Post: #51

(04-16-2014 03:28 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Yes that is what I am saying. I said national security trumps right or wrong. They needed Crimea for that. Donetsk and those other cities they don't. Nor do the people there, majority, want to be in Russia.
Should Manhattan island be given back to the Indians? There has to be a an extent as to how far one can go back.Putin wanting those areas just to destabilize Ukraine because he is "pissed" is not a good reason.They never even disputed those areas. Crimea was being disputed even when the 1994 agreement was made.

If Putin can't get guarantees that NATO won't put its troops into Ukraine - and it doesn't look like he will, he'll practically have no choice but maintain some sort of control in Ukraine and keep meddling and try to take those lands - NATO in Lugansk is a matter of national security to Russia, I'd say. No one has asked the population what they want yet, and opinions change quickly: 2-3 years of really shitty economy in Ukraine is pretty much guaranteed at this point, and if Russia is doing comparatively well, and the Crimea project is successful, people will want to jump the ship. Look at all those photos of protesters from the East Ukraine - half the crowd is Russian-speaking pensioners who don't care in which country to live, as long as they are not forced to learn Ukrainian and their pensions are higher (it's about a double in Russia now). They are ready to vote now.

Post: #52

(04-16-2014 03:28 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Donetsk and those other cities they don't. Nor do the people there, majority, want to be in Russia.

They may still want to secede, however. The Donbas region has a secessionist past. In 1918, during the Russian Civil War, they tried to form the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic, but the German Army occupied them and they were integrated in Ukraine. This was their flag in 1918:



and here's the flag of the recently self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic:

Post: #53

Guys who had boots on the ground in Ukraine, what's up with this map? It shows part of a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine coming from Belarus (Polessya Group). I don't get that. I can't see Belarus/Lukashenko allowing that.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014...arys_house

http://www.businessinsider.com/map-russi...ine-2014-4

   

I wonder if Putin could somehow get Lukashenko to allow Belarus to merge into Russia... maybe the #3 spot in the Russian govt behind Medvedev? I get the impression Lukashenko has a better grasp of dealing with the west than Medvedev. Medvedev may be the good cop to Putin's bad cop, but I still think he's a bit soft and doesn't command respect from within.

I'm going to go on the record with what I think is going to happen. By hook or crook I think Russia will get about half of Ukraine up to Transdniester. The west already sees it lost Ukraine, but it will use this opportunity to escalate in order to cause Russia bad PR and firm up allies against "an aggressive Russia." I think Russia will make it's move right after the West hits them with harder sanctions. At that point the West will have given Putin all he needs to know. If Russia is going to get hit with real sanctions, no point not getting something out of it (1/2 of Ukraine).

Russia probably could eat up Ukraine peacefully over time like Hitler did with Austria and Sudetenland, but I think the west will escalate to cause Ukrainian bloodshed. (Hitler swallowed up all of Czechoslovakia without a fight, but Putin has no interest in swallowing up all of Ukraine.) I don't see any real bloodshed in eastern Ukraine due to how better organized the pro-Russians seem compared to anti-Russians and the passive silent majority of ethnic Russians would don't want to be part of Russia but who won't resist it. May be some bloodshed in central part of Ukraine, but probably nothing Russia can't handle since the geography doesn't lend itself to Chechen type resistance.

I don't see Russia stopping at the Dnieper. It juts too far east in the south. I think with a nothing to lose attitude, Russia will look to taking everything from just west of Kiev straight down to the western part of Transdniester. Not smart to leave a major city like Kiev to the rump Ukrainian country. I don't think Russia could split Kiev either, western side of Dnieper to Ukraine and eastern side to Russia because it'll be hard to defend infiltrations into Russia in a divided city like that. Not sure if Russia would allow NATO into the Ukrainian rump state.

Russia would ideally prefer Ukraine as a buffer (with or without 1/2 of it annexed to Russia), but at this point clearly sees an independent Ukraine as always causing Russia problems due to western interference so it's best to just put the issue to rest and deal with the consequences from the west.

I called my shot. What do you guys think?

Post: #54

That's a bit far out there man. Unless Putin can somehow engineer a really strong pretext for occupying most of Ukraine, he won't have nearly enough support at home for such a drastic move, - Russians won't willingly march into Ukraine without a clear understanding why it needs to be done. I can't even think what that pretext may be - maybe blowing a nuclear station or two by neo nazis, that type of thing, Chernobyl 2.0? - which would demonstrate complete inability of Ukrainians to self-organize and invite West/Russia to split the country and manage it that way.

I think the more likely scenario is for Putin to keep meddling in east Ukraine: if Putin can get Lugansk, Donetsk and Kharkov, that's a major success. Ukraine will never agree and as a country with a territorial conflict, they can't be accepted to NATO as per their chapter, - that should be good enough.

