Post: #226

Russia definitely doesn't have the capability to attack and occupy all of Ukraine. Besides that, this isn't about pure conquest for Putin. He doesn't want to conquer the western nationalist Ukrainians areas. It'd just look bad internationally... plus it'd cost too much blood and cause a lot of long-term headaches. Just not in Russia's interests.

I agree with Jim, a full-on invasion would go all the way up to the Dnieper and butt up to Kiev... from Belarus down to the Black Sea. Plus tack on the whole Black Sea coast west of the Dnieper and reach Transdniestria which will land-lock the "new" Ukraine and make them worthless (except as a pawn to the West). But then the politics of aligning the western part of Ukraine with NATO and the EU becomes an issue. Russia wouldn't really be able to stop that, I'd think.

Really, I think Putin is just faking us out and he's going to attack Mongolia since it's so rich in resources and only has 2.8 million people. In fact, I think I just read about the Molotov-Chang Pact on how Russia and China will divide it up.

In all seriousness, I wonder why the Soviet Union didn't swallow up Mongolia at the end of WWII while China was still in disarray.

Post: #227

(03-15-2014 09:29 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  Russia definitely doesn't have the capability to attack and occupy all of Ukraine. Besides that, this isn't about pure conquest for Putin. He doesn't want to conquer the western nationalist Ukrainians areas. It'd just look bad internationally... plus it'd cost too much blood and cause a lot of long-term headaches. Just not in Russia's interests.

I agree with Jim, a full-on invasion would go all the way up to the Dnieper and butt up to Kiev... from Belarus down to the Black Sea. Plus tack on the whole Black Sea coast west of the Dnieper and reach Transdniestria which will land-lock the "new" Ukraine and make them worthless (except as a pawn to the West). But then the politics of aligning the western part of Ukraine with NATO and the EU becomes an issue. Russia wouldn't really be able to stop that, I'd think.

Really, I think Putin is just faking us out and he's going to attack Mongolia since it's so rich in resources and only has 2.8 million people. In fact, I think I just read about the Molotov-Chang Pact on how Russia and China will divide it up.

In all seriousness, I wonder why the Soviet Union didn't swallow up Mongolia at the end of WWII while China was still in disarray.

They wanted it as a buffer.

Post: #228

Perhaps. But in hindsight, bad move. That country is loaded with natural resources. But as this relates to Ukraine, if Russia takes over 1/3 of the land there, then it won't really have a buffer with NATO most likely being in the western part. Although, NATO is already in the Baltics next to St. Petersburg.

This is an interesting situation. Putin has been dealt a crappy no-win hand, but he won't roll over like pretty much everyone else. I think he accepts Russia will lose in some way because the West is "making it's move," so he will do the best he can and fight for short term gain and deal with (and hope) to minimize long term losses. If he can somehow manipulate some economic jolts going against the West, maybe the soft and fickle govts will turn their attention to their own people and problems. Russia's only hope is waiting out the West for their economic collapse. Doubtful since the western elites seem to be bracing for an economic collapse already. Not like they care about the people in their countries suffering.

Post: #229

(03-15-2014 10:05 PM)Seboist Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 09:29 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  Russia definitely doesn't have the capability to attack and occupy all of Ukraine. Besides that, this isn't about pure conquest for Putin. He doesn't want to conquer the western nationalist Ukrainians areas. It'd just look bad internationally... plus it'd cost too much blood and cause a lot of long-term headaches. Just not in Russia's interests.

I agree with Jim, a full-on invasion would go all the way up to the Dnieper and butt up to Kiev... from Belarus down to the Black Sea. Plus tack on the whole Black Sea coast west of the Dnieper and reach Transdniestria which will land-lock the "new" Ukraine and make them worthless (except as a pawn to the West). But then the politics of aligning the western part of Ukraine with NATO and the EU becomes an issue. Russia wouldn't really be able to stop that, I'd think.

