, sure... If you want to believe this instead to face the reality, carry-on.
But the way, welcome in Europe... BBC news this morning: IMF and EU asked your prices for gaz to go up 15% and to cut your pension of 50% (I hope for your pensioners I miss-heard the 50%). That is if you want the bail-out. Welcome to the Greek-Paradise.
The Ukrainian government spoke of 50% gas prices increase since May. Never heard of pensions cut.

[Sarmatian]

The Ukrainian government spoke of 50% gas prices increase since May. Never heard of pensions cut.

It may happen. Ukraine has a huge hole in the budget. It can't increase revenues so the only thing left to do is to cut expenditures.

BTW, I've heard 100% increase in gas price. Either way, you guys are in for a hellish several next years.

[Brenus]

"The Ukrainian government spoke of 50% gas prices increase since May. Never heard of pensions cut." This morning, BBC. And now, it is not up the Ukrainian government any more, it is EU. You will find out soon that the Troika is much more difficult to topple than your former President.

That is a perfect illustration of a popular saying: Be careful of what you wish, it might comes true.

[Fisherking]

What happened in Ukraine was a great thing. They through out a corrupt politician because the people united and made their voice heard.

What happened in Ukraine was a great travesty. They were taken advantage of by corrupt politicians which took them in an unintended direction.

What happened in Ukraine is a danger to both Russia and the West. They need to control it and direct it to their own ends. Neither of which will prove to be what the people wanted.

[Fragony]

Big what now. From the littleI understand I would say that the Russians sould get Crimea and a part of Ukraine. They wil eventually just take it, everybody knows that. Never play chess with Russians, and especially never make the opening move. Way to go EU. Obama needs a kick in the face as well, wtf are you thinking you are doing?

I don't blame Russia for whatever might be comming. For your consideration, Russian territory is allready Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks, I know that because a girlfriend of mine teaches English in Bejing. She is smart enough to notice the borders were kinda off. Parts of the Caucasus are allready Chinese territory so to say. Russia can not afford to be weak. They will be eaten alive if they do.

[Pannonian]

Big what now. From the littleI understand I would say that the Russians sould get Crimea and a part of Ukraine. They wil eventually just take it, everybody knows that. Never play chess with Russians, and especially never make the opening move. Way to go EU. Obama needs a kick in the face as well, wtf are you thinking you are doing?

I don't blame Russia for whatever might be comming. For your consideration, Russian territory is allready Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks, I know that because a girlfriend of mine teaches English in Bejing. She is smart enough to notice the borders were kinda off. Parts of the Caucasus are allready Chinese territory so to say. Russia can not afford to be weak. They will be eaten alive if they do.

Aren't the Chinese also laying claim to the Alaska-Siberia land link that's depicted on a map somewhere? The land rose up from the sea after a cat peed on an atlas and distorted the ink, but if it's on a map, it must exist, right?

[GenosseGeneral]

Well, those economic hardships are not the result of Ukraine coming closer to the EU. They are the result unresponsibly acting politicians and their corrupt oligarch friends, who used government funds like their own and government powers only accumulate even more money. The bitter irony of Ukrainian economics is, that the agency against corruption is the most corrupt government agency in existence and that the anti-monopoly committee was mainly used to push competitors out of the market to build - more monopolies.
There was hardly any responsible economic policy in Ukraine since its independence. This is the reason why their economy is one of the weakest in Europe, despite inheriting the very heart of Soviet industrial and agricultural power and a fairly educated population.
If the next government acts responsibly, Ukraine will have to go through some bitter years of adaptation of its economy. It is in dire need of investments and innovation, it needs entrepreneurship instead of biznesmeny and corruption. I really hope they manage this.

[Gilrandir]

After all, it was just this sunday that the head of the Right Sector declared to run for President and the formation of their own political party. They possibly have become a political danger for the Minister of the Interior's Svoboda party, both as as a danger for Svoboda's foreign image and as competitors for votes and support by nationalists.


Minister of the interior is a member of Batkivshchina, the party of Yatsenyuk and Tymoshenko. He is from Kharkiv and scarcely speaks Ukrainian. So no Svoboda membership for him.

[Gilrandir]

"The Ukrainian government spoke of 50% gas prices increase since May. Never heard of pensions cut." This morning, BBC. And now, it is not up the Ukrainian government any more, it is EU. You will find out soon that the Troika is much more difficult to topple than your former President.

That is a perfect illustration of a popular saying: Be careful of what you wish, it might comes true.
I don't understand your Schadenfreude. You seem so rejoiced to gloat over the hardships a country will have to go through. I'm not happy with EU either, I would have Ukraine join neither Russia-propelled projects nor EU. But I realise that at present someone is to help us out of what Yanukovych has brought us into. As far as it goes, it is definitely not Russia.

[Gilrandir]

Parts of the Caucasus are allready Chinese territory so to say.
The Caucasus? Wow! Sauron's reach has grown indeed. What about India, Pakistan, Iran they will have to overrun to at least approach the Caucasus?

[Fragony]

The Caucasus? Wow! Sauron's reach has grown indeed. What about India, Pakistan, Iran they will have to overrun to at least approach the Caucasus?

You don't have to take my word for it. It ain't required. A lot of Russian territory is Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks. Just because something burns slowly doesn't mean it isn't smoldering.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You don't have to take my word for it. It ain't required. A lot of Russian territory is Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks. Just because something burns slowly doesn't mean it isn't smoldering.

And there was a time when the Commonwealth of Virginia "claimed" about a third of North America to be Virginia. Claims on a map do not necessarily constitute policy.

On the other hand, it is a documented fact (http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2014-03/26/content_31910865.htm)that quite a lot of Chinese investments are being made in the "'stans" area of central Asia, vaguely along the lines of the old Silk Road.

[Fragony]

On the other hand, it is a documented fact (http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2014-03/26/content_31910865.htm)that quite a lot of Chinese investments are being made in the "'stans" area of central Asia, vaguely along the lines of the old Silk Road.

Yeah, vaguely along the silk-line would cover it. It should be taken in consideration on why Russia reacts as it does right now. They simply cannot effort te look weak, want to take bets on them also taking a good chunk out of Ukraine. But who casted the dye, not so sure about that.

[Brenus]

“I don't understand your Schadenfreude. You seem so rejoiced to gloat over the hardships a country will have to go through. I'm not happy with EU either, I would have Ukraine join neither Russia-propelled projects nor EU. But I realise that at present someone is to help us out of what Yanukovych has brought us into. As far as it goes, it is definitely not Russia.”
My What?
I am one who said that Ukrainian wanted social changes which translate in political changes. The reason why you had people in the streets was because the successive governments didn’t succeed. Your new democratic government (there I gloat) signed an agreement that enslaved your country more than it was during the last one. Ask the Greeks.
No, I do not enjoy what you will go through, employment, prices going sky-up. And all your valuables sold to privates companies thanks to the EU ideology, and your pensioners having to choose between heating and eating.
Why singling out one President? As much as I know, if he was elected, it is due to the failure of the ones before him, the same who are in power today…
And, no, it won’t be Russia thanks to the “interim” government stupidity, but it won’t be by EU either. You were sold, and you will pay. Is it charming? You prefer to blame Russia, fine.
Just one thing: We, French, voted against the EU treaty. We did.
And you know what, we are in, thanks to our politicians who betrayed (or trade) Democracy and the popular vote of the French Electors to the EU masters. Like yours.

[GenosseGeneral]

Minister of the interior is a member of Batkivshchina, the party of Yatsenyuk and Tymoshenko. He is from Kharkiv and scarcely speaks Ukrainian. So no Svoboda membership for him.

Oh well, so much to my theory then. My bad, I should have known better. There are just too many names coming up these days, most of them being new... :shame:
Btw, you earlier called Dobkin the mayor of Kharkiv, but he used to be governor of the oblast ;) It was that guy posing in the uniform of MVD troops who made quite some
The mayor is still his good friend Henndiy "Gepa" Kernes, although he is or was under house arrest for some time in the last weeks.

