Russian-Ukrainian war

A little request if I may: please do not extrapolate your opinions of the Russian gov't on the whole nation. There are many reasonable people who are against the war and against the travesty of law of Putin's regime.
Yes, too many people are simply brainwashed. State TV channels depict Maidan as terror, Yanukovich as a victim. There's a lot of anti-Western propaganda, especially anti-American. Huge accent is made on patriotism vs "betrayal". If you don't like what's happening in your country, you are a betrayor. You are paid by the USA to tell lies. Yeah, they tell you that Maidan is also sponsored by the USA gov't and European mercenaries fought to overthrow the legitimate regime. I believe, Putin does have a huge boner on seeing Russia as a strong and independent country. As is it not true by any means, the only thing left is to create illusions of it.

But I should stress once more: a lot of people are totally against the invasion and support Ukrainians. Many people (like me) have relatives and friends in the Ukraine, and all the recent news are really terrible to us. So, please, be correct in your statements.
 
Every issue has several sides to it, but typically there is the political vs the civilian side of a matter. Just earlyer today I read about a few people protesting yesterday, arrested, and today those few are replaced with hundreds of more people protesting. This is really common sense - another is all the people who are not actively protesting, but at home, passive (not something I blame anybody for, I would be passive too, I usually am... ) but silently disagreeing.

People are people. This is like with the "Iranians dancing in the streets" when the World Trace Center was levelled. How many were they? Thousands? I've heard Iranians talking about those "death-to-america-guys" as if they are petty, trivial fanatics (which they are)
 
13pm said:
A little request if I may: please do not extrapolate your opinions of the Russian gov't on the whole nation. There are many reasonable people who are against the war and against the travesty of law of Putin's regime.
Click to expand...

I think it should be safe to assume that when people say "Russia", "Russians", "Ruskies" et al in this thread they generally mean the Putin-led government, Russia as a country rather than people or the nation. I have great many Russian friends from St. Petersburg and outside of Russia as well for example :wink:
 
Gaspard said:
13pm said:
A little request if I may: please do not extrapolate your opinions of the Russian gov't on the whole nation. There are many reasonable people who are against the war and against the travesty of law of Putin's regime.
Click to expand...

I think it should be safe to assume that when people say "Russia", "Russians", "Ruskies" et al in this thread they generally mean the Putin-led government, Russia as a country rather than people or the nation. I have great many Russian friends from St. Petersburg and outside of Russia as well for example :wink:
Click to expand...

Yes, this exactly - I'm refferring to the Russian military / political elite. This issue is viewed through romantic nationalis lens too much allready, when it's clearly a military, strategic and economic thing.

I think noone will back Ukraine up because from the perspective of the russian... let's say "imperialists" to encapsulate the above groups within rusian management/goverment/militatry - whoever is planning to run them out of Crimea is plotting the downfall of the whole "empire". Putin's reaction isn't moral or nationalist outrage at the idea of a Russian minority havign to live in a western influenced Ukraine. It's the non-allowable scenario of the west taking Crimea which at the same time destroys russian "empire's", well, by this point historic, stranglehold over the Black sea region while at the same time allowing for military action which splits Russia in half. This has been discussed to death during the cold war and it's true today - the middle east (which USA has been very busy about "conquering" and spamming with military bases is the soft underbelly of Russia, and always has been. If you controll both coasts of the Black sea, as well as the persian bay countries, you can in fact invade Russia in a way it's never been done before, or threathen to. Not to mention you prevent it from relatively easily projecting it's influence towards the south. Yeah, you still have the long way around, but that goes through too much "west" and too much china.

I'm not sure that Putin would keep going if crimea is let go as a concession. It's not like Crimea was ever out of his hands before, it's just that the events had pushed him to drop the puppet regime approach to controling it and move into "no, guys, seriously, we're not letting it go" mode. It's kind of like what happened when Russians were going to set up their military presence in Cuba, right next to the USA, and the states went Berserk at the very notion, except a lot more threathening to Putin.