Really, I think Putin is just faking us out and he's going to attack Mongolia since it's so rich in resources and only has 2.8 million people. In fact, I think I just read about the Molotov-Chang Pact on how Russia and China will divide it up.

In all seriousness, I wonder why the Soviet Union didn't swallow up Mongolia at the end of WWII while China was still in disarray.

They wanted it as a buffer.

Revenge for Genghis Khan reaching Moscow ? eh?? lol. The Mongolians did occupy Russia once.

Post: #230

(03-15-2014 10:39 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  Perhaps. But in hindsight, bad move. That country is loaded with natural resources. But as this relates to Ukraine, if Russia takes over 1/3 of the land there, then it won't really have a buffer with NATO most likely being in the western part. Although, NATO is already in the Baltics next to St. Petersburg.

This is an interesting situation. Putin has been dealt a crappy no-win hand, but he won't roll over like pretty much everyone else. I think he accepts Russia will lose in some way because the West is "making it's move," so he will do the best he can and fight for short term gain and deal with (and hope) to minimize long term losses. If he can somehow manipulate some economic jolts going against the West, maybe the soft and fickle govts will turn their attention to their own people and problems. Russia's only hope is waiting out the West for their economic collapse. Doubtful since the western elites seem to be bracing for an economic collapse already. Not like they care about the people in their countries suffering.

True..but Putin loses even by winning. He needs to feed his own people. Crimea itself will choke Russia..more people to feed who won't obey him..only makes Russia lose big.Eastern Ukraine is a rust belt.. and MOST of the people don't want to become Russian..therefore he will NEVER control them.
What will he do? If he starts some Nazi like mas killings..the west will definitively get involved..at least in arming the west.
The problem is Putin isn't a Stalin...nor are the people living in the dark ages. They know about cell phones, internet and Gucci. If Putin can't supply it then he is completely lost.
Remember he still has to get elected unless he claims himself emperor or something. But then his military might just turn against him. Remember there is no ideological idealism brainwashing the avg Russian that he can use to keep them loyal.
One of the reason he is doing this is because his ratings at home have gone up. Lets see his ratings in 1-3 years when his people can't buy the latest shoes or Iphone..then he will be in big trouble.Adding 20 million Ukrainians to the electorate won't help him lol.
Russia is a capitalist country and the move he is making is going to hurt Russia's capitalism.
He should have just made his demands and call it a day. Now his win is really a long term loss.

Post: #231

(03-15-2014 10:50 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 10:39 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  Perhaps. But in hindsight, bad move. That country is loaded with natural resources. But as this relates to Ukraine, if Russia takes over 1/3 of the land there, then it won't really have a buffer with NATO most likely being in the western part. Although, NATO is already in the Baltics next to St. Petersburg.

This is an interesting situation. Putin has been dealt a crappy no-win hand, but he won't roll over like pretty much everyone else. I think he accepts Russia will lose in some way because the West is "making it's move," so he will do the best he can and fight for short term gain and deal with (and hope) to minimize long term losses. If he can somehow manipulate some economic jolts going against the West, maybe the soft and fickle govts will turn their attention to their own people and problems. Russia's only hope is waiting out the West for their economic collapse. Doubtful since the western elites seem to be bracing for an economic collapse already. Not like they care about the people in their countries suffering.

True..but Putin loses even by winning. He needs to feed his own people. Crimea itself will choke Russia..more people to feed who won't obey him..only makes Russia lose big.Eastern Ukraine is a rust belt.. and MOST of the people don't want to become Russian..therefore he will NEVER control them.
What will he do? If he starts some Nazi like mas killings..the west will definitively get involved..at least in arming the west.
The problem is Putin isn't a Stalin...nor are the people living in the dark ages. They know about cell phones, internet and Gucci. If Putin can't supply it then he is completely lost.
Remember he still has to get elected unless he claims himself emperor or something. But then his military might just turn against him. Remember there is no ideological idealism brainwashing the avg Russian that he can use to keep them loyal.
One of the reason he is doing this is because his ratings at home have gone up. Lets see his ratings in 1-3 years when his people can't buy the latest shoes or Iphone..then he will be in big trouble.Adding 20 million Ukrainians to the electorate won't help him lol.
Russia is a capitalist country and the move he is making is going to hurt Russia's capitalism.
He should have just made his demands and call it a day. Now his win is really a long term loss.

