Ukraine Thread

[Brenus]

"Edward Luttwak is a CSIS senior associate and has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a number of allied governments as well as international corporations and financial institutions." Does this answer your question?
And what really an article dated from March 2014 is more relevant now than at the time? The opinion of a clearly not neutral "analyst", the kind of who are good to explain the future after it became the past.

[Gilrandir]

"Edward Luttwak is a CSIS senior associate and has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a number of allied governments as well as international corporations and financial institutions." Does this answer your question?
And what really an article dated from March 2014 is more relevant now than at the time? The opinion of a clearly not neutral "analyst", the kind of who are good to explain the future after it became the past.

Who said he was neutral? What I meant by linking this article is that a certain official had information about what Russia was up to when people at large didn't even know the name of Novorossia. The latter was first voiced by Putin months later and someone from the West using this name in March 2014 exposes invalidity of the claim of spontaneous reaction by Russia.

[Brenus]

"someone from the West using this name in March 2014 exposes invalidity of the claim of spontaneous reaction by Russia." So, someone in the West using the word Novorussia is the proof that Putin had intentions? Whao...
"is an historical term of the Russian Empire denoting a region north of the Black Sea" From Wiki. So, every one with a little bit of googling would have been able to find it. Is the proof, as google used the word, that Putin had intentions? Wiki carries on saying : "The region was part of the Russian Empire until the collapse thereof following the Russian February Revolution in early March 1917, whereafter it was part of the short-lived Russian Republic; then, in 1918, it was largely included into the Ukrainian State; in 1918–1920, it was, to varying extents, under the control of the anti-Bolshevik White movement governments of South Russia whose defeat signified the Soviet control over the territory, which became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, within the Soviet Union from 1922. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991, there have been attempts to revive the concept, with the most significant development being the pro-Russian separatist confederation of Novorossiya and the subsequent War in Donbass".

[Gilrandir]

"someone from the West using this name in March 2014 exposes invalidity of the claim of spontaneous reaction by Russia." So, someone in the West using the word Novorussia is the proof that Putin had intentions? Whao...
"is an historical term of the Russian Empire denoting a region north of the Black Sea" From Wiki. So, every one with a little bit of googling would have been able to find it. Is the proof, as google used the word, that Putin had intentions?

So what you basically claim is that "someone in the West" looked through wikipedia before March 9 2014 and came up with the idea that Putin would look through it too and use the historic nomen in his attempt to destabilize Ukraine before Putin came up with the same idea? Or was it a coincidence that both Luttwak and Putin came up with this idea? Or did Luttwak involuntarily prompted Putin how to set about destabilizing Ukraine?
Anyway, you claim that on March 9 2014 Putin had no intention to destabilize Ukraine and this idea occurred to him on a hunch much later. I don't buy that.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991, there have been attempts to revive the concept, with the most significant development being the pro-Russian separatist confederation of Novorossiya and the subsequent War in Donbass.

I'm sure this part was added AFTER March 9 2014.

[Husar]

I'm sure this part was added AFTER March 9 2014.

Maybe the entire article was edited afterwards.

[Strike For The South]

It's May 26th and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist.

[Brenus]

"So what you basically claim is that "someone in the West" looked through wikipedia before March 9 2014" Nope. I am not claiming. I am saying that the word was existing before March 2014 and some Western Expert used it to illustrate his point. As some will use Caliphate to illustrate the political aim of ISIS or Mittle Europa to describe a part of Europe, or Yiddish land for the same purpose.

[Gilrandir]

some Western Expert used it to illustrate his point. As some will use Caliphate to illustrate the political aim of ISIS or Mittle Europa to describe a part of Europe, or Yiddish land for the same purpose.

This western expert didn't illustrate his point. He was talking of Russia's plans to partition Ukraine prescribing for a part of it a long-forgotten name and even designinig a flag for it.

[Gilrandir]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32840502

Russian soldiers have apparently confessed being, well, Russian soldiers, to OBSE monitors.

