Ukraine 15 - Minsk II and other disappointing sequels

[The Fallen]

Let me ask again, why do people think the U.S. has a hard-on for Russia? Russia only occupies our thoughts, nowadays, when they do shit like this. Did we say anything about Chechnya? When the Soviet Union ceased to exist we stopped focusing on Russia. What does Russia possess that we so desperately want? We would love a Russia that had it's act together and respected the sovereignty of nations who they once controlled by force. That era has passed.

The only problem here is Russia's desire to still be a superpower. England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy; they've all come to grips with the fact that they're no longer superpowers. They've a accepted the new era, one absent of empire building and of annexing territory by force. Yet Vladimir Putin refuses to let the dream die.

Let me state this again, here in the U.S. we don't spend our days thinking about Russia. At all. Terrorism is what everybody is obsessed about. The narrative that the U.S. is intent on - what, invading Russia or stealing its natural resources or hurting it's pride or bringing it to its knees - who knows what, since no one ever states what's the reasoning behind the conspiracy against Russia, is false.

Since Russia has no troops in Ukraine and isn't assisting the rebels we should give Ukraine what it needs to put down this rebellion by foreign troublemakers.

[Arkhangel]

One day it'd be nice to have a thread about an international issue which isn't immediately turned into a US foreign policy thread.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ok, so you think Ukraine should just hold still so Russia can get it over with sooner, and if she fights back it's her own fault for getting more hurt...

Do you expect anyone to believe you consider self-determination to be a major human right?

Can Ukraine win, with help or without? In either case the answer is no. Can Ukraine, with help, do enough damage to Russia to get the separatist regions back. The answer is still no.

Then what it is the achievable goal?

BBE,

Why does the population of Kodiak Island have the right to ignore the desires of the majority of the rest of the population of the rest of Alaska?

Because Kodiak Island could be separated from the rest of Alaska without insurmountable problems, leaving "I want to order them how to live their lives" as the only reason the rest of Alaska has.

So you belive that Kremlin would butcher them to extinction if they keep resisting, no matter the cost to Kremlin?

I believe that even with NATO support the Ukraine can't raise the cost enough for the Kremlin to step back.

At least not without a full-blown war against a nuclear-armed country.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BBE,

So, if the Kremlin wants Finland and we aren't willing to bleed to stop them or if we aren't willing to bleed as much as the Kremlin is willing to bleed we should just let Russia have Finland?

[Mr Fixit]

People here should really stop with silly parallels. I know this forum is primarily dedicated to dragon queens, girl assassins, and D&D Ruined Everything teeth-gnashing, but level-headed discussion can hardly be had with nonsensical analogies and outer-space what-if scenarios. No, Russia will not attack Finland. Or Sweden. Honestly. I have a close working relationship with Vladimir Vladimirovich, so this is 100% correct. My word is my bond.

Every conflict is sui generis, every single one. We can learn from history to better prepare for the future, true enough, but nothing will be accomplished with continuous off-base-ment (that's the word!)

As for bleeding, I propose, Scot, that you take a rifle and go to Kiev and volunteer. Unless "us" means something else. Like Ukrainians maybe.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr. Fixit,

So, unless I'm willing to risk my own life to oppose Russia in Ukraine I can offer no criticism of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? And you have, again, refused to address the logical extension of your prior statement. Why not just say "I refuse to address your point."?

[Suttree]

Honestly. I have a close working relationship with Vladimir Vladimirovich, so this is 100% correct. My word is my bond.

Ah so that explains it.

[Mr Fixit]

Scot, logical fallacies don't even start to address your posts. Chief among them the excluded middle. Whenever someone says 'A is not the answer', your sudden but inevitable response is: "Aha, you advocate 'B'!"

There is more to life than A and B, Scot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr. Fixit,

You presume I expect only A or B. You've not given me a direct answer at all. You've claimed Godwin and that it is impossible ever to compair two different armed conflicts (plus suggesting I'm a coward willing to let others fight my battles). Those are all dodges. Answer my question and we can continue the discussion.