[Gilrandir]

Oh well, so much to my theory then. My bad, I should have known better. There are just too many names coming up these days, most of them being new... :shame:
Btw, you earlier called Dobkin the mayor of Kharkiv, but he used to be governor of the oblast ;) It was that guy posing in the uniform of MVD troops who made quite some
The mayor is still his good friend Henndiy "Gepa" Kernes, although he is or was under house arrest for some time in the last weeks.
Dobkin made his fame being the mayor of Kharkiv, then he got a promotion from Yanukovych becoming the governor. Both he and Gepa are being tried for separatism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ukrainian President condemns Right Sector: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26784236

It's still unclear how that militia leader died, but it's hard to feel like it's a terrible thing.

[Sarmatian]

At a parliament session on Friday, Mr Turchynov, called the Right Sector rally outside parliament "an attempt to destabilise the situation in Ukraine, in the very heart of Ukraine - Kiev.

No. They must be allowed to storm the government buildings and set up a new government. That's the tradition.

[Gilrandir]

No. They must be allowed to storm the government buildings and set up a new government. That's the tradition.
The Right Sector claimed they were not going to storm the parliament, they came to express their dissatisfaction with Avakov and insist on his being fired. Instead, some people among them tried to start the attack and the Right Sector dissuaded them from doing it. They tend to associate those hellraisers with FSB. As Turchinov said, Russian TV crews were on the scene some time before the to-do started.

[Sarmatian]

they came to express their dissatisfaction with Avakov and insist on his being fired. Instead, some people among them tried to start the attack and the Right Sector dissuaded them from doing it.

"We will avenge ourselves on [Interior Minister] Arsen Avakov for the death of our brother. The shooting of Sashko Bily is a contract killing ordered by the minister,"

That is a highly unusual way of asking for resignation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Have to agree that the phrasing doesn't quite fit with "thank you for your service but it is time for you to retire...."

[Brenus]

Russian Manipulation orchestrated by Putin, fools. Russian TV crews were on site so that is not a proof, I don't know what will do it for you...

[Fisherking]

Klitschko steps aside for Poroshenko.

Is this good or bad?

Poroshenko is a very wealthy business man turned politician. Left of center in political leanings.

Is he just one of the wealthy and corrupt or a genuine article, man of the people?

Anyone know anything about the guy?

[Sarmatian]

It seems he was going back and forth between pro-Russian and pro-Western camps. I wouldn't really say the "left/right" division is as clear in Ukraine as in other countries.

Just how corrupt he is, I don't know. He is pro-NATO and that may turn to be a problem when it comes to relations with Russia. With Klitschko supporting him, he is probably the new president. A run-off between him and Timoshenko is likely at this point, in which he should win comfortably.

[Gilrandir]

Klitschko steps aside for Poroshenko.

Is this good or bad?

Poroshenko is a very wealthy business man turned politician. Left of center in political leanings.

Is he just one of the wealthy and corrupt or a genuine article, man of the people?

Anyone know anything about the guy?
At the moment I believe him to be the most balanced option.

[Fisherking]

Russia has accused him of having ties to the far right. I doubt it. Likely with all his political changes, it is more to do with what is good for business.


http://www.timesofoman.com/News/31753/Article-Ukraine%E2%80%99s-chocolate-baron-Petro-Poroshenko-holds-golden-ticket

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116983/petro-poroshenko-ukraines-willy-wonka-could-be-its-next-president

[Gilrandir]

Russia has accused him of having ties to the far right. I doubt it. Likely with all his political changes, it is more to do with what is good for business.

Russia seems likely to be dissatisfied with any candidate unless it were openly pro-Russian and agreed to all terms it has put forward. Russia proclaimed the May elections illegal anyway and declared it will not recognize any outcome. I believe Russia will try to persuade the South-east into staying away from elections so that those regions may claim that they didn't elect a new president and don't obey any power in Kyiv.

[Brenus]

“Russia seems likely to be dissatisfied with any candidate unless it were openly pro-Russian”: Well, the West does the same with Pro-Russia Candidate, that is normal politic. What is not normal to organise assassination or coup to expel elected Government…
“I believe Russia will try to persuade the South-east into staying away from elections so that those regions may claim that they didn't elect a new president and don't obey any power in Kyiv.” Most probably, and Russia will be heard by a willing population. So you will blame Russia for the fact that Ukrainian Citizens feel so much to be Ukrainian Citizen that they want to break away…

[Fisherking]

If this is pure propaganda it is damn good.

http://rt.com/news/lavrov-crimea-ukraine-west-181/

A lot of the points are good. Still the interview seems scripted.

[Sarmatian]

Most of political interviews are scripted, or at least the tone is agreed on beforehand.

He didn't really say anything we didn't know - extreme groups formed the most militant part of the protesters, protesters were encouraged and probably financed by western governments, what happened was a coup after the agreement between Yanukovich and the opposition was signed and so on...

I also don't doubt that diplomatic conversation between Lavrov and his western counterparts look like he mentioned,

They keep on telling us that “When it's gone, it's gone,” “it can’t be undone,” “let bygones be bygones,” and “let’s be constructive about it and think how you can call off your decision regarding Crimea.” I’m not exaggerating; that’s literally what they keep saying to us., and that not agreeing with this leads western diplomats to label Russia as not being serious or constructive.

Russian proposals are generally sensible. There two very strong currents in Ukraine, and in the last 20+ years, one side has tried to dominate the other. It always ended badly, revolutions have been tried and they have failed, it brought constant political instability and Ukraine kept sinking deeper in the hole for all that time. Federalized Ukraine might be the only solution to bring stability, short of literally dividing the country in two. With the opposition headless at the moment, the elections on the 25th of May are basically government vs. government. Do you prefer candidate A who plans to bring Ukraine into NATO or candidate B who, on the other hand, plans to bring Ukraine into NATO. That will work because the opposition is disorganized, but in a year or two, when Ukrainians see that Maidan brought as much change as Orange revolution did, the situation will change. Irrespective of that, NATO membership will spark protests at very least and secession at the very most in the east and southeast of Ukraine.

[Fisherking]

Most of political interviews are scripted, or at least the tone is agreed on beforehand.

He didn't really say anything we didn't know - extreme groups formed the most militant part of the protesters, protesters were encouraged and probably financed by western governments, what happened was a coup after the agreement between Yanukovich and the opposition was signed and so on...

I also don't doubt that diplomatic conversation between Lavrov and his western counterparts look like he mentioned,
, and that not agreeing with this leads western diplomats to label Russia as not being serious or constructive.

Russian proposals are generally sensible. There two very strong currents in Ukraine, and in the last 20+ years, one side has tried to dominate the other. It always ended badly, revolutions have been tried and they have failed, it brought constant political instability and Ukraine kept sinking deeper in the hole for all that time. Federalized Ukraine might be the only solution to bring stability, short of literally dividing the country in two. With the opposition headless at the moment, the elections on the 25th of May are basically government vs. government. Do you prefer candidate A who plans to bring Ukraine into NATO or candidate B who, on the other hand, plans to bring Ukraine into NATO. That will work because the opposition is disorganized, but in a year or two, when Ukrainians see that Maidan brought as much change as Orange revolution did, the situation will change. Irrespective of that, NATO membership will spark protests at very least and secession at the very most in the east and southeast of Ukraine.

I am unclear on what Federalization means in this context.

Is it that individual districts or provinces have governors appointed by the President now, and that needs to change or is it something else?

[Sarmatian]

I am unclear on what Federalization means in this context.

Is it that individual districts or provinces have governors appointed by the President now, and that needs to change or is it something else?

Dividing the country into regions which would directly elect their governments and governors. Basically transfer of power from the president and the central government to governors and local governments.

[rvg]

I am unclear on what Federalization means in this context...

They are looking for a way to let Ukraine's other regions follow the Crimean scenario.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are looking for a way to let Ukraine's other regions follow the Crimean scenario.

Whether this is an active policy, to dismantle the country a piece at a time, or just a plan put in place in case they need it, I'm not sure.

However, yes, it was my first thought too - along with Yanakovich saying every region should get a referendum on its "status within Ukraine".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most of political interviews are scripted, or at least the tone is agreed on beforehand.

You mean most Russian political interviews.

I guess you didn't hear about how Alex Salmond got into a shouting match with someone at the BBC over the phone.

[Sarmatian]

You mean most Russian political interviews.

I guess you didn't hear about how Alex Salmond got into a shouting match with someone at the BBC over the phone.

No, I mean most in general. If it's a live interview, they often demand to know the questions beforehand, or at least the topics and themes of the conversation.

In the end, Lavrov just repeated what he said many times already, to Russian and foreign press.