And one Russian soldier's wife and another soldier's father said what the Kremlin had claimed - that both of them were retired. The wife claimed she didn't know where her husband had gone to.

Found an interview of the surgeon who operated on the captured and from another source an interview of Ukrainian soldiers who had brought them into the hospital.
The most curious part of it was that the surgeon said that one of the Russians at first refused to receive general anaesthesia for fear of his organs being cut out during the surgery. This surgeon claims to have operated some other Russian captives and states that such a behavior is typical for them.
The Ukrainian soldiers indirectly confirmed it saying that one of the captives begged them to stay by his side during the surgery, which seemed mightily strange to them.
Demonizing Ukrainians by Russian propaganda seems to have no sensible limits.

[Brenus]

"This western expert didn't illustrate his point. He was talking of Russia's plans to partition Ukraine prescribing for a part of it a long-forgotten name and even designinig a flag for it." No. He was talking about what he though Putin was doing. And the reality of today shows he was utterly wrong.

[Strike For The South]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...edName=topNews

Bit by bit, Piece by piece, evil claims a few more feet of ground.

[Brenus]

Hmm, doesn't echo what the Western Media and NATO was saying last year?

[Gilrandir]

"This western expert didn't illustrate his point. He was talking of Russia's plans to partition Ukraine prescribing for a part of it a long-forgotten name and even designinig a flag for it." No. He was talking about what he though Putin was doing. And the reality of today shows he was utterly wrong.

"Russian spring" attempts ignited all over south-eastern Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent proclamation of Novorossia show that he was totally right.

[Gilrandir]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...edName=topNews

Bit by bit, Piece by piece, evil claims a few more feet of ground.

Meanwhile in Russia they have dug a moat on the border with D/LPR:
http://xn--80ajgarobcee6b3h.xn--p1ai...trench-100-km/
And on the otherside of the border:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...1-f0feafdd1394

[Brenus]

"Russian spring" attempts ignited all over south-eastern Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent proclamation of Novorossia show that he was totally right." Re-read chronology. Russian Spring was ignited by Nazi Coup d'Etat. So, but you might do, excepted claiming that Putin did initiate the Nazi Coup, the dear specialist got it all wrong.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but Crimea was included in the Russian Federation...

[Gilrandir]

"Russian spring" attempts ignited all over south-eastern Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent proclamation of Novorossia show that he was totally right." Re-read chronology. Russian Spring was ignited by Nazi Coup d'Etat. So, but you might do, excepted claiming that Putin did initiate the Nazi Coup, the dear specialist got it all wrong.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but Crimea was included in the Russian Federation...

As you know perfectly well, only a small portion of Maidaners qualify your understanding of nazis and only 4 ministers of the new (now ex) government belonged to the same category. If a protesting movement has 5-10% of participating feminists/gays, does it make it a feministic/gay movement? Yet you generalize, calling the whole affair a Nazi coup. Well, Mr. Impartial, you are moving in the wake of Russian propaganda. The one who studied manipulative techniques got caught by them.
As for the starting point of Russian spring, it was the Crimea occupation whence Girkin (aka Strelkov), by his own admission, moved to Slovyansk and kicked into motion (again by his own admission) the whole thing in Donbas. So Russian spring succeeded only in the areas where Russian spetznaz came.

And speaking of your good guys:
now it's officially illegal to speak of casualties even in peace time operations. I suppose, Ukrainian nazis are again to blame.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-state-secrets

On Russian military presence in Ukraine:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/co...M7jdGxKHhvX4qC

[Brenus]

I think that once again you misunderstood. The Maidaners as you qualified them were not all Nazi, but were for better wages, against corruption etc. It was initially a social movement. However, the storming of the Parliament and the expulsion of an elected President and others was organised by the Nazi, proudly standing up in front of the building with the base-ball bats...

"And speaking of your good guys": About Putin, once again you are mistaken. Putin is probably closer to your political point, as nationalist (by the way, second link doesn't work) and political control. I am a lefty, Putin not, even if US and EU media replays the Cold war (especially the Bear still qualified as bombers ).

