Ukraine and Russia where will this go? AKA Ukraine VIII

[Hereward]

I'm watching it via satellite. RT broadcasts across a number of satellites, in your case via two Hotbird satellites. In order to jam it, someone would have to block the whole of both satellite, so you would be losing 15-20 other channels and so would the rest of Europe. You'd notice and so would the broadcast geek community, who would scream blue murder. Not happening. Likely to be local technical issues.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Skagg,

It's the sinister Belgian government. This is their first move on the road to world domination. Russia needs to land Spetzsnatz in Brussels ASAP.

;)

[SkaggCannibal]

Lol I'm not accusing anyone from censoring my favorite newschannel, just sad I couldn't get my daily dose of Russian propaganda. :(

[The Iceman of the North]

Maybe you have cable, or maybe you live in another country? It's still unwatchable here.

The issue is obviously the Belgian government, and it's fear of separatism spreading to their quiet corner.

[Ghjhero]

Vice dispatch #22 http://youtu.be/wetleAB1XmY

This isn't over just yet folks.

[thetitansbastard]

At this point you couldn't even make up a scenario in which the ouster of Yankuvich (whatever) backfired on the West more than it has. Totally mind-boggling, ironic situation we have. Crazy.

[Robin Of House Hill]

The west has proven to be a bunch of cowards. Putin has won. I can't say what I wish would happen to Russia because it is too ugly to suggest.

[Horza]

Specifically what should the West have done?

[Altherion]

At this point you couldn't even make up a scenario in which the ouster of Yankuvich (whatever) backfired on the West more than it has. Totally mind-boggling, ironic situation we have. Crazy.

Really? I don't think it has really backfired much yet. It's true, Russia managed to recover Crimea and this was expertly done: a clean, decisive operation that left practically no opportunity for anyone to do anything about it. They didn't manage to round up much international support, but they don't need it -- there's no way Ukraine is getting Crimea back. The sanctions so far are relatively toothless: they're against individuals and those have already been compensated.

However, in the grand scheme of things, Crimea is not that big of a deal. The victorious leaders of the coup have almost uncontested control of the remainder of Ukraine and judging by the reaction to the protests in the East as well as what happened to the Right Sector, they are much more adept at holding on to power than Yanukovich was. The country is firmly under the control of the oligarchs. The only serious contestants for the presidency are Poroshenko (chocolate magnate) and Tymoshenko while in the East (which isn't going to be very happy about this election) the only serious figure right now is Rinat Akhmetov (the richest man in Ukraine). All of these have some ties to crime, but all of them stand to benefit from cooperating with the Europe so the West can work with them.

I would summarize the situation from the perspective of the US and EU as "So far, so good". The real test will be the next year or so. Russia is obviously trying to inflict financial damage on the new government and while the IMF has given them loans, IMF money never comes without strings. To answer your challenge, I can definitely think of a scenario where things get much, much worse for the pro-European government than they currently are and then the coup will backfire.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Russia is going to squeeze the new Ukraine like you won't believe.

Legally through gas prices and other measures, and illegally through covert operations and support for insurgents.

This ride is only just beginning.

[Horza]

Really? I don't think it has really backfired much yet. It's true, Russia managed to recover Crimea and this was expertly done: a clean, decisive operation that left practically no opportunity for anyone to do anything about it. They didn't manage to round up much international support, but they don't need it -- there's no way Ukraine is getting Crimea back. The sanctions so far are relatively toothless: they're against individuals and those have already been compensated.

One thing that tends to be assumed in a lot of commentary is that Russia gained a great prize by taking Crimea, when actually by doing so they've taken a large bloc of reliably pro-Russian votes out of Ukraine, given Kiev a rallying grievance and assumed about $6bn in economic liabilities for no real security gain. It's from this that I conclude that this isn't really a calculated move on the Kremlin's part but a retaliation, as they had a large array of subtle levers against Kiev and this move has actually removed many of them in order to make an overt threat.

[Robin Of House Hill]

The west has proven to be a bunch of cowards. Putin has won. I can't say what I wish would happen to Russia because it is too ugly to suggest.

First, enough economic sanctions to put their economy back into the toilet. Second, anything short of war, including NATO membership for Ukraine.

