Ukraine Crisis

[ag]

Ag really fucking hates Russians, lol (Russians who hate Russia tend to be interesting people, imo)

I love Russians. I have most of my family there, for god´s sake. I am being offered a great job in Russia right now that I would have been severely tempted to take - it is great on all counts, except that it is in Russia. This is, in fact, the main reason I so much hate the regime that is screwing that country.

[ag]

Ok. Let me set certain things straight.

Yes, I have been (deliberately) going somewhat over the top in this thread. Part of the reason, I need to vent - and better do this here, where I am, mostly, anonymous. In Russian all these days I have been a paragon of moderate reason and realism - gets very tiring after a while, believe me. Especially, when, truth be told, you are, indeed, in a state of severe panic.

There is a reason for that panic: unlike most of you, guys, I am seeing what is happening IN Russia. Ukraine is quite dear to me (most of my ancestors come from that country, and I spent a few delightful trips there), but, in the end, it is not what I know or care too much about. And, in any case, I am, actually, quite optimistic about Ukraine: if it manages to protect itself from Russia and stay, mostly, whole (with or without Crimea), it has a great future ahead. It is Russia, the country that I, really, love (believe it or not), that is looking extremely bad - and, indeed, dangerous.

There are many things that are scary there. But the main one is that the regime has been extremely successful in gradual nazification (I use the word advisedly) of the Russian society. Few of you guys, yet, realize what sort of a monster has been growing up there. This is just a first roar. It will be a lot worse, trust me.
 

[ag]

Not actually suggesting we do it but maybe the US and NATO should send some troops into Georgia at their request to take back the lands that Russia illegally took from them?

I guess you want to start World War 3 then.

He wants to avoid it.

[ag]

Yeah, to get back to Planet Earth for a moment... the Russian position does make sense from a Russian point of view. They feel like have been duped.

On February 21, Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the leaders of Batkivshchyna, UDAR, and Svoboda as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland that a national unity government will be formed which consists of Yanukovych's Party of Regions and the three aforementioned opposition parties. Yanukovych also agreed to hold presidential election in December of this year.

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/671350/publicationFile/190027/140221-UKR_Erklaerung.pdf

A day later, Yanukovych is suddenly removed from office. Subsequently, a government led by Batkivshchyna and excluding the Party of Regions is installed and elections are set for May. The Russians feel like the West and the Ukranian opposition have broken the rules, so they don't feel like obliged to follow the rules themselves in this matter.

That being said, the Russian position is of course not a very realistic one and stems from a state of denial. After all, Yanukovych was removed from office by a majority vote of parliament, just like the new Ukrainian government was voted in by the parliament.

The Russians are clinging - and this was confirmed by Putin's statement from today - to the fiction that the agreement from Feb. 21 is still in place and must be honoured. This leads to hilarious claims like the one that the Ukrainian parliament is recognized as a legitimate institution, while the government who was elected by the same parliament isn't.

Russia expected from all Ukrainian members of parliament to feel bound by the agreement (and to be precise, an Russian interpretation of the agreement) no matter how the situation evolves and despite the fact that only three Ukrainian MPs actually signed the agreement themselves. In essence, Putin expected the Ukrainian MPs to act like United Russia MPs in the Duma.

So, now we have to deal with the fact that Putin's expectations weren't met.

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

[ag]

Given the reaction of Germany and the UK against even temporary economic sanctions against Russia, and US reluctance to follow anything Obama says, there is nothing the west will do to stop Russia from a permanent occupation of Crimea, or even a full takeover of the country.

The Obama administration should simply drop the issue. The US -- Obama and Republicans both -- are clearly not the match for Putin. Even Russia's propaganda machine is better.

Well, in that case you, probably, should just give up on Europe. London will be Russian before long.

[ag]

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

Yeah, that's because Russia wasn't really happy with the contents of the agreement to begin with. As far as Putin is concerned he would have preferred that everything remains status quo in Ukraine: Yanukovych stays in power and the opposition remains the opposition. They tolerated that this agreement came to be, but they didn't want to give the impression that they're happy about it by actually signing it.

And now they didn't even get the agreement that was just tolerable to them in the first place. Logical conclusion for Putin: Screw it, let's occupy Crimea!

Like I said, it's neither a realistic nor a preferable (for pretty much any non-Russian anyway) point of view. But that's how it is.

No, it was not about the content. Putin explicitly sent as his representative a guy who was not allowed to sign anything - no matter what was there in the agreement. He wanted to keep his options entirely open. Whatever happened, he was going to find a pretext to act the way he liked.

As Lukin (Russian representative) was only flying to Kiev, the puzzled journalists asked Putin´s press officer, in which capacity was he going (everybody knew that Lukin was a nobody).  You know what was the answer? I am quoting: "in his own capacity".

[ag]

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

Yeah, that's because Russia wasn't really happy with the contents of the agreement to begin with. As far as Putin is concerned he would have preferred that everything remains status quo in Ukraine: Yanukovych stays in power and the opposition remains the opposition. They tolerated that this agreement came to be, but they didn't want to give the impression that they're happy about it by actually signing it.

