Ukraine Thread

[Brenus]

"Brenus, if I was a Romanian I would want as many NATO troops in my country as possible" You might, but you can't expect Russia not to see it as a menace at her door.
Then you guys, are telling that Putin is a mafia boss. You, guys, are telling that Russia is the enemy. So, PVC, if you were a Russian, wouldn't worry to see troops in a country that never miss the occasion to attack you? Wouldn't worry to see a power describing you as an enemy massing forces at your borders? All around your borders, under various reasons, all legitimate of course.

Unfortunately, that is not my skepticism that modified my view, but NATO participation in rough aggression, against legality and international laws. And if you read my very first participation (well, one of) on Ukraine subject was to ask why NATO followers were so upset about Russia's actions as the model followed was NATO's one.
Double standards I would say: EU/USA impose sanctions, Russia blackmails, Putin's regime, Obama's administration, etc.

[Gilrandir]

Different superpower, different approach. Installing a friendly government more or less gives you the entire country without having to bit it all off. Putin had that in Ukraine, the people even voted the friendly government in. Now some tried to take it away from him in a move that destabilized the country and gave him tho opportunity to do what he did and does now.

I'm sure if he had reacted otherwise, now he would have quite a different Ukrainian government to deal with (with the pro-russians in Donbas and Crimea participating in the elections). Instead, with every new move he is digging himself into a deeper hole. He has two choices only: to press his cause until he wins (which he is finding increasingly difficult) or leave his post. His backing out at this (or any further) stage and saving his face is not possible any more.

Yes, and what remains of Ukraine will not have a lot of angry pro-Russians anymore and can safely do the whole EU mating dance that the British and the Dutch cheer them for because we all love the EU so much.

Putin will not have it even with the truncated Ukraine. He needs both non-Nato and non-EU guarantees of Ukraine's future. And can he guarantee anything in return? I mean guarantees that anyone would trust? And would anyone trust him anymore? Not Ukraine, at least.

Yes, I'm confident that you know Putin's convictions far better than the people who negotiate with him in person.

His convictions can be easily surmised on the basis of his actions.

And therefore we should do it to all Russians? Because two wrongs make a right or because the situations are totally comparable?

You didn't get what I meant. I mean that Ukrainians and Russians have been living side by side for several centuries and considered each other more than friends. This is one of the reasons no one expected such attitude and actions from a strategic partner. What Putin has done may have benefited him tactically, yet strategically he has disadvantaged Russia tremendously. I don't see any time in the nearest future when Russians and Ukrainians would feel the same towards each other. And this is more grievous than all territorial and political disputes. Ultimately, Ukraine will never (well, not in the forseeable future) say that our brothers and close friends live across the border.

I didn't know that he was Russian.

He wasn't. I just wanted to show how unreliable socialogical surveys are in modern Russia. Do you know the procedure? They TELEPHONE random people and ask: "Do you support Putin?"

But it would be enough to scare a photographer who would tweet about fighting at the frontlines and therefore justify a full NATO war against Russia.

Once again: Nato, EU, USA - they KNOW everything perfectly well so if they had wanted to start a war they would have done it long ago. As the USA had done it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada... They don't want a war still hoping to give Putin a chance to back out and save his face. Putin sees it as a sign of weakness and keeps doing his dirty tricks. The questions is who will acknowledge the failure of his approach first.

So, PVC, if you were a Russian, wouldn't worry to see troops in a country that never miss the occasion to attack you? Wouldn't worry to see a power describing you as an enemy massing forces at your borders? All around your borders, under various reasons, all legitimate of course.

Remind us, as a Russian, how many times since 1945 your country has been attacked by the surrounding forces of evil. Russians offer only apprehensions as a reason and start real wars in response.

“so maybe it is time to try something else, no?” What about getting out of propaganda and go to negotiation based on reality and respect?

It may be an eye-opener for you, but I lost count of negotiations the West has had with Putin or Lavrov giving them all chances to change the attitude and save face at the same time. No good. A question: are you sure Putin lives in the same reality as all the world around him and respects international rules, laws and treaties?

Irrelevant as I was speaking of who is menacing the other.

Now consider it: Nato keeps menacing, Russia keeps waging wars. An equal exchange?

