Ukraine Thread

[Husar]

More de-escalation:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0K819420141230
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/18/4635
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukr...y-amid-n308776

[Kagemusha]

This is what I call de-escalation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-russia-drills

Maybe in response to this? http://www.defense.gov/home/features...lanticresolve/

Just asking..

[Beskar]

Maybe in response to this? http://www.defense.gov/home/features...lanticresolve/

Just asking..

Don't you know better, Kagemusha? They are the good guys!

[Gilrandir]

More de-escalation:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0K819420141230
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/18/4635
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukr...y-amid-n308776

Maybe in response to this? http://www.defense.gov/home/features...lanticresolve/

There is one common thing I see in all the links: they are all about PLANS for more or less distant future. In my opinion, it doesn't explain why Putin the Re-emerged needs to put his military on alert RIGHT NOW. Will this alert state keep infinitely/for a prolonged time? If yes, then all the abovementioned plans will look like a response to the alert.

[Gilrandir]

Perhaps this one is crucial for understanding Putin's attitude and plans he has in mind for Ukraine:
http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news...ne-people.aspx

[Husar]

There is one common thing I see in all the links: they are all about PLANS for more or less distant future. In my opinion, it doesn't explain why Putin the Re-emerged needs to put his military on alert RIGHT NOW. Will this alert state keep infinitely/for a prolonged time? If yes, then all the abovementioned plans will look like a response to the alert.

Maybe you missed the dates of the articles, which would show you that they were from before Putin's announcement. The movement of US troops to Europe has already begun if I'm not mistaken, but the english press seems to be more quiet about it than the german press:

13.03.2015: USA want to move 800 tanks to Europe http://www.sat1bayern.de/news/201503...r-stationiert/
Second link: http://www.br.de/nachrichten/oberpfa...woehr-100.html

10.03.2015: USA send 3000 soldiers to the baltic countries http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa...tikum-101.html
The first sentence says the tanks and other equipment are being unloaded in the port.

All the exercises that happened in Europe were well-known and publicly announced, the page Kage linked has several from 2014 shown on the map.

[Gilrandir]

13.03.2015: USA want to move 800 tanks to Europe http://www.sat1bayern.de/news/201503...r-stationiert/
Second link: http://www.br.de/nachrichten/oberpfa...woehr-100.html

Not just to abstract Europe, but to Bayern. Check the distance from it to Russia. It is stupid to thus react to tanks being deployed thousands of miles from Russia. They might as well justify the alert by ISIS activity.

10.03.2015: USA send 3000 soldiers to the baltic countries http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa...tikum-101.html
The first sentence says the tanks and other equipment are being unloaded in the port.

All the exercises that happened in Europe were well-known and publicly announced, the page Kage linked has several from 2014 shown on the map.

Those (and the Bayerische one) were not exercises but deployments. I don't know if such things are heralded a year ahead. Since the articles claim that these were the steps connected with the Ukraine crisis, I don't think it could have been announced in 2014.

[Husar]

Not just to abstract Europe, but to Bayern. Check the distance from it to Russia. It is stupid to thus react to tanks being deployed thousands of miles from Russia. They might as well justify the alert by ISIS activity.

It says to Europe and "some of them should be stationed in Grafenwöhr". It does not say they all go to Bavaria.

Those (and the Bayerische one) were not exercises but deployments. I don't know if such things are heralded a year ahead. Since the articles claim that these were the steps connected with the Ukraine crisis, I don't think it could have been announced in 2014.

There's an empty line between the part about deployments and the part about exercises, don't mix them up. The exercises already happened in 2014, they weren't just announced. They were partially held in connection with the Ukraine crisis, but you were the one saying that military exercises do not contribute to de-escalation, no?

[Gilrandir]

The exercises already happened in 2014, they weren't just announced. They were partially held in connection with the Ukraine crisis, but you were the one saying that military exercises do not contribute to de-escalation, no?

I don't know what you mean by "partially in connection". The exercises had been planned and announced way back, and when the crisis hit they were proclaimed to be connected with it? Then they have nothing to do with escalation or de-escalation. They do if they were re-scheduled or the participants of them were increased in number, they were shifted to another locale (closer to the fighting zone) or they hadn't been planned before the conflict started or (most importantly) if the participants of them are universally credited to be one of the beligirents likely to take part in fighting any time soon after or during the exercises and the latter are a smoke screen to send soldiers to actual fighting. The last mentioned seems to be the case with Russia's troops. But Russia has had numerous exercises in the vicinity of Ukraine since 2014, and what is being discussed now is the ALERT STATE not the exercises. Alert states are not pre-planned.

[Gilrandir]

http://www.radiosvoboda.org/media/video/26909782.html
I am confused - are there Russian nazis who thus salute to the Crimea liberation from nazis?

