Ukraine X

[SkaggCannibal]

In a town called Krasnoarmeisk, Ukrainian national guard opened fire on a crowd. I've seen a video online, and it's all sorts of weird. Dude literally gets shot, and the rest of the crowd continues to harass the guardsmen and act utterly undisturbed by the fact that a dude just got shot.

A video can be seen here (you see someone get shot). I don't really see the "undisturbed", they seem pretty shocked and indecisive at first of what to do, than move to separate the injured man from the armed National Guards men (who are still shooting in the sky), and after that they try to take care of the man that got shot.

[Horza]

I did read the link, did you? Cause it doesn't support anything you are claiming. Look at the next link right above this post of yours and you'll see how much territory they control. This is about far more then just a single police station and we've no idea why they were given orders to withdraw from the city. But none of this does anything to show this was an operation that the police or SWAT were capable of handling.

One last time, from your own link:

Until Friday, the pro-Russians in Mariupol controlled only one building: the local municipal headquarters. On Saturday, they were de facto masters of the entire city.

I don't know how more explicit that needs to be for you to get the point that Mariupol wasn't in separatist hands before the May 9 operation.

The eastern oligarchs can talk all they want, it hasn't done shit to change the attitudes or actions of the local rebel leaders. You know, they guys actually in charge of the armed men seizing territory in eastern Ukraine. Those are the guys you would be negotiating with. And you've still shown no evidence they have any interest in negotiation.

The rebel leaders aren't in charge of this campaign. They're ex-Berkut and ruffians who were rounded up to do a job. They've been helped and guided by the Russian security services and have benefited from the lawlessness brought by the local clans pulling the cops out. You negotiate with the people using the proxy, not the proxy itself.

And if you can't understand how the army are the only ones equipped to deal with the forces arrayed here, you haven't been reading anything on this situation despite any claims you've made otherwise. Even your post here is letting the argument slip by talking about using the police in a support capacity for the army, which would be a damn good idea though god knows if it's even possible given the situation.

Cause no matter how much you complain about it, the police are simply not numerous enough or armed enough or trained properly to take back the big swath of territory that the rebels have seized here. You keep refusing to acknolwedge that the alternative to the army is nothing and that's worse for any amount of legitimacy, law and order and control.

This would sound a lot more convincing if you weren't jumbling chronology to try and make this sound like a city recapture operation.

It wasn't. It was one building.

The city was lost when they burnt it down. You keep ignoring that, I guess because it's really uncomfortable for your 'the army is better than nothing' thesis. Which at this point rests on a misunderstanding of what happened in Mariupol and weighty, authoritative statements like:

The residents are certainly not happy about the army, but there's also no indication most are any happier about the rebels.

Which must have some really amazing sources behind it because every single report I've read on this - starting with your own - has emphasised how the army operation made locals feel like their government was attacking them and how that drove public opinion further away from Kiev. Any indication at all that the separatist cause hasn't been boosted by this (the city falling into their hands after the operation is clearly not proof enough) would be fine.

Again, Kiev's legitimacy won't survive doing nothing while an armed insurgency takes over

This has been a civil war already.Or a rebellion if you prefer that term, it doesn't make a difference in the response. They've armed themselves, seized government buildings, seized military assets and created parallel ruling structures and claimed sovereignty over the territory they've taken. By any definition that isn't both asinine and deliberately obtuse, this is a rebellion. It could obviously get worse, but you are being wilfully blind to the fact that it's already really fucking bad.

This is a pretty good representation of your shitty, obtuse style of argument. Big on empty semantics and impugning the other guy's intelligence but all you're really saying here is that you think because armed men have been seizing buildings there shouldn't be any restrictions on the use of the army. You don't want to engage with the points I've made as to why that might not be such a great idea so instead you attribute my disagreement to ignorance about the situation. Yeah, that has to be it, doesn't it?

Really, you seem to be opposed to using the army on principal rather then on any sort of practical terms or terms that take into account the situation as it exists. Cause the police can't stop this, the separatists have no interest in negotiation or compromise and doing nothing is just giving the separatists free reign to walk the entire region out of Ukraine as is their goal and which is exactly what the government is trying to stop in the end.

