Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

elasto
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby elasto » Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:41 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Once again, proof please. A link to a reputable news source or something.

Whether or not there is proof in this particular instance (I don't know, I haven't looked into it), surely you're aware that training and arming rebel groups in order to overthrow a government is something that the US has engaged in both overtly and covertly for decades if not virtually since its inception? It's openly doing it right now in many conflicts around the world.

Sure, it typically wraps it up as helping a people free the shackles of their unelected oppressors (even though they typically then become as undemocratic and violent as the ones they supplanted), but that's what Russia is claiming also...

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Djehutynakht » Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:41 am UTC


User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9799
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:19 am UTC

If your entire retort is that "the us supported rebels in the past therefore it MUST be the case in Ukraine", even though in the vast majority of rebellions it did not, I can't take you seriously.

elasto
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby elasto » Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:42 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If your entire retort is that "the us supported rebels in the past therefore it MUST be the case in Ukraine", even though in the vast majority of rebellions it did not, I can't take you seriously.


Huh? I specifically said I've no idea if it's the case in Ukraine, so if you're interpreting that to mean I think it must be the case in Ukraine I can't take you seriously either.

All I'm saying is that the US has absolutely no issue with sending in troops to train and arm rebels in general - both openly and in secret (as Russia is doing here) even though there's no guarantee the new regime will be any more democratic or less violent than the old one. Look at any number of examples in South America, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Typically the criteria is 'will the new regime be more compliant with US interests than the old one?' Iraq would be the classic example here.

The US has no moral high ground here.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Mambrino » Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

johnny_7713 wrote:
sardia wrote:Johnny, the west is only hypocritical if neither of the two are true.
1 this isn't the same as how the west intervenes. r "Russia and the eu both played their games in Ukraine. But Russia lost. So Russia decides to play a different game called lets declare war and lie about it. "
Or
2 this is my shit, and I'm mad that you're trying to take what's mine.

My questions for you is How should hipocrisy play in foreign policy?
And if this is a continuation of the same game, then what is off limits? Nukes?
Posted from iphone.


The EU/US/NATO (in varying compositions) have militarily intervened on behalf of Kosovo and the Libyan rebels, and might still in Ukraine, they also invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It would seem they are not particularly shy about using military force, albeit they are more open about it.

To answer your questions: If you want to go around claiming the moral high ground as part of your foreign policy then you should act in accordance with those principles. You don't get to tell someone off for supplying arms to rebels when you were doing the same thing only shortly before, even if it was in a different country.
Nukes are most definitely off limits, but if it were up to me so would be most other portions of the game, including all other kinds of military intervention and supplying arms.


Yeah, let's just conveniently forget all the background called "Yugoslav Wars" and "Milosevic" for the intervention in Kosovo (I'm not sure it was necessarily the best course of action, and I was too young to understand the news then, but I think everyone finally "nope, not another Srebrenica/Sarajevo/[countless others] again called Kosovo" - was another going to happen, and what should have be done instead, I really don't know) or how nice the Gaddafi's regime was. And I think everybody already knows that during the aftermath, the Yugoslavian war criminals who found themselves on the 'right' (Nato) side got only a slap on wrist in the Hague, I'm still complaining about it to everyone who wants to listen.

However, the Kiev government resembles the previously mentioned only in the Russian propaganda, which has been demonstrably been numerous times obviously less true than the Western counterpart. I don't like how the Western media underplays the role of extreme rightists in those volunteer corps / militias fighting on the Kiev's side, but to use the terminology RT prefers, the Kiev government seems to be at most about as fascist as the Putin's very own regime. The question how much the West had to do with the downfall of Yanukovych's government, well, it remains a question, but personally I suspect that ordering a shoot-down of not-so-peaceful protesters, who anyway still were seemingly as genuine protesters as they come (and not e.g. armed rebels imported from neighboring country) had something to do with his government losing its legitimacy. Unless you buy that Russian theory that the dead Maidanists were shot by hired killers paid by CIA? I remember that until the Yanukovich's surprise flight to Russia, the demands were along the lines of new elections, with Yanukovich preferably not running for office. I also would like to point out that Ukraine has not been something one could call a high-functioning democracy lately, if ever. Anybody remember the Orange Revolution of 2004, 'elections' that Yanukovich supposedly 'won' and Yanukovich's rival candidate who surprisingly got poisoned?

Also, how popular the Iraq and Afganistan wars were? Were they *gasp* criticized heavily (especially the Iraq one) from the very beginning by the Western opposition? Like the countless other morally questionable covert and not-so-covert interventions US has made during the course of history? I'm dead sure Russian invading Ukraine is something that should be criticized, too, and it should not be happening and it should be stopped, and if, for once, the US foreign policy line happens to agree with me on this particular issue, then fine. Whether the current US government has a moral high ground here because the previous ones have done similar things as Russia is currently doing or not, it doesn't make anything Russia is doing justified either or magically cause Putin to have a moral high ground or is a reason not to oppose Putin's actions in Ukraine.

If the East Ukrainian people really wanted to secede and claim their right to their own country, and if Russia only would have really wanted to support that, it would have advocated for the Scotland way: free and fair elections with secret ballot, followed by a open and peaceful campaigning, during which everyone who want express their opinion on the matter are allowed to do it. Instead, Russia started an information operation portraying the Kiev as "Nazis who will murder you in your beds by tomorrow" and financed an armed rebellion lead by Russian intelligence officials.
Last edited by Mambrino on Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:57 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If your entire retort is that "the us supported rebels in the past therefore it MUST be the case in Ukraine", even though in the vast majority of rebellions it did not, I can't take you seriously.


