IGX

Fat Cat wrote:I'm conflicted. I personally have no objection to Russians or Ukrainians. That said, the Russian government has an officially anti-American and pro-Fascist position, so I'm kinda like, fuck 'em. While I don't feel like we should become involved, I don't see any harm in obstructing Putinovtsi ambitions. They know that they can't do shit to us militarily, but the cornerstone of their policy is to play on post-Iraq American isolationism, and to some extent your stance plays into that.

I'm on the other side. If forced to choose between the liberal fascists of Western Europe/Ukraine and the Conservative fascists of Russia, I kind of side with the Russians. Lucky for me, I'm neither and don't have to pick sides; I side with the USA. The best course of action is to drive the cost of oil and natural gas into the toilet and telling the Europeans to up their military spending. Ivan won't be pushing anyone around if his bank account is empty and his neighbors are armed to the teeth. If Ivan does want a war, let the faggot Europeans foot the bill in blood and treasure.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv_w_CGm7jY[/youtube]

Bill, what do you think is the "reasonable accommodation" that could be made. On the one hand, look at it from a Ukrainian nationalist perspective: no country wants to lose it's geographic integrity or have sections of it annexed by a neighbor. An example is in Russian Federation, people were not eager to simply let Chechnya break away, and violence followed. Certainly in American history, and in most all countries, separatism is viewed dimly.

But then I also see the eastern-Ukrainian, or ethnic Russian, point of view like the guy in the video. He seems so nice and normal, and all his points make sense to me. And there must be many more like him, I imagine, and they are not going to disappear.

So...what can be the compromise that will restore peace? If Ukraine takes it all, Russians won't be happy. If Russia takes it all, Ukraine won't be happy. Do you think an autonomous region within Ukraine would get support? Either way you get long term violence. Or partition into two states (i.e., East and West Ukraines, like Korea)? What is the middle path that both sides can live with?

"Do you think an autonomous region within Ukraine would get support?"
It would be good solution, but in today's situation...
It is exactly what they demanded in the start. But now i am not sure if it satisfy any side :(
I really don't know what solution will be good.
I just hope Russia will not got involved more than just supporting rebels.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The problem with these types of conflict is that the longer they go on, the more entrenched the political positions become, when what you really need is enough latitude to compromise. And that's as much true of the people in Kiev as Moscow, it's not like Maidan Revolution was a lawful or democratic regime change.

If the maps are correct, I foresee two problems for Ukraine:
1. Ukraine becomes landlocked, which hurts it's ability to export and import by sea.
2. Russia can completely bypass Ukraine in it's gas transmission in short order.
Ukraine's fucked if Russia wins this.

On that map "blue" part much bigger than Lugansk and Donetsk combined.

Wild Bill wrote:On that map "blue" part much bigger than Lugansk and Donetsk combined.

You mean the Black Sea?

Turdacious wrote:

Wild Bill wrote:On that map "blue" part much bigger than Lugansk and Donetsk combined.

You mean the Black Sea?

Blue, violet... dosen't matter how this color called in English.
I mean "Eastern" part on map you posted too big. All those regions are "pro-Ukrainian".

Wild Bill wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Wild Bill wrote:On that map "blue" part much bigger than Lugansk and Donetsk combined.

You mean the Black Sea?

Blue, violet... dosen't matter how this color called in English.
I mean "Eastern" part on map you posted too big. All those regions are "pro-Ukrainian".

Which parts exactly are pro-Ukrainian? I don't speak or read Russian or Ukrainian, and obviously don't follow this issue as closely as you do.

"Which parts exactly are pro-Ukrainian?"
Hm, may be i am not correctly said. I meant only UR12 and UR09 at war right now.
All others seems to be pro-Ukrainian.

Oh, and UR26 also pro-Russian.

Wild Bill wrote:"Which parts exactly are pro-Ukrainian?"
Hm, may be i am not correctly said. I meant only UR12 and UR09 at war right now.
All others seems to be pro-Ukrainian.

My bet is Russia won't be happy with anything less than a land bridge to Crimea. Say good bye to UR07 and UR15.

may be.
but i don't see any riots in others regions. At least big enough to support.

Wild Bill wrote:may be.
but i don't see any riots in others regions. At least big enough to support.

But how would those other regions vote if a referendum were put up?

Turdacious wrote:

Wild Bill wrote:may be.
but i don't see any riots in others regions. At least big enough to support.

But how would those other regions vote if a referendum were put up?

Don't know. Maybe 50/50. Or maybe even less of pro-russians. I only guessing, because i don't see any demonstrations in news.
But again, there was riot in Odessa
In any case - right now all is calm there.

Wife has remote relatives in Odessa, they say there shots during nights after maidan, but they don't know who shooting whom :)

Wild Bill wrote:On that map "blue" part much bigger than Lugansk and Donetsk combined.