But, I guess it's easier to look at world with good guys and bad guys. Don't let anyone shatter that.

[HoreTore]

No, I mean most in general. If it's a live interview, they often demand to know the questions beforehand, or at least the topics and themes of the conversation.

Ah, the wonders of post-soviet "democracies".....

[Fisherking]

Can’t exactly argue that. The Obama White House uses the same procedure even at press conferences, it seems, even for the question and answer sessions.

I think it was ABC that did a piece on it a week or so ago.

[Brenus]

"Ah, the wonders of post-soviet "democracies"....." You having a laugh. You should have seen the interview of the very soviet French President Nicolas Sarkozy, when sweating fear journalists dared to ask him the questions he wanted them to ask. Freedom of media, right.
And if you really believe in "independent" media, join TR in his Crusades...

[HoreTore]

"Ah, the wonders of post-soviet "democracies"....." You having a laugh. You should have seen the interview of the very soviet French President Nicolas Sarkozy, when sweating fear journalists dared to ask him the questions he wanted them to ask. Freedom of media, right.
And if you really believe in "independent" media, join TR in his Crusades...

Have I ever claimed that France is not a dictatorship?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So the value of watching the totally scripted press conference approaches the value of that TV show that just featured a fire burning in the fireplace?

I had wondered why the fireplace drew such a good share of the viewers, all things considered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I mean most in general. If it's a live interview, they often demand to know the questions beforehand, or at least the topics and themes of the conversation.

In the end, Lavrov just repeated what he said many times already, to Russian and foreign press.

But, I guess it's easier to look at world with good guys and bad guys. Don't let anyone shatter that.

Yeah - but here the interviewers give themselves enough wiggle room to get in an actual question or two.

[Kagemusha]

I guess the real conflict has died out as you people sound like like Western and Eastern propaganda machines.

[Sarmatian]

I guess now we're dealing with a fait accompli.

Talking about solutions is less fun than pointing fingers and casting blame.

To try to get the discussion back on track - Russian forces gradually withdrawing from Ukrainian border (http://news.yahoo.com/russian-pm-medvedev-visits-crimea-reports-075219445.html)

[Gilrandir]

Dividing the country into regions which would directly elect their governments and governors. Basically transfer of power from the president and the central government to governors and local governments.
There is no need to federalize the country to do that. These changes may be introduced without shattering the country into pieces.

[Sarmatian]

There is no need to federalize the country to do that. These changes may be introduced without shattering the country into pieces.

Federalization of the country in this sense means transfer of power and decision making capability. You can't do that without federelizing the country.

How else could it be achieved?

[HoreTore]

I guess now we're dealing with a fait accompli.

Talking about solutions is less fun than pointing fingers and casting blame.

To try to get the discussion back on track - Russian forces gradually withdrawing from Ukrainian border (http://news.yahoo.com/russian-pm-medvedev-visits-crimea-reports-075219445.html)

You mean they're withdrawing the troops who were never there in the first place?


Federalization of the country in this sense means transfer of power and decision making capability. You can't do that without federelizing the country.

How else could it be achieved?

Of course you can empower local authorities in a unitary state as well as in a federal state.

[Sarmatian]

You mean they're withdrawing the troops who were never there in the first place?

Who said the troops were never there? They're withdrawing the troops that were in Russia, near the border with Ukraine - they're moving them away from the border. What's not clear? Read, man. You're starting to look like rvg in some regards.


Of course you can empower local authorities in a unitary state as well as in a federal state.

The main difference is that in unitary state, central government delegates some authority to local governments, and it can be taken away just as easily. In a federal state, regional rights are more secure and regions are involved in the policy-making on national/federal level.

[HoreTore]

Who said the troops were never there? They're withdrawing the troops that were in Russia, near the border with Ukraine - they're moving them away from the border. What's not clear? Read, man. You're starting to look like rvg in some regards.

Nah man, that wasn't russian, that was just concerned Crimean citizens...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I guess now we're dealing with a fait accompli.

Talking about solutions is less fun than pointing fingers and casting blame.

To try to get the discussion back on track - Russian forces gradually withdrawing from Ukrainian border (http://news.yahoo.com/russian-pm-medvedev-visits-crimea-reports-075219445.html)

"Russia on Monday reported pulling back a battalion of about 500 to 700 soldiers from the border region in a move that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called "a small sign that the situation is becoming less tense"."

The primary Russian unit is the Brigade, or the Division in unreformed units, moving a Battalion of troops either means they've rotated out a special forces unit, or a battalion has been withdrawn for logistical reasons.

It's not a troop movement, really, it's barely symbolic.

You are correct that it is a fait accompli, but Russia presenting what was, ultimately, a relatively minor political ruckus in Kiev as the same as annexing Crimea is laughable.

[GenosseGeneral]

Gilrandir, would you be so kind to explain a bit what exactly Ukrainians mean with "federalization"?
Because from my point of view, a certain degree of decentralization and a higher level of local autonomy would be very helpful to balance political conflicts. For instance, it would certainly help legitimizing local authorities, if governors were elected in the Oblasts instead of being simply installed by an order from Kyiv.
However, it seems to me as if in Ukraine the term Federalizatsiya stands essentially for dissolving the country into a very loose confederation of almost independent entities, allowed to make their own foreign policy.

It seems like Jatsenyuk wants to reform the system of local administration:
http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/3342724-kabmyn-planyruet-lykvydyrovat-mestnye-admynystratsyy

Sounds like they to give local people more power over local administrations, but the how is a bit sketchy to me.
Also, Polish officials want to help with those reforms. Actually, this sounds quite promising to me. I hope Ukraine can continue this way.

[Beskar]

It's not a troop movement, really, it's barely symbolic.

I think they caught that nasty cold which is going around and are taking sick leave, they will be back next week. Out of a force counted in the tens of thousands, 500 men is rather "So what?".

[Fisherking]

April fool! (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26830336)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Gilrandir, would you be so kind to explain a bit what exactly Ukrainians mean with "federalization"?
Because from my point of view, a certain degree of decentralization and a higher level of local autonomy would be very helpful to balance political conflicts. For instance, it would certainly help legitimizing local authorities, if governors were elected in the Oblasts instead of being simply installed by an order from Kyiv.
However, it seems to me as if in Ukraine the term Federalizatsiya stands essentially for dissolving the country into a very loose confederation of almost independent entities, allowed to make their own foreign policy.

It seems like Jatsenyuk wants to reform the system of local administration:
http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/3342724-kabmyn-planyruet-lykvydyrovat-mestnye-admynystratsyy

Sounds like they to give local people more power over local administrations, but the how is a bit sketchy to me.
Also, Polish officials want to help with those reforms. Actually, this sounds quite promising to me. I hope Ukraine can continue this way.

Bear in mind - Putin has been tightening his grip on the Russian Federation. The Russian plan is to leave Kiev with Just "Law" Foreign Policy and Defence.

Like Crimea before Russia took it, really.

I can see why the Ukrainians are leery.


I think they caught that nasty cold which is going around and are taking sick leave, they will be back next week. Out of a force counted in the tens of thousands, 500 men is rather "So what?".

They needed to restock on Vodka.

And it was apparently a Motor Rifle Battalion.

[Sarmatian]

Bear in mind - Putin has been tightening his grip on the Russian Federation. The Russian plan is to leave Kiev with Just "Law" Foreign Policy and Defence.

So? That's what Washington's been left with. It worked out for them


Like Crimea before Russia took it, really.

I can see why the Ukrainians are leery.

It's more Kiev than Ukrainians, and that's the whole point. The entire ruckus started with a semi-popular revolution. Just because the capital city is in the western part of the country, that doesn't give it's citizens the right to perform a coup and set up a new government for the entire country. And this merry-go-round has been going on for quite some time now, and what has Ukraine to show for it? One "liberal" revolution where the "progressive democrat" whose approval rating when he left the office would make Moyes look popular, a corrupt fruitcake who should have a court order against coming within 100m of any government building, and a corrupt thug who thought you can beat people into submission, and each one wanted to control everything.

I'm disregarding foreign policy for now. Federalization of the country could bring the end to the constant tug of war between two opposing currents, make country more stable and Kiev less prone to mass protests and revolutions every few years.

[rvg]

Federalization of the country could bring the end to the constant tug of war between two opposing currents, make country more stable and Kiev less prone to mass protests and revolutions every few years.