I do NOT perceive Putin's hand to be as weak as you are making it out to be. Surely, there is going to be some suffering and adjustment that will be needed to be made if various economic sanctions are applied. However, he is going to continue to blame the west for forcing his hand, and Russia will have sympathy from quite a few players who also have been screwed around by the USA... Therefore, the sanctions are NOT going to be strictly complied with, and this is going to make the west look foolish.

Also, even though there is division in Ukraine about whether they want to be aligned with Russia or with the west, I doubt that the west has a convincing story for them, in spite of Billions of dollars in bribes. Ultimately, Ukraine has a lot of ties with Russia.... There may even be elements of Greece, Spain and Italy that sympathize with Russia more than the west, especially, if it seems that the west is trying to force some of these countries into austerity measures... which cause their people to view the western institutions and banks as monsters that are trying to keep their people down.

Post: #232

I agree Jim... Putin loses even though he'll win the battle. He gets to at least dictate the battle. But I don't think he has a choice... unless he wants to lose the battle and the pressure war. So he needs to go on the offensive and at least win the battle and hope something happens where the west can't pursue things further and by luck he wins the war. In a way he's like Nazi Germany... going against the world.

Juan, I think Putin has a strong hand over the short term vis-à-vis Ukraine. But he has a weak hand over the long term. Russia just isn't a strong country. The USA and the West are kinda paper tigers in many ways, but we're just so many and have so many combined advantages over Russia. We have genius world class schemers manipulating things. Heck, almost all of our economic growth in the last 30 years is due to debt. Unless China puts serious weight backing Russia (I'm doubtful of that) then Russia is in a very bad position. If Russians weren't so damn corrupt from top to bottom they'd be infinitely better positioned. In the USA we're corrupt at the very top (elites) and the bottom (welfare losers getting all the freebies and voluntarily enslaving themselves to the elites). But our middle class, which is getting annihilated, is pretty solid in not being so corrupt. That's our strength.

As far as India, Brazil, etc... sure, they know the USA isn't innocent in these matters and don't like things like the USA spying on Brazil, but they'll go along with sanctions. There are also a lot of Americans sympathizing with Russia, but it doesn't matter. Doesn't make a difference since the govt is calling the shots, not us. Note that 2 of those countries you listed, Greece and Italy, have leaders who were installed by the west and not voted in. Just like the Ukrainian leaders, installed by the west. The west owns them. When push comes to shove, they do as they're told just like Obama and all the other puppets.

Post: #233

I think Putin shares Zbigniew Brzezinski’s world view about the strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia. In 1997 Brezhinski wrote the Grand Chessboard where he said the following:

Quote:Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.

However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.

Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player.

If you agree with this reasoning, Putin's actions are very rational despite what some western commentators say (that he is insane, etc). Putin saw the West funding an illegal uprising against his ally Viktor Yanukovych and is responding by using his military to protect Russian interests.

However, his actions have an element of desperation. The western backed coup almost succeeded in taking Ukraine solidly into the Western sphere of influence. Only with military intervention can Putin firmly hold on to Ukraine. That's what makes me think he will invade Eastern/Southern Ukraine. The gamble being that it is better for Russia to keep half of Ukraine rather than lose it completely to the west.

Invading Western Ukraine is not really feasible (strong nationalist region with low percentage of ethnic Russians). It would be a long and bloody affair.

And frankly--why stop with the Crimea? The West has already said military intervention is off the table. China has already given implied consent (by abstaining the UN resolution) and the west is going to slap out economic sanctions regardless.