Huh? I specifically said I've no idea if it's the case in Ukraine, so if you're interpreting that to mean I think it must be the case in Ukraine I can't take you seriously either.

All I'm saying is that the US has absolutely no issue with sending in troops to train and arm rebels in general - both openly and in secret (as Russia is doing here) even though there's no guarantee the new regime will be any more democratic or less violent than the old one. Look at any number of examples in South America, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Typically the criteria is 'will the new regime be more compliant with US interests than the old one?' Iraq would be the classic example here.

The US has no moral high ground here.

Sure it does. The west played the diplomatic and economic pressure game vs Russia, and Russia lost. Russia decides to send troops to seize territory, and start a civil war. Moral high ground obtained.
Yes the US has done awful shortsighted stuff for the goal of promoting US interests. Some of it backfired and/or was stupid in hindsight. Iran/contras is usually the one that comes to mind, but it's faded now. But you want the version of events that the public isn't actively being told, that's easy.

The EU/US/NATO have a multitude of reasons to support Ukraine.
The current government wants to sign trade agreements with the West.
The East European NATO members are nervous about what precedent it sets if a junior partner of NATO gets invaded with minimal response.
Russia hasn't been very cooperative with the West, this is a good way to set Putin and Russia back.
China is wondering how far US commitments go. If they won't defend Ukraine, will they defend some uninhabited islands on the East pacific?

The reasons not to vigorously defend Ukraine are many as well.
You could start a war, which involves spending money on troops who could die. Note the emphasis is on money and the deaths of your soldiers, not on who has the moral high ground.
Russia is willing to eat decades of sanctions and make Ukraine an even worse economic basket-case. Aka, if I can't have it, then no one can.
Russia has large investments in Germany, France, and England. Those countries are unwilling to lose those investments over Ukraine. Pure greed/pragmatism here.

The least important reason which never comes up is the one being pushed here. Nobody gives a shit that "oh noes, I'm being hypocritical and I should be so shamed that I should do nothing." Honestly, it's a big shame that we don't care about our past actions enough to reflect on how it looks now. However, I do question how much more overt do you want it before you think Putin gives us the moral high ground. Does he need a twirly mustache? Maybe declare war a la Hussein vs Kuwait?

To answer your questions: If you want to go around claiming the moral high ground as part of your foreign policy then you should act in accordance with those principles. You don't get to tell someone off for supplying arms to rebels when you were doing the same thing only shortly before, even if it was in a different country.
Nukes are most definitely off limits, but if it were up to me so would be most other portions of the game, including all other kinds of military intervention and supplying arms.
Are you saying that supplying say, resistance fighters in WW2 is no different from supplying Contra deathsquads in Latin America?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9799
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:38 pm UTC

Both Russia and the US have supported revolutions/etc. The difference being that occasionally the US support/occupation results in more freedom for the locals. For example, South Korea, West Germany, Japan. Name ONE instance of Russian occupation/support that resulted in anything good for the locals. There is a reason every Eastern European country hates Russia while the South American ones vary for the US. Morally speaking, nearly everyone has the high ground against Russia because they are in the moral Mariana Trench.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:55 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Both Russia and the US have supported revolutions/etc. The difference being that occasionally the US support/occupation results in more freedom for the locals. For example, South Korea, West Germany, Japan. Name ONE instance of Russian occupation/support that resulted in anything good for the locals. There is a reason every Eastern European country hates Russia while the South American ones vary for the US. Morally speaking, nearly everyone has the high ground against Russia because they are in the moral Mariana Trench.

umm...
Have you ever been to the US?
Mariana Trench? Really?

Compared to What?

oh. As we laude our International Sucesses,
Let's put some kind of, "Lately?" on those statements.

Fifty years.
How about fifty years.

We seem to have stepped in and helped the Japanese.
That was more than fifty years ago.

Why? Why did we help?
Did we want to study long term recovery from Atomic Blasts?
Were we acting generous, because we felt bad about Attacking The People?

It does not matter.
It was more than fifty years ago.

The deaths in Central and South America are less than fifty years old.
As an American, I can not access Links. I remember those people.

If we are going to export Administration, Formal Culture and Freedom in Peace,
It seems, to me, we should have those things. We don't.

How the Hell do you expect to give something you do not have?
That's almost Stupid.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9799
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:53 pm UTC

The combined atomic bombings long term caused 1400 extra deaths from cancers. Not 140,000, 1400. Turns out that if you survive the first few months, you were likely fine. Drop an explosion made up of tens of thousands of pounds of TNT and many will die instantly and many more will have horrific injuries, and of those many will take weeks or months to die. The bombings were bad but not for the reasons people claim. The cancer risks of atomic warfare were intentionally overstated by scientists to try and stop nuclear proliferation, because bombs that destroy everything in 10 mile radii are going to catch civilians no matter how carefully they are deployed. The unfortunate side effects are people being so overly paranoid about nuclear power that we'd rather get triple the radiation per mW/h from coal. Chernobyl is expected to kill a total of 4000 from cancer and Greenpeace accuses the IAEA of somehow being bought off by big nuke. Downtown Pripyat currently has less radiation than some places naturally have yet entire sections are permanently sealed off (at least it makes a nice wildlife preserve).

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

From what I understand, the Korean DMZ is also a nice WildLife Preserve.
Is it a Three Mile Strip or a Five Mile Strip?