Ah, more insights into the mind of Horza, but I guess if you know what Mariupol is thinking what's one man? I've made my position pretty clear in the previous post and I'm not going reiterate it in response to the clumsy mangling of it you've reproduced in this paragraph. Actually respond to it, or we're done here.

[Shryke]

One last time, from your own link:

I don't know how more explicit that needs to be for you to get the point that Mariupol wasn't in separatist hands before the May 9 operation.

One last time then:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10822420/The-disappeared-whose-voices-will-be-silent-in-vote-on-self-rule-in-Ukraines-east.html

The rebels who now hold sway in a dozen towns and cities across the neighbouring regions of Donetsk and Luhansk

I'm sorry, but they control alot more territory then you keep claiming.

The rebel leaders aren't in charge of this campaign. They're ex-Berkut and ruffians who were rounded up to do a job. They've been helped and guided by the Russian security services and have benefited from the lawlessness brought by the local clans pulling the cops out. You negotiate with the people using the proxy, not the proxy itself.

And the people using the proxy aren't interested in negotiation either apparently. It's not like there weren't deals put on the table. They simply didn't get any response. Your continued insistence that they totally should have negotiated is not taking into account the facts that led up to this push by the army, that included a long period of not using armed forces and offering compromises. It's not even like the government got offers they weren't willing to accept either. There's been no news I've seen that any overtures by anyone got real responses.

This would sound a lot more convincing if you weren't jumbling chronology to try and make this sound like a city recapture operation.

It wasn't. It was one building.

The city was lost when they burnt it down. You keep ignoring that, I guess because it's really uncomfortable for your 'the army is better than nothing' thesis. Which at this point rests on a misunderstanding of what happened in Mariupol and weighty, authoritative statements like:

Which must have some really amazing sources behind it because every single report I've read on this - starting with your own - has emphasised how the army operation made locals feel like their government was attacking them and how that drove public opinion further away from Kiev. Any indication at all that the separatist cause hasn't been boosted by this (the city falling into their hands after the operation is clearly not proof enough) would be fine.

This is a pretty good representation of your shitty, obtuse style of argument. Big on empty semantics and impugning the other guy's intelligence but all you're really saying here is that you think because armed men have been seizing buildings there shouldn't be any restrictions on the use of the army. You don't want to engage with the points I've made as to why that might not be such a great idea so instead you attribute my disagreement to ignorance about the situation. Yeah, that has to be it, doesn't it?

I'm not jumbling the chronology at all. You are simply trying to restrict the situation to only Mariupol because that's the only way your argument can work. You don't seem to ever want to admit that there are more pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine outside that one building in Mariupol, forces that we've had like a week or two of reports on about their dealings with Ukrainian security forces. That generally haven't gone well.

And you've still yet to show how doing nothing actually accomplishes anything for the Ukrainian government. THat's the problem with your second quote right here. You are whinging about me not engaging your points and refusing to notice that you haven't made any on this subject. You have not given a single argument as to how doing nothing does not simply further delegitimize the Ukrainian government.

And that's exactly what it does. That's what happens when a government surrenders control of a territory to another political structure.

I've responded to your same argument again and again, but you are still refusing to acknowledge the scope of the situation the government is dealing with and the fact that a government's legitimacy cannot survive a lack of attempt to maintain sovereignty.

[Shryke]

:laugh: They are not even trying...

It's even more of a sham then the Crimea vote, although that's basically what was expected.

The real question is how Putin reacts to this. If he does nothing, the Ukrainian government may well simply continue what they were doing. They've given Putin his excuse if he wants it though. It's not like Urkraine can stop him.

[Altherion]

And no, they really are not even trying to make it seem legit:

Why would they? Even if they somehow managed to get something vaguely similar to a legitimate referendum, Kiev and the West would denounce them as illegal and fraudulent anyway and Russia would do whatever it is they're going to do now. They know this because this exact scenario previously played out in Crimea. Any organizational effort beyond clearly showing that some people voted (regardless of how many or how often) and a declaration of 80-90% in favor of the organizers' point of view is a complete waste of resources.