Taking Eastern/Southern Ukraine strengthens Putin's grip in the region and will give him leverage over the new government in Western Ukraine. The potential goals being to A)create a weak/unstable western Ukraine or B) turn it into a neutral buffer state between Russia and the West.

Post: #234

Post: #235

VICE News has more footage from Crimea:

Post: #236

For once, i have to agree with jimukr104. Putin can conquest all, or half of Ukraine, but can not hold it, even the eastern side. There is alot of people that, while rusophones, will not like at all the prescence of russian troops.

Post: #237

(03-16-2014 10:41 AM)Mekorig Wrote:  For once, i have to agree with jimukr104. Putin can conquest all, or half of Ukraine, but can not hold it, even the eastern side. There is alot of people that, while rusophones, will not like at all the prescence of russian troops.

Are you implying that the rest of the time you don't agree with my good sense that MOST others who have actually Traveled and Been there seem to agreed with?
(Didn't know Argentinians read backwards ).j/k

I warned you that you let your political bias get in your way of seeing others point of views and even reality. Don't beat yourself up over it..your NOT the only one who does that(western media is very guilty of this).

It really has all to do with military force numbers more than how the locals feel. When the US invaded Iraq we were also very short for occupation as well. But some key differences:
a. Most were cool with it in the beginning.
b. We paid over 250k of their military and police forces that disbanded to basically work for us.
c. Iraq had much less large cities that were of strategic importance to have to guard.
d. Russia bordering on Ukraine is a liability for Russia. Means even more areas they have to protect/guard.
e. Ukraine and Russia have more similar type technology/equipment(although Russia has some newer stuff)
Now if Russia formed a war economy like Germany did..sure, they can take Ukraine just like it was in the past taken.

Post: #238

This conflict looks like its over:

Putin, Merkel exchange views on sending OSCE mission to Ukraine

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/723781

Edit:

More on the exchange here: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/723799

Edit 2:

Is this the first annexation in history to go off without a loss of life???

Post: #239

(03-16-2014 10:47 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  This conflict looks like its over:

Putin, Merkel exchange views on sending OSCE mission to Ukraine

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/723781

Edit:

More on the exchange here: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/723799

Edit 2:

Is this the first annexation in history to go off without a loss of life???

So it means he only keeping Crimea? or is it another ......


As for annex without loss of life..who knows. But it makes US/EU look inept. Over 80 killed in what the west called "peaceful protests.. most shot by maiden extremist groups(where is that investigation going?).
Russia on the other hand mobilized a few army groups (2-3)and dropped in thousands in Crimea without any serious injuries.
Every time the US interferes for now on they will:
a. get scrutiny for not doing it non violently.
b. Will have to be ready for a Russian offensive if it crosses the red line in the future.

Post: #240

(03-16-2014 10:58 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 10:47 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  This conflict looks like its over:

Putin, Merkel exchange views on sending OSCE mission to Ukraine

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/723781

Edit:

More on the exchange here: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/723799

Edit 2:

Is this the first annexation in history to go off without a loss of life???

So it means he only keeping Crimea? or is it another ......

Looks like he is keeping Crimea (although Russia will face some sanctions).

However, since Merkel and Putin have agreed to send OSCE monitors to Eastern Ukraine, then there is probably no chance of a further escalation.

Post: #241

(03-16-2014 02:56 AM)Flavius Aetius Wrote:  I think Putin shares Zbigniew Brzezinski’s world view about the strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia. In 1997 Brezhinski wrote the Grand Chessboard where he said the following:

Quote:Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.

However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.

Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player.

If you agree with this reasoning, Putin's actions are very rational despite what some western commentators say (that he is insane, etc). Putin saw the West funding an illegal uprising against his ally Viktor Yanukovych and is responding by using his military to protect Russian interests.