My all point is: Putin is doing what NATO is now doing for years, so I don't see the point of fake indignation from NATO's members. The Ukrainian's Russians are doing what the Ukrainian Nationalists/Nazi did in Maiden, so what the point of the fake indignation?

As my thinking process about it, I made it clear: Annexation of someone else territory is bad. Military intervention in someone else territory is bad. I am a leftist, so less borders better is for me. I don't like nationalism, Russian or Ukrainian.
Now, this crisis wouldn't have existed if the Coup would have not happened, but it did happened. Except if you want a war in a territory where a Nuclear Plant named Chernobyl is actually built, you have to find a political solution, and this solution will be a Bosnianisation (cantonisation) of Ukraine, contrary of what think your american expert in the alleged Putin's plan. It doesn't work really in Bosnia, but better a bad peace than a good war, war that no one can win any way, except to agree with casualties European and USA don't want to heard about.

[Montmorency]

but better a bad peace than a good war

And you said you were against massive bailouts and oversized influence of banks and corporations in the international system.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brenus, surely "Coup" implies involvement of the military or the government in the overthrow of the legitimate leader? I don't recall any such, only the opposition engaged with the Maidan protestors, and the president wasn't overthrown, he fled, with all his luggage a motorcade and probably a lot of currency.

[Brenus]

"And you said you were against massive bailouts and oversized influence of banks and corporations in the international system" And?

"Brenus, surely "Coup" implies involvement of the military" I was once told when somebody said surely, it is not that sure. Any way, no. A Coup can be Constitutional i.e. the negation of the NO vote changed in a YES vote by Political Parties. It could be as well electoral, i.e. a brother telling the Nation his brother won the elections.

"and the president wasn't overthrown, he fled, with all his luggage a motorcade and probably a lot of currency." Oh? I didn't know he was not re-elected in fair election. I though he fled after a mob took the Parliament by storm then went to the official residence to get him. I perfectly remember seeing this on TV. I think he run for his life, but perhaps the mob just wanted to, err, not kill him.

[Gilrandir]

However, the storming of the Parliament and the expulsion of an elected President and others was organised by the Nazi, proudly standing up in front of the building with the base-ball bats...

How do you know? Have you been "deep in the counsels" of those you qualify as nazis?
I repeat: in all the actions of Maidan (including capture of administrative buildings) a whole spectrum of protesters was instrumental, and nazis have been only a small portion of them. The leaders of the movement (towards the end of February) have become violent, but it is no reason to call them nazis for that.

Putin is probably closer to your political point, as nationalist

I don't know what your "probably" refers to - my position or that of Putin. But in either case you are wrong. I have already said that my stance doesn't qualify the notion of nationalism (and I explained why) and as for Putin, we all seem to agree that he is a fascist (on each proper date) but not a nationalist.

second link doesn't work

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publi...ov-s-putin-war

The Ukrainian's Russians are doing what the Ukrainian Nationalists/Nazi did in Maiden

1. They are not Russians. Most of the residents of Donbas are ethnic Ukrainians. Again a gross overgeneralization, same as the nazi coup. Or do you mean aliens from Russia?
2. So Maidaners ripped up bellies of their captives, called for a foreign nation's leader to invade and held referenda to proclaim an independent state? I have already drawn comparison exposing differences of the two movements and no one disputed it.

As my thinking process about it, I made it clear: Annexation of someone else territory is bad. Military intervention in someone else territory is bad. I am a leftist, so less borders better is for me. I don't like nationalism, Russian or Ukrainian.