[Shryke]

Why would they? Even if they somehow managed to get something vaguely similar to a legitimate referendum, Kiev and the West would denounce them as illegal and fraudulent anyway and Russia would do whatever it is they're going to do now. They know this because this exact scenario previously played out in Crimea. Any organizational effort beyond clearly showing that some people voted (regardless of how many or how often) and a declaration of 80-90% in favor of the organizers' point of view is a complete waste of resources.

And you are basing this on?

Cause their right to secede would certainly be called into question no matter what, but a properly monitored referendum would and has previously been an important part of any negotiations to resolve issues that lead up to these kind of votes.

[Lightning Lord]

Why would they? Even if they somehow managed to get something vaguely similar to a legitimate referendum, Kiev and the West would denounce them as illegal and fraudulent anyway and Russia would do whatever it is they're going to do now. They know this because this exact scenario previously played out in Crimea. Any organizational effort beyond clearly showing that some people voted (regardless of how many or how often) and a declaration of 80-90% in favor of the organizers' point of view is a complete waste of resources.

In the event that there was some sort of negotiation later, the leaders of the splinter republic would have sort of real leg to stand on. As it was done, the farce does more to show the movement for the sham shitshow it is. The Crimean referendum looks like the most open and even-handed election in the history of everything when compared to this...which might have been the point.

Crimea was not the same, as there was almost certainly going to be a positive response to re-joining Russia anyway. The vote was spiked, but the result was likely the same either way and I remain baffled for why it was thrown together so quickly. The Crimean referendum looks like the most open and even-handed election in the history of everything when compared

[Dicer]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/05/rebels-declare-victory-east-ukraine-poll-201451122732984177.html

Although the voting in the two regions with a combined population of 6.5 million appeared mostly peaceful, armed men identified as members of the Ukrainian national guard opened fire on a crowd outside the town hall in Krasnoarmeisk, and an official with the region's insurgents said people were killed.

The Associated Press reported that the death toll was unclear. The attack in Krasnoarmeisk, about 30km from the regional capital, Donetsk, came hours after armed men, one of whom said they were from the national guard, put a stop to the voting and took control of town hall.

Shouldn't Obama and the west denounce the firing on a peaceful crowd of voters?

Why would they? Even if they somehow managed to get something vaguely similar to a legitimate referendum, Kiev and the West would denounce them as illegal and fraudulent anyway and Russia would do whatever it is they're going to do now. They know this because this exact scenario previously played out in Crimea. Any organizational effort beyond clearly showing that some people voted (regardless of how many or how often) and a declaration of 80-90% in favor of the organizers' point of view is a complete waste of resources.

Agree. No matter how organized and no matter the voter turnout, it's going to be called illegal and made into a farce by the west. Like the Crimea vote.

[TrueMetis]

If they think that it's going to be called illegitimate no matter what than why'd they bother with a referendum at all?

[Shryke]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/05/rebels-declare-victory-east-ukraine-poll-201451122732984177.html

Shouldn't Obama and the west denounce the firing on a peaceful crowd of voters?

Yes.

gree. No matter how organized and no matter the voter turnout, it's going to be called illegal and made into a farce by the west. Like the Crimea vote.

Not true at all. And people have denounced the Crimea vote because it was rigged. Just like this one. Only not as badly. Crimea seemed more like the standard dictator thing where they can't be content with a semi-believable sham vote and must go for full on silliness to attempt to look more legitimate while actually doing the opposite.

[Linsox]

And you've still yet to show how doing nothing actually accomplishes anything for the Ukrainian government. THat's the problem with your second quote right here. You are whinging about me not engaging your points and refusing to notice that you haven't made any on this subject. You have not given a single argument as to how doing nothing does not simply further delegitimize the Ukrainian government.

Here's an argument for doing nothing: the past week's headlines would have featured masked gunmen terrorizing civilians rather than kids from Western Ukraine shooting their Eastern counterparts. The separatists would still be in control, have the same realization people don't want to join Russia, hold the same cathartic referendum, and come to the negotiating table. The difference is fewer dead people and a less galvanized populace. Hell, they might have put the referendum off.