And now they didn't even get the agreement that was just tolerable to them in the first place. Logical conclusion for Putin: Screw it, let's occupy Crimea!

Like I said, it's neither a realistic nor a preferable (for pretty much any non-Russian anyway) point of view. But that's how it is.

No, it was not about the content. Putin explicitly sent as his representative a guy who was not allowed to sign anything - no matter what was there in the agreement. He wanted to keep his options entirely open. Whatever happened, he was going to find a pretext to act the way he liked.

As Lukin (Russian representative) was only flying to Kiev, the puzzled journalists asked Putin´s press officer, in which capacity was he going (everybody knew that Lukin was a nobody).  You know what was the answer? I am quoting: "in his own capacity".

That's guesswork.

And Putin´s spokesman was just talking unauthorized nonsense, when he explicitly said that Lukin had no authority besides his own, yes?

It is "guesswork" a lot better grounded in facts than yours.

[ag]

You realize, Russia was never a party to that agreement. Not only Putin, when asked to send a representative, sent a nobody (literally, a nobody: a human rights ombudsman - a pathetic position on its own - whose term had finished the week before), but this representative explicitly refused to sign the agreement. It is a bit disingenuous to argue that you are upset that they are not following the agreement you opposed.

Yeah, that's because Russia wasn't really happy with the contents of the agreement to begin with. As far as Putin is concerned he would have preferred that everything remains status quo in Ukraine: Yanukovych stays in power and the opposition remains the opposition. They tolerated that this agreement came to be, but they didn't want to give the impression that they're happy about it by actually signing it.

And now they didn't even get the agreement that was just tolerable to them in the first place. Logical conclusion for Putin: Screw it, let's occupy Crimea!

Like I said, it's neither a realistic nor a preferable (for pretty much any non-Russian anyway) point of view. But that's how it is.

No, it was not about the content. Putin explicitly sent as his representative a guy who was not allowed to sign anything - no matter what was there in the agreement. He wanted to keep his options entirely open. Whatever happened, he was going to find a pretext to act the way he liked.

As Lukin (Russian representative) was only flying to Kiev, the puzzled journalists asked Putin´s press officer, in which capacity was he going (everybody knew that Lukin was a nobody).  You know what was the answer? I am quoting: "in his own capacity".

That's guesswork.

And Putin´s spokesman was just talking unauthorized nonsense, when he explicitly said that Lukin had no authority besides his own, yes?

It is "guesswork" a lot better grounded in facts than yours.

Anyway, it was then that I knew that the war was extremely likely. And, unfortunately, I was right.

[ag]

Everybody is missing an important point.

Cameron and Merkel shouldn't be trusted, because they are so weak.

Everybody knew that day before yesterday.

[ag]

In any case, I may be a panicked wreck, but, at least, I know my facts here. I have known who Lukin (Putin´s emissary to Kiev in February) is for over 20 years now - and I know exactly what sending him, and not anybody else, means.  I have forgotten more about Russian politics and society then most of you, guys, know. There is a reason I am freaking out.

[ag]

Anyway, it was then that I knew that the war was extremely likely. And, unfortunately, I was right.

Wait a minute. Is there a war ?

Well, a big chunk of a country has been occupied. There has been some shooting. It is a war in my book. Though, of course, it will be worse.

You French should know more about the Drôle de guerre

[ag]

From the mouth of the horse leader today:

"Listen to me. Listen to me carefully. I want you to understand me exactly. If we make such a decision - only to defend Ukrainian citizens. Understand me. And let any serviceman shoot his own people. We will be standing behind them. Not in front, but behind. Let them shoot women and children. I would like to see who is going to give such an order in Ukraine"

[ag]

If ag is right, then you'll all have to eat your hats. Not because of that but because all food will be irradiated.

And so will be the hats Anyways tortillas should be fine

Nah, we will survive   As I said, I am venting. There is a reason I am venting, though.

[ag]

Hillary Clinton channels ag.

Madame secretary knows her history. And, what is more important, she knows Putin.

[ag]

EU could make exceptions in situations like this.

If Russia wants to play imperialism again, I can see a "fast track" scenario where Turkey and Ukraine could join the organization in little time. Both nations have a high HDI (in fact, Ukraine is more developed than Turkey).

This would basically make the CSU run amok in Germany. In fact, Seehofer would probably prefer a Ukraine which is fully annexed by Russia over a Turkey which holds full EU membership.

Don't know. After this we will live in other geopolitical scenario.

And I don't think that bavarians would prefer Russia over Turkey.

Until the US cancels restrictions on oil exports, you are, unfortunately, not in much position to talk.

[ag]

Some of you are in a complete panic over naught. The Russian military with all the huff and puff is a unable to fight a truly large conflict (and by all means war across Ukraine isn't a LIC what so ever), I worked with Russian military during my service, it has functioning parts but overall it's incapable of sustained mass conflict.

German military wasn´t in too good shape in 1937 either.

[ag]

EU could make exceptions in situations like this.