You may proclaim whatever you like, yet if we compare how Russia and Ukraine view the conflict, you side with Russia on all the key points:
1. Yanukovych ceased to be the president...
Ukraine: because people were cheated of their promises and stood up for their rights.
Russia and Brenus: because of the nazi coup.
2.Someone captured administrative buildings in the Crimea and held a referendum.
Ukraine: those were Russian regular army soldiers and spetznaz.
Russia and Brenus: those were local self-defense protesters.
3. There is an armed conflict in Donbas ...
Ukraine: because Russian spetznaz interfered and started the actual fighting phase.
Russia and Brenus: because local populaces revolted against the oppression of ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers.
4. The war was and is possible...
Ukraine: because Russia supplies the rebelled areas with arms and mercenaries.
Russia and Brenus: there are no Russian weapons in Donbas, Russians there are volunteers fighting for the idea.
5. Principal defeats were suffered by Ukraine and fighting is still going on...
Ukraine: because there is a sizable (8-10,000) group of Russian regular army forces who participate in and direct all military operations.
Russia and Brenus: there are no Russian regular troops in Donbas.
So it is evident, who are your favorites in the conflict.

Now, this crisis wouldn't have existed if the Coup would have not happened, but it did happened.

An artbitrary statement. I might as well say that it wouldn't have happened if Yanukovych had signed the AA treaty in November 2013, or if he hadn't proclaimed that he would in May 2013, or if Putin hadn't tired to persuade him not to, or if Yanukovych tried to negotiate with the protesters from the outset, or if Putin hadn't been elected the president of Russia for the third time, or....
The list of might-have-beens is endless and your choice of it once again manifests your attitude which once again chimes with Russia's.

Except if you want a war in a territory where a Nuclear Plant named Chernobyl is actually built

Your knowledge of Ukraine's geography and recent history seems shady. First of all, Chernobyl was shut down by president Kuchma in 2000, so it isn't functioning. And second of all, if you are to be afraid of the war engulfing Ukrainian power plants, there are others that are nearer to the fighting zone.

you have to find a political solution, and this solution will be a Bosnianisation (cantonisation) of Ukraine, contrary of what think your american expert in the alleged Putin's plan. It doesn't work really in Bosnia

What you advocate is what Putin is NOW trying to do: to push Lugandon back into Ukraine furnishing it with a veto right on all major decisions, both external and internal. If Ukrainian authorities agree to it, they will not be authorities for long, I think. What I can surmize from popular opinions, Ukrainians are ready to reconcile with the loss of the territory which otherwise will have to be rebuilt at an outrageous cost and whose population is almost totally averse to the rest of Ukraine's aspirations. So the situation is rather going Moldovan/Transdniestrian than Bosnian way.

[Brenus]

Well done. You know all your propaganda.

[Montmorency]

"And you said you were against massive bailouts and oversized influence of banks and corporations in the international system" And?

So you want things to be different, but you don't want to work to change them?

It seems strange that you plead that you consider both major sides in the Ukraine issue to be equivalent yet constantly pick on one side over the other, even though this one side has clearly been less militant than the other; furthermore, the rebels are only supported by 10% of the population, which makes things rather...lopsided.

Oh? I didn't know he was not re-elected in fair election. I though he fled after a mob took the Parliament by storm then went to the official residence to get him. I perfectly remember seeing this on TV. I think he run for his life, but perhaps the mob just wanted to, err, not kill him.

Of course, this sort of thinking would delegitimize virtually all revolts in history. But meanwhile, Yanukovuch fled the country, not just the city. People tend to do that once they've lost the confidence of almost everyone - including his usual Eastern-Ukrainian backers.

Some bloody leftist you are.

[Brenus]

"So you want things to be different, but you don't want to work to change them?" Sorry. I still don't get it. What are saying? What is the link between being again borders and against bail-out?

"Of course, this sort of thinking would delegitimize virtually all revolts in history." It was not necessary as an agreement has been reach thanks to the EU mediation. Th Coup was a successful attempt to rob the crowd of its victory by Nazi and it worked. Then the rest is histories.

"Some bloody leftist you are." Explain.

"People tend to do that once they've lost the confidence of almost everyone" And when mob want to kill them.

[Montmorency]

Sorry. I still don't get it. What are saying? What is the link between being again borders and against bail-out?