[Alarich]

Before Mr. Fixit will cry Godwin again, I will start this post saying that I don't think that Putin is Hitler that I don't think that Russian nationalism today is driven by the same degree of expansionism and revisionism as German nationalism during the Nazi area.

That said, I do believe that we can draw certain parallels between the German annexation of the "German" parts of Bohemia and the Russian annexation of Crimea. From there we can ask ourselves why the reaction of the international community did not contain Germany and wether there are any lessons in there that we can apply the situation in Ukraine today or not. Obviously I believe that there are pertinent parallels and that there are lessons we can learn from this .

First of all, why do I believe that these two are comparable:

In 1918 Germany had suffered a crushing defeat, followed by the downfall of the old order, a period of great social and economical turmoil that affected especially the working middle class. During that time, the idea of being treated in a very unfair manner by the victors became an obsession along with the desire to return to old glory. I believe that the downfall of the Soviet empire had a similar Impact in Russia, so that the idea to restore the old empire and to get back to the old position of importance and influence became a very important aspect in Russias foreign policies.

After a time of upheaval, we've seen a period of growth and - more important - we see success in agressive foreign policy aimed at Restitution; we see it in Germany in the successful rearmament and especially the re-militarization of the Rhineland, orginally designed as a demilitarized buffer zone. We see Russias success in their Caucasian interventions, where (not for the first time in history, but recent enough), the strategy of using ethnic divisions to weaken and defeat a former satellite is used with great success.

And finally we have a situation where, with a certain justification, we can assume that the ethnic majority in certain parts of a another country (Russians in Crimea, Germans in the Sudeten parts of Czechoslovakia) would like to "change" nations. And this is used as a pretext by the big neighbour to invade those unfortunate countries and annex parts of their territories.

Now what are the lessons? Obviously the international community was different back then and so was the idea of what was acceptable foreign policy. We also have a very different social and economic Background. Nonetheless, today, we know that back then Appeasement didn't work and I believe that's because it validated Germanies political and military strategy rather than discredit it. And I believe that's an important lesson. Will Putin start WW3 and set up concentration camps? Probably not. Will he start a mad quest to conquer all of Europe. I don't think so, even if there are some people in Russia who believe he should.

The question is: do I believe that Russia will repeat political and military strategies in the future that have been successful in the recent past? I absolutely believe they will. That in my opinion is the core problem with appeasement policies - they validate certain political and military strategies as successful strategies to solve a conflict. And with each success their application in future conflicts become more likely. So I think we do have a vested interest in the outcome of this conflict that goes beyond just spoiling Russias dinner party for the sake of being contrary.

I believe that what Russia does is damaging and dangerous to the European security architecture and it is therefore in our vital interest to turn this kind of foreign policy into a costly and very unattractive alternative. Yes, it sucks to be Ukrainian at the moment, because there is a terrible war going on. But would that change, if Ukraine would just hand over Crimea and the other occupied regions? Probably not; we know that Russia had and very likely still has similar plans for the Kharkiv region. We know that the rebels are already eyeing Mariupol and it's hinterland to better secure the Russian occupation of Crimea. So even if we look no further than just Ukraine, it is very unlikely that giving Russia what it occupies today will give the Ukrainians peace. It is more likely that Russia will repeat its successful strategy to slice off more Ukrainian territory.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alarich,

I believe that what Russia does is damaging and dangerous to the European security architecture and it is therefore in our vital interest to turn this kind of foreign policy into a costly and very unattractive alternative. Yes, it sucks to be Ukrainian at the moment, because there is a terrible war going on. But would that change, if Ukraine would just hand over Crimea and the other occupied regions? Probably not; we know that Russia had and very likely still has similar plans for the Kharkiv region. We know that the rebels are already eyeing Mariupol and it's hinterland to better secure the Russian occupation of Crimea. So even if we look no further than just Ukraine, it is very unlikely that giving Russia what it occupies today will give the Ukrainians peace. It is more likely that Russia will repeat its successful strategy to slice off more Ukrainian territory.