[The Fallen]

` I've been reading this thread, but unfortunately can't stay as abreast of the situation as you guys.

But this is something that I ask myself. Why should Russia feel threatened by NATO? Didn't Russia, in essence, become part of the west when their communist government died? Now I know that there isn't a Russia, per se, in that Putin has a grip on power and therefore he's the one dictating what happens. Clearly Putin, and by extension Russia, is up to no good, hence the fear of NATO and the west encroaching on his territory and his sphere of influence. Putin wants to go back to the Cold War, when Russia had influnce. But their losing the CW means that they have to adapt to a new reality, where they're no longer world players, just like before the Bolshevik Revolution. They would still have influence within their sphere, but it should be used towards getting those nations to embrace democracy and modernity. Instead, Putin is trying to recreate a past that won't, and shouldn't, return. To the detriment of the Russian people, of course.

In a perfect world, nobody should be giving a crap about Putin's feelings and Ukraine would be able to join NATO and in return NATO would be able to check Russian aggression.

[Shryke]

` I've been reading this thread, but unfortunately can't stay as abreast of the situation as you guys.

But this is something that I ask myself. Why should Russia feel threatened by NATO? Didn't Russia, in essence, become part of the west when their communist government died? Now I know that there isn't a Russia, per se, in that Putin has a grip on power and therefore he's the one dictating what happens. Clearly Putin, and by extension Russia, is up to no good, hence the fear of NATO and the west encroaching on his territory and his sphere of influence. Putin wants to go back to the Cold War, when Russia had influnce. But their losing the CW means that they have to adapt to a new reality, where they're no longer world players, just like before the Bolshevik Revolution. They would still have influence within their sphere, but it should be used towards getting those nations to embrace democracy and modernity. Instead, Putin is trying to recreate a past that won't, and shouldn't, return. To the detriment of the Russian people, of course.

In a perfect world, nobody should be giving a crap about Putin's feelings and Ukraine would be able to join NATO and in return NATO would be able to check Russian aggression.

I would say this is a very good encapsulation of what most of the West thought before this. And they are, in a very strict sense, correct about some of it. In some very detached-from-real-politics sense, we shouldn't have to give a crap that Russia is angry it's fading from being one of the two biggest players on the stage. But the reality is that Russia the power to make life very very difficult for many people around them without the West really being able to retaliate and they know this. And so we get the current situation.

No matter what we might have thought and how we might have wanted the post-USSR situation to play out, Russia has other minds on the issue and the power to make their displeasure very obvious.

[Altherion]

In the event that there was some sort of negotiation later, the leaders of the splinter republic would have sort of real leg to stand on. As it was done, the farce does more to show the movement for the sham shitshow it is. The Crimean referendum looks like the most open and even-handed election in the history of everything when compared to this...which might have been the point.

Crimea was not the same, as there was almost certainly going to be a positive response to re-joining Russia anyway. The vote was spiked, but the result was likely the same either way and I remain baffled for why it was thrown together so quickly. The Crimean referendum looks like the most open and even-handed election in the history of everything when compared

I don't think a Crimea-style referendum would give them any kind of leg to stand on beyond what this one gives them. There's not much of a difference between saying "Your referendum is fraudulent and illegitimate" and "Your referendum is clearly, obviously and unabashedly fraudulent and illegitimate".

[Shryke]

I don't think a Crimea-style referendum would give them any kind of leg to stand on beyond what this one gives them. There's not much of a difference between saying "Your referendum is fraudulent and illegitimate" and "Your referendum is clearly, obviously and unabashedly fraudulent and illegitimate".

He's talking about a real vote, not a sham vote like both this one and the Crimea one. An actually-legitimate internationally monitored vote for independence would give them a damn big stick in any negotiations.

[Horza]

One last time then:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10822420/The-disappeared-whose-voices-will-be-silent-in-vote-on-self-rule-in-Ukraines-east.html

I'm sorry, but they control alot more territory then you keep claiming.