Post: #55

(04-16-2014 04:33 PM)rover Wrote:  That's a bit far out there man. Unless Putin can somehow engineer a really strong pretext for occupying most of Ukraine, he won't have nearly enough support at home for such a drastic move, - Russians won't willingly march into Ukraine without a clear understanding why it needs to be done. I can't even think what that pretext may be - maybe blowing a nuclear station or two by neo nazis, that type of thing, Chernobyl 2.0? - which would demonstrate complete inability of Ukrainians to self-organize and invite West/Russia to split the country and manage it that way.

I think the more likely scenario is for Putin to keep meddling in east Ukraine: if Putin can get Lugansk, Donetsk and Kharkov, that's a major success. Ukraine will never agree and as a country with a territorial conflict, they can't be accepted to NATO as per their chapter, - that should be good enough.

Taking Ukraine with its debt is like taking in homeless old men.

Post: #56

Latest VICE News footage of a police station being stormed by pro-Russia protesters:

Post: #57

Nice video, - holy shit, that crowd was pretty large and vicious, for a small shithole city. I can see why we there aren't any western nationalist forces in the East trying to restore order: they simply won't make it out alive.

Post: #58

(04-16-2014 04:33 PM)rover Wrote:  That's a bit far out there man.

I think the more likely scenario is for Putin to keep meddling in east Ukraine: if Putin can get Lugansk, Donetsk and Kharkov, that's a major success. Ukraine will never agree and as a country with a territorial conflict, they can't be accepted to NATO as per their chapter, - that should be good enough.

I agree it's a little far out there at this point. But not if the West keeps escalating. If future sanctions are severe enough, that's like a declaration of war. At that point, Russia essentially has nothing to lose. And if Russia doesn't completely mop up Ukraine pretty soon (but after possible future sanctions imposed before Russia even puts troops in Ukraine) then it will have unfinished business with future problems Ukraine will cause due to the west's unending interference. So better to take care of it now while Russia is in a relatively strong position. Plus, if Russia is going to get penalized simply due to interference in eastern Ukraine, might as well make it worth the effort and go all in. Crimea isn't enough of a reward.

Jim, how much debt does Ukraine have and to who? Around $73 billion, right... and Russia wouldn't have to assume all of it. If a lot of that is owed to Russia, Russia can simply assume the debt it is owed. Whatever the debt cost is, it's cheap when considering the gas/oil reserves Russia gets and other money savings that pays for the added costs elsewhere. Cheap price to pay for prime real estate. What's the price for the stability it gives Russia geopolitically which frees it up to focus on other strategic areas now that Ukraine can no longer be used as a dagger. Plus Russia can confiscate the wealth of anti-Russian oligarchs that is tied up in Ukraine and use that money to help pay for things. Not like they earned it.

Not sure what Russia would do with the millions of non pro-Russian people in the eastern and southern areas. They're not needed or wanted.

Post: #59

Obama was saying on CNN that Russia told him that they won't invade Ukraine and that it saw on zero hedge

Post: #60

(04-16-2014 01:00 PM)soup Wrote:  This might not be WWIII but it seems like start of Cold War II.

Democracy Now: Stephen Cohen on Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Quote:Are we seeing the beginning of a new Cold War, Professor Cohen? And what exactly is happening right now in Ukraine?

STEPHEN COHEN: Those are big questions. We are not at the beginning of the Cold War, a new one; we are well into it—which alerts us to the fact, just watching what you showed up there, that hot war is imaginable now, for the first time in my lifetime, my adult lifetime, since the Cuban missile crisis, hot war with Russia. It’s unlikely, but it’s conceivable. And if it’s conceivable, something has to be done about it.

Post: #61

Putin: Kharkiv and Odessa are not Ukraine.

Quote:Russia’s president laid out new territorial claims.

South-eastern regions of Ukraine, according to him, were conquered by Russian military leaders and given under control of Kyiv “in mid-twenties of past century”. “These are Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Odessa were not parts of Ukraine in the tsarist times. These are all territories, given away by the Soviet government in the twenties. Why they did that, God knows”, - Russia’s president claimed during a direct line session taking place today.

Post: #62

The latest VICE News dispatch is utterly surreal:

Post: #63

^^^ Props to Vice news for their coverage of this. I have not seen anything that compares.

Post: #64

(04-17-2014 12:50 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Putin: Kharkiv and Odessa are not Ukraine.

Quote:Russia’s president laid out new territorial claims.

South-eastern regions of Ukraine, according to him, were conquered by Russian military leaders and given under control of Kyiv “in mid-twenties of past century”. “These are Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Odessa were not parts of Ukraine in the tsarist times. These are all territories, given away by the Soviet government in the twenties. Why they did that, God knows”, - Russia’s president claimed during a direct line session taking place today.

Odessa: Putin does not speak for Odessa.

Post: #65

Texas: Obama does not speak for Texas.
Ukraine: Turchynov does not truly speak for Ukraine.

Post: #66

I don't think the South and East would ever break away on their own, but Crimea shows that if a foreign power initiates and supports it, they may be support for it.

Going back to the stats on Euromaidan deaths, you can see that the split is as strong as ever:
   

7 from the South/East’s population of 20 million = 0.35 per million
93 from Centre/West’s population of 25 million = 3.72 per million
So Central/Western Ukrainians were 1063% (3.72/0.35) more likely to be nationalist revolutionaries than Southern/Eastern Ukrainians.