However, his actions have an element of desperation. The western backed coup almost succeeded in taking Ukraine solidly into the Western sphere of influence. Only with military intervention can Putin firmly hold on to Ukraine. That's what makes me think he will invade Eastern/Southern Ukraine. The gamble being that it is better for Russia to keep half of Ukraine rather than lose it completely to the west.

Invading Western Ukraine is not really feasible (strong nationalist region with low percentage of ethnic Russians). It would be a long and bloody affair.

And frankly--why stop with the Crimea? The West has already said military intervention is off the table. China has already given implied consent (by abstaining the UN resolution) and the west is going to slap out economic sanctions regardless.

Taking Eastern/Southern Ukraine strengthens Putin's grip in the region and will give him leverage over the new government in Western Ukraine. The potential goals being to A)create a weak/unstable western Ukraine or B) turn it into a neutral buffer state between Russia and the West.

Funny you posted this. I was just going to ask if anyone read The Grand Chessboard. http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-A...chessboard

Post: #242

(03-16-2014 12:40 AM)Big Nilla Wrote:  I agree Jim... Putin loses even though he'll win the battle. He gets to at least dictate the battle. But I don't think he has a choice... unless he wants to lose the battle and the pressure war. So he needs to go on the offensive and at least win the battle and hope something happens where the west can't pursue things further and by luck he wins the war. In a way he's like Nazi Germany... going against the world.

Juan, I think Putin has a strong hand over the short term vis-à-vis Ukraine. But he has a weak hand over the long term. Russia just isn't a strong country. The USA and the West are kinda paper tigers in many ways, but we're just so many and have so many combined advantages over Russia. We have genius world class schemers manipulating things. Heck, almost all of our economic growth in the last 30 years is due to debt. Unless China puts serious weight backing Russia (I'm doubtful of that) then Russia is in a very bad position. If Russians weren't so damn corrupt from top to bottom they'd be infinitely better positioned. In the USA we're corrupt at the very top (elites) and the bottom (welfare losers getting all the freebies and voluntarily enslaving themselves to the elites). But our middle class, which is getting annihilated, is pretty solid in not being so corrupt. That's our strength.

As far as India, Brazil, etc... sure, they know the USA isn't innocent in these matters and don't like things like the USA spying on Brazil, but they'll go along with sanctions. There are also a lot of Americans sympathizing with Russia, but it doesn't matter. Doesn't make a difference since the govt is calling the shots, not us. Note that 2 of those countries you listed, Greece and Italy, have leaders who were installed by the west and not voted in. Just like the Ukrainian leaders, installed by the west. The west owns them. When push comes to shove, they do as they're told just like Obama and all the other puppets.

Even though I do NOT agree with your assessment about the bottom in the USA corrupting the USA system, I generally agree with your overall assessment of the Ukraine situation and I appreciate your explanations regarding the factors you consider to be important.. and even how governments sometimes are going to decide apart from the will of the people... however, even sometimes, the hands of various governments can be forced when they attempt to carry out matters too far afield from the wishes of their people.

Regarding China, to me it really does appear that they want to play both sides of the fence, and I believe that may be the case with a lot of countries that may try to get away without having to commit to either side... however, if matters escalate, then their hands will have to be shown, and their hands are likely to be different than anticipated.


I think the same is true of Russia. They may be stating that they are pulling back out of Ukraine - however, it seems to be two steps forward, one step back for them. And, in the end they are going to be building their hand to make it stronger in that region, including Ukraine. Maybe they will NOT be able to take all of Ukraine; however, their sovereignty has been threatened by the west's attempt to take Ukraine. The dramatic nature of this recent saga may have winded down in the short term; however, i doubt that the Russians are going to be content with Crimea.. especially after there has been somewhat of an awakening of the russian people regarding the increasing level of influence of the west in the Ukraine... likely becoming apparent that the west is striking too close to home for Russians to tolerate.