To the west of UR06 is Transnistria (Trans Dniester Republic). Why isn't it on the map between Moldova and UR06?

and UR26 it is not Ukraine. Obsolete map :)

Yeah, we want to be involved in this mess.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pDK9JrbUp0[/youtube]

The Russians are definitely fanning the flames, but our Ukrainian friends are giving the Russian separatist plenty of ammunition. If you think for a second that the Ukrainians and their militias are being welcomed and or acting as liberators in eastern Ukraine, I have some swamp land to sell you.

The Russians got their act together, particularly in terms of asymmetrical warfare. Gone are the days of slow, drunk, corrupt, underpaid and incompetent conventional forces. The Russian GRU is running the entire operation in eastern Ukraine by providing spetsnaz leadership cadres, supplies, and former Russian military recruits to help fill the ranks of the separatist forces.

Also, I have been looking at Pro Separatist social media and alternative media sites and I have to tell you they are quite good. For example, the above video (that I couldn't get to embed for some reason) is from a youtube channel named anti-maiden. Plus, they have the finger prints of the Russian Government all over them. All of the sites are made for not just Western consumption, they are made for the Ukrainian and Russian population. The obvious goal is to demoralize the opposition with doubt and enrage the average Russian.

It doesn't matter what the western press or people think, Russia is winning the PR war with their own people. This is why sanctions will not work. Putin will point to these videos (real or faked) and he will say "This is why we suffer under sanctions." "This is why we are supporting the Separatist" and finally "This is why we are forced to invade Ukraine and annex New Russia" and the Russian people will accept the sanctions as their patriotic duty and the price they had to pay to save fellow Russians.

Unless something changes fast, all of eastern Ukraine is going to become New Russia.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pDK9JrbUp0[/youtube]

Thanks corpulent kitty.

Double post

This is an excellent that applies to what is going on. The West is thinking economic self-interest will be the leverage point.

The fundamental dictum guiding our diplomats and analysts has been that states and human collectives act in their own rational self-interest. This is utterly wrong, leading us to convoluted analyses that seek to justify our assumption, while guaranteeing diplomatic failure: It’s difficult to defeat an enemy or even negotiate with a partner whose moti¬vation you refuse to understand.

The fantasy claiming that states will act in their own rational self-interest is a product of late 18th- and 19th-century European self-delusion. Babble about enlightened self-interest made no sense when applied to a Promethean figure such as Napoleon — or to Britain’s or the Iberian population’s resistance to Napoleonic power. Accommodation, not confrontation, would have been the rational choice. The renowned 19th-centu¬ry Austrian diplomat Prince Klemens Metternich was the excep¬tion, not the rule, and popular revolutions soon would shake the continent as states consistently failed to act in their own enlight¬ened or rational self-interest. (We mistakenly equate reactionary politics with rational politics). The Prussian wars of aggression later in the 19th century masqueraded as Realpolitik but were, in fact, outbursts of nationalist fervor. Then came World War I, perhaps the most irrational major conflict in history.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/wars- ... otivators/

nafod wrote:This is an excellent that applies to what is going on. The West is thinking economic self-interest will be the leverage point.

The fundamental dictum guiding our diplomats and analysts has been that states and human collectives act in their own rational self-interest. This is utterly wrong, leading us to convoluted analyses that seek to justify our assumption, while guaranteeing diplomatic failure: It’s difficult to defeat an enemy or even negotiate with a partner whose moti¬vation you refuse to understand.

The fantasy claiming that states will act in their own rational self-interest is a product of late 18th- and 19th-century European self-delusion. Babble about enlightened self-interest made no sense when applied to a Promethean figure such as Napoleon — or to Britain’s or the Iberian population’s resistance to Napoleonic power. Accommodation, not confrontation, would have been the rational choice. The renowned 19th-centu¬ry Austrian diplomat Prince Klemens Metternich was the excep¬tion, not the rule, and popular revolutions soon would shake the continent as states consistently failed to act in their own enlight¬ened or rational self-interest. (We mistakenly equate reactionary politics with rational politics). The Prussian wars of aggression later in the 19th century masqueraded as Realpolitik but were, in fact, outbursts of nationalist fervor. Then came World War I, perhaps the most irrational major conflict in history.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/wars- ... otivators/

He's a bit off on Russia's military preparedness. Yeah, their conventional forces are nowhere near overhauled. However, the Russians realized something, they don't have to overhaul the conventional forces overnight. All they had to do was invest in maintaining their nuclear capabilities and establishing an asymmetrical warfare capably. When conventional forces pour across the Ukrainian border the war will already have been won. The Russians have been watching USA in our War against Jihadist and they've been learning.

I predict that as the Ukrainian offensive stalls (it already has), not only will Ukrainian forces break, but public support for the current Ukraine regime will break. Night after night of Ukrainian soldiers and national guard troops being shown dead, retreating west and or being marched through the streets as POWs will lead to panic and demonstrations. The current regime will collapse and the new regime will cry for peace. That Peace will be dictated by Putin.

If Putin doesn't start WWIII, the Russians will be dedicating statues to him in the decades to come.