If a bad peace is better than a good war, then clearly it is incumbent upon citizens to endure anything to which they are subjected by governments and institutions, in perpetuity. I do not think you could maintain this position without undermining your entire life's ideology, not least all the comments you've made in this thread.

Th Coup was a successful attempt to rob the crowd of its victory by Nazi and it worked.

So you're saying that Yanukovych ran a coalition of fascists who then turned on him in order to take advantage of the public? Otherwise, it's difficult to see what connection your notion has to anything. The right wing opposition has only lost influence in the past 2 years. In fact, the height of their power was reached under Yanukovych's oversight.

"Some bloody leftist you are." Explain.

Your position on Ukraine in these threads seems to suggest that, as the United States and most European countries permit far-rightists to participate in the political process, these are not legitimate democracies and their citizens should be disenfranchised in order to prevent the possibility of fascists gaining political power. So why single out Ukraine?

And when mob want to kill them.

So literally everyone in the country wanted him dead? In that case, yeah, then it's probably easy to predict that someone will be coming for you soon - which is also probably why he began packing his bags before the vote on his removal was even taken.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If a bad peace is better than a good war, then clearly it is incumbent upon citizens to endure anything to which they are subjected by governments and institutions, in perpetuity. I do not think you could maintain this position without undermining your entire life's ideology, not least all the comments you've made in this thread.



So you're saying that Yanukovych ran a coalition of fascists who then turned on him in order to take advantage of the public? Otherwise, it's difficult to see what connection your notion has to anything. The right wing opposition has only lost influence in the past 2 years. In fact, the height of their power was reached under Yanukovych's oversight.



Your position on Ukraine in these threads seems to suggest that, as the United States and most European countries permit far-rightists to participate in the political process, these are not legitimate democracies and their citizens should be disenfranchised in order to prevent the possibility of fascists gaining political power. So why single out Ukraine?



So literally everyone in the country wanted him dead? In that case, yeah, then it's probably easy to predict that someone will be coming for you soon - which is also probably why he began packing his bags before the vote on his removal was even taken.

This pretty much covers everything wrong with Brenus position -

A few right-wing fascists in the protests and it's a "Nazi coup"

Saint Paul said we should endure whatever the state inflicts upon us because the state's power is bestowed by God - he also said the Old Testament was infallible and the only useful guide to life, so he didn't know all that much about the real world.

[Brenus]

“If a bad peace is better than a good war, then clearly it is incumbent upon citizens to endure anything to which they are subjected by governments and institutions, in perpetuity.” Sorry? In Ukraine, the war started because a fringe of Nazi decided the negotiated agreement were not good enough and stormed the Parliament. Now, you are saying it is better to kill people than negotiate, well, that is your opinion, not mine.

“So you're saying that Yanukovych ran a coalition of fascists who then turned on him in order to take advantage of the public?” No, that is what you are saying because whatever theory you believe in. I am saying that the social unrest was high jacked by Nazi, followed by very bad decisions which lead to a revolt in some parts of Ukraine and an annexation of part of its territory. And now you have a de-facto partition. The constant denial of the like Gilrandir didn’t help (mercenaries, foreign troops, columns of tanks rolling to Warsaw, sorry Berlin, etc.), nor the loud voices from NATO and EU for military solution (mopping-up was words used in this forum). My point always has been nobody really forecasted what would happen and everybody just reacted to events they lost control on. Yanukovych just do what he thinks is best for him within a coalition. I am not a “conspirationist” unlike some here, so no I don’t think Yanukovych used the Nazi fringe, but exploited the created situation at his tactical advantage.

“So why single out Ukraine?” Because we are speaking of Ukraine here, not of Croatia, or others Baltic States/former Communist Eastern Countries?

“these are not legitimate democracies” If they accept ideologies which are against the Human Right Declaration, they are not. You will find out I have the same opinion about Religions.

“So literally everyone in the country wanted him dead?” Really? Few hundred is largely enough to make a real threat I imagine.