... wait what? You think I'm somehow unaware that the insurgency operates outside Mariupol? Are you high? Last I checked this discussion was about whether the Ukrainian army should be used for building recapture. The extent of the insurgency has no bearing on that question: if all you've got is a baseball bat it doesn't matter how many patients are queuing outside your door - you either get your tools back from cousin Viktor or you close down the dental surgery.*

And the people using the proxy aren't interested in negotiation either apparently. It's not like there weren't deals put on the table. They simply didn't get any response. Your continued insistence that they totally should have negotiated is not taking into account the facts that led up to this push by the army, that included a long period of not using armed forces and offering compromises. It's not even like the government got offers they weren't willing to accept either. There's been no news I've seen that any overtures by anyone got real responses.

Kiev's position has been that all options are on the table after the May 25 elections, if Russia supports them and assists in disarming the rebels. Those are reasonable terms but the Kremlin isn't reasonable. It wants a disarmament of Ukrainian paramilitary forces and army withdrawals as a starting point. It has the upper hand.

I'm not saying it would be easy politically or a silver bullet to end this conflict. But I don't think Kiev's tactics will get them a better bargaining position, and I do think the result of more such operations will be to further alienate eastern Ukrainians. As such, talks with the clans and the Kremlin might keep the conflict from deteriorating even further.

I'm not jumbling the chronology at all. You are simply trying to restrict the situation to only Mariupol because that's the only way your argument can work. You don't seem to ever want to admit that there are more pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine outside that one building in Mariupol, forces that we've had like a week or two of reports on about their dealings with Ukrainian security forces. That generally haven't gone well.

I dealt with this above, but again: I was talking about Mariupol because.... I brought it up in the first place, as example of why the army isn't a substitute for interior ministry forces in building recapture. You've created this outlandish strawman caricature of my point of view where I deny the extent of the crisis because you apparently think that the extent of the crisis has a bearing on whether the army should be used, and rather than engage with the actual benefits and drawbacks of armed force you've chosen to repeatedly charge into a vast straw-Horza, because yeah, it is a knockdown argument against that towering contraption.

And you've still yet to show how doing nothing actually accomplishes anything for the Ukrainian government. THat's the problem with your second quote right here. You are whinging about me not engaging your points and refusing to notice that you haven't made any on this subject. You have not given a single argument as to how doing nothing does not simply further delegitimize the Ukrainian government.

And that's exactly what it does. That's what happens when a government surrenders control of a territory to another political structure.

I've responded to your same argument again and again, but you are still refusing to acknowledge the scope of the situation the government is dealing with and the fact that a government's legitimacy cannot survive a lack of attempt to maintain sovereignty.

Here's me, back in, oh, my 2nd post of this delightful contretemps saying what my alternative to doing nothing was:

I've made this point before: if Kiev can't rely on its interior security forces to effectively resolve these situations, using regular infantry is worse than doing nothing. If that means bringing these operations to an end and offering federalisation, as unpleasant and fraught an option that is it's better than triggering full-blown civil war with more such operations.

You know that. You've been arguing that it isn't an option this whole exchange. But now you've decided to charge me with not proposing it, for some ungodly reason. You do realise its OK if we disagree on this stuff right?

*in the extended metaphor it's clear that this is a blackmail job and cousin Viktor is working hand-in-hand with your arch-rival Vladimir, but your friends across the city can't get you new gear any time soon and tough choices are at hand.

[Free Northman Reborn]

` I've been reading this thread, but unfortunately can't stay as abreast of the situation as you guys.

But this is something that I ask myself. Why should Russia feel threatened by NATO? Didn't Russia, in essence, become part of the west when their communist government died? Now I know that there isn't a Russia, per se, in that Putin has a grip on power and therefore he's the one dictating what happens. Clearly Putin, and by extension Russia, is up to no good, hence the fear of NATO and the west encroaching on his territory and his sphere of influence. Putin wants to go back to the Cold War, when Russia had influnce. But their losing the CW means that they have to adapt to a new reality, where they're no longer world players, just like before the Bolshevik Revolution. They would still have influence within their sphere, but it should be used towards getting those nations to embrace democracy and modernity. Instead, Putin is trying to recreate a past that won't, and shouldn't, return. To the detriment of the Russian people, of course.