[Husar]

I don't know what you mean by "partially in connection". The exercises had been planned and announced way back, and when the crisis hit they were proclaimed to be connected with it? Then they have nothing to do with escalation or de-escalation. They do if they were re-scheduled or the participants of them were increased in number, they were shifted to another locale (closer to the fighting zone) or they hadn't been planned before the conflict started or (most importantly) if the participants of them are universally credited to be one of the beligirents likely to take part in fighting any time soon after or during the exercises and the latter are a smoke screen to send soldiers to actual fighting. The last mentioned seems to be the case with Russia's troops. But Russia has had numerous exercises in the vicinity of Ukraine since 2014, and what is being discussed now is the ALERT STATE not the exercises. Alert states are not pre-planned.

Partially means that IIRC some were scheduled hastily when the Ukraine thing began, others were already scheduled before that.
And that they were scheduled before that already is part of the reason Russia felt threatened for a while already, so yes, they can contribute to escalation. Maybe you want to explain why it bothered the USA so much when Russia stationed nuclear missiles on Cuba when it was just a defensive measure in case the US would like, try to start an invasion of Cuba or something?

And Alert State can mean a lot, does it mean that their ammo is extra-lethal while they conduct the exercise or that they open their eyes a little wider?

[Gilrandir]

And that they were scheduled before that already is part of the reason Russia felt threatened for a while already, so yes, they can contribute to escalation.

Russia feels threatened and does its best to make the whole world feel threatened.

Maybe you want to explain why it bothered the USA so much when Russia stationed nuclear missiles on Cuba when it was just a defensive measure in case the US would like, try to start an invasion of Cuba or something?

Were there any nuclear wepons recently stationed close enough to Russia for it to feel so much threatened?

[Brenus]

“Were there any nuclear weapons recently stationed close enough to Russia for it to feel so much threatened?” Turkey?
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/turkey/

Close enough?

[Husar]

http://www.thelocal.de/20120905/44779

Germany?

[Viking]

The solar eclipse was also visible from Ukraine.

[Gilrandir]

“Were there any nuclear weapons recently stationed close enough to Russia for it to feel so much threatened?” Turkey?
Close enough?

Germany?

The key word in my question was RECENTLY. AFAIK, Turkey got its nukes in 1961, (West) Germany in 1960. The dates surely explain why Putin is getting his hackles up in 2015.

Meanwhile, is Russia threatened or it threatens:
http://cphpost.dk/news/russian-ambas...ark.13108.html

[Gilrandir]

http://www.unian.info/politics/45212...rade-zone.html
Will we hear anything against it from Russia?

[Husar]

The key word in my question was RECENTLY. AFAIK, Turkey got its nukes in 1961, (West) Germany in 1960. The dates surely explain why Putin is getting his hackles up in 2015.

But they were RECENTLY still stationed in both countries, you didn't say that they had to be recently shipped there. My article also specified that they were RECENTLY upgraded to become more dangerous and that the plan to get rid of them here in Germany was RECENTLY revealed not to be feasible for apparently shady reasons. In fact it sounds like the US and other NATO countries RECENTLY forced Germany to keep the nukes.

[Sarmatian]

It is apparently much more benign if someone is shown enmity for a half of century rather than just for the last few weeks.

http://www.unian.info/politics/45212...rade-zone.html
Will we hear anything against it from Russia?

1) That was in 2011
2) The fact that you didn't hear anything against it from Russia kinda proves that this whole thing isn't about free trade but political and military issues.

[Gilrandir]

But they were RECENTLY still stationed in both countries, you didn't say that they had to be recently shipped there.

You can as well give a list of countries where nukes are still stationed - it serves no explanation of RECENT escalation by Russia.

In fact it sounds like the US and other NATO countries RECENTLY forced Germany to keep the nukes.

I don't think Germany's position as a current leader of both the EU and NATO (in Europe) makes it susceptible for any outside pressure. Germany is an independent enough player to make decisions itself and force others to adopt unpopular decisions too.

It is apparently much more benign if someone is shown enmity for a half of century rather than just for the last few weeks.

So the task of all the world is to please Russia and see to it that it doesn't feel threatened, hurt and offended? What if others are not just offended and threatened but invaded by Russia?

1) That was in 2011
2) The fact that you didn't hear anything against it from Russia kinda proves that this whole thing isn't about free trade but political and military issues.

My bad. Coudn't find any uptodate English-language information on it, now I have a more recent one:
http://en.molbuk.ua/ukraine/88432-po...-torgivli.html
Evidently the free trade zone introduction was at a standstill, but now Ukraine and Turkey want to step it up. Still waiting for Russia to put in its spoke.

[Husar]

You can as well give a list of countries where nukes are still stationed - it serves no explanation of RECENT escalation by Russia.

So you missed the part where the nukes were only recently modernized to make them more lethal.