What does that have to do with guiding our actions and reactions in 2014?

Blameless and Perfect we stand?
The Americans of the US and our model.
Blameless and Perfect?

I think we should take a less administratively active a role in The World.
Maybe, we can stop being The Boss and start helping to get The Job done.

Do we remember what The Job is?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Soteria » Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:17 pm UTC

addams wrote:From what I understand, the Korean DMZ is also a nice WildLife Preserve.
Is it a Three Mile Strip or a Five Mile Strip?

What does that have to do with guiding our actions and reactions in 2014?

Blameless and Perfect we stand?
The Americans of the US and our model.
Blameless and Perfect?

I think we should take a less administratively active a role in The World.
Maybe, we can stop being The Boss and start helping to get The Job done.

Do we remember what The Job is?


Addams, if you think a country or a person has to be blameless and perfect to take charge, to lead a humanitarian effort, or to oppose what they see as wrong... well, there is no such country and there is no such person. America's imperfections are by no means a reason to ignore international problems.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:36 pm UTC

Ignoring the Problems of our Brothers across the Sea is Wrong.
To set ourselves up as The Cure, while we have Problems of our own is Wrong.

To join a Continuing Education and Research Group at the UN is Right.
When an International team had defined the Problem, we might have US personal that can help.

I think Americans should work with Supervision.
We don't need to do our work in Secret.

How else are we ever going to get credit for being Wonderful and Saving The Day?
We may need National Wonderful Lessons.

Why do we not look within?
Why do we see fault in others, but not in our own?

What ever causes that Blindness; I don't have it.
I see serious problems inside the US.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby johnny_7713 » Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:25 am UTC

sardia wrote:
The EU/US/NATO have a multitude of reasons to support Ukraine.
The current government wants to sign trade agreements with the West.
The East European NATO members are nervous about what precedent it sets if a junior partner of NATO gets invaded with minimal response.
Russia hasn't been very cooperative with the West, this is a good way to set Putin and Russia back.
China is wondering how far US commitments go. If they won't defend Ukraine, will they defend some uninhabited islands on the East pacific?

The reasons not to vigorously defend Ukraine are many as well.
You could start a war, which involves spending money on troops who could die. Note the emphasis is on money and the deaths of your soldiers, not on who has the moral high ground.
Russia is willing to eat decades of sanctions and make Ukraine an even worse economic basket-case. Aka, if I can't have it, then no one can.
Russia has large investments in Germany, France, and England. Those countries are unwilling to lose those investments over Ukraine. Pure greed/pragmatism here.



What you say is true, and I'm not necessarily against taking action against the stuff Russia is allegedly* doing in Ukraine. You note a number of very good reasons for supporting Ukraine. However those are not the reasons being used to sell me on the EU/US policy at the moment. Instead the message is that we should be opposing Putin because he is evil, as evidenced by him supplying arms to rebels and seeking to enact a regime change. I guess I'm more bothered by the moral high ground being claimed than by the actual actions currently being taken.

*I say allegedly mainly because I haven't really had time to properly research how much actual evidence there is, I don't mean it as a 'the media is all one big conspiracy oh noes!!' thing.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:34 pm UTC

Most of those reasons I gave are easily translated to they are bad guys unwilling to lose a economic or ideological fight. They can't be painted as too evil because it would marshal forces unto war as opposed to a united front of economic and military support.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:09 am UTC

You could start a war, which involves spending money on troops who could die. Note the emphasis is on money and the deaths of your soldiers, not on who has the moral high ground.
Russia is willing to eat decades of sanctions and make Ukraine an even worse economic basket-case. Aka, if I can't have it, then no one can.

Gee, Sardia;
That seems a little unfair.


The way I heard the story:

In the 1990's Russia was having Economic Difficulties.
And; Other difficulties, as well.

That part of the Ukrane was surrendered to another governing body for the Good of The People.
It was not an Ego Move. From what I understand it was not done by the Guy that sits in their Funny Shaped Office, either.

That place and many of those people are Russian.
Who should Administer that land and answer to her people?

Well...? Does Russia have the ability to Administer and Answer to her?
I think she does.

It would be darned near Criminal to make her fight.
Was there a Fight when she was turned over in the 1990's?

What do we Care??
We have Americans on American soil that need International Relief!!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:00 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world ... ?ref=world
For Many, a Nation That Seems Less Free From Moscow’s Dominance Than Ever. The vague cease-fire terms in the southeast are likely to only freeze the conflict. It could leave Russia’s thuggish proxies running the area and create a permanent geographic Taser that Moscow could use to zap Ukraine at will, leaving it unstable and less than sovereign. The association agreement with the European Union — described by its advocates as the catalyst for broad reform — has been delayed until the beginning of 2016 because of Russian objections, leaving its fate uncertain.

It's a shame that corruption in Ukraine, and a weak Europe, (in part to their dependence on Russian fuel and money) has led to such a wasteful war. I wonder what will become of the sanctions. The sanctions always seemed to scare more than they did actual harm. As for the future, maybe Ukraine should promise to become a neutral state in exchange for stability/ an end to the warfare.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:46 am UTC

It strikes me that if Russia was worried about NATO, then its actions in Ukraine have probably done more to strengthen its resolve in the territories it actually guarantees than anything in recent times.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:59 am UTC

Sanctions?
You like sanctions as a tool?

People in Europe...
People anywhere except US can think about Russian and Chinese sanctions against the US and laugh.