What I hope will happen, as it means no war, is that they give Putin what Putin wants because Russia can take it anyway, and has always had it before. It's not Ukraine, if Russia really wanted Ukraine they wouldn't have let it be a puppet state all this time anyway. Plus, you can't have a truly independant Ukraine, since all Russia or the West has to do is throw a bunch of money at anyone who ever gets elected into political power to bend them to their will. It's just that they have to throw some money at moderately competent people and not outright crooks and that's it. Both the west and Putin have been throwing money and favors at crooks who were about as devastating for Ukraine as outright genocide would be, so they have shown that the good or the fate of Ukranian people is about the last thing on anyone's agenda, while this other stuff is of a really high priority.
 
Last edited:
The way i see it, as an outsider if the Crimea split from Ukraine, the rest of Ukraine will be less divided and the Russia would have less "official" reason to invade.
On the other hand, if there is a war, the Crimea could side with Russia instead of siding with Ukraine.

But all those troops movements and treats of wars would be just that, treats to provoke concessions from Ukraine, with no intention to really start the war.

But i could be very wrong...
 
I think you are right. It's just like with St. PEtersburg. Russia let the western part of the warshaw pact go entirely, but they kept their important port as an enclave. No real reason for this whole thing to play out any other way. Well, except that Crimea needs to have a decent land connection to Russia to be as strategically important. They could solve the crises in a blink of an eye, unless the west really wants to put Putin in a position to think he needs to have a war now, while he has a decent potsition, or in 10 years when he no longer has it. Without a Russian presence firmly entrenched in the Black Sea, the west takes the entire middle east - which is the southern border of Russia and somethign noone ever managed to secure before invading Russia. If you do secure it - you CAN take Russia down.
 
Last edited:
Brimming with optimism i see. Though i guess you can, since for the time being only the soviet block countries will be put under the new shinning axe, that Putin will receive as a present for annexing a part of a country. If he can do this, then other more "minor" stuff as economical aggression, provocations and political subterfuge will be like taking a candy from a child, nobody will even blink an eye from now on, for fear of making Mr.Putin upset. And slowly but surely, he will build up towards his next goal (which i hope is not where i am writing this comment).
 
AskWazzup said:
Brimming with optimism i see. Though i guess you can, since for the time being only the soviet block countries will be put under the new shinning axe, that Putin will receive as a present for annexing a part of a country. If he can do this, then other more "minor" stuff as economical aggression, provocations and political subterfuge will be like taking a candy from a child, nobody will even blink an eye from now on, for fear of making Mr.Putin upset. And slowly but surely, he will build up towards his next goal (which i hope is not where i am writing this comment).
Click to expand...

Everyone's thinking it, but it is almost unsayable: It is very Sudetenland/annexing Austria-ish. But yeah, valid concerns, versus panicking about WW3. As much as one can say "Russia surely knows better than to try more of that shit" that's what the world kept saying about Hitler, again and again, "Okay, FINE, you can have the outter rims of Czechoslovakia, but you can NOT... eh... right, fine, you can have all of Bohemia, but you can NOT - whaaat? Okay, FINE... have all of Czechoslovakia, Austria and Saarland.. and Memel.. but you can NOT - - "
 
Maybe the point is frightening Ukraine to get Crimea, but not attacking if Ukraine manage to resist the fear.


If Russia attack a sovereign state in the borders of European Union, without provocations from it, and the European Union does nothing, then the Union should disband right now.
 
Yeah, it's highly likely this is in fact the case. In a sense it's exactly the same as it was with Hitler, but up until Syria the big powers mostly did what they wanted anyway (both USA and Russia, and if China has been doing anything the world mostly doesn't know about it). USA occupied a large portion the middle east in any way but formaly (find a map of their military bases). Strategic interests, resources all that - heck, those buzzwords only made sense under a manifst destiny doctrine, and if strategic intrests were leading to getting USA into position to either invade Russia or put it into a position where it can infinitely be bullied.