I don't think Germany's position as a current leader of both the EU and NATO (in Europe) makes it susceptible for any outside pressure. Germany is an independent enough player to make decisions itself and force others to adopt unpopular decisions too.

And you missed the part where it clearly states that the german government bowed to NATO pressure.

[Gilrandir]

So you missed the part where the nukes were only recently modernized to make them more lethal.

So they had been not nukes nor lethal? One can feel threatened enough to know just of any kinds of nuclear missiles pointed at you. But that acute feeling of danger must have been blunted since 1960. It can serve no incentive to start fussing around just at the moment. Besides, you were the one to claim that 10 years is enough for any acute feelings to dissipate.

And you missed the part where it clearly states that the german government bowed to NATO pressure.

I maintain that the German government is powerful enough to act on its own. Perhaps the said pressure was just an excuse to justify the deployment or (more plausibly) it chimed with what the Germans themselves wished or planned to do, so Germany and NATO met each other half way.

[Husar]

So they had been not nukes nor lethal? One can feel threatened enough to know just of any kinds of nuclear missiles pointed at you. But that acute feeling of danger must have been blunted since 1960. It can serve no incentive to start fussing around just at the moment. Besides, you were the one to claim that 10 years is enough for any acute feelings to dissipate.

I don't remember that but even if I did, they were only recently modified. Whether you understand how a modification can make them more lethal is irrelevant.

I maintain that the German government is powerful enough to act on its own. Perhaps the said pressure was just an excuse to justify the deployment or (more plausibly) it chimed with what the Germans themselves wished or planned to do, so Germany and NATO met each other half way.

I'm glad that you always have a better opinion than the experts on every subject. Surely some random guy from Ukraine must know this better than a reporter who deals with these political topics every day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What Gilandir was talking about:

"We in Russia always thought that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. And I believe so today," Putin told a rally on Red Square marking the first anniversary of Crimea's "unification" with Russia.

People asked why the CIA et al failed to foresee this and I think the answer is actually as simple as it is sad - we have ceased to see war as a tool of statecraft. In the West when we go to war now it is essentially prompted by a humanitarian argument - Afghanistan and Iraq are the exceptions as they are essentially American Wars of Vengeance, but otherwise war has become something of a humanitarian exercise in Europe. Recall that in 1982 the British were unprepared for Argentina to invade the Falklands, they believed the Argentinians would continue to negotiate until both sides were satisfied or the questions became moot.

I think the same was believed in Europe - the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.

It's worth pointing out, by the way, that this assumption was at the political level, so it may be moot as to whether or not analysts in the basement saw this coming or not.

[CrossLOPER]

People asked why the CIA et al failed to foresee this and I think the answer is actually as simple as it is sad - we have ceased to see war as a tool of statecraft.

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

Right, thanks for clearing that up.

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

[Husar]

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

[Beskar]

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

Only because you would give him Warsaw too, Neville.

[CrossLOPER]

Only because you would give him Warsaw too, Neville.

Yeah, kinda like Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Nigeria, Kenya and now Tunisia were given to IS and Egypt was given to an even more repressive dictator. What, do you want the next Witcher title that badly?

[Gilrandir]

Whether you understand how a modification can make them more lethal is irrelevant.

"Lethal" as an adjective doesn't have degrees of comparison. The same as "just", "right", "wooden", "silken" and many others.

I'm glad that you always have a better opinion than the experts on every subject. Surely some random guy from Ukraine must know this better than a reporter who deals with these political topics every day.

You can say use it as a reply to almost every post people send on the forum. The whole forum is about exprsessing one's own opinion on things, experts' opinions can be obtained elsewhere.

I think the same was believed in Europe - the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.

Why do you use the past tense? Europe still DOESN'T believe in any plans for escalation Putin might have. And after every advance made by the separatists in Donbas Europe lumps it saying to itself: "Well, this was definitely the last time."

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

And you seem to have an opposite opinion: "Let the Bolsheviks have whatever they want as long as we don't see any nukes above our heads".
As it is often the way with things, there should be some sensible position and reaction by Europe which (i.e. the position) lies in the middle between the extremes.

[Brenus]

“the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.” I agree with the last part, but I disagree on the first one. They believed that Putin wouldn’t dare to escalate. Based on past experience, they observed rightly that each time Russia was backtracking and couldn’t really react. They believed that negotiation would take place and at the same time, the “pro-western” side would take the grip of power, and smoked by the deliberately slow negotiation, Putin (Russia) had no choice than the fait accompli.
The Georgian case showed that Russian army had enormous difficulties in deploying and to achieve even simple task.
Because Crimea was considered as Ukrainian, the prospect of an invasion from Russian’s borders was not really considered and even so the Ukrainian Army would have resisted any invasion. This was proved wrong. The use of Spetnatz was possible only because the locals were favourable to the invaders. Gilrandir will not agree, but this is a fact. No resistance at all was even tried, really.

“Tunisia” Not yet.