That would be funny stuff.
Think about it.

What did you use that came from China, today?
ok. That's not Russia.

I think it would be unwise to mess with Russia.
Why were Americans in the Ukrane talking nuclear weapons in the Czech Republic?

Of course, I have freedom in media.
The restraint used by leaders elsewhere does not come through in my media.
Our media is too free for that.

We wouldn't understand it.
Our leaders lack restraint.

We don't know what it is.
We haven't seen it and had it explained by the perky blonde.

Do we think restraint is weakness?
Do we think restraint is a lack of passion?

Are Americans able to think about restraint that comes from within?
Our TV does not seem to think we can think that way.

I have no idea what Russia's monetary worth is.
I have no idea what China's monetary worth is.

I know those two PowerHouses like each other a Fuck of a Lot more than they like the US.
Can you blame them?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:25 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:It strikes me that if Russia was worried about NATO, then its actions in Ukraine have probably done more to strengthen its resolve in the territories it actually guarantees than anything in recent times.


Another country yields to Putin.
How useful nato is depends on how United it is. If a bunch of countries make concessions to secure their own position, then the remaining countries are left holding the bag. This undercuts the alliance and explains why Putin is willing to risk uniting nato. Edit: stupid phone
Last edited by sardia on Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby bigglesworth » Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:30 pm UTC

Either you linked the wrong article or you're making some weird American political point.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5739
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Angua » Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:03 pm UTC

Maybe they meant to link toHungary?
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:13 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Maybe they meant to link toHungary?

Huh. Yea I dunno why it didn't paste correctly. That's what you get for posting on a phone. Yes I meant to link the Hungary article refusing to ship to Ukraine natural gas.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Mambrino » Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Angua wrote:Maybe they meant to link toHungary?

Huh. Yea I dunno why it didn't paste correctly. That's what you get for posting on a phone. Yes I meant to link the Hungary article refusing to ship to Ukraine natural gas.


One wonders if the stance of current government of Hungary on the political spectrum influenced how eager they were to please the Russians. Earlier this year, Orban delivered this little wonderful speech on how the degenerate liberal Western democracies should go and die away (no one was surprised).

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:00 pm UTC

From the article.
“I don’t think that our European Union membership precludes us from building an illiberal new state based on national foundations,”

New Word. illiberal?
Now, what are those Eastern Blockers up to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy
In fiction, the term illiberal was first coined by the comic-book writer John Wagner; creator and writer for the comic series 2000 A.D. featuring the iconic characters Judge Dredd and the antagonist known as PJ Maybe.[citation needed] The term first appeared during the 1980s distribution of the comic published by IPC Media.


A form of government that comes straight from the Bad Guys in a comic book written by an American.
Why the Hell would they take a form of Government created by an American for Bad Guys?

I tried listening to the original speech.
For all the good that would do.
It could be Onion.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Mutex
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Mutex » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:47 pm UTC

addams wrote:A form of government that comes straight from the Bad Guys in a comic book written by an American.


Weirdly his nationality is listed as British even though he was born in Pennsylvania and didn't move to Scotland till he was 12. I double checked because 2000AD and Judge Dredd are British.

Slightly OT, sorry.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/world ... .html?_r=0
The reason the Kremlin rushed to prop up Bank Rossiya is the same reason that the United States, and later its European allies, placed it on the sanctions list: its privileged status as what the Obama administration calls the “personal bank” of the Putin inner circle. Built and run by some of the president’s closest friends and colleagues from his early days in St. Petersburg, Bank Rossiya is emblematic of the way Mr. Putin’s brand of crony capitalism has turned loyalists into billionaires whose influence over strategic sectors of the economy has in turn helped him maintain his iron-fisted grip on power.

Just wanted to post a reminder of what it means to take Putin's money. How Europe reacts to Russia reminds me of how the US treats the MidEast OPEC countries. On one hand, the US stands for human rights and democracy. On the other hand, there's so much petroleum and money involved, I mean they are a complicated people with a rich history. We should give them some more time to work it out. *sarcasm mode off*

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Vahir » Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:20 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/world/europe/it-pays-to-be-putins-friend-.html?_r=0
The reason the Kremlin rushed to prop up Bank Rossiya is the same reason that the United States, and later its European allies, placed it on the sanctions list: its privileged status as what the Obama administration calls the “personal bank” of the Putin inner circle. Built and run by some of the president’s closest friends and colleagues from his early days in St. Petersburg, Bank Rossiya is emblematic of the way Mr. Putin’s brand of crony capitalism has turned loyalists into billionaires whose influence over strategic sectors of the economy has in turn helped him maintain his iron-fisted grip on power.

Just wanted to post a reminder of what it means to take Putin's money. How Europe reacts to Russia reminds me of how the US treats the MidEast OPEC countries. On one hand, the US stands for human rights and democracy. On the other hand, there's so much petroleum and money involved, I mean they are a complicated people with a rich history. We should give them some more time to work it out. *sarcasm mode off*


I would go further and propose that there are many parallels between the crisis in Ukraine and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:54 pm UTC

When I read Sardia's post,
I hear personal attacks.

Putin did This and Putin did That.
He built some of the largest and strongest organizations on the Planet.

They are Fility Rich.
What a Guy!!

How did a man that does not look a day over seventy do so much is such a short time?
That is fucking Amazing! We need one of those....oh. We have one?...

Yes.
It seems we do.

Obama is not a heck of a lot older than Putin.
I have both heard and read that Obama is responsible for all the Ills that have befallen the people of the US sense....His Birth!

