Ukraine IX A victory for The West, Putin or Ukraine?

[E-Ro]

It's a bit asymmetric though. When he puts troops near Ukraine, there is very real possibility that those troops will march into Ukraine. When we put troops near Russia, there is practically no chance of them actually marching into Russia (at least I hope not -- I kind of like this planet) or even into Ukraine.

The troops being there is enough to bother Putin, and enough to reassure our allies. There doesn't have to be a threat of moving into Russia for them to serve their purpose. And anyway, the role of America/NATO in this is to defend against aggression, not to START it. Sending troops to Estonia and Poland is a fair move.

Is it we already, Ser Barristan?

We as in The United States. United we stand, divided we fall.

[jurble]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNig07RtWxA

New Vice clip. Really demonstrates the crappy state of the Ukrainian military. I have a hard time imagining they'd last even a day against Russia.

[Horza]

This doesn't reflect on the fighting capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces, just what passes for strategic vision amongst the idiots in charge.

Sending APCs into opposition towns was always going to result in them being surrounded by pissed off locals, creating an impossible situation. This is why you don't send infantry for police/special operations, all they've got is live ammo and that's a terrible method of crowd control.

[Ghjhero]

This doesn't reflect on the fighting capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces, just what passes for strategic vision amongst the idiots in charge.

Sending APCs into opposition towns was always going to result in them being surrounded by pissed off locals, creating an impossible situation. This is why you don't send infantry for police/special operations, all they've got is live ammo and that's a terrible method of crowd control.

So what should they have done?

[Horza]

So what should they have done?

What they did the next day: call off the "antiterrorist operation". They didn't have the local security forces on side, their elite forces were ambushed on the outskirts of Slaviansk a few days earlier, sending in regular troops wasn't going to work. The locals in Slaviansk and Kramatorsk were well and truly alienated (the rest of the region would rather not choose sides) and that's the root of the problem - Kiev lacks the legitimacy it needs to disarm separatists without causing a bloodbath. That's a political problem, not an operational one.

[Robin Of House Hill]

The thread title asks the question, "A victory for The West, Putin or Ukraine?" The answer is obvious. Ukraine doesn't have a military that can stand up to Russia. The western powers are doing nothing but wringing their hands. Putin has made his land grab, unchallenged and is likely to do it again. Putin has won, by default.

[grumdin]

The thread title asks the question, "A victory for The West, Putin or Ukraine?" The answer is obvious. Ukraine doesn't have a military that can stand up to Russia. The western powers are doing nothing but wringing their hands. Putin has made his land grab, unchallenged and is likely to do it again. Putin has won, by default.

It seems the Ukraine is being offered a choice, either accept living in the Russian sphere of influence or see the bits with Russian majorities peel off and join the motherland. Putin has no need to provoke violence with Russian agents, the post USSR Ukrainian government(s) have been an utter disaster on every metric. Pre Soviet collapse Ukraine had a per capita GDP higher than Poland now the Poles earn three times more. Why wouldn't the Russians living there, who are only 'Ukrainian' because Lenin/Stalin decreed it, NOT want to peel off from a failed state? Patriotism??

It seems inevitable to me that Putin will get his way because that's what the folks on the ground want. Why Obama is spending so much political capital in a doomed attempt to stop this is beyond me. As a nice side effect his posturing has driven Russia ever more firmly into the Chinese embrace, which many Russians don't want seeing China as more of a long term existential threat than the USA/NATO. So when this is all wrapped up Ukraine will be under Russian sway, the petro dollar will be under enormous pressure as the Russians strike bilateral deals (especially if the threat of sanctions become realized) and we will have shot ourselves in the foot multiple times with nothing to show for it. It takes a special kind of idiot to come up with this as a foreign policy.

[Suttree]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html?_r=0&referrer=

KIEV, Ukraine For two weeks, the mysteriously well-armed, professional gunmen known as green men have seized Ukrainian government sites in town after town, igniting a brush fire of separatist unrest across eastern Ukraine. Strenuous denials from the Kremlin have closely followed each accusation by Ukrainian officials that the world was witnessing a stealthy invasion by Russian forces.

Now, photographs and descriptions from eastern Ukraine endorsed by the Obama administration on Sunday suggest that many of the green men are indeed Russian military and intelligence forces equipped in the same fashion as Russian special operations troops involved in annexing the Crimea region in February. Some of the men photographed in Ukraine have been identified in other photos clearly taken among Russian troops in other settings.