Post: #243

(03-16-2014 12:01 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 12:40 AM)Big Nilla Wrote:  I agree Jim... Putin loses even though he'll win the battle. He gets to at least dictate the battle. But I don't think he has a choice... unless he wants to lose the battle and the pressure war. So he needs to go on the offensive and at least win the battle and hope something happens where the west can't pursue things further and by luck he wins the war. In a way he's like Nazi Germany... going against the world.

Juan, I think Putin has a strong hand over the short term vis-à-vis Ukraine. But he has a weak hand over the long term. Russia just isn't a strong country. The USA and the West are kinda paper tigers in many ways, but we're just so many and have so many combined advantages over Russia. We have genius world class schemers manipulating things. Heck, almost all of our economic growth in the last 30 years is due to debt. Unless China puts serious weight backing Russia (I'm doubtful of that) then Russia is in a very bad position. If Russians weren't so damn corrupt from top to bottom they'd be infinitely better positioned. In the USA we're corrupt at the very top (elites) and the bottom (welfare losers getting all the freebies and voluntarily enslaving themselves to the elites). But our middle class, which is getting annihilated, is pretty solid in not being so corrupt. That's our strength.

As far as India, Brazil, etc... sure, they know the USA isn't innocent in these matters and don't like things like the USA spying on Brazil, but they'll go along with sanctions. There are also a lot of Americans sympathizing with Russia, but it doesn't matter. Doesn't make a difference since the govt is calling the shots, not us. Note that 2 of those countries you listed, Greece and Italy, have leaders who were installed by the west and not voted in. Just like the Ukrainian leaders, installed by the west. The west owns them. When push comes to shove, they do as they're told just like Obama and all the other puppets.

Even though I do NOT agree with your assessment about the bottom in the USA corrupting the USA system, I generally agree with your overall assessment of the Ukraine situation and I appreciate your explanations regarding the factors you consider to be important.. and even how governments sometimes are going to decide apart from the will of the people... however, even sometimes, the hands of various governments can be forced when they attempt to carry out matters too far afield from the wishes of their people.

Regarding China, to me it really does appear that they want to play both sides of the fence, and I believe that may be the case with a lot of countries that may try to get away without having to commit to either side... however, if matters escalate, then their hands will have to be shown, and their hands are likely to be different than anticipated.


I think the same is true of Russia. They may be stating that they are pulling back out of Ukraine - however, it seems to be two steps forward, one step back for them. And, in the end they are going to be building their hand to make it stronger in that region, including Ukraine. Maybe they will NOT be able to take all of Ukraine; however, their sovereignty has been threatened by the west's attempt to take Ukraine. The dramatic nature of this recent saga may have winded down in the short term; however, i doubt that the Russians are going to be content with Crimea.. especially after there has been somewhat of an awakening of the russian people regarding the increasing level of influence of the west in the Ukraine... likely becoming apparent that the west is striking too close to home for Russians to tolerate.

They actually lost influence in Ukraine. The invasion united many Ukrainians and the loss of the electorate in Crimea voting in Ukrainian elections is a loss. They could have just waited and fielded another presidential candidate.
During austerity...many would flock to the candidate. Then the new president would pull out of EU pact.
The present situation is more about creating un balance in the short term.Other regions still fighting and now see the referendum as their chance for great autonomy.

Post: #244

I think the hardest thing to discern out of this crisis is the genuine (majority) mood in the eastern cities of Kharkov, Donetsk and Lugansk.

During the Maidan they were largely dispassionate. Even these pro-Russian protests have been small relative to the population of the cities, and any pro-Maidan protests there similarly sized or smaller.

It seems the vast majority of these residents are completely indifferent. The question is, would this indifference be maintained and stand as an advantage to a Russian occupation? Or would a Russian occupation be the only thing that could really awake their passions?

Post: #245

(03-16-2014 12:23 PM)Blunt Wrote:  I think the hardest thing to discern out of this crisis is the genuine (majority) mood in the eastern cities of Kharkov, Donetsk and Lugansk.