“Now remind us, how many Nato's flank attacks against Russia happened and compare it against Russia's attacks in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya and now Ukraine.” Again irrelevant, but it is not the first time: Firstly, none of these regions are countries, but regions of others countries. And even if they were, it wouldn't be a menace against NATO.
Second, no Russian aggression, No Russian Air Force attacking on the grounds, but break away from the main country, for most of them, Chechnya still being part of Russia as you didn’t stop to claim that Chechnya sent (Russian) soldiers in Ukraine, as usual without the beginning of a proof. I am almost sure you can buy some passports to show on TV, com’on, make an effort. You, as usual, don’t care of facts.

Short answer: none. No flank attacks to justify the fears Russia is having.

“Nato did it once”: Bosnia, Croatia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and of course Iraq, Syria, Libya. And if we count the NATO auxiliary France, Chad, and others African Countries.

I spoke of NATO's NEIGHBORS. So the answer is - only once - in former Yugoslavia. Russia is constantly involved in wars at its borders.

[CrossLOPER]

Russia keeps waging wars.

I would hardly call regional conflicts "wars".

[Husar]

I'm sure if he had reacted otherwise, now he would have quite a different Ukrainian government to deal with (with the pro-russians in Donbas and Crimea participating in the elections). Instead, with every new move he is digging himself into a deeper hole. He has two choices only: to press his cause until he wins (which he is finding increasingly difficult) or leave his post. His backing out at this (or any further) stage and saving his face is not possible any more.

Putin will not have it even with the truncated Ukraine. He needs both non-Nato and non-EU guarantees of Ukraine's future. And can he guarantee anything in return? I mean guarantees that anyone would trust? And would anyone trust him anymore? Not Ukraine, at least.
[...]
Once again: Nato, EU, USA - they KNOW everything perfectly well so if they had wanted to start a war they would have done it long ago. As the USA had done it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada... They don't want a war still hoping to give Putin a chance to back out and save his face. Putin sees it as a sign of weakness and keeps doing his dirty tricks. The questions is who will acknowledge the failure of his approach first.

So Putin is digging himself deeper into a hole and his approach is really bad for him in the long term, but the strategies of the Western countries have also completely failed, so who is going to "win" this? Putin? Apparently not, he's digging a deeper hole all the time and cannot go back. The West? Apparently not, their tactic has failed. Sounds like the situation will either disappear magically or WW3 as I said earlier. Or am I getting something wrong here?

You didn't get what I meant. I mean that Ukrainians and Russians have been living side by side for several centuries and considered each other more than friends. This is one of the reasons no one expected such attitude and actions from a strategic partner. What Putin has done may have benefited him tactically, yet strategically he has disadvantaged Russia tremendously. I don't see any time in the nearest future when Russians and Ukrainians would feel the same towards each other. And this is more grievous than all territorial and political disputes. Ultimately, Ukraine will never (well, not in the forseeable future) say that our brothers and close friends live across the border.

Maybe Putin didn't expect his strategic friends to dump him for the EU with the whole Maidan thing either, which happened before he showed his "attitude and actions".

He wasn't. I just wanted to show how unreliable socialogical surveys are in modern Russia. Do you know the procedure? They TELEPHONE random people and ask: "Do you support Putin?"

What's the problem with telephones? Political polls in the West aren't conducted by magic mind readers either, telephones are a common tool.
https://www.boundless.com/political-...ling-275-6802/

[Brenus]

“Now consider it: Nato keeps menacing, Russia keeps waging wars. An equal exchange?” Not factual. NATO waged more war than Russia (legitimate and not). This is a fact.

“A question: are you sure Putin lives in the same reality as all the world around him and respects international rules, laws and treaties?” Of course not but I am sure that the world around him doesn’t either, repeatedly.

“No flank attacks to justify the fears Russia is having.” Ask the Russians: due to History, they’ve got a point.

“I spoke of NATO's NEIGHBORS” Nope, you didn’t as you included Kosovo in it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brenus:

What should be done with this situation? What is a good end result here?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...

Pretty much - Putin doesn't live in our reality - he's paranoid. It's what makes him so dangerous - I've adopted the positions that whatever we think is just far too extreme is what Putin will do. From which perspective I'm afraid he will eventually escalate to formally invading your country to annex the other Russian-majority regions.