In a perfect world, nobody should be giving a crap about Putin's feelings and Ukraine would be able to join NATO and in return NATO would be able to check Russian aggression.

Yes, but in this imperfect world, Russia clearly has the muscle/influence/resources, call it what you will, to make life difficult for those who try to ignore their concerns.

[jurble]

` I've been reading this thread, but unfortunately can't stay as abreast of the situation as you guys.

But this is something that I ask myself. Why should Russia feel threatened by NATO? Didn't Russia, in essence, become part of the west when their communist government died? Now I know that there isn't a Russia, per se, in that Putin has a grip on power and therefore he's the one dictating what happens. Clearly Putin, and by extension Russia, is up to no good, hence the fear of NATO and the west encroaching on his territory and his sphere of influence. Putin wants to go back to the Cold War, when Russia had influnce. But their losing the CW means that they have to adapt to a new reality, where they're no longer world players, just like before the Bolshevik Revolution. They would still have influence within their sphere, but it should be used towards getting those nations to embrace democracy and modernity. Instead, Putin is trying to recreate a past that won't, and shouldn't, return. To the detriment of the Russian people, of course.

In a perfect world, nobody should be giving a crap about Putin's feelings and Ukraine would be able to join NATO and in return NATO would be able to check Russian aggression.

NATO is a large military alliance. So long as it exists, Russia would be threatened by it by simply not being a part of it. It'd be absurd to assume that over the ensuing course of history that even if Russia became a liberal democracy that it wouldn't have some legitimate casus belli on its neighbors over who knows what - probably futuristic resource scarcity. Free trade and economic interdependence is a good salve for most older imperial concerns, but when resource scarcity enters the picture, then free-trade collapses as the interests of the state and nation take precedence. As long as NATO continued to expand, Russia's arms would be tied in trying to act in their national interest militarily.

But what Russia really fears short-term (at least in the next 100 years) is the neutralization of its nuclear deterrent. Anti-ballistic missile technology is improving, and its ceiling is higher than missile tech (because lasers will always be faster than rockets). If NATO managed to ring Russia in missile defense installations, then Russia would only have its submarine-based arsenal to rely on, cutting down its effective deterrent massively. Obviously right now, anti-ballistic missile tech is no-where near capable of stopping a MAD scenario, but it could be and Russia is looking ahead. And in a scenario where Russia has no effective nuclear deterrent, it faces the risk of foreign intervention and dismantlement by other powers.

[The Fallen]

` Part of the point that I was trying to make, and actually left out, is that Russia could have the same kind of influence it has now had it continued on the path of westernization and had joined NATO. Except that instead of aggression against it's former satellite states it would have been a force for good in the area and the west would cease to be a threat. Sort of like Germany and Japan after WWII. I'm not arguing that Russia would or should have zero influence where it historically has dominated.

It's also interesting that Gorbachev and Yeltsin both realized where Russia's future lay and knew that democracy, capitalism and westernization was the way. I'd also assume that they recognized that the days of Russia being the second most powerful country in the world was behind them. Yet if it were up to Putin, he would reverse course completely and take Russia back to the good ole days. I also wonder how long the Russian powers-that-be think they can keep this up?

[SkaggCannibal]

` Part of the point that I was trying to make, and actually left out, is that Russia could have the same kind of influence it has now had it continued on the path of westernization and had joined NATO. Except that instead of aggression against it's former satellite states it would have been a force for good in the area and the west would cease to be a threat. Sort of like Germany and Japan after WWII. I'm not arguing that Russia would or should have zero influence where it historically has dominated.

It's also interesting that Gorbachev and Yeltsin both realized where Russia's future lay and knew that democracy, capitalism and westernization was the way. I'd also assume that they recognized that the days of Russia being the second most powerful country in the world was behind them. Yet if it were up to Putin, he would reverse course completely and take Russia back to the good ole days. I also wonder how long the Russian powers-that-be think they can keep this up?

I don't think the USA would want Russia to join NATO.