During the Maidan they were largely dispassionate. Even these pro-Russian protests have been small relative to the population of the cities, and any pro-Maidan protests there similarly sized or smaller.

It seems the vast majority of these residents are completely indifferent. The question is, would this indifference be maintained and stand as an advantage to a Russian occupation? Or would a Russian occupation be the only thing that could really awake their passions?

Most there aren't very political. .except maybe the old. That is the advantage the maiden had.. it was western Ukrainians that have a history of political activism and anti Russain-ism.
Also isn't it funny how none had to work?
many of them work in farming in neighboring countries and it was the off season so they had nothing better to do(plus they had western funding). if the protests continued. .they would have had to go to work.
In the East.. people are actually busy working.They aren't that political but many were angry that the kiev gov't is arresting possible candidates that represent them like governor of kharkov.
My gut tells me most will be passive politically but if Russia invaded they would be unhappy. In Odessa for example they tend to be anti the new gov't but they are also angry at Russian interference..after all war and occupation isn't profitable for a tourist city.
IMHO the Ukrainians will again in a few years elect another president who promises them a better economy..which means getting rid of EU austerity IMF loan compliance's. That means gas subsidies again.
They don't wager on long term...like Poles do. Russian attitude is you live today.
This is why I think if Putin did nothing in the beginning except encourage discontentment he would have gotten Ukraine back in his sphere of influence eventually. Ukraine is a victim of its location. Russia is their largest bordering neighbor, biggest creditor, trade partner and they have the "culture" card in South- east. This makes Russia's gravitational pull stronger than the west overall.Many analysis's even said long term Russia has the cards.
I think Putin's annexation is basically more of a warning to the West than anything else!

As for all the media about VK expensive home..funny how they didn't notice all the similar looking homes in the background. I am sure Yasenyuk and Timoshenko have similar lavish homes(both billionaires).
I will always see the maiden as a transfer of power from one oligarch to another clan or wannabe billionaire(Yushchenko left office as a billionaire).

Post: #246

Here's more Western propaganda:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stop-...-1.1722280

It fails to mention that we interfered in Russia's sphere of influence.Or how we would respond to Canada or Mexico coupe tat.

poll results :http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-15/crimea-referendum-looms-as-kerry-fails-to-sway-russia.html

Post: #247

Interesting article from Reagan's Chief economic Czar.. Also former editor of the wall st Journal!.read it!

Quote:Washington Has Set The World On A Path To War

Paul Craig Roberts

Why is Washington so opposed to Crimean self-determination? The answer is that one of the main purposes of Washington’s coup in Kiev was to have the new puppet government evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base in Crimea. Washington cannot use the government Washington has installed in Ukraine for that purpose if Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine.

What Washington has made completely obvious is that “self-determination” is a weapon used by Washington in behalf of its agenda. If self-determination advances Washington’s agenda, Washington is for it. If self-determination does not advance Washington’s agenda, Washington is against it.

The Washington-initiated UN Security Council resolution, vetoed by Russia, falsely declares that the referendum in Crimea, a referendum demanded by the people, “can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea; and calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status.”

Washington could not make it any clearer that Washington totally opposes self-determination by Crimeans.

Washington claims, falsely, that the referendum cannot be valid unless the entire population of Ukraine votes and agrees with the decision by Crimeans. Note that when Washington stole Kosovo from Serbia, Washington did not let Serbians vote.

But overlook Washington’s rank hypocrisy and self-serving double-standards. Let’s apply Washington’s argument that in order to be valid any change in Crimea’s status requires a vote on the part of the population of the country that it departs. If this is the case, then Crimea has never been a part of Ukraine.