[Brenus]

“What should be done with this situation? What is a good end result here?”
I don’t know.
What do we have? A potential war in a country which has a nuclear plant named Chernobyl and I think 3 more (Zaporijia, Rovno and Khmelnitski ) for a total of 15 reactors like it that needs fuel and spare parts for maintenance from…Moscow.
I will not answer the “should” part, what is done is done, and Ukraine will have to deal to the situation as Serbia has to deal with the loss of Kosovo. There is no justice, only me, said Death in one of Prachett’s book.
Arming Ukraine is a bad idea, as Russia will be able to match every piece of equipment. If necessary, Russia will provide grounds troops, as Russia sees Ukraine as vital for her security. USA and EU will not be able to mobilise on the same feeling, so no troops will be sent.
After the disastrous dealing of the situation by EU/US and Ukrainian Putchist then Legitimate Government of Ukraine of the crisis, it, perhaps, was still place of compromise and to keep Ukrainian territory intact. I still don’t understand how the CIA analysts (but not only) got it so wrong, and underestimated (if not misestimate) Russian feelings and intentions.
Long time ago, I went in Russia (during Chechnya first war) to deliver medical equipment to Doctors without Borders working in the region. All conversations with the translators, and contact with the locals were about the humiliation of Russia by the West under the Drunken Bear Boris Eltsin. I was told that there were so many Russian prostitutes in Istanbul that all of them were called Natacha. True or not, it was what I was told.
They were almost all thirsty for dignity and respect.
Putin success is due for a large part to the return of Russia to a level of self-dignity.
If this is not understood and rectify, all efforts will be in vain.
Thanks to Gilrandir, I started to watch RT recently, and not every day, to be frank. I don’t know if what is said in English is what is said in Russian, but they show the comments made by Westerner Politicians, comparing RT and IS.
So, in term of what can be done, only de-escalation is an option. Ukraine has now no other solution than federalisation, negotiation and talk. Confidence Building Programmes, financed by the European Agency for Reconstruction, rebuilding an economy, a real democracy, creation of jobs, repair of infrastructures: One of the greatest French Colonial General said one to the Foreign Legion after the conquest (I think Morocco) to build one market, one school and to provide medical assistance in each conquered village: Same principal, different wording, bringing populations together, stopping the aggressive stance and coming back to civil life. As Gilrandir often said, they were all neighbours (even if it doesn’t always make it easier).
George Clemenceau, the man who won the 1st World War, said one: Better a bad peace than a good war. It is not always true, but I think in this case it is.

[Gilrandir]

So Putin is digging himself deeper into a hole and his approach is really bad for him in the long term, but the strategies of the Western countries have also completely failed, so who is going to "win" this? Putin? Apparently not, he's digging a deeper hole all the time and cannot go back. The West? Apparently not, their tactic has failed. Sounds like the situation will either disappear magically or WW3 as I said earlier. Or am I getting something wrong here?

You are getting everything right. I don't see any solution either. Perhaps, if Putin magically disappears (and he hasn't shown himself in public for ten days or so having cancelled some important visits (namely to Kazakhstan), the signing of the union treaty with South Ossetia and the NSDC sitting in Pyatigorsk (IIRC) which he heads and has never missed) than for a time Russian elite will be too busy with sorting things out among themselves to pay all other events more than a cursory look, the rest of the world will have a chance to come up with something. Mind you, I don't hope for any successor with a milder attitude. As many experts claim, Putin's environment now consisits of "the party of blood and money" and "the party of Big blood". Whichever wins the outlook is not bright, yet while they are bickering the world will have a breathing space and might be able to do somehting (hopefully).

Maybe Putin didn't expect his strategic friends to dump him for the EU with the whole Maidan thing either, which happened before he showed his "attitude and actions".

I have answered this one, yet I can do it again: some countries (Turkey, Israel) are perfectly well having free trade agreements both with the EU and Russia. Even Yanukovych in summer of 2013 said that he would like to see the same future for Ukraine. Russia thought (and still thinks) that it should be a matter of choice - either the former or the latter.
Anyway, the way Putin enforces friendship is unlikely to get him friends.