Very well said.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

BBE,

So, if the Kremlin wants Finland and we aren't willing to bleed to stop them or if we aren't willing to bleed as much as the Kremlin is willing to bleed we should just let Russia have Finland?

Finland is part of the EU. Finland is an ally to the NATO. Finland is a working democracy. There was no coup in Finland. And most importantly, there is not a party in Finland, fighting for Russia and threatened with extermination if Russia lets them down.

The clusterfuck in the Ukraine was caused by the Ukrainians. Russia, USA and EU all meddled equally, but it was the Ukrainians themselves causing that clusterfuck. And now Russia can't back out.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BBE,

Oooooh... so Russia just needs an excuse and cover story before they invade and start annexing chunks of their neighbors land?

[Suttree]

There was no coup in Finland.

There was no coup in the Ukraine either. Your point?

FFS Russia had plans in place for their land grab well before Yanukovych even abandoned his post.

And most importantly, there is not a party in Finland, fighting for Russia and threatened with extermination if Russia lets them down.

Well the Russian troops could just go home. Further no one is "threatened with extinction". An international peace keeping force could step in after Russia withdraws.

Russia, USA and EU all meddled equally,

Not even remotely close to being true.

[ElizabethB.]

Russia will celebrate a new official holiday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11439362/Vladimir-Putin-announces-official-holiday-to-mark-Crimea-operation.html

[Bright Blue Eyes]

BBE,

Oooooh... so Russia just needs an excuse and cover story before they invade and start annexing chunks of their neighbors land?

Just like Kosovo. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or any other war the US was embroiled in during the last ~70 years.

There was no coup in the Ukraine either. Your point?

Hmm, I must have misremembered that violent stuff on the Maidan...

FFS Russia had plans in place for their land grab well before Yanukovych even abandoned his post.

...and I'd be damn surprised of nobody else had. Planning for every situation is kind of the job description of mlitary and secret services.

Well the Russian troops could just go home. Further no one is "threatened with extinction". An international peace keeping force could step in after Russia withdraws.

And the Ukrainians? Not all Separatists are russian "tourists". Far from it. And of course an international peace keeping force could step in - provided the Ukraine and the Separatist regions are kept apart for a couple years and Russia is part of that peace keeping force. That's what I'm hoping for. Somebody should offer that.

Not even remotely close to being true.

Hmm, I must misremember the USA and EU "choosing" the replacement for Yanukovich weeks before the Maidan came to a boil. PR sessions with foreign ministers and heads of states included. Apart from all that money poured into it of course..

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BBE,

So, what territory has the US annexed in the last century?

[Suttree]

Hmm, I must have misremembered that violent stuff on the Maidan...

Protesting a corrupt leader and crimes against humanity ≠ fascist coup. Unless of course you get your news from RT. You may also want to brush up on the sequence of events.

...and I'd be damn surprised of nobody else had. Planning for every situation is kind of the job description of mlitary and secret services.

Hmm, I must misremember the USA and EU "choosing" the replacement for Yanukovich weeks before the Maidan came to a boil. PR sessions with foreign ministers and heads of states included.

This is too good. So every country has plans in place to steal land at the first sign of unrest but garden variety diplomacy("choosing", lol) is a "gotcha" moment.

Apart from all that money poured into it of course..

Ah yes, somehow the conversation always returns to Nuland and her 5 billion magic cookies. :bs:

[Serious Callers Only]

lol russians

[Arakan]

Mr. Fixit,

So, by that logic France and the UK really didn't care about Poland when they declared war on Germany because of Germany's invasion of Poland? What they should have done is worked with Hitler to get him to stop his attack without first "doing harm"?

You do realize that if we accept this as the norm any Nation-state willing to dig in its heels and attack first will get big chunks of other nation-states while everyone else falls all over themselves to "do no harm", right?

Scot,

in general I like your postings but your tendency to counter arguments with strange questions and historic examples is funny. You really have developed a very unique trademark.