The real question is what a breakaway republic would become... I'm not sure that Russia would accept Donetsk and Lugansk as part of its own territory, but may support them militarily.

Post: #67

^^^The fact that half of Crimea's voting age citizens were pensioners helped! Tell me how many citizens wouldn't agree to change flag if it offered 2.5x pension increase and lower energy prices .Compare that 2 the fascist Kiev gov't that decided to IMF loans that increase energy and might even lower pensions.heck is Kenya offered to pay me higher pension I would accept!
That being said..it is very common in Ukraine NOT to pay utility bills. I hear that folks a going to protest by just refusing to pay the bills at all.It is centralized so no risk of being cut off.

@Dave...notice how no one died from Odessa, Nikoliev and Kherson? Figures no one from the 3 pirate cities would risk their necks!

Post: #68

From the archive of the eXile: Donetsk Paper Tigers (December 2004)

A couple of passages:

Quote:Donetsk is a fascist city. I'm not using this term in the cheap way that it gets bandied around at a dinner table discussion between Republicans and Democrats. Donetsk actually is fascist. There is one party, people get beaten for opposition views, information is controlled, nationalist sentiment is enflamed with insane rhetoric about America/NATO plots to enslave Ukraine, and fear is the main motivating factor. It's no coincidence that this is the side which Putin and the Russians are supporting. The "objective" Western press reports from there hide this fact by trying to "present both sides," but I was just there, and there is no "other side."

Quote:While you wouldn't know it by watching Russian TV, maybe the only two cities in Ukraine where there are not Yushchenko rallies that outnumber the Yanukovich rallies are Lugansk and Donetsk. According to my friends in the heavily Russian Kharkov, for example, active Yushchenko supporters outnumber active Yanukovich supporters four to one. One reason why Lugansk and Donetsk are an exception is because every time Yushchenko's people try to organize a rally there, they get beaten. Another is because the vast majority of those two regions really do support Yanukovich. So what gives?

Post: #69

(04-19-2014 04:18 PM)DaveR Wrote:  7 from the South/East’s population of 20 million = 0.35 per million
93 from Centre/West’s population of 25 million = 3.72 per million
So Central/Western Ukrainians were 1063% (3.72/0.35) more likely to be nationalist revolutionaries than Southern/Eastern Ukrainians.

Just realised that the total (100) included police officers, so the figures should be:

7 from the South/East’s population of 20 million = 0.35 per million
77 from Centre/West’s population of 25 million = 3.08 per million
Central/Western Ukrainians were 880% (3.08/0.35) more likely to be nationalist revolutionaries than Southern/Eastern Ukrainians.

Post: #70

(04-19-2014 02:18 PM)rastignac Wrote:  Odessa: Putin does not speak for Odessa.

Apparently everyone now must be cautious about speaking in Russian at all or else he might come to "rescue" you.

Post: #71

(04-16-2014 05:07 PM)Icarus Wrote:  Latest VICE News footage of a police station being stormed by pro-Russia protesters:

One thing I didn't understand - why was it so important for the mob to have the man in the ambulance kneel? I thought that he was going to be lynched, and then all of sudden they decided that it's enough and went away.

Post: #72

(04-20-2014 03:00 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  One thing I didn't understand - why was it so important for the mob to have the man in the ambulance kneel? I thought that he was going to be lynched, and then all of sudden they decided that it's enough and went away.

Because in Orthodoxy, kneeling is used to admit guilt (repentance) and ask God for forgiveness. Orthodox believers don't kneel during mass or when praying as Catholics and Protestants do - it's used only for a specific purpose.

Post: #73

(04-20-2014 03:23 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 03:00 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  One thing I didn't understand - why was it so important for the mob to have the man in the ambulance kneel? I thought that he was going to be lynched, and then all of sudden they decided that it's enough and went away.

Because in Orthodoxy, kneeling is used to admit guilt (repentance) and ask God for forgiveness. Orthodox believers don't kneel during mass or when praying as Catholics and Protestants do - it's used only for a specific purpose.

Also, after the Kiev Uprising two months ago, the protesters "forced" the Berkut to kneel:









The Berkut policemen came mostly from Crimea and Donbas, apparently, since those were the regions most loyal to Yanukovych. I suppose the separatist protesters in Donetsk think along the lines of:

"You forced our guys to kneel, now we force your guys to kneel. An eye for an eye."

Post: #74

(04-20-2014 03:23 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 03:00 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  One thing I didn't understand - why was it so important for the mob to have the man in the ambulance kneel? I thought that he was going to be lynched, and then all of sudden they decided that it's enough and went away.

Because in Orthodoxy, kneeling is used to admit guilt (repentance) and ask God for forgiveness. Orthodox believers don't kneel during mass or when praying as Catholics and Protestants do - it's used only for a specific purpose.

Yep. When I did my first confession in my church (I'm orthodox), my priest had me kneel for the duration.

Post: #75

Latest VICE News dispatch: