Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

Shurimgreat

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Debaltsevo has fallen to the rebels, they have defeated the best units the Ukrainian army had.
The Ukrainian fourth wave of mobilization has only just begun,reports of only 6% of people responding to their call up.
The forces at Debaltsevo were the remnants of the regular Ukrainian military. They are now gone and Kiev junta can count on a trickle of replacements.
Whatever equipment they brought with them to Debaltsevo is going to fall into the hands of the rebels.
Their heavy equipment is for all intents and purposes irreplaceable. Once these tanks and artillery are gone, they are gone for good, and it will take a long time to bring the Ukrainian military back to the state it was only two months ago.
So far the conflict is not official war, but it looks like it will have to be call one now, and with that the economy of Ukraine which is already suffering will completely collapse, Why you ask, the IMF won’t give money to a country at war.
Its game over for Poroshenko, he has no options left.

Maybe we should congratulate the Russian regular army on this "victory".

No-one doubts the Russian regular army was involved in the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The question now is what the response will be from the west. More sanctions for a start and long term pariah status for Russia. Plus Ukraine joining the EU and NATO.

Not much of a victory really for Russia on the face of it.

woodrow wyatt

Shurimgreat wrote: »

More sanctions for a start and long term pariah status for Russia. .

Not,really sanctions hurt The EU just as much as Russia.How are the european farmers going to fare for a second year not selling to Russia.
Russia still has loads of countries to trade with as you can see in the map below.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/09/20140901_isolated.jpg

WakeUp

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Maybe we should congratulate the Russian regular army on this "victory".

No-one doubts the Russian regular army was involved in the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The question now is what the response will be from the west. More sanctions for a start and long term pariah status for Russia. Plus Ukraine joining the EU and NATO.

Not much of a victory really for Russia on the face of it.

Greece will veto any further sanctions directed toward Russia and they arent the only countries who dont have an appetite for such an approach. why would we want Ukraine in the EU what benefit would it bring only problems the place is a corrupt basket case lead by hot headed simpletons. on the one hand threats and what not to let the Greeks go and on the other some believe its a good idea to have Ukraine in the union. its just baffling really. its makes zero economic and political sense to have them in the EU. none at all. Ukraine in Nato if it ever happened would eventually lead to thermonuclear war with Russia. Russian tanks would roll into Kiev long before that ever looked like coming to fruition. theres just no chance of that ever happening. here are the thoughts of a former US ambassador to the Soviet union Jack Matlock...

The fact is they are going to intervene until they are certain that there is no prospect of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. And all of the threats by NATO and so on to sort of increase defenses elsewhere is simply provocative to the Russians. Now, I’m not saying that’s right, but I am saying that’s the way Russia is going to react. And frankly, this is all predictable. And those of us who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War almost unanimously said in the 1990s, “Do not expand NATO eastward. Find a different way to protect eastern Europe, a way that includes Russia. Otherwise, eventually there’s going to be a confrontation, because there is a red line, as far as any Russian government is concerned, when it comes to Ukraine and Georgia and other former republics of the Soviet Union.”

When the Berlin Wall came down, when eastern Europe began to try to free itself from the Communist rule, the first President Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, met with Gorbachev in Malta, and they made a very important statement. One was we were no longer enemies. The second was the Soviet Union would not intervene in eastern Europe to keep Communist rule there. And in response, the United States would not take advantage of that.

Now, this was a—you might say, a gentlemen’s agreement between Gorbachev and President Bush. It was one which was echoed by the other Western leaders—the British prime minister, the German chancellor, the French president. As we negotiated German unity, there the question was: Could a united Germany stay in NATO? At first, Gorbachev said, “No, if they unite, they have to leave NATO.” And we said, “Look, let them unite. Let them stay in NATO. But we will not extend NATO to the territory of East Germany.” Well, it turned out that legally you couldn’t do it that way, so in the final agreement it was that all of Germany would stay in NATO, but that the territory of East Germany would be special, in that there would be no foreign troops—that is, no non-German troops—and no nuclear weapons. Now, later—at that time, the Warsaw Pact was still in place. We weren’t talking about eastern Europe. But the statements made were very general. At one point, Secretary Baker told Gorbachev NATO jurisdiction would not move one inch to the east. Well, he had the GDR in mind, but that’s not what he said specifically.

So, yes, if I had been asked when I was ambassador of the United States in Moscow in 1991, “Is there an understanding that NATO won’t move to the east?” I would have said, “Yes, there is.” However, it was not a legal commitment, and one could say that once the Soviet Union collapsed, any agreement then maybe didn’t hold, except that when you think about it, if there was no reason to expand NATO when the Soviet Union existed, there was even less reason when the Soviet Union collapsed and you were talking about Russia. And the reason many of us—myself, George Kennan, many of us—argued against NATO expansion in the ’90s was precisely to avoid the sort of situation we have today. It was totally predictable. If we start expanding NATO, as we get closer to the Russian border, they are going to consider this a hostile act. And at some point, they will draw a line, and they will do anything within their power to keep it from going any further. That’s what we’re seeing today.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/former-u-s-ambassador-ussr-u-s-nato-provoking-ukrainian-crisis.html

Shurimgreat

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Not,really sanctions hurt The EU just as much as Russia.How are the european farmers going to fare for a second year not selling to Russia.
Russia still has loads of countries to trade with as you can see in the map below.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/09/20140901_isolated.jpg

They don't hurt Europe at all, and there's more than enough subsidies to help farmers and new markets. Europe is doing quite well, record low inflation, record low interest rates, growth in most countries, AAA credit ratings in most countries, long term