Did wonders for Yugoslavia...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So? That's what Washington's been left with. It worked out for them

I'm disregarding foreign policy for now. Federalization of the country could bring the end to the constant tug of war between two opposing currents, make country more stable and Kiev less prone to mass protests and revolutions every few years.

It's been only bad for the UK as a whole - while the Scots and Welsh have benefited in the short term, in the long term they've created an unsustainable system they will blame central government for collapsing, or they will secede.

And the Us has endemic problems, it can barely pass a budget or manage social welfare.

[gaelic cowboy]

So? That's what Washington's been left with. It worked out for them


It's more Kiev than Ukrainians, and that's the whole point. The entire ruckus started with a semi-popular revolution. Just because the capital city is in the western part of the country, that doesn't give it's citizens the right to perform a coup and set up a new government for the entire country. And this merry-go-round has been going on for quite some time now, and what has Ukraine to show for it? One "liberal" revolution where the "progressive democrat" whose approval rating when he left the office would make Moyes look popular, a corrupt fruitcake who should have a court order against coming within 100m of any government building, and a corrupt thug who thought you can beat people into submission, and each one wanted to control everything.

I'm disregarding foreign policy for now. Federalization of the country could bring the end to the constant tug of war between two opposing currents, make country more stable and Kiev less prone to mass protests and revolutions every few years.

yer having a laugh man federalisation is meant to place it firmly under the control of Moscow.

[Sarmatian]

Did wonders for Yugoslavia...

Yugoslavia disintegrated due economic problems, nationalistic leaders and outside pressure.

If, after the death of Tito, politicians were sensible enough to create an even looser federation, or even a confederation, there was a chance Yugoslavia would have still existed, and we would have avoided war, suffering, poverty and instability.


It's been only bad for the UK as a whole - while the Scots and Welsh have benefited in the short term, in the long term they've created an unsustainable system they will blame central government for collapsing, or they will secede.

And the Us has endemic problems, it can barely pass a budget or manage social welfare.

There are examples of successful unitary as well as federalized states, so I wouldn't say one is inherently superior to other. It depends on a lot of issues. US budget problems was about democrats and republicans fighting, rather than a problem with member states.

Germany is another good example, and they have a healthy economy and state.


yer having a laugh man federalisation is meant to place it firmly under the control of Moscow.

I'd say that, for the Russians, it's more about placing it out of control of NATO.

I do believe it would be better for Ukraine overall. That's just my opinion, though. I don't like unitary states with strong central governments.

[Gilrandir]

Gilrandir, would you be so kind to explain a bit what exactly Ukrainians mean with "federalization"?
Because from my point of view, a certain degree of decentralization and a higher level of local autonomy would be very helpful to balance political conflicts. For instance, it would certainly help legitimizing local authorities, if governors were elected in the Oblasts instead of being simply installed by an order from Kyiv.
However, it seems to me as if in Ukraine the term Federalizatsiya stands essentially for dissolving the country into a very loose confederation of almost independent entities, allowed to make their own foreign policy.

It seems like Jatsenyuk wants to reform the system of local administration:
http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/3342724-kabmyn-planyruet-lykvydyrovat-mestnye-admynystratsyy

Sounds like they to give local people more power over local administrations, but the how is a bit sketchy to me.
Also, Polish officials want to help with those reforms. Actually, this sounds quite promising to me. I hope Ukraine can continue this way.
I agree with you on all the points.
Federalization spells disintegration, at least for those Ukrainians who want to keep the country's integrity. Those who demand it want to be virtually independent of Kyiv (and rather look eastwards) in anything they do. They want their regions (mostly eastern ones) to be ruled by local barons who would appeal to Moscow on any pretext.
What I second is giving more rights (confirmed in the Constitution so that no one could think of infringing upon them) to local communities of cities, towns and villages instead of regional bodies of power.
Today, in each region there is a legislative body - the regional council (elected by the people) and an executive body - the regional administration (whose head is appointed by the president). What Yatsenyuk has in mind is cancelling the latter and letting regional councils form executive committees that will function as the executive bodies.
Today, every region pays taxes into the state budget and then the neccessary financing is returned to the region. They say that considerable sums "get lost" in unknown pockets on the way from a region to Kyiv and back.
The idea of Yatsenyuk is to leave the neccessary amount in the local hands at once.
Today, all needs of a city, town and village are to be confirmed from Kyiv. For example, Kyiv decides what road is to be repaired, what school building needs a new roof and so on.
Yatsenuyk believes that local communities are to be given all rights to decide what to do with their money and to determine educational, language and other policies in accordance with the peculiarities of every region.
I believe such a view to be sensible and don't see any purpose in federaliziing the country the way Russia wants us to do. Russia is a federation because they have a lot of nationalities living historically on some territory (although they scarcely have any rights now in governing themselves, at least less then Russia would like to see in Ukraine). In Ukraine, there are no regions where mostly Russians, Poles, Romanians live. In Transcarpathia there is a numerous Hungarian community, but they don't constitute the majority of population.
A popular belief in Ukraine (and especially in the East of it) that the Eastren regions are the breadwinners while the rest (especially the West) are parasitizing upon them. It is true that most money is made there. But the recent statistics claim that in 2013 there were only 6 regions out of 24 (Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Poltava, Sumy, Cherkasy and Lviv) that donated more into the state budget then subsequently got from it. And they are not eastern all of them. So balancing income and expenditures will be as problematic for, say, eastern Donetsk (3.85 billion hryvnas donated, 13.09 billion received) as for western Ternopyl (0.92 billion donated, 4.36 billion received).

[Gilrandir]

Just because the capital city is in the western part of the country, that doesn't give it's citizens the right to perform a coup and set up a new government for the entire country.
Can we say that you don't know geography? Kyiv is in the the center of northern Ukraine and the coup was not performed by Kyivites (predominantly Russian-speakers, by the way), rather they supported it with all means they could.

[Sarmatian]

Can we say that you don't know geography? Kyiv is in the the center of northern Ukraine and the coup was not performed by Kyivites (predominantly Russian-speakers, by the way), rather they supported it with all means they could.

I was refering to western/eastern in the political sense, ie pro-western or pro-Russian. You should try to adress my arguments instead of trying to discredit me. Don't revert back to childish behaviour, please.

The basic idea of federalization is creating a more stable country, in which regions can actually make the decisions for themselves and even have a say on national level. That would stop whichever goon is in power in Kiev at the moment from destabilizing the entire country and running it as a personal fief. That doesn't mean disintegration. I have a feeling that if the idea came from Washington, there wouldn't be this much opposition. The opposition comes not to the idea itself, but to the fact that it was suggested by Moscow. It's just a framework.

1) Power need to transfered from the capitol to the regions
2) New constitution would be needed to protect that system (or significant changes to the old one)
3) Representatives from the entire country should be involved in that

I don't see what's so wrong with that.

BUT, if you think that would make some regions in the east appeal to Moscow, then you have to ask yourself why significant part of the population of Ukraine doesn't feel at home in their own country and would rather deal with Moscow than with Kiev. Kiev needs to woo them back and that's a long process. Reassuring them that someone from Kiev won't make a decision they absolutely disagree with would be a step in the right direction.

Keep in mind, Ukraine can't join NATO, especially now. You will have to deal with Russia, and if you don't, it will be more detrimental to Ukraine than to Russia.

[Gilrandir]

I have a feeling that if the idea came from Washington, there wouldn't be this much opposition. The opposition comes not to the idea itself, but to the fact that it was suggested by Moscow. It's just a framework.

For me, the name of federalization is black whoever forwards it.


1) Power need to transfered from the capitol to the regions

Let me stress once again: to the local communities, not regions.



Keep in mind, Ukraine can't join NATO, especially now. You will have to deal with Russia, and if you don't, it will be more detrimental to Ukraine than to Russia.
At present, no one at power speaks of joining Nato. As for dealing with Russia, the latter seems to set on seeing no Ukraine to deal with.

[Sarmatian]

For me, the name of federalization is black whoever forwards it.

I don't understand why, but that's up to you.


Let me stress once again: to the local communities, not regions.
Local communities, if you're talking about municipalities or their equivalent, don't have the means, expertise, strength or influence for political decision making on larger level. That is why local communities deal with local issues. Exceptions do exist, but they are rare and are usually justified by the special conditions of the municipality in question.