Now I'm not saying Putin's any better than that and that he'd do otherwise in the same position, but when you look at it from a purely utilitarian perspective, Russia keeping Crimea makes more sense than most of the US foreign policy since the initial expansion towards their own west coast (when they conquered half of what was then Mexico). Crimea only belonged to Ukraine on paper, in reality it was one of the most important Russian outposts. If Russia doesn't mind an independent Ukraine as long as it can have the black sea, I say give it to them. It's not like you can take it from them by force.

Not to mention that if they don't hold it, if it in fact goes over to the other side, Russia loses influence in the middle east, which means everything over there which isn't a US puppet state allready falls in the next several presidencies. And then game over, USA won. Then someone WILL launch missiles instead of waiting around for mopup. I'd rather have US and Russia in a stalemate than either of them with backs against the wall.

So it's not really a matter of Russia invading something as much as desperately trying to cling on to one of the few aces it has left. If they were talking Poland, or Check Republic or Hungary - different story entirely. They invaded Crimea a long time ago and never left. Heck, try to get Americans out of Kosovo, and they only came there practicaly yesterday - they didn't annex it, but that whole "country" is just the biggest US military base in Europe.
 
Last edited:
An "invasion"? Maybe technically, but so far Russia has moved on Crimea without firing a shot. The Russian tricolor was being flown before troops were mobilized. There has been no resistance from either the military or the civilian population in Crimea, and there are many in Kharkiv and elsewhere in the East that are welcoming the Russian presence...

I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned that a majority of people in Crimea speak Russian as their native language, identify with Russia culturally, and have Russian passports. Comparisons to the US invading Iraq, or Nazi Germany invading Poland are laughable in their complete inapplicability to the current situation in Ukraine. The fact is, there is a significant percentage of the Ukrainian population that would rather be in the Russian sphere of influence than part of the EU.

Probably the best thing for everyone would be for the different regions to go their separate ways, rather than clinging to some artificial notion of national unity.
 
Kilgore Trout said:
Probably the best thing for everyone would be for the different regions to go their separate ways, rather than clinging to some artificial notion of national unity.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about how you can say that when you just spent two parahraphs saying that what the Russians are doing is OK because Crimea has a Russian majority. It's not like the Kremlin will just grant the place its independance, and judging by the record of the Putin administration, they couldn't give two shits if the peninsula was mosrly composed of Russians, Mongols or martians. They want it, they will take it, and they know the West won't fight them for it. The whole thing about ''protecting'' the citizens of Crimea is but an excuse to get back their old power base on the Black Sea, and they're using the chaos in Ukraine, as well as the loss of their puppet, as the perfect opportunity to do so.

I mean, the Russian government is hardly unique in doing this obviously, but let's not sugar-coat it, this is a military takeover.
 
Ilosar said:
It's not like the Kremlin will just grant the place its independance
Click to expand...

But that's just it: I don't think the majority of Crimeans want independence; they want to be part of the Russian federation. They aren't waving Crimean flags, they are waving Russian flags, and Russian troops have not met with any kind of resistance. And again, given that most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians who speak Russian and have Russian passports and that Russia is right next door and that Crimea wasn't even a part of Ukraine until Khrushchev - well, it's certainly not "democracy", but on the other hand, it does seem to reflect the will of the majority.

Of course Russia is doing this for geo-strategic reasons rather than out of the goodness of their hearts, they are also stepping in because there is clearly a failure of politics on every level in Ukraine. Yanukovich was a corrupt scumbag of a President, but guess what, so were all of the Orange Revolution politicians like Tymoshenko. The EU and the West also have their "puppets", who seem to be in a disturbing alliance with ultra-nationalist neo-nazis in Kiev.

My point was that right now I would predict that Ukraine is going to go the way of Yugoslavia. There are clearly "irreconcilable differences" between different segments of the population, and rather than trying to force everyone together, it might be better if those regions that consider themselves to be part of Russia be allowed to go.
 