What's the problem with telephones? Political polls in the West aren't conducted by magic mind readers either, telephones are a common tool.
https://www.boundless.com/political-...ling-275-6802/

You evidently have no experience of living in the USSR and modern Russia which increasingly reminds the former. Ask GenosseGeneral, for example, what a modern Russian is likely to say when he is asked by an unknown person on the telephone about his attitude to Putin. Of course, there are some (or very many) that genuinely support him (see the video on celebration Putin's birthday in Grozny), but I would say that a considerable portion would just freak out and say that they worshipped their leader. So the 85-88% figure that Russian media boast of is in fact bloated out of proportion. The real figure (though great in fact, I'm sure) is far less.

“Now consider it: Nato keeps menacing, Russia keeps waging wars. An equal exchange?” Not factual. NATO waged more war than Russia (legitimate and not). This is a fact.

I speak of wars IN THE NEAR VICINITY. No one beats Russia in that.

“A question: are you sure Putin lives in the same reality as all the world around him and respects international rules, laws and treaties?” Of course not but I am sure that the world around him doesn’t either, repeatedly.

What is then the purpose to talk and negotiate with Putin?

“No flank attacks to justify the fears Russia is having.” Ask the Russians: due to History, they’ve got a point.

No they don't. Since the time Nato was created Russia has NEVER been attacked by any of NATO members. On the contrary, any nations Russia had wars with ceased any military aggression against Russia since they joined NATO. So for any country joining NATO seems a safeguard against any attacks on Russia through point 5 of the treaty.

The most funny thing in all these Brenus' anti-NATO philippics is the fact that they come from a person who at least once (in Bosnia) was instrumental in NATO's depredations. I wonder where is genuine Brenus - the one that is now denouncing NATO's hideous ways or the one who put his signature against his name on the payroll and got his salary from NATO.

From which perspective I'm afraid he will eventually escalate to formally invading your country to annex the other Russian-majority regions.

He realizes that now he has not enough manpower and money to capture them and still less to hold them. Right now he is bent on destroying Ukraine from within, but Ukraine got a respite with the IMF money. This evidently will demand the adjustment of his policies. What he comes up with we will see pretty soon (that is if he emerges from his hiding).
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...ike-a-dictator

A potential war in a country which has a nuclear plant named Chernobyl

It has been shut down years ago.

So, in term of what can be done, only de-escalation is an option.

And Russia thinks so too:
http://sputniknews.com/politics/2015...019309874.html

Ukraine has now no other solution than federalisation, negotiation and talk.

I don't agree on the first, while the second and the third have been tried repeatedly bringing no palpable improvement.

As Gilrandir often said, they were all neighbours (even if it doesn’t always make it easier).

We still are and we are doomed to ever be.

[Brenus]

“The most funny thing in all these Brenus' anti-NATO philippics is the fact that they come from a person who at least once (in Bosnia) was instrumental in NATO's depredations. I wonder where is genuine Brenus - the one that is now denouncing NATO's hideous ways or the one who put his signature against his name on the payroll and got his salary from NATO.” The funniest thing in your smear campaign is you get all wrong as usual.
My time in the Army (and France was not part of NATO at that times) is from 1979 to 1984).
Bosnian wars started in 1992. I know you don’t really care of facts but it was still 8 years later.

So, what will you find now in order to attack the person and not the arguments?

The other unexpected effect of your ill-informed statement is it looks you think to work with or for NATO is something to be ashamed of… You are free to think so, but I want to emphasize I am not of this opinion. Some of my best friends worked for NATO.

“What is then the purpose to talk and negotiate with Putin?” The same than for Russia to talk to NATO/EU/US liars: To try to find a solution. From Russian’s point of view, all promises made after the USSR collapse were broken, so perhaps it is time to re-built some bridges.

“I speak of wars IN THE NEAR VICINITY.” Ooh, you change your stance again. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, to recognise your mistakes. So Afghanistan is not in Russian’s vicinity? And which war in near vicinity Russia did start, invade? I am writing “start”.

“Russia has NEVER been attacked by any of NATO members” Which NATO member has been attacked by Russia?