At present, no one at power speaks of joining Nato. As for dealing with Russia, the latter seems to set on seeing no Ukraine to deal with.

They don't recognize the current government as legitimate government of Ukraine. That will change. If this government was smarter and less nationalistic, they could have kept territorial integrity of Ukraine.

[Fisherking]

I don't understand why, but that's up to you.

It seems that what we would think of as federalization is not what the Russians are pushing for.

The title sounds benign but the results are not. It would be nothing any state would accept willingly.

The result would be more like trying to impose order on independent regions and getting them to accept it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26842065


edit:
A bit more.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26828625

As for Russian worries about ethnic groups, there are 6 or 7 million Ukrainians living in Russia.

How many Ukrainian schools are there in Russia and what sort of job do they do protecting minority rights?

I think they have a pretty dim record in that regard.

[Kagemusha]

Apparently Putin might get a real heavyweight adversary as Darth Vader will be running for the president of Ukraine!:hail:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/31/ukraine-darth-vader-president-internet-party

[rvg]

In the meantime...

12670

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yugoslavia disintegrated due economic problems, nationalistic leaders and outside pressure.

If, after the death of Tito, politicians were sensible enough to create an even looser federation, or even a confederation, there was a chance Yugoslavia would have still existed, and we would have avoided war, suffering, poverty and instability.

If you think the problem was economic you're sadly mistaken - the problem was papered over by Tito but he wasn't able to homogenise the country and the lack of a democratic mandate meant that when he died all the grievances he had so effectively diverted or suppressed snapped back. It was like a giant political rubber band held under tension - then it was allowed to spring and you all got whiplash.

If the problem was purely economic, Spain would be involved in a bloody Civil War right now.


The basic idea of federalization is creating a more stable country, in which regions can actually make the decisions for themselves and even have a say on national level.

I think only you believe that here.

Ukraine is obviously too centrally controlled, but if the national Government has to beg money from regional assemblies, it's not a national government. It's a delicate balancing act, how much power to give local governments and how much to give to the national government.

To take roads as an example - in the UK each County is responsible for road repair, but the taxes are mostly collected nationally and then allocated based on how many roads you have - and the whole thing is overseen nationally.

It's not perfect - but it's not terrible.

[HoreTore]

How many Ukrainian schools are there in Russia and what sort of job do they do protecting minority rights?

They have an excellent record of protecting the rights of those who bash in minority skulls.

[Sarmatian]

It seems that what we would think of as federalization is not what the Russians are pushing for.

The title sounds benign but the results are not. It would be nothing any state would accept willingly.

The result would be more like trying to impose order on independent regions and getting them to accept it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26842065


edit:
A bit more.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26828625

As for Russian worries about ethnic groups, there are 6 or 7 million Ukrainians living in Russia.

How many Ukrainian schools are there in Russia and what sort of job do they do protecting minority rights?

I think they have a pretty dim record in that regard.

Russian idea is to make Kiev has less say in general, and that most important decisions should require a nationwide consensus, which is definitely more democratic than the current system where a few hundred thousand people storm government buildings and set up a government they prefer.

The first article you linked is full of typical western bias. It ignores how it was the western governments, mostly US, which financed and encouraged Ukrainian opposition and protesters for years until it finally culminated in a revolution. It also tries to present situation how it's only Russians who are against NATO, which is patently untrue, even at the time of heightened tensions. Typical propaganda piece, of pro-Western democratic forces, which want to take Ukraine to better place, no corruption, green grass and Dynamo Kiev are the champions again. They are supported by all Ukrainians in their struggles, while the naturally evil Russian minority wants to hold them back, just to spite them, because Russians love chaos and thugs who murder people by default. That of course fits in nicely with the general theme of the article how this is a first step in Putin achieving world domination.

How amateurs such as the guy who wrote that article can work in a serious news agency is completely mystifying.

Kissinger put it rather nice - vilifying Putin isn't a policy, it's an alibi for an absence of one. They weren't sure what they were trying to achieve by funding and inciting opposition in Kiev, they just kept doing what they did so far and the only thing they knew. When it hit them back in the face and showed them just how naive and shortsighted they have been, it's suddenly everyone else who is at fault.

By "they", I mean, western (mostly US) policy makers in this case.

[Fisherking]

Both sides stress their viewpoints. In most any public disagreement you find both sides vilifying the other.

We can see both sides as hypocritical in their recent history.


Ukraine likely would benefit from elected rather then appointed regional government but the Russian proposal is not federalization. It is more the loosest sort of confederation.

The plan seems designed to promote discord and separation. Far from alleviating the problem, it would make it worse.

I also see it as disingenuous on the part of the Russians who wish to break apart the country for the benefit of one minority smaller in percentage than they just swallowed up in Crimea.

I don’t see either outside entity as being especially beneficial to Ukraine, other than to prevent it being swallowed up by the other. But in that regard I have to say Russia seems the larger threat.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The first article is aon Op Ed by a member of a "think tank" - basically a genuine "Armchair General", not a BBC piece.

I see very little there demonising Putin or Russia - you're reading that from a standpoint of assumed anti-Slavic bias.

The key point made, and it is accurate, is that turning Ukraine into a collection of regions more autonomous than the Crimea was allows Putin to pull the same trick in the future - have a region unilateral decalre divorce from the centre under the auspices of Russian "peacekeepers" or "monitors".

It also ensures Ukraine never joins NATO - which is the primary Russian concern.

Putin's speech, which you ignored, clearly indicated that he believed, with reference to Divine Law, that it was wrong of the Bolsheviks to transfer parts of Russia to Ukraine and that these are really "Russian" lands. He has also talked about a legitimate "sphere of interest" outside Russia's borders - that Russia should have a say in Baltic or Central Eastern Politics.

Russia should only have a say in Russian politics - while it is entitled to raise issues about Russian speakers it is a flagrant breach of national sovereignty that it dares to make demands for fundamental reform of the Ukrainian government - and even to lay out a new constitutional framework.

Reforms, I might add, which run counter to policy IN Russia.

More pointedly - Russia wants this reform before the election on May 25th.

That's as indecently fast as it's annexation of Crimea, and it shows that Russia is trying to actively, and permanently, reshape Ukraine for its own purposes.

Long-term I suspect this includes annexing the Russian-speaking South East to create a corridor to Transnistria.

[Sarmatian]

Both sides stress their viewpoints. In most any public disagreement you find both sides vilifying the other.

We can see both sides as hypocritical in their recent history.

You won't find me disagreeing with you on that.

What the west did in Ukraine was wrong. What Russia did was worse. Both sides have been playing their little games for quite some time and Ukraine was unlucky enough to be caught in the middle this time.

Still, what happened in Ukraine isn't that much different from what happened in Georgia. US has been throwing money and support at their favourite anti-Russian, pro-western thuggish kleptocrat(s), luring them with promises of a better future and NATO membership.

In that case, the west is guilty of constantly trying to undermine the status quo and upset the delicate balance of power. That doesn't excuse Russian actions later, though.

So, I'm seeing that Russia was basically reacting western/US actions. As such, there's a way to strike a political deal with Russia. Of course, if one believes this just a beginning of Russian attempt to control entire Europe, then the only logical move is to contain Russia by any means necessary.

I don't see a reason why Russia wouldn't want a stable and prosperous Ukraine. The only point of friction is NATO membership. In my opinion it is better to remove that than to fight Russia over it.


Ukraine likely would benefit from elected rather then appointed regional government but the Russian proposal is not federalization. It is more the loosest sort of confederation.

Confederation is more akin to political alliance of independent states. Even though, the definition of both federation and confederation has been stretched, the safest way to determine what's what is - if the defence and foreign policy is in the hands of central government, it's a federation, if it isn't, it's a confederation.

The loosest form of confederation would be something akin to European Union, where each country is independent but coordinates with other members its foreign policy and other things.


The plan seems designed to promote discord and separation. Far from alleviating the problem, it would make it worse.

I also see it as disingenuous on the part of the Russians who wish to break apart the country for the benefit of one minority smaller in percentage than they just swallowed up in Crimea.

I don’t see either outside entity as being especially beneficial to Ukraine, other than to prevent it being swallowed up by the other. But in that regard I have to say Russia seems the larger threat.

In my opinion, when there's such a division within a country, the only way to keep it together it's to loosen the grip. The only way opposite would work is if the opposition is silenced, literally.