Putin is the same kind of Guy?
Really?

A Tough Guy?
A Bully?

A man that has great influence in some of the worlds strongest organizations?
How can that be? Well...?

Is Cuba not an friend of Russia, anymore?
I don't know what business McCain has in the Ukraine.
I don't know why Putin does not Kick the Americans off Cuba.

There's a lot of shit I don't know.
Why Sardia takes Putin so personal is beyond me.

Hey! Sardia!
Was it a Love Affair gone Bad?
Very, Very Bad? Still Love him?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:31 pm UTC

Addams, I don't know if you think posting to a fancy beat means nobody bothers to critique your posts, but I'd appreciate if you avoid personal attacks. That said, when I read your posts, I see more care given to the structure of the sentences over the substance actually communicated. You confused the "benefits" of a swift acting oligarchy over the slow halting movements of a democracy. Yes a dictatorship can get things done quickly, and it can move towards a good goal. So long as the ones in charge are the one defining what good means.
In addition to the corruption, there's also the tensions on relations vs international established principles. For example, would you let women in Saudi Arabia be second class citizens just to keep your gas bill low? Because that's what your representatives hear when people complain about international events. "My flight got cancelled, my gas is $4 dollars a gallon, etc etc".

All that said, if you still don't appreciate the importance of the events in Europe; here's something more to your liking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryAK7L_7SZs

Vahir, I dunno about your comparison, it's more of a contrast. The international community isn't nearly as united, and Iraq didn't have as much invested in Europe. (trade or filthy lucre)

PS Addams, I advise you not to put Putin in charge of anything. Unless you wanted to be in on the corruption by being one of his loyal friends, then he can make it worth your while.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Vahir » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:19 am UTC

sardia wrote:Vahir, I dunno about your comparison, it's more of a contrast. The international community isn't nearly as united, and Iraq didn't have as much invested in Europe. (trade or filthy lucre)


The international community, or the the west at least, is pretty much united against Russia's role in the crisis (well, except for some like Hungary). I think if Russia wasn't as powerful as it is, there would have been an intervention by the international community by now. That's the difference between the Gulf War and the Ukraine crisis: The military strength of the aggressor.

As for trade links, Iraq may not have had much to do with Europe, but they were a key strategic ally of the US at the time (or at least during the cold war). Consider all the support Saddam was given during the Iraq-Iran war.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:31 am UTC

You confused the "benefits" of a swift acting oligarchy over the slow halting movements of a democracy.

A slow halting movements of a democracy??
Really?

Like the dignified and measured responds the US had to 9/11?
What about the voices of The People?

People speaking out Against War, every fucking day was not Democracy in action?
What was? Flooding every available air wave with Fear and Anger, Was??

You may be too young to remember.
I'm Not!

I remember it, like I was there.
Because, I Was!

Your next sentence is the same Crap.
Yes a dictatorship can get things done quickly, and it can move towards a good goal. So long as the ones in charge are the one defining what good means.

How Sllooowwwlly a nation can get a job done is mildly interesting to me.
What the Hell is your Point?

Fast and Furious is the way of the US.
Her policies and her people.

Get the fuck out of their way.
They don't know what they are doing.

You attempt to Stop them at Your peril.

If I did not read it wrong,
you advocate admiration for people and organizations that exhibit faithfulness to steady long term plans
that lead toward the Peace, Freedom and Well Being of The People.

You and I have That in common.
The Neatherlands has a One Hundred Year Plan.
China has a One Thousand Year and a Ten Thousand Year Plan.

Have you looked at The Plan of the Americans?
No? Me, neither.

The US had one.
I know. I saw it.

It was a ten year plan.
We did it.

Then we got a New Plan.
Kick Ass in the Middle East.

Hey! We Killed that Plan!
It is the Lazarus of Plans.

It rose from The Dead,
Like Evil Shit Does.

A Baby Squirrel! Yey!
Looking at that stupid animal made me smile.
Thanks!


PS Addams, I advise you not to put Putin in charge of anything. Unless you wanted to be in on the corruption by being one of his loyal friends, then he can make it worth your while.

That is a goofy thing to write, even for the internet.

You advise me? (that's funny) ok.
To not put Putin in charge....

I Can't put Putin in Charge!
If I could, I would Not hesitate on Your say so.

Is being one of his Loyal Friends an option for Me??

How great would That be?
(pant-pant) I'm Loyal!

He has loads of friends.
I might not see much of him.

I know his Nation has problems of its own.
His is a Huge Nation. He does not want us.

It seems obvious the people of the US can not handle their own affairs.
Putin might be good. Would he do it, if we asked? My guess is, "No."

Are you seriously stating we can get One Person into a SUPER DUPER POWERFUL POSITION and all will be well..?
I suppose if you can get Ruthless Murdock and Dickky Boy Cheney to agree; You'd have three to choose from.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:10 am UTC

Vahir wrote:
sardia wrote:Vahir, I dunno about your comparison, it's more of a contrast. The international community isn't nearly as united, and Iraq didn't have as much invested in Europe. (trade or filthy lucre)


The international community, or the the west at least, is pretty much united against Russia's role in the crisis (well, except for some like Hungary). I think if Russia wasn't as powerful as it is, there would have been an intervention by the international community by now. That's the difference between the Gulf War and the Ukraine crisis: The military strength of the aggressor.