I don’t know from where you find your figures, but please avoid to blame me for your statements or opinions.

“Saint Paul said we should endure whatever the state inflicts upon us because the state's power is bestowed by God - he also said the Old Testament was infallible and the only useful guide to life, so he didn't know all that much about the real world.”

[Montmorency]

Sorry? In Ukraine, the war started because a fringe of Nazi decided the negotiated agreement were not good enough and stormed the Parliament. Now, you are saying it is better to kill people than negotiate, well, that is your opinion, not mine.

That did not happen as you describe it. They broke into the parliament at night and started breaking stuff. Afterward, they gathered around the parliament and did nothing but agitate. Probably because there were only a few thousand of them in the entire country - not enough to affect events to any degree. At any rate, afterward the Right Sector was neutered as a political force and by now almost all of its current and former membership are pre-occupied with directly engaging the separatists in combat.

I am saying that the social unrest was high jacked by Nazi

How? What goals of theirs have actually been achieved that were not also goals of the Maidan movement in general? As I said, the far-right overall has only lost influence since the end of the old regime.

followed by very bad decisions which lead to a revolt in some parts of Ukraine and an annexation of part of its territory.

I don't think any particular decision of EuroMaidan had anything to do with the annexation of Crimea or the armed uprising in the Donbass. These were just long-standing geopolitical failsafes that Russia triggered to weaken the new Ukrainian government and show resolve to the West. If a few thousand Neo-Nazis were such a threat to Ukraine or Russia that these acts would have been taken as snap decisions, then why was it never a problem before 2014?

After all, most of the pro-Russian fighters in Ukraine now were political fascists themselves, and Russia has been notorious for its Neo-Nazi groups and gangs since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

If they accept ideologies which are against the Human Right Declaration, they are not.

So the "liberal democracies" of the world are not in fact democracies, and you're cool with that? You'd be living in one right now: the UK.

[Gilrandir]

Well done. You know all your propaganda.

As well as you do.
And the most fascinating thing about all this discussion is that you consider those who you don't agree with to be totally under the influence of propaganda, while you exempt yourself from the said influence. Go on deluding yourself.

That did not happen as you describe it. They broke into the parliament at night and started breaking stuff. Afterward, they gathered around the parliament and did nothing but agitate. Probably because there were only a few thousand of them in the entire country - not enough to affect events to any degree. At any rate, afterward the Right Sector was neutered as a political force and by now almost all of its current and former membership are pre-occupied with directly engaging the separatists in combat.

How? What goals of theirs have actually been achieved that were not also goals of the Maidan movement in general? As I said, the far-right overall has only lost influence since the end of the old regime.

I don't think any particular decision of EuroMaidan had anything to do with the annexation of Crimea or the armed uprising in the Donbass. These were just long-standing geopolitical failsafes that Russia triggered to weaken the new Ukrainian government and show resolve to the West. If a few thousand Neo-Nazis were such a threat to Ukraine or Russia that these acts would have been taken as snap decisions, then why was it never a problem before 2014?

After all, most of the pro-Russian fighters in Ukraine now were political fascists themselves, and Russia has been notorious for its Neo-Nazi groups and gangs since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So the "liberal democracies" of the world are not in fact democracies, and you're cool with that? You'd be living in one right now: the UK.

I think you are wasting your time. All these arguments have been in use for over a year, yet they fell on deaf ears.

I once said about the way we consume the news. At the very first encounter with the information an evaluational filter "gets installed" (determined by a whole gamut of background and worldview factors) which then channels the whole stream of facts into one way assessment only. All later developments and arguments, however sensible they may be, are not able to change the ultimate attitude of a person. If you follow this and related thread(s), can you tell me how many people participating in the discussion changed their initial stance? So trying to persuade others in things that involve both ontological AND axiological components is useless. If you remove the latter you can probably prove something. But such discussions are held in the Front Room, not here.

[Gilrandir]

Concerning MH-17:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-a...ry-of-defence/