[Doireidh]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html?_r=0&referrer=

For the people who haven't read the article, the photographs mentioned as evidence are these.

While I personally believe that the Russians are backing the protesters, without needing any evidence (as someone pointed out in the last thread, it's only logical that they'll be there), these low-quality photos aren't really convincing since you can't see anything clearly.

We have:

1. One guy with a beard that looks like another guy with a beard.

2. I have no idea who's supposed to be who on this group of photos, none of the guys on the left look like any of the guys on the right. I guess the guy with the beard kinda looks like the guy with the beard above.

3. One helmet "appears similar" to another helmet.

4. The uniform, ammo pouches and the pants are clearly not the same. All balaklavas look the same. The gloves you can't see clearly on the right picture.

If the Ukrainian Government really identified these people as Russian military/special forces, they did a really poor job of presenting the evidence.

[Ramsay Gimp]

This isn't about shooting Russians. Its about showing Putin that we can station troops on his border. Its a nice fuck you to him. He puts troops near Ukraine, we put some troops near Russia.

You don't see the large difference between these two things?

Ukraine is in Russia's front yard, was formerly part of its empire, and contains a bunch of ethnic Russians and Russian-sympathizers. It's a vital national interest to Russia, not to the U.S.

[Robin Of House Hill]

You don't see the large difference between these two things?

Ukraine is in Russia's front yard, was formerly part of its empire, and contains a bunch of ethnic Russians and Russian-sympathizers. It's a vital national interest to Russia, not to the U.S.

It is in the national interest of the US to curtail Russian power, just like it is in the interests of any entity to keep its competitors from gaining an advantage.

[Ramsay Gimp]

It is in the national interest of the US to curtail Russian power, just like it is in the interests of any entity to keep its competitors from gaining an advantage.

I disagree that weakening Russia is inherently good, and even if true Ukraine is much more "vital" to Russia than to the U.S. Unless you also think America and Russia have an equal interest in who rules Mexico, or Puerto Rico

[Shryke]

For the people who haven't read the article, the photographs mentioned as evidence are these.

While I personally believe that the Russians are backing the protesters, without needing any evidence (as someone pointed out in the last thread, it's only logical that they'll be there), these low-quality photos aren't really convincing since you can't see anything clearly.

We have:

1. One guy with a beard that looks like another guy with a beard.

2. I have no idea who's supposed to be who on this group of photos, none of the guys on the left look like any of the guys on the right. I guess the guy with the beard kinda looks like the guy with the beard above.

3. One helmet "appears similar" to another helmet.

4. The uniform, ammo pouches and the pants are clearly not the same. All balaklavas look the same. The gloves you can't see clearly on the right picture.

If the Ukrainian Government really identified these people as Russian military/special forces, they did a really poor job of presenting the evidence.

NATO command is backing the assessment up:

http://www.aco.nato.int/saceur2013/blog/who-are-the-men-behind-the-masks.aspx

It’s hard to fathom that groups of armed men in masks suddenly sprang forward from the population in eastern Ukraine and systematically began to occupy government facilities. It’s hard to fathom because it’s simply not true. What is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organized and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia.

[Shryke]

It makes perfect sense if you understand what actually happened. The February deal was between Yanukovich and the three major opposition parties backing the protesters (Batkivschina, Svoboda and Udar) which now constitute the self-proclaimed government in Kiev. In fact, if you read it, it's signed personally by (among others) Yatseniuk who is currently the prime minister. We know how that deal worked out so the guys in Donetsk have no reason to trust the self-proclaimed government in Kiev

Except not, since the new government is not the same as those that signed the deal or the Maidan protesters, even if they have people in common and the other side of the deal (Yanukovych) has nothing to do with the current situation. On top of which, the deal fell apart for reasons having nothing to do with the current situation.

In general, your comparison makes no sense. Not unless you are under some sort of delusion of continuity between Maidan => New Government and Yanukovych => Eastern Protesters.

Many parts of the Ukrainian government didn't change and not all parts of the protests against he former government are part of the new government.

[Altherion]

Except not, since the new government is not the same as those that signed the deal or the Maidan protesters, even if they have people in common and the other side of the deal (Yanukovych) has nothing to do with the current situation. On top of which, the deal fell apart for reasons having nothing to do with the current situation.