As for trade links, Iraq may not have had much to do with Europe, but they were a key strategic ally of the US at the time (or at least during the cold war). Consider all the support Saddam was given during the Iraq-Iran war.

Fair points, I was against your comparison because Iraq-Kuwait ended differently. Technically, the Ukrainian crisis isn't over yet, but I still disagree. In addition, the economic impacts all lean towards not acting. This isn't solely a case of higher military strength.

Addams, is your blood metaphorically rising? Good. Are you upset that a country started a war under false pretenses to achieve political goals? Then you should be upset when someone else does the same thing in another country.

How Sllooowwwlly a nation can get a job done is mildly interesting to me. What the Hell is your Point?

"Putin did This and Putin did That. He built some of the largest and strongest organizations on the Planet. They are Fility Rich. What a Guy!! How did a man that does not look a day over seventy do so much is such a short time? That is fucking Amazing! We need one of those....oh. We have one?..."
My point, addams, is that you shouldn't admire Putin's accomplishments given the means used. It be like you admiring George W. Bush for mobilizing the country to invade Iraq. Or did you get so caught up writing all fancy that you forgot what you were writing?

I wrote nothing about admiration of anything. You, on the other hand, wrote several lines about how much Putin accomplished. For the record, I'm stating you should not admire Putin. The people who do work for him are richly rewarded with sweetheart deals because Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy.
That is a goofy thing to write, even for the internet. You advise me? (that's funny) ok.

Lastly, you are the last person on this forum who should be criticizing how I write.
PS A quick google shows that China issues 5 year plans, not 1000.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:33 am UTC

Addams, is your blood metaphorically rising? Good. Are you upset that a country started a war under false pretenses to achieve political goals? Then you should be upset when someone else does the same thing in another country.

If the AssHole next door kills his wife and the UPS driver.
That does not Temp me to kill Your wife. Not even you.

That statement starts out, Just Fine.
That is Not the way it ends.

To turn a brother against his brother for your gain is Fucked Up.
To frighten a people using the Electrtonic Voice to the point they are Frantic with Fear is Fucked Up.

Who Did That To US??

There is No Doubt that happened to the people of the US.
Who did it? Does it matter?

Do you want to see Justice served?
I think I would prefer to work in Mop Up.

You torture Murdock and Cheney on TV.
I don't watch 24 with Kiefer Sutherland.

I won't watch your show.
I don't watch TV. Fuck TV.

The internet is Better.

Grumpy People can talk back to the TV.
The TV never responds like you do.

The internet is Great!
I like it.

Signed, Grumpy Addams
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:42 pm UTC

before we forget, Russia has sent more troops and heavy military equipment into eastern ukraine. Nobody knows if this is to secure rebel gains or to conquer more territory. Either way, it a destabilizing to any attempts to reform and consolidate the western government. Again this puts ukraine in a sorry state.


Stupid phone are my post.
Ukraine is pretty screwed here.
A. Russia can and has the will to commit lots of blood n treasure against Ukraine. The west can't say that.
B. Ukraine is collapsing under the weight of corruption and economic depression.
C. All things considered, Ukraine should consider surrendering to Russia. It sounds cowardly but the west has made it clear of the limits of western ideals.
D. If war isn't palatable, then increased sanctions is the only option. Even if it takes decades. The current level is paltry.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... the-border

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:54 pm UTC

"C."
(Is that right?)

Why?

It looks like the most Peaceful resolution and the best shot The People have.
Maybe they can use that Treasure on building up The People and their Buildings.
Not tearing them down.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Mambrino » Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:04 am UTC

sardia wrote:before we forget, Russia has sent more troops and heavy military equipment into eastern ukraine. Nobody knows if this is to secure rebel gains or to conquer more territory. Either way, it a destabilizing to any attempts to reform and consolidate the western government. Again this puts ukraine in a sorry state.


Stupid phone are my post.
Ukraine is pretty screwed here.
A. Russia can and has the will to commit lots of blood n treasure against Ukraine. The west can't say that.
B. Ukraine is collapsing under the weight of corruption and economic depression.
C. All things considered, Ukraine should consider surrendering to Russia. It sounds cowardly but the west has made it clear of the limits of western ideals.
D. If war isn't palatable, then increased sanctions is the only option. Even if it takes decades. The current level is paltry.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... the-border


The force seems too small to constitute a viable invasion force, so it's probably about demonstrating that Russia is willing hold on their gains.

But surrender economic and political independence just because Russia has seized a bunch of provinces in the eastern part of the country? Frankly, that sounds fairly idiotic course of action. Not in terms of cowardice, but in the context of realpolitik that sees terribly cheap price. Russian dominance isn't necessarily going to solve the problem of government corruption (short of Putin deciding to reign as a supreme oligarch of Ukraine as he did in Russia), Ukraine's economical problems stem (in addition to the aforesaid widespread corruption and oligarch politics) from the outdated industry, so I'm not even sure if staying in the Russia's sphere of influence would be that beneficial in the long term instead of restructuring their economy (Russian attempts at modernizing their industries and getting rid of their dependence on energy income have not been that successful); many other Soviet states that aligned with the West earlier are doing much better, and wasn't one of main points of Maidan about wanting to join European economy since in the first place, anyway? Also, who knows, maybe the Ukrainian people don't want to be part of Putin's empire.