If Russia wants to play imperialism again, I can see a "fast track" scenario where Turkey and Ukraine could join the organization in little time. Both nations have a high HDI (in fact, Ukraine is more developed than Turkey).

This would basically make the CSU run amok in Germany. In fact, Seehofer would probably prefer a Ukraine which is fully annexed by Russia over a Turkey which holds full EU membership.

Don't know. After this we will live in other geopolitical scenario.

And I don't think that bavarians would prefer Russia over Turkey.

Until the US cancels restrictions on oil exports, you are, unfortunately, not in much position to talk.

¿Perdón? Esa expresión sonó bastante personal xd.

It is an established expression in English. Nothing personal - if anything, quite hackneyed. Or am I mistaken and you are not an American?

[ag]

EU could make exceptions in situations like this.

If Russia wants to play imperialism again, I can see a "fast track" scenario where Turkey and Ukraine could join the organization in little time. Both nations have a high HDI (in fact, Ukraine is more developed than Turkey).

This would basically make the CSU run amok in Germany. In fact, Seehofer would probably prefer a Ukraine which is fully annexed by Russia over a Turkey which holds full EU membership.

Don't know. After this we will live in other geopolitical scenario.

And I don't think that bavarians would prefer Russia over Turkey.

Well, they would certainly oppose admitting Russia to the EU as well. But this isn't the issue.

Naturally, what he was talking was Bavaria being admitted into Russia

[ag]

EU could make exceptions in situations like this.

If Russia wants to play imperialism again, I can see a "fast track" scenario where Turkey and Ukraine could join the organization in little time. Both nations have a high HDI (in fact, Ukraine is more developed than Turkey).

This would basically make the CSU run amok in Germany. In fact, Seehofer would probably prefer a Ukraine which is fully annexed by Russia over a Turkey which holds full EU membership.

Don't know. After this we will live in other geopolitical scenario.

And I don't think that bavarians would prefer Russia over Turkey.

Until the US cancels restrictions on oil exports, you are, unfortunately, not in much position to talk.

Could you expound on why the US not exporting oil matters (and keep in mind it is exporting quite a bit of finished product to Europe.

It did not matter before the recent expansion of US oil output. But, at this point, there is an increasing gap emerging between US and world oil prices (yes, of course, this is only possible because not oil is exactly the same, but still). It will be growing. We need a unified world oil market.

[ag]

The West and Russia both seem to support self-determination when it's convenient and oppose it when it isn't.

SELF-determination would have been fine

[ag]

Vladimir Putin is obviously not Hitler. Not quite, anyway.

Hitler believed in the racial superiority of his people and that they deserved a Lebensraum which consisted of almost all of Eastern Europe as well as parts of Asia... including territories which at no point in history had been by Germany in any way.

Putin doesn't believe in any of this. He most likely believes - being an old school KGB officer and all - that Russia deserves to control a sphere of influence which is more or less identical to the boundaries of the old Soviet Union. Maybe (and hopefully) without the Baltic republics... hopefully because that could cause real trouble. But I assume that Putin knows very well that as long as NATO exists that any direct aggression against the Baltics automatically triggers Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and this means World War III. And I also doubt that Putin believes in "victory or death" like Hitler did.

There's one parallel between Hitler and Putin though. Both men believed that the rules don't apply to them as long as they find a way to get away with it. In essence, they believed in military power and that international law is just something written on a piece of paper.

What does this mean for "the West"? It means that the West has to deal with someone who belives that everything is fair game as long as it happens on the former territory of the Soviet Unions (sans the Baltic republics).

Now that's my take on Godwin.

The guy was the KGB chief in Dresden. Are you SURE Baltics would be the only problem?

[ag]

Lol Yakunovitch. At least, if he dies, the temporary government in Ukraine couldn't be contested .

Actually, he may have been a somewhat better man than one would have thought. If he really refused to utter the call for the Russians to come in and lost his life for that, this is a big deal.

[ag]

The Foreign Ministry of Estonia (a country not exactly friendly with Moscow) raises questions about who was responsible for the sniper fire during the Maidan protests.

Would you mind first, actually, bothering to read the transcript of the conversation, before posting this here. It has been made public.

[ag]

Anyone think this will lead to WW3? I hope not...

No. It's looking more and more likely that the West will acquiesce to Russia annexing Crimea under the guise of their phony referendum while giving them a slap on the wrist with sanctions. The real trouble will come if Russia ever tries this with a NATO country.

Which, unless this is made painful, will happen earlier, than you think.

Crimea is, probably, as good as anschlussed. There will be no war in 2014.

[ag]

ag, I just wanted to say that reading this thread, I appreciate how absolutely right you are. If the West were to follow your approach, Russia could be perhaps broken for good. You should be Secretary of State.

I do not want Russia broken, for good or temporarily. I grew up there. The reason I want Russia contained is precisely that I do not want a war, which would break a lot more than Russia (and may kill many of those dear to me there). At this point we can just hope it is done in time.

No, I should not be Secretary of State God forbid

Anyway, an interesting tidbit. There was only one country back in 1938 that officially protested against Anschluss at the League of Nations. And it was Mexico.