Problem is, the pro-western forces in Kiev don't want to share too much power, otherwise they may be forced to seek a wider consensus.

[HoreTore]

Russian idea is to make Kiev has less say in general, and that most important decisions should require a nationwide consensus, which is definitely more democratic than the current system where a few hundred thousand people storm government buildings and set up a government they prefer.

This is only an actual argument if it's implemented in Russia as well.

As it is not, it's just simple case of divide and conquer.

[rvg]

As it is not, it's just simple case of divide and conquer.

Of course it's just divide and conquer, there's nothing else to it. It's astounding that Putin apologists refuse to see the forest behind the trees.

[Sarmatian]

The first article is aon Op Ed by a member of a "think tank" - basically a genuine "Armchair General", not a BBC piece.

Great. I still think it's bollox.


I see very little there demonising Putin or Russia - you're reading that from a standpoint of assumed anti-Slavic bias.

It's not anti-Slavic, it's anti-Russian. Not literal demonising, like saying he's got horns, a tail and hooves instead of feet, but it is written from a standpoint that the west has done nothing to provoke Russian reaction and that anything Putin does is in service of his ultimate goal of domination of at least eastern Europe, if not Europe and the world. As I disagree with that, there's no way I can agree with any of the points he made.


The key point made, and it is accurate, is that turning Ukraine into a collection of regions more autonomous than the Crimea was allows Putin to pull the same trick in the future - have a region unilateral decalre divorce from the centre under the auspices of Russian "peacekeepers" or "monitors".

Again, if the areas of Ukraine where Ukrainians make the majority of the population want to divorce from Kiev and marry Msocow, the problem is in Kiev, not in Moscow.

Furthermore, even though there's a possibility of that, by virtue of already established Putin's character and goals at the very start of the article, it is concluded that Putin will do so.


It also ensures Ukraine never joins NATO - which is the primary Russian concern.

In this, we agree.


Putin's speech, which you ignored, clearly indicated that he believed, with reference to Divine Law, that it was wrong of the Bolsheviks to transfer parts of Russia to Ukraine and that these are really "Russian" lands. He has also talked about a legitimate "sphere of interest" outside Russia's borders - that Russia should have a say in Baltic or Central Eastern Politics.

I didn't ignore, I just have a different understanding of it. The key points of the speech was that Crimea wasn't a conquest of foreign territory but a reintegration of Russian territory.

Considering sphere of interest outside Russian borders, give me a break please. Western leaders talk about protecting western interests as far as Syria and the Philippines, and everything in between.


Russia should only have a say in Russian politics - while it is entitled to raise issues about Russian speakers it is a flagrant breach of national sovereignty that it dares to make demands for fundamental reform of the Ukrainian government - and even to lay out a new constitutional framework.

Reforms, I might add, which run counter to policy IN Russia.

This is rather interesting point of view, when just a few years ago UK demanded of Russia extradition of Lugovoi. When Russians answered that their constitutions doesn't allow extraditions of their citizens to foreign courts, British answer was - change the constitution.

If that's all you have, it's pretty thin.


More pointedly - Russia wants this reform before the election on May 25th.

That's as indecently fast as it's annexation of Crimea, and it shows that Russia is trying to actively, and permanently, reshape Ukraine for its own purposes.

No, Russia believes it should be done before the elections, not before 25th of May. Elections can be rescheduled.


Long-term I suspect this includes annexing the Russian-speaking South East to create a corridor to Transnistria.

That would be a stupid and unnecessary move. But, it would also convince me that Putin is hell bent on re-establishing, or even enlarging, the old Soviet Empire


This is only an actual argument if it's implemented in Russia as well.

As it is not, it's just simple case of divide and conquer.

Like you aren't familiar with the basic rule of great powers in global politics - do as we say, not as we do.

[HoreTore]

This is rather interesting point of view, when just a few years ago UK demanded of Russia extradition of Lugovoi. When Russians answered that their constitutions doesn't allow extraditions of their citizens to foreign courts, British answer was - change the constitution.

That's a rather nonsensical comparison.

Extradition of citizens(which is something the UK already does, by the way) is NOT equal to complete reform of a governmental system.

[Sarmatian]

That's a rather nonsensical comparison.

Extradition of citizens(which is something the UK already does, by the way) is NOT equal to complete reform of a governmental system.

It's a perfect comparison. Britain is suggesting constitutional changes in Russia - Russia is suggesting constitutional changes in Ukraine. In both cases, a government is suggesting constitutional changes in a foreign country. It doesn't get more similar than this.

Anyway, it's silly to even pretend western countries haven't meddled in internal politics of other countries, and way, way more than Russia.

[HoreTore]

It's a perfect comparison. Britain is suggesting constitutional changes in Russia - Russia is suggesting constitutional changes in Ukraine. In both cases, a government is suggesting constitutional changes in a foreign country. It doesn't get more similar than this.

Anyway, it's silly to even pretend western countries haven't meddled in internal politics of other countries, and way, way more than Russia.

The first point is that Russia demands a change they do not have in their own country: Britain demanded a change they do have in their own constitution. That goes for almost all other western demands, by the way.

The second is that the magnitude is vastly different, thus ruining the comparison. It's like saying a thief and a serial killer are equally bad because they both break the law.

But hey, if you want to play that game....

Serbia = Nazi Germany.

[Sarmatian]

The first point is that Russia demands a change they do not have in their own country: Britain demanded a change they do have in their own constitution. That goes for almost all other western demands, by the way.

The second is that the magnitude is vastly different, thus ruining the comparison. It's like saying a thief and a serial killer are equally bad because they both break the law.

As with John Cleese and his explanation of football and American football - "the clue is in the title": Russian Federation.

Britain signed extradition treaties with some countries, not all.

Considering thief/serial killer, there's a difference in severity, not in principle. The crime is not the same, but both are illegal.


But hey, if you want to play that game....

Serbia = Nazi Germany.

Is that supposed to offend me?

C'mon, you know me better than that.

[rvg]

As with John Cleese and his explanation of football and American football - "the clue is in the title": Russian Federation.

Russia is a "Federation" in name only. Leaders of the autonomous republics in Russia are either appointed directly by Putin or selected from a very narrow list approved by Putin. Names can be deceiving, padawan.

[HoreTore]

As with John Cleese and his explanation of football and American football - "the clue is in the title": Russian Federation.

In other news, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic state.

[Sarmatian]

In other news, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic state.

Of course it is! 100% approval rating, that's as democratic as it gets.

Seriously, the example proves that federation doesn't immediately spell disintegration of the country and that enforcing a rule is just as important as making it.

To put an end to the discussion, I fully agree that it's up to Ukrainians to decide what they want to do. When I say Ukrainians, I mean all citizens of Ukraine, regardless of their ethnicity.

After Russia, Ukraine is the largest country in Europe by area, 6th largest by population. It has got huge mineral reserves, decent climate, fertile land, strategic position, relief suitable for road and rail networks, huge hydro potential, literate population... It should be one of the richest country in Europe, not one of the poorest. 25 years after independence and nothing to show for it. It's gone backwards actually. And the reason is all political. Maybe it's time to change something.

Other than that, the most important piece of the puzzle in its economic and political well-being is its relations to Russia, and Ukraine should do all in its power to transform Russia from "enemy at the gates" to "friendly neighbour and partner".

[rvg]

"friendly neighbour and partner".
Hard to make that transition when the aforementioned "partner" is stealing your land.

[Sarmatian]

Hard to make that transition when the aforementioned "partner" is stealing your land.

We survived without Kosovo, they'll survive without Crimea.

What can we do? Be angry at USA forever? Move on, figure out what you've done wrong, just or unjust, and don't do it again.

[rvg]

We survived without Kosovo, they'll survive without Crimea.
That they will. What I find surprising is your eagerness to see Ukraine suffer Serbia's fate. It's not like Ukraine is an enemy or something, same Slavic roots, same Orthodox faith, yet you seem eager to see them beaten into the ground as if that will somehow correct the injustice done to you.

[Sarmatian]

That they will. What I find surprising is your eagerness to see Ukraine suffer Serbia's fate. It's not like Ukraine is an enemy or something, same Slavic roots, same Orthodox faith, yet you seem eager to see them beaten into the ground as if that will somehow correct the injustice done to you.

No, far from it. I want to see Ukraine as one of the richest and most prosperous countries in Europe. I just don't think this coup and a desire to join NATO will offer that, in fact, it would bring the opposite effect.