Whether retaking the invaded parts is possible for current Ukrainian military without more Western support, that I don't know, so maybe they have no other option than consider them as lost for the foreseeable future, like Crimea. But surrender? Eh. I leave that for the Ukrainians to decide, but if it were me, I'd see if Russia is really willing to put up a full scale invasion before acting like they were already knocking on the gates of Kiev.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby addams » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:24 am UTC

Gosh.
Do you think Russia wants the whole of the Ukraine?
If the whole of the Ukraine surrendered it would be a headache for Moscow.

They don't want that.
There is some little thing that we don't understand about the peninsula.

Let them get on with it.
If we could manage our own affairs....

But, we can't.
We Don't.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:51 pm UTC

The West is perfectly able to keep Ukraine within it's own sphere of influence. What Mambrino is mistaken about is Western resolve and political will. Are you willing to send thousands of your soldiers to die for a corrupt and inept backwater country? Are you willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up their economy? Are you willing to suffer economic harm by expanding sanctions to be sector wide on Russia instead of "targeted", aka symbolic only. The West has clearly said no to all of these.

The West does have an interest in Ukraine being in its circle, and having Ukraine kill as many Russians as it can to make Putin look bad. This has no bearing on how the Ukrainians should act. Ukraine isn't even close to being Russia's Afghanistan, more like hunting elderly out of shape ill-fed tigers. Ukrainian prospects are pretty bleak right now. The best they are hoping for is to stall any gains from the rebels, and to hope the economy only shrinks 5% this year. Think about that. The are happy they only lost 5% GDP. That's sad. The army is ill equipped, underfunded, and the troops often have to be fed by the locals.

Western Ukraine doesn't want to be apart of the Russian empire, then again, neither does the Philippines or Japan want to bow down to China in the open ocean. But the realities on the ground don't support your outrage. Asian countries have the US backing, like Japan with an actual defense treaty. Ukraine has a shitty memo that nobody cares to back up with teeth.

TLDR: If you were calling the shots in the West, would you fight to die for some shitty country just to stick it to the Russians?

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby Mambrino » Sun Nov 16, 2014 11:03 am UTC

sardia wrote:The West is perfectly able to keep Ukraine within it's own sphere of influence. What Mambrino is mistaken about is Western resolve and political will. Are you willing to send thousands of your soldiers to die for a corrupt and inept backwater country? Are you willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up their economy? Are you willing to suffer economic harm by expanding sanctions to be sector wide on Russia instead of "targeted", aka symbolic only. The West has clearly said no to all of these.

The West does have an interest in Ukraine being in its circle, and having Ukraine kill as many Russians as it can to make Putin look bad. This has no bearing on how the Ukrainians should act. Ukraine isn't even close to being Russia's Afghanistan, more like hunting elderly out of shape ill-fed tigers. Ukrainian prospects are pretty bleak right now. The best they are hoping for is to stall any gains from the rebels, and to hope the economy only shrinks 5% this year. Think about that. The are happy they only lost 5% GDP. That's sad. The army is ill equipped, underfunded, and the troops often have to be fed by the locals.

Western Ukraine doesn't want to be apart of the Russian empire, then again, neither does the Philippines or Japan want to bow down to China in the open ocean. But the realities on the ground don't support your outrage. Asian countries have the US backing, like Japan with an actual defense treaty. Ukraine has a shitty memo that nobody cares to back up with teeth.

TLDR: If you were calling the shots in the West, would you fight to die for some shitty country just to stick it to the Russians?


I don't remember arguing anything about what West is going to do or not to do.

It is true that in 'old style' geopolitics that have recently made a comeback in Europe (or never went away in the first place) the small countries have always less options to act and less ability to influence their position and future than great powers, and more often have to react to what the powers do than the other way around. (This is the definition of power.) However, that doesn't make them total slaves to powers' will if they manage to play their hand right.

What am I trying to say, that despite West's policy, Ukraine is still an actor in this game (more than me and my willingness to suffer economic consequences of sanctions, but more of that later); especially in the regard of the question was whether they should surrender or not. Surrendering in the sense of not trying to regain Donetsk and Luhansk with military force might be sensible: if Ukrainian army managed to create a force that would overcome the rebels, Russia always can feed just enough arms and soldiers to the rebel area to balance that. This we have seen already, it seems to be the current Russian strategy.

But total surrender, as in submitting to Russian will, before the war is lost? Okay, if everybody did that we sure would have some bloodless wars with less human suffering, but on the other hand, then probably anyone with small, ill-equipped army should surrender to their mighty neighbor ASAP because they might invade us. I still maintain that is ridiculous.

We have no idea if any more major attempt to force Ukraine as a whole into their sphere of influence by Russians would turn out like a France 1940 or like Afghanistan or like something else. Ukraine's army might be in a sorry state, but even ramshackle of an army may prove too great a cost (and if the locals are willing to feed them instead of rising against them is something positive, even) and if it comes to it, you don't need an army for insurgency. Given the current existence of far-right volunteer regiments, there's substantial possibility that there's enough Ukrainians willing to pull that off. It's their call how much they value not being in the Russian empire, and whether the price they're willing to pay (upper limit of which is yet to be seen) is enough for that end depends on how much Putin wants them to be in his empire (which also is yet to be seen). Currently he seems to have committed to maintaining a conflict that could be likened to a bleeding wound: It would be a constant and costly burden, but not constitute an existential crisis.