“And Russia think so too” Oops, again your weak point, understanding wording: De-escalation (lowering down tensions) in not withdrawing from a association or organism.
You might have mixed-up because withdrawing military equipment is part of de-escalate a conflict.

[Husar]

I have answered this one, yet I can do it again: some countries (Turkey, Israel) are perfectly well having free trade agreements both with the EU and Russia. Even Yanukovych in summer of 2013 said that he would like to see the same future for Ukraine. Russia thought (and still thinks) that it should be a matter of choice - either the former or the latter.
Anyway, the way Putin enforces friendship is unlikely to get him friends.

He wasn't making a lot of friends before that either, but since when were Turkey and Israel historically friends of Russia? Their free trade agreements have nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine.

You evidently have no experience of living in the USSR and modern Russia which increasingly reminds the former. Ask GenosseGeneral, for example, what a modern Russian is likely to say when he is asked by an unknown person on the telephone about his attitude to Putin. Of course, there are some (or very many) that genuinely support him (see the video on celebration Putin's birthday in Grozny), but I would say that a considerable portion would just freak out and say that they worshipped their leader. So the 85-88% figure that Russian media boast of is in fact bloated out of proportion. The real figure (though great in fact, I'm sure) is far less.

Of course not, I was born in the Free World™.
But that seems to be a general problem with polling outside the free world, nothing very special about using a telephone to do so, so I was surprised that you highlighted the world telephone. Or would people answer differently if a random guy asked them on the street?

[Gilrandir]

The other unexpected effect of your ill-informed statement is it looks you think to work with or for NATO is something to be ashamed of…

For one so critical of NATO as you it would be not a shame, but hypocrisy. Morally, one can't get paid by someone and then go about saying how you hate what in fact is being done with your participation.

“What is then the purpose to talk and negotiate with Putin?” The same than for Russia to talk to NATO/EU/US liars: To try to find a solution. From Russian’s point of view, all promises made after the USSR collapse were broken, so perhaps it is time to re-built some bridges.

All the promises you mention (afaik) never took the shape of a treaty, while Russia's promises (concerning Ukraine) did at least twice (Budapest memorandum of 1994 and Russia-Ukraine treaty of friendship and cooperstion of 1997). Bridges you may build, but Russia will have a terrorist with an explosive ticking under each of them.

“I speak of wars IN THE NEAR VICINITY.” Ooh, you change your stance again. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, to recognise your mistakes. So Afghanistan is not in Russian’s vicinity? And which war in near vicinity Russia did start, invade? I am writing “start”.

I don't change it - just a misunderstanding on your part. I speak of Russia waging wars in its vicinity against NATO waging wars in its vicinity. Clearly Russia wins - wars in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya (inside Russia) and now Ukraine. The nearest vicinity of NATO with the latter's involvement saw only Yugoslavian war(s). Since there were several of them on a limited territory (or several stages of the same war) it is safe to assume that it is the locale itself that was in trouble. Russia, on the contrary, was (and is) directly involved in conflicts in different republics of the former USSR. It is a pattern of Russia's behavior rather than natural troubles.

“Russia has NEVER been attacked by any of NATO members” Which NATO member has been attacked by Russia?

No. SO the answer to your question will bring you directly to answering this one: should Ukraine become a NATO member?

“And Russia think so too” Oops, again your weak point, understanding wording: De-escalation (lowering down tensions) in not withdrawing from a association or organism.
You might have mixed-up because withdrawing military equipment is part of de-escalate a conflict.

So lifting limitations on the number of weapons is not against de-escalation?

He wasn't making a lot of friends before that either, but since when were Turkey and Israel historically friends of Russia? Their free trade agreements have nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine.

When Yanukovych started his EU campagn he claimed (and I agree with him) that being a member of an economic organisation can not cancel any friendly, historic, economic, political and other ties with other countries (Russia in particular). And free trade agreement with both the EU and Russia could be a good example of such approach. Unfortunately, Russia didn't (and doesn't) see it that way. For Putin it is: either be our friend or be within the EU.

Of course not, I was born in the Free World™.
But that seems to be a general problem with polling outside the free world, nothing very special about using a telephone to do so, so I was surprised that you highlighted the world telephone. Or would people answer differently if a random guy asked them on the street?