I just can't understand how they could have been so stupid. Look at the freakin map, look at ethnic composition of your country, look at the foreign trade, take a note of the history of you country... The first thing Yatseniuk should have done is call Putin, reassure him how this wasn't an anti-Russian but anti-Yanukovich thing, that this new government stands behind everything Ukraine signed with Russia, affirm Ukrainian commitment to protection of ethnic Russians in Ukraine (and actually do so) and offer to extend the lease on Crimean ports (or just confirm it, as it is an interim government). A complete political amateur should have known that.

You don't try to ban the use of Russian language officially and encourage more coups in the east and southeast. But, he couldn't have done that as he was allied to Svoboda and the likes, who controlled the most militant part of the protesters. By the time they've realized what's gonna happen, it was too late.

They paid the price. Now they should think how to get the best of a bad situation, not try to create more mistakes.


It's the first rule of politics - think what's the reaction of Washington gonna be, unless you border Russia or China, in which case you worry about reaction of Moscow or Beijing first and Washington second.

[HoreTore]

Is that supposed to offend me?

C'mon, you know me better than that.

Also, forgot about this:

Offend? No. Show the absurdity of the comparison? Yup.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sarmation - given that you just started a thread about Kosovo - you're the last person to ask Ukrainians to move on.

And comment in the West isn't about whether Putin is justified - because nothing that has happened in or around Russia could justify him - it's about what he's going to do next. Nobody really cares all that much about what the West has done in the past, or who it's manipulated, the question now id how much force do we need to apply to prevent Russian expansion without starting World War III.


That's the talk in my part of the UK, at least, how to prevent Russia gobbling up the Baltic States, Ukraine or Moldova without getting into a "hot" war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And comment in the West isn't about whether Putin is justified - because nothing that has happened in or around Russia could justify him - it's about what he's going to do next. Nobody really cares all that much about what the West has done in the past, or who it's manipulated, the question now id how much force do we need to apply to prevent Russian expansion without starting World War III.

That's the talk in my part of the UK, at least, how to prevent Russia gobbling up the Baltic States, Ukraine or Moldova without getting into a "hot" war.


Demonstrate that you are willing to fight the "hot" war and prepare to do so. Then you get a colder conflict or, perhaps, no conflict.


What do you think about the argument that Putin must consolidate the traditional Russian sphere of influence in Europe to counteract a waxing China. Note that, since 1991, every border adjustment -- by negotiation -- between China and its neighbors has featured an increase in Chinese territory. Is Putin "shoring up his base" to enhance his economy/population/etc. prior to coping with China?

So far, the relations with the PRC have been cordial, but China is said to be less than thrilled with the Crimean events of late.

[Sarmatian]

Sarmation - given that you just started a thread about Kosovo - you're the last person to ask Ukrainians to move on.

Well, I don't know if you actually read what I wrote, but that wasn't the point of the thread.

It's not easy, it requires a conscious effort, but the alternative is far worse.


And comment in the West isn't about whether Putin is justified - because nothing that has happened in or around Russia could justify him - it's about what he's going to do next. Nobody really cares all that much about what the West has done in the past, or who it's manipulated, the question now id how much force do we need to apply to prevent Russian expansion without starting World War III.

If your starting assumption is wrong, you can not hope to come to a right conclusion.

[Gilrandir]

Other than that, the most important piece of the puzzle in its economic and political well-being is its relations to Russia, and Ukraine should do all in its power to transform Russia from "enemy at the gates" to "friendly neighbour and partner".
Most of our presidents have been eager to stress the latter, but Russia has always wanted and now wants more than ever to be neither partner nor neighbor, but to push for the revival of the Soviet Union.

[Gilrandir]

The first thing Yatseniuk should have done is call Putin, reassure him how this wasn't an anti-Russian but anti-Yanukovich thing, that this new government stands behind everything Ukraine signed with Russia, affirm Ukrainian commitment to protection of ethnic Russians in Ukraine (and actually do so) and offer to extend the lease on Crimean ports (or just confirm it, as it is an interim government). A complete political amateur should have known that.

I repeat for a complete political professional: from the very first day Yanukovych was down and before any government was formed, Russia DECLINED TO HAVE ANY CONTACTS WITH THE NEW AUTHORITIES.

[Gilrandir]

Confederation is more akin to political alliance of independent states. Even though, the definition of both federation and confederation has been stretched, the safest way to determine what's what is - if the defence and foreign policy is in the hands of central government, it's a federation, if it isn't, it's a confederation.

The loosest form of confederation would be something akin to European Union, where each country is independent but coordinates with other members its foreign policy and other things.

(Con)federations are justified on conditions:
1. There are many national minorities (each of them living compactly) strewed across a larger state with a quantitavely prominent national majority.
2. The country was formed by uniting several (even ethnically identical) countries.
The first case is Russia, the second is Germany. Yugoslavia and Switzerland are mixtures of both.
Ukraine is neither.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, I don't know if you actually read what I wrote, but that wasn't the point of the thread.

It's not easy, it requires a conscious effort, but the alternative is far worse.

I read your opening post, but I don't have the time or energy to offer my thoughts. I'm not saying you've got an axe to grind at all, but the War in Kosovo is clearly very close to your skin - 15 years after it happened.

Crimea was just annexed last month!


If your starting assumption is wrong, you can not hope to come to a right conclusion.

The evidence points, against all hope, to Russian territorial expansion - he's done it twice in eight years, and this time he's just pretending to have plausible deniability, we all know it's his troops on the ground and has been from the start.

At least in Georgia, there was an argument that Russian troops had been attacked first.

[Sarmatian]

I read your opening post, but I don't have the time or energy to offer my thoughts. I'm not saying you've got an axe to grind at all, but the War in Kosovo is clearly very close to your skin - 15 years after it happened.

Crimea was just annexed last month!

The war, yes, not so much the loss of territory. I've said before - my opinion is that NATO purposefully made diplomacy impossible, when they could have achieved similar results without firing a shot.

Even though I find it unjust and illegal, pretty much how I see Crimea, never did I think that making relations with USA/NATO even worse after Kosovo was the right thing to do.




The evidence points, against all hope, to Russian territorial expansion - he's done it twice in eight years, and this time he's just pretending to have plausible deniability, we all know it's his troops on the ground and has been from the start.

At least in Georgia, there was an argument that Russian troops had been attacked first.

And this is where we disagree. In my opinion, Russia perceives NATO actions after the demise of SU as a policy of containment. We may argue they are right or wrong in that, but that is how they see it.

Ukraine, and Crimea especially, is too important to be allowed to join NATO. They've decided that the country is too unstable and too much prone to western interventionism to be considered a reliable partner.

So, we have a paradox that some politicians in Ukraine want to join NATO to protect Ukraine from Russia, while Russia is only a threat if Ukraine joins NATO.

Again, I point to Finland. Even though it achieved independence from the Russian Empire after ww1, and was at war with SU in the ww2, they managed to keep cordial relations for 70 years afterwards and SU/Russia is still the single most important trading partner.

The situation in Ukraine now is very similar to Soviet/Finnish conflict prior to ww2. Finland was feeling threatened by Soviet Union and was forced to look to Germany more and more for protection. Soviet Union was afraid of a potential German attack from Finland and were preparing for a possible invasion. In the end, it became a loop, the more Finland felt threatened, the closer it got to Germany. The closer it got to Germany, the chances of Soviet invasion became higher. With the chances of a Soviet invasion going up, the more Finland was forced to align with Germany and so...

That conflict could have been avoided, this conflict can still be avoided, because if Ukraine joins NATO, this won't be the end of it.

[Sir Moody]

Again, I point to Finland. Even though it achieved independence from the Russian Empire after ww1, and was at war with SU in the ww2, they managed to keep cordial relations for 70 years afterwards and SU/Russia is still the single most important trading partner.