You also keep repeating that their economy is shambles. I don't dispute it. However, I'd like to point mention, that it's not very clear that it'll necessarily get better if they submit to Russia. It was not getting better before Maidan, it's been more or less constantly bad since collapse of Soviet Union. I've understood that Maidan was partly about that people who showed up thought that continuing aligning with Russia was not going to be the way to a prosperous future. Maybe Russia is now willing to pump more money into Ukraine than the West for having it in its sphere, I don't know, but given the outcome of their attempts at modernizing their economy out of dependence on oil so far, it's also possible that the Ukrainian economy might be able to restructure itself to a more healthy basis in the long term with EU (not necessarily in the EU, but e.g. in a neutral position with the ability to trade with EU), even if their GDP will not start rising tomorrow. Russian monetary support doesn't sound like a viable long term solution, however. I don't know which one is the objectively best option, but it is something political leaders of Ukraine should consider. To give something that would amount to an educated guess on this matter would probably require more financial and economical insight and information than I have, so I'm making only a guess. I also have this feeling I've already said this.

TL;DR. It may still be worthwhile not to surrender if the West has no will nor resolve to provide any substantial amount of help, at least as long as the West doesn't actively try to hinder Ukraine's attempts or ban it from the EU markets to please Russia (which doesn't seem to be happening).

You may disagree with this position, and may be even correct in that, but to have discussion about it might include e.g. demonstrating them to be not valid points, instead of condescending me about how I'm mistaken of amount of Western political will or resolve. Trust me, I have no misconceptions about Western will or resolve. There are other factors to consider other than Western troops not showing up for the defense of Kiev.

--

Now, I've presented my main point. This is little tangential to the main topic of discussion, therefore the spoiler.

Spoiler:
You asked me a couple of questions. I understand they were meant to be rhetorical about West not coming to the rescue of Kiev (of which I have no delusions, as I've said), but still.

Are you willing to send thousands of your soldiers to die for a corrupt and inept backwater country? Are you willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up their economy? Are you willing to suffer economic harm by expanding sanctions to be sector wide on Russia instead of "targeted", aka symbolic only.


Speaking of sanctions, my favorite dairy producer (the largest in the country) is in a financial trouble because of Russian counter-sanctions, as many other companies with significant trade with Russians. I agree that the current 'symbolic' sanctions will not cause Russia to budge, and probably wouldn't even if they were not 'symbolic' only. I'm personally willing to suffer this economic harm even if it hurts Russia only symbolically because I think it's politically wise for my country not to deviate from the agreed-upon EU policy. Are we collectively as nation willing to suffer it, well, that's a major topic of political discussion.

Whether we as a country should have a military presence in Ukraine or not, probably not, because 'thousands' of soldiers would be a significant cut in our own defense.

Any of this is probably not news to current government in Kiev, nor is the fact that other EU countries are even more willing to answer "no" than we. I wrote lengthly above why it may still be in the interests of Ukraine to continue fighting despite this.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ukraine Crisis [New Title]

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:14 pm UTC

Let me explain by what I mean by surrender, Russia has several ways to destabilize Ukraine.
1. They can send troops and materials so that the Ukrainians always lose.
2. Provide firesupport via artillery from across the border.
3. Cutoff trade and more importantly natural gas.
4. Make Ukraine lose money in general by forcing them to spend money on war.

All of these things distract from any reform attempts. On top of that, despite how crappy Ukraine is, it still has assets that it doesn't want to lose. It's not a country where assets

I understand that sanctions may seem powerful at the scale of a singular business, but I'm sure you know that it's incredibly limited. Are you referring to an European company? Because the US only has 2% of Russia's trading. That's about 30-40 Billion dollars, not very much. Europe can do much more, but it would require it to stop buying natural gas. I'm not sure how many Germans you could convince to shiver through winter, or even be forced to reactivate their nuclear reactors.
www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287869152/how-sa ... in-ukraine

that's like a multi-hundred-billion-dollar undertaking. So when the United States talks about $1 billion of loan guarantees and the European Union says 15 billion - although if you actually break that number down, there's not a lot of new money in it. It's kind of repackaging of old money. And the IMF says, you know, yeah, maybe we could chip in 10 or 15 billion, too, but it's going to come at a cost. You're going to have to do all these difficult reforms that are going to cost you money and cost you votes and so on.

This is why I'm not optimistic about how much aid the West can provide.

Now Ukraine has a choice to make, it can fight on principle against Putin, which isn't wrong, or immoral. What I'm telling you is, a large portion of Western Ukraine, the side that hates Putin, they are just as war weary as the Western public. The Russians, at the local level, are mostly proud of the sacrifices they are making, Ukrainians aren't. When you combine paltry Western support, with sagging Ukrainian support, and stubborn Russian aggression...seeing all that you should consider cutting a deal. Something along the lines of promised neutrality and less "centralized control" of the eastern regions. As to who should push this deal, it could come from any of the three sides.
Or I could be wrong, and support from Ukrainians is so high that nobody knows about it, and they start guerrilla warfare. It might become a repeat of Afghanistan...Or Chechnya.

My favored strategy isn't compromise with Russia, but I don't think you'd like it either. Widespread sanctions from Europe and the US with Russia, and kicking them out of the G8/G20. That means European countries go into recession and shiver through the winter. Spend the 100 billion on new arms and economic reform. If you were more hawkish, have the Ukrainians attack to up the casualty rate in Russia to pressure Putin. Start training operations that the Russians are showing us, practice attack runs on their cities and ports. Send brigades to the eastern NATO countries. The risks are higher, and quickly get worse. Being this close to Moscow, any miscalculation could start widespread war, or even a nuclear exchange, not to mention the economic damage from the sanctions alone.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sableagle and 19 guests