Last edited:
But no matter if Crimea stays or goes, Ukraine will be in deep shit none the less. The recent crisis didn't leave the majority richer and more capable. Relations with Russia are down the toilet and they're really far away (The Ukraine, borderland, get it? :twitch:) from general Europe - economically they're very much dependent on Russia (~¼ of exports go there). If Crimea is gone their summer tourism is down a sizable % as well (at least a cursory Google confirms that, as well as its importance).

Speculating some more. I know of several smaller-midsized investors that have pulled out - aside from some diehards that should probably be general practice. I'm not familiar with larger investor tolerances when it comes to politically unstable locations - it could be 50-50, win big or lose all.

In Europe it's going to be a blow to the energy market. Do you think Russia is going to keep pumping gas through Ukraine at the same rates? Will the lines stay intact when this thing escalates to war?

There are so many factors involved at every stage of the mess, it's going to be a big ass Gordian knot to unravel.
 
Gaspard said:
In Europe it's going to be a blow to the energy market. Do you think Russia is going to keep pumping gas through Ukraine at the same rates? Will the lines stay intact when this thing escalates to war?

There are so many factors involved at every stage of the mess, it's going to be a big ass Gordian knot to unravel.
Click to expand...

No idea what's going to happen with the energy market, but my guess is price increases...

And I agree it's shaping up to be a huge mess.
 
naossano said:
If Russia attack a sovereign state in the borders of European Union, without provocations from it, and the European Union does nothing, then the Union should disband right now.
Click to expand...
Except that Ukraine is not a European Union member yet, if I'm not mistaken.
 
valcik said:
naossano said:
If Russia attack a sovereign state in the borders of European Union, without provocations from it, and the European Union does nothing, then the Union should disband right now.
Click to expand...
Except that Ukraine is not a European Union member yet, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

That is very likely part of the tension, Ukraine seeking closer ties with Europe (so, they are far from being in the EU :D). If we forget about Crimea for just a moment - look at the timing of this event. The Euromaidan succeeds, Ukraine turns from Russia to Europa, and Russia invades.
(I'm sure naossano was refering to the EU proper, responding to musings about further Russian aggression)

Well, as Kilgore Trout points out, on highlight in all this is that bloodshed has so far been averted. This is very lucky, and we can only knock wood and hope that it stays this way... bloodless invasion is the better option :I
 
Last edited:
Ilosar said:
Kilgore Trout said:
The whole thing about ''protecting'' the citizens of Crimea is but an excuse to get back their old power base on the Black Sea, and they're using the chaos in Ukraine, as well as the loss of their puppet, as the perfect opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...

It's not like they ever lost it, really. They're fighting to keep the status quo, but sice most of the status quo was unnoficial since Hruscev, it looks rather shocking. Technicaly, it's not really an invasion as much as dropping the PR pretenses about how things actually worked over there.

And yeah, Ukraine is kinda doomed whatever happens. I'm from ex-Yugoslavia, the scenario is exactly the same. People thought they'd had a more dignified existance, and it never happened. Now all ex-yu states are a mockery of statehood and the new crooks just been replacing to old ones for 20 years. The prime minister of croatia who did the most damage to the country (in a very Janukovich like manner) turned out to be practicaly an empolyee of an Austrian banking corp. And it's funny because the "who's puppet are the different countries gonna be" never involved Russians at all - it was mostly between the US and the EU, both promising prosperity that was endangered becaouse "we can't govern outselves since we're Balkan savages". Then every time someone digs into the local corrupt tycoons or criminal operations it becomes baltantly obvious that they're just guys working to exploit a remote backwater for US and EU market players. It's a wonderful position when you can do what you want, control every politician and everything that happens, and since you never annexes anything you're never accountable for anything. If anyone wonders what's it like - well, the Bosnians had spontaneous protests recently, google the pictures of goverment building burning.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top