People in the former USSR (and more so in modern Russia) are pretty much sure that their telephone talks are being eavesdropped on. There is even expression in Russian which is still in use and which can be roughly translated as "it is not a kind of talk one should have over the telephone". Since the researchers telephoned their homes people assumed that they knew their home phone number and consequently their address and consequently their name. So at the back of their mind would always be a picture of a guy with earphones taping every word they said and knowing all private information about them. Questioning people in the street in the broad daylight by an unknown person would give the survey at least a semblance of anonymity.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brenus:

Our intelligence services screw up the feelings and intentions side of things regularly. Why? A preference for SIGINT over HUMINT....been our Achilles' heel for quite a while now.

For example, we had so little HUMINT in Iraq that we completely believed our source who said Saddam still had an active WMD program in place -- even though that source had a huge axe to grind and we had little corroboration.

[Gilrandir]

A U-turn in Russia's stance on peacekeepers in Ukraine.
http://mw.ua/WORLD/lavrov-moscow-is-...bas-1455_.html

[Brenus]

“It never honors either.” And NATO did?

“So, if we admit that NAtO doesn't attack its members and that Russia doesn't attack NATO members, would Ukraine be safer within NATO - both from NATO and Russia?” Good point. Just a mild remark, Greece and Turkey, both member of NATO did fight each other and Cyprus is still divided between the two. I can mentioned as well the war between UK and Argentina, both allied with US (at the time, I don’t know what is the situation for Argentina now).

“The guy under the bridge will always be one move ahead while airplanes are circling about and their pilots are "apalled, shocked and gravely concerned".” Yeap, but the guy under the bridge put his life on line, when the pilot will be back home ½ hour after. And when did you ever heard pilots being "appalled, shocked and gravely concerned” of bombing?

“Our intelligence services screw up the feelings and intentions side of things regularly. Why? A preference for SIGINT over HUMINT....been our Achilles' heel for quite a while now.
For example, we had so little HUMINT in Iraq that we completely believed our source who said Saddam still had an active WMD program in place -- even though that source had a huge axe to grind and we had little corroboration.” I agree, but not entirely. Iraq is a good case. French, German, Italian intelligence told US that it was not possible. And if you put personnel on the grounds, just watching and listening, you could have seen that Iraq was not in position to maintain even a conventional army. And I remember on the French TV debates about the validity of the “free” Iraqis testimony…
As Ukraine is concerned, I said it before, I think it was a pure blunder due to arrogance itself generated by a string of successes in the coloured Revolutions. I am still convinced that no one planned Ukraine; it just went at its momentum as Dr Frankenstein’s creature wobbling to the nearest village. Or, as put by Pratchett, someone throwing a snow ball on a mountain and being surprise by the villages swept by the avalanche.

[Gilrandir]

“It never honors either.” And NATO did?

So once again - no treaties nor negotiations will change anything at the moment.

“So, if we admit that NAtO doesn't attack its members and that Russia doesn't attack NATO members, would Ukraine be safer within NATO - both from NATO and Russia?” Good point. Just a mild remark, Greece and Turkey, both member of NATO did fight each other and Cyprus is still divided between the two.

It was never a full-scale war and it was not between Greece and Turkey but rather between Cyprus and Turkey.

I can mentioned as well the war between UK and Argentina, both allied with US (at the time, I don’t know what is the situation for Argentina now).

Argentina wasn't and isn't a Nato member and we have agreed that "no attack rule" 100% applied to Nato/Russia relations.

“The guy under the bridge will always be one move ahead while airplanes are circling about and their pilots are "apalled, shocked and gravely concerned".” Yeap, but the guy under the bridge put his life on line, when the pilot will be back home ½ hour after.

You forget two important considerations:
1. The guy under the bridge isn't usually alone - there is another one who brought him there and is squatting in the bush by the roadside with a stinger on his shoulder.
2. Those who sent both are not sorry to lose them - they have plenty more to replace them.

And when did you ever heard pilots being "appalled, shocked and gravely concerned” of bombing?

Since the plane is metaphorically the EU and its pilots are the EU leaders, their reaction to seeing armed guys from Russia in Donbas was what I described.