[slayer420]

maybe they could do another reset :lol:

[Horza]

First, enough economic sanctions to put their economy back into the toilet. Second, anything short of war, including NATO membership for Ukraine.

Is wiping out almost an entire year's GDP growth a good start? Because that's pretty much what's going to happen already, without sanctions.

As Kudrin - who left the inner circle a couple of years ago in part because he wasn't willing to work with Putin in his current incarnation - says there, that's a price the Kremlin is willing to pay to make moves like this. I don't think that's going to change in the face of a strong sanctions regime, which per the Iran example is a big, complex involved project, not something you can whip up in a couple of months. Longer term, such measures might prise apart the elite coalition that supports Putin, but your stated expectations for this and other actions are that they would have forced Russia to stand down.

"Anything short of war" is a little vague. Does it mean stationing ground troops in Ukraine? Fighters? Missile defence batteries? How is the American public going to like that? How is that going to resolve the political issues inside Ukraine? What use are those troops going to be in the face of civil opposition from pro-Russian Ukrainians, or clashes between the two groups?

The idea that Nato membership (again, not a club you join at the front desk) even were it to be acceptable to the Ukrainian public, elite and Nato members would deter Russian aggression is also less than clear. In the short term it might stop overt measures at the cost of intensified subversion efforts and other forms of confrontation. The willingness of Ukrainian citizens, not only those with cultural and political sympathies for Russia to put up with permanent confrontation from a neighbour with significant economic and cultural ties might well be stretched to breaking point - at which point there could be a reverse-Euromaidan in Kiev. I guess more measures short of war would sort that out?

[The Marquis de Leech]

First, enough economic sanctions to put their economy back into the toilet. Second, anything short of war, including NATO membership for Ukraine.

Excellent. Let's add more fuel to the fire by expanding an organisation whose reason for existence is to oppose Russia, thereby ringing Russia with designated enemies. It's not as if Moscow would interpret that as a threat or anything...

[Shryke]

One thing that tends to be assumed in a lot of commentary is that Russia gained a great prize by taking Crimea, when actually by doing so they've taken a large bloc of reliably pro-Russian votes out of Ukraine, given Kiev a rallying grievance and assumed about $6bn in economic liabilities for no real security gain. It's from this that I conclude that this isn't really a calculated move on the Kremlin's part but a retaliation, as they had a large array of subtle levers against Kiev and this move has actually removed many of them in order to make an overt threat.

Yeah, I mean, Russia has managed to tank their economy, assume a costly liability, alienate most of the international community, send their neighbours running even further away from them and generally just push everyone into a more anti-Russian/Russian-wary stance.

What they've gained is Crimea.

Doesn't seem like much of a victory. This whole thing has always seemed rather reactionary and short-sighted on the Kremlin's part.

Meanwhile the only moves that aren't crazy that everyone else has about this are harder economic sanctions and it's already pretty bad for Russia anyway. The only one in any bind here is Ukraine, sadly, who may still have to bear the brunt of Russian cockwaving before this is all done.

Given the initial aggression, this has turned out not bad overall. Minimal casualties and lots of blowback for Russia.

[KAH]

First, enough economic sanctions to put their economy back into the toilet. Second, anything short of war, including NATO membership for Ukraine.

While NATO membership for the Ukraine is pretty much an impossibility in the current situation, the US could possibly achieve the same thing by issuing a guarantee for Ukraine's borders wrt Russia - i.e. that the US is willing to do anything to keep Russia out of Ukraine, including nuclear war.

If Russia then calls the bluff, the US would either have to show that it was just empty words, or it would have to go to war...and with the latter it would effectively have lost control over the situation. "Anything short of war" is thus trusting the Russians to not call the bluff. Moreover, if the US alternatively backs down, it will prove a dangerous precedent wrt other promises it has made, for instance wrt NATO.

I've grown up in a world with nuclear arsenals able to destroy the world many times over fixed at us and our allies. I want my daughter to grow up in a world with that burden minimized as much as possible.

Now that Putin has taken a step back in that direction, it is necessary to stabilize the situation. That means to reaffirm what NATO is, a defense organization for it's present full member states.

That means to reaffirm the lines Putin can not step over without actually having war.