The situation in Ukraine now is very similar to Soviet/Finnish conflict prior to ww2. Finland was feeling threatened by Soviet Union and was forced to look to Germany more and more for protection. Soviet Union was afraid of a potential German attack from Finland and were preparing for a possible invasion. In the end, it became a loop, the more Finland felt threatened, the closer it got to Germany. The closer it got to Germany, the chances of Soviet invasion became higher. With the chances of a Soviet invasion going up, the more Finland was forced to align with Germany and so....

erm wrong on so many levels - Finland was invaded by Soviet Russia in 1939 - at this point they were not overly friendly with Germany at all and in fact Russia attacked because Finland was designated as part of "Russian Territory" by the treaty between Russia and Germany - hell Russia actually shelled one of its own villages to start the Winter War (blaming the Finns so they had an excuse to pull out of the nonaggression pact with Finland) - History claims Russian Leaders were worried about how close the Finnish border was to Leningrad and this was their justification for war - they actually attempted to negotiate territory from Finland prior to the attack.

The Winter War ended with Finland losing more territory than Russia had initially demanded and left them very worried about further Russian aggression.

Finland initially attempted to negotiate defence treaties with Great Britain and Sweeden however neither party were in a position to help due to WW2 which of course led to Finland approaching the Nazi's as the only party who could help.

You have everything the wrong way round - Russian aggression led to Finland seeking help from Nazi Germany, the more aggressive Russia was the closer Finland got to Germany - had the Winter war never occurred it is likely Finland never would have allied with Germany...

[HoreTore]

SU/Russia is still the single most important trading partner.

No.


Sweden 11.1%, Russia 9.9%, Germany 9.3%, Netherlands 6.3%, US 6.2%, UK 5.1%, China 4.6% (2012)

[Kagemusha]

No.

Yes.You only mentioned exports from your source. It is true indeed that Russia is the largest trading partner of Finland with 17,8 percent of imports and 10 percent of exports, as the graph taken from Suomen tilastokeskus aka Official statistics of Finland shows:



Main trading partners, 2012


Russia
10 583
17,8
5 688
10,0
-4 895


Sweden
6 369
10,7
6 291
11,1
-78


Germany
7 335
12,3
5 253
9,2
-2082


China
4 602
7,7
2 607
4,6
-1995


Netherlands
3 370
5,7
3 557
6,3
187


United States
1 995
3,4
3 605
6,3
1 609


United Kingdom
1 760
3,0
2 889
5,1
1 129


Norway
2 166
3,6
1 804
3,2
-362


France
1 820
3,1
1 690
3,0
-130


Estonia
1 547
2,6
1 710
3,0
163


Other countries
17 971
30,2
21 785
38,3
3 814


Total
59 517
100
56 878
100
-2 539



Source: http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_kotimaankauppa_en.html

[Gilrandir]

The situation in Ukraine now is very similar to Soviet/Finnish conflict prior to ww2. Finland was feeling threatened by Soviet Union and was forced to look to Germany more and more for protection. Soviet Union was afraid of a potential German attack from Finland and were preparing for a possible invasion. In the end, it became a loop, the more Finland felt threatened, the closer it got to Germany. The closer it got to Germany, the chances of Soviet invasion became higher. With the chances of a Soviet invasion going up, the more Finland was forced to align with Germany and so...


Although it may seem superficially similar, Ukraine vs Russia conflict is different in Russian view of Ukrainians basically as distorted by harmful influences Russians who should be (and indeed long to be) reunited with Mother-Russia. As I wrote in the thread before, this premise serves the majority of Russians a sensible justification of whatever Putin is doing now.

[Sarmatian]

erm wrong on so many levels - Finland was invaded by Soviet Russia in 1939 - at this point they were not overly friendly with Germany at all and in fact Russia attacked because Finland was designated as part of "Russian Territory" by the treaty between Russia and Germany - hell Russia actually shelled one of its own villages to start the Winter War (blaming the Finns so they had an excuse to pull out of the nonaggression pact with Finland) - History claims Russian Leaders were worried about how close the Finnish border was to Leningrad and this was their justification for war - they actually attempted to negotiate territory from Finland prior to the attack.

The Winter War ended with Finland losing more territory than Russia had initially demanded and left them very worried about further Russian aggression.

Finland initially attempted to negotiate defence treaties with Great Britain and Sweeden however neither party were in a position to help due to WW2 which of course led to Finland approaching the Nazi's as the only party who could help.

You have everything the wrong way round - Russian aggression led to Finland seeking help from Nazi Germany, the more aggressive Russia was the closer Finland got to Germany - had the Winter war never occurred it is likely Finland never would have allied with Germany...

Please, no history lesson on ww2.

The point is that it is a vicious circle, and once you're in it, it's hard to get out of.

Stable and prosperous Ukraine, out of NATO, is in Russian best interests. From Ukrainian standpoint, the only logical move is figure out how to turn angry bear to a friendly bear. If they go the opposite route, it doesn't just mean status quo, it means more bad stuff happens.

Very simple, actually, and, like most stuff in global politics, it doesn't have much to do with right or wrong.

[HoreTore]

Yes.

Never trust the CIA, eh?

[rvg]

From Ukrainian standpoint, the only logical move is figure out how to turn angry bear to a friendly bear.

It would be far more logical to fence the bear in. Then Ukraine will no longer be subject to bear's whims and mood swings.

[Sarmatian]

Never trust the CIA, eh?

... and always trust Sarmatian. :book2:


It would be far more logical to fence the bear in. Then Ukraine will no longer be subject to bear's whims and mood swings.

The bear is not completely irrational in its desires, and, as Finland example illustrates, it is quite possible to build a long-term partnership. 70 years of cordial and mutually beneficial relations is quite a lot in world politics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

erm wrong on so many levels - Finland was invaded by Soviet Russia in 1939 - at this point they were not overly friendly with Germany at all and in fact Russia attacked because Finland was designated as part of "Russian Territory" by the treaty between Russia and Germany - hell Russia actually shelled one of its own villages to start the Winter War (blaming the Finns so they had an excuse to pull out of the nonaggression pact with Finland) - History claims Russian Leaders were worried about how close the Finnish border was to Leningrad and this was their justification for war - they actually attempted to negotiate territory from Finland prior to the attack.

The Winter War ended with Finland losing more territory than Russia had initially demanded and left them very worried about further Russian aggression.

Finland initially attempted to negotiate defence treaties with Great Britain and Sweeden however neither party were in a position to help due to WW2 which of course led to Finland approaching the Nazi's as the only party who could help.

You have everything the wrong way round - Russian aggression led to Finland seeking help from Nazi Germany, the more aggressive Russia was the closer Finland got to Germany - had the Winter war never occurred it is likely Finland never would have allied with Germany...

To this we may add Romania joining the Axis to regain lost territory, what is now Moldova, and their falling toa Fascist Coup. A Coup the King managed to topple a few years into the War and then UNILATERALLY joined the Allies. It's actually a really cool story - but of course we left Romania out to dry just like Poland.

This is why I have no problem with Romanians or Poles coming to the UK for work or education - because the UK is substantially responsible for the subsequent half-century of misery.

[rvg]

The bear is not completely irrational in its desires, and, as Finland example illustrates, it is quite possible to build a long-term partnership. 70 years of cordial and mutually beneficial relations is quite a lot in world politics.

Sure, but why put faith in the benevolence of the bear? Much better to be in a position where bear cannot touch you without running into an electric fence.

[Fisherking]

A part of the problem is that the US has practiced a containment policy toward Russia since the end of the cold war.

They have sought to bring former Soviet Republics and other nations on Russia’s borders heavily under their influence.

While it may be good to establish closer relations to these states, it should not be at Russia’s expense.

It only increases their paranoia and leads to things like Crimea.

[Sarmatian]

Sure, but why put faith in the benevolence of the bear? Much better to be in a position where bear cannot touch you without running into an electric fence.

There are a few possible answers...

Philosophical answer: Why put faith in the benevolence of anyone? How many times was trust and faith ignored in international politics? Can you truly put faith in anyone but yourself?

Moralist answer: Because it is a wrong thing to do. Just because we don't see eye to eye with someone, that doesn't mean they don't have legitimate concerns.

Practical answer 1: Because it most probably can not be done, and it would bring the opposite effect. Instead of a restless bear, you'd have an angry one.

Practical answer 2: Even if it could be done, the price of doing so is much higher than anyone is willing to pay.

Practical answer 3: It's not a proper long-term solution, and the same issues will reappear in not too distant future.

Take your pick...

[Brenus]

“This is why I have no problem with Romanians or Poles coming to the UK for work or education - because the UK is substantially responsible for the subsequent half-century of misery.” First, what could have been done?
Second, Stalin paid back in letting the Greece communist to die in the mountains in allowing the English to reinstall the King.

It is amusing we just forget this little detail.