In general, your comparison makes no sense. Not unless you are under some sort of delusion of continuity between Maidan => New Government and Yanukovych => Eastern Protesters.

Many parts of the Ukrainian government didn't change and not all parts of the protests against he former government are part of the new government.

Yanukovich has nothing to do with this at all beyond the fact that the leaders of the coup and subsequent self-proclaimed government made a deal with him that was violated almost immediately. If Alice cheats Bob, there need not be any continuity between Bob and Carol for Carol to mistrust Alice.

As to the continuity between the perpetrators of the coup and the resulting self-proclaimed government, yes, I do claim that it exists and this is very far from a delusion. All of the positions relevant to the security apparatus of the state and the highest levels of decision making (which is what the Donbass protesters care about) are controlled by the revolutionaries and their allies -- precisely the people who signed the February deal. They have elements of both the Maidan protesters and what used to be the opposition in the old government, but all of them are tied to the revolution; that's how they got their jobs.

[Lummel]

Victory or defeat is an unhelpful way of looking a situation with many parties and no common agreed objectives, it seems that for all of them there are grounds to see victory and defeat in the current state of affairs.

Putin has achieved a political legacy result (not everybody gets to preside over the extension of their state boundaries) and a popularity boost, but the immediate economic prospects are poor, Crimea will have to be subsidised for unseen amount of time into the future, tensions between Tatars and non-Tatars over land and construction are now the problem of the Russian Federation, neighbouring countries are going to be warier of Russia, European countries have been given a sharp incentive to intensify moves away from Russian hydrocarbons.

Ukraine has suffered a blow to national prestige, but as a result the national project becomes more important, giving autonomy to eastern regions is a loss of power to Kiev, but Donbass and Luhansk are currently subsided by Kiev - self government will mean that the new local devolved authorities will have to take the blame for closing mines and factories while Kiev can make political capital by blaming this on the incompetence of devolved bodies, the loss of crimea is also an economic benefit to Ukraine and a political blessing to any politician who isn't a fan of the Kremlin.

It's an ill wind that blows no good.

[Doireidh]

NATO command is backing the assessment up:

http://www.aco.nato.int/saceur2013/blog/who-are-the-men-behind-the-masks.aspx

*sigh* I'm starting to think that you don't read other people's posts carefully...

NATO command is backing the assessment that the Russians are behind the protesters, which I personally believe to be true (as I already said in my post).

NATO command didn't say anything about the pictures mentioned above (the pictures that my post was about).

Therefore, I don't see why you quoted me, as if your post was relevant to my post.

Also, you still haven't read the PM I sent you nearly a week ago.

[jurble]

Simon the Vice journalist was taken hostage today. Pro-Russians say they're going to release him.

[Doireidh]

Simon the Vice journalist was taken hostage today. Pro-Russians say they're going to release him.

"Vyacheslav Ponomarev, said that the militia has taken the American journalist, Simon Ostrovsky, hostage..."

"...Nobody abducted him, nobody is holding him hostage...said Ponomarev"

I'm confused. Is this a bad translation? The original report that everyone is referencing is http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2014/04/22/n_6102649.shtml and with Google Translate it says just that, which is a condratiction.

Edit: https://twitter.com/GrahamWP_UK/status/458671563702026241

the official self-defence position is indeed that Simon / Freddie are 'guests'

I guess that they were detained after all.

Edit2: Does anyone have any idea who's Freddie? Another journalist?

[Shryke]

*sigh* I'm starting to think that you don't read other people's posts carefully...

NATO command is backing the assessment that the Russians are behind the protesters, which I personally believe to be true (as I already said in my post).

NATO command didn't say anything about the pictures mentioned above (the pictures that my post was about).

Therefore, I don't see why you quoted me, as if your post was relevant to my post.

Because your post was about the Russians backing the protestors in general, and about Russian forces in the region and not just about the photos alone.

Whether you believe the photos or not is irrelevant to my point, which was that the assessment made based on the photos (that Russian troops are acting in Eastern Ukraine) is backed up via other channels (NATO in this case).

The photos are a means to an end, not an end. I'm pointing out that there is other evidence in favour of the conclusion the photos exist to support.

Also, you still haven't read the PM I sent you nearly a week ago.

And I never will. So stop fucking asking. You wanna say something to me, you can say it in public.