Under Washington’ s interpretation of international law, Ukraine is still a part of Russia. When Khrushchev transferred Crimea (but not Sevastopol, the Black Sea base) to Ukraine, Russians did not get to vote. Therefore, according to Washington’s own logic it is invalid to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. That also goes for other parts of Russia that Lenin transferred to Ukraine. Under the logic of Washington’s UN resolution, large parts of Ukraine are not legitimately part of Ukraine. They have remained parts of Russia, because Russians were not allowed to vote on their transfer to Ukraine. Thus, there is no issue about “Russia annexing Crimea,” because, according to Washington’s logic, Crimea is still a part of Russia.

Do you need any more proof that the Ukrainian crisis is made up out of thin air by schemers in Washington who created the entire crisis for one purpose–to weaken Russia militarily?

No one was surprised that the New York Times published on March 14 the warmongering rant, written by neoconservatives for John McCain, which described Washington’s aggression in Ukraine as Russia’s aggression. The US government overthrows an elected democratic Ukrainian government and then accuses Russia of “invading and annexing Crimea” in order to divert attention from Washington’s overthrow of Ukrainian democracy. There is no elected government in Kiev. The stooges acting as a government in Kiev were put in office by Washington. Who else choose them?

What surprised some was Rand Paul joining the hysteria. Rand Paul wrote his propagandistic rant against Russia for Time. Rand Paul claims, falsely, that Putin has invaded Crimea and that it is an affront to “the international community.” First of all, the decision of Crimea to leave Ukraine is a decision of the Crimean population and the elected government, not a decision by Russia. But, for the sake of argument, let’s take Rand Paul’s lie as the truth: Is “Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community” like Washington’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Washington-sponsored invasions of Libya and Syria, and Washington’s ongoing slaughter of Pakistanis and Yemenis with drones, and Washington’s violation of Iran’s sovereignty with illegal sanctions, and Washington’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty by overthrowing the elected government and imposing Washington’s stooges?

If Putin is behaving as Rand Paul ignorantly asserts, Putin is just following the precedents established by Clinton in Serbia, by Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, and by Obama in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Washington’s argument is reduced to: “We, the exceptional and indispensable nation can behave this way, but no other country can.”

As some Americans have misplaced hopes in Rand Paul, it is just as well that he revealed in Time that he is just another fool prostituting himself for the neoconservative warmongers and the military/security complex. If Rand Paul is the hope for America, then clearly there is no hope.

As I have been pointing out, the propaganda and lies issuing from Washington, its European puppets, New York Times, Time, and the entirety of the Western media are repeating the path to war that led to World War 1. It is happening right before our eyes.

Post: #248

I'm no world scholar, but my guess is the US, Ukraine, and all the rest will through a hissy fit about Crimea but accept Russia taking it. Maybe there will be some token sanctions, but there won't be a war over it. Now if, Russia starts going after more of the Ukraine than I'm not sure what would happen.

As I said, I'm no expert on this stuff and it's just a guess.

Post: #249

Some great posts here, I'm enjoying reading these, feels like I'm learning more and more not just on Ukraine but global politics. Bravo fellas

Post: #250

(03-15-2014 05:11 PM)Roosh Wrote:  What will Russia do next?

-Full scale invasion of Ukraine
-Invasion of Eastern Ukraine
-Stay in Crimea

Putin seems to be a fan of probing. He goes past the line and measures the response by the international community and Ukraine itself. He did this in Crimea with the "self defense forces" and seems to be doing it again around Kherson. Unless Ukraine attacks his guys with their pitiful army or the West starts shooting, he will take that as a green light and proceed. Why wouldn't he? Ukraine is basically up for the grabing with no competent army and no military assistance from the West, and Putin has already shown signs that he's in it for the long haul (recently transferring securities from the US Fed while executing a naval blocking action in Lithuania). It's looking increasingly likely that Russian troops will enter Ukraine en masse. He also doesn't seem to want Ukraine to be split in multiple countries, so he will play for keeps.

Full scale invasion of Ukraine. Shock and awe. Staged as an internal self-defense action against the "fascists".

Probe on Moldova.

Make NATO squirm about the Baltics.