Those lines are not Ukraine's eastern border, as they were not Georgia's borders, and we should not pretend that they are either. We should protect NATO's credibility to meet Russian aggression where it's supposed to be met, at all costs.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Is wiping out almost an entire year's GDP growth a good start? Because that's pretty much what's going to happen already, without sanctions.

As Kudrin - who left the inner circle a couple of years ago in part because he wasn't willing to work with Putin in his current incarnation - says there, that's a price the Kremlin is willing to pay to make moves like this. I don't think that's going to change in the face of a strong sanctions regime, which per the Iran example is a big, complex involved project, not something you can whip up in a couple of months. Longer term, such measures might prise apart the elite coalition that supports Putin, but your stated expectations for this and other actions are that they would have forced Russia to stand down.

"Anything short of war" is a little vague. Does it mean stationing ground troops in Ukraine? Fighters? Missile defence batteries? How is the American public going to like that? How is that going to resolve the political issues inside Ukraine? What use are those troops going to be in the face of civil opposition from pro-Russian Ukrainians, or clashes between the two groups?

The idea that Nato membership (again, not a club you join at the front desk) even were it to be acceptable to the Ukrainian public, elite and Nato members would deter Russian aggression is also less than clear. In the short term it might stop overt measures at the cost of intensified subversion efforts and other forms of confrontation. The willingness of Ukrainian citizens, not only those with cultural and political sympathies for Russia to put up with permanent confrontation from a neighbour with significant economic and cultural ties might well be stretched to breaking point - at which point there could be a reverse-Euromaidan in Kiev. I guess more measures short of war would sort that out?

The only thing that will stop Putin is the realization that the cost to Russia for what it is doing, will be an order of magnitude greater than anything he hopes to gain. He is trying to put an empire back together. It is in no one's interest outside Russia, for him to succeed.

Personally, I think economic sanctions so stringent that they make those in effect against Iran look like most favored nation status, and severe restrictions on the sale of technology to Russia, might do it.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Excellent. Let's add more fuel to the fire by expanding an organisation whose reason for existence is to oppose Russia, thereby ringing Russia with designated enemies. It's not as if Moscow would interpret that as a threat or anything...

While NATO membership for the Ukraine is pretty much an impossibility in the current situation, the US could possibly achieve the same thing by issuing a guarantee for Ukraine's borders wrt Russia - i.e. that the US is willing to do anything to keep Russia out of Ukraine, including nuclear war.

If Russia then calls the bluff, the US would either have to show that it was just empty words, or it would have to go to war...and with the latter it would effectively have lost control over the situation. "Anything short of war" is thus trusting the Russians to not call the bluff. Moreover, if the US alternatively backs down, it will prove a dangerous precedent wrt other promises it has made, for instance wrt NATO.

I've grown up in a world with nuclear arsenals able to destroy the world many times over fixed at us and our allies. I want my daughter to grow up in a world with that burden minimized as much as possible.

Now that Putin has taken a step back in that direction, it is necessary to stabilize the situation. That means to reaffirm what NATO is, a defense organization for it's present full member states.

That means to reaffirm the lines Putin can not step over without actually having war.

Those lines are not Ukraine's eastern border, as they were not Georgia's borders, and we should not pretend that they are either. We should protect NATO's credibility to meet Russian aggression where it's supposed to be met, at all costs.

The last time such an approach was tried, it failed. Sudetenland and Austria come to mind. I pointed out the parallels before.

pic.twitter.com/LWyuZIotX0

[Fez]

Considering how docile the Russian legislature is, I wonder if this happening at Putin's instigation or if a game of one-ups-manship is underway.

Still radiant over their annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, some members of Russia’s parliament are more nostalgic than ever for the Soviet Union. They are on the prowl for someone to blame for its loss. Why not 83-year-old Mikhail Gorbachev?

Five deputies of the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, have asked the nation’s prosecutor general to investigate Gorbachev, who was the president of the Soviet Union when it collapsed in 1991, the Izvestia newspaper reported Thursday.

Yevgeny Fyodorov, one of the deputies and a member of the dominant United Russia party, told Izvestia that the end of the Soviet Union had been a troublesome but unexamined issue for 23 years. The situation in Ukraine, he said, meant it could no longer be ignored — a reference to Moscow’s assertions that Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine are under threat. An investigation, he said, would shed light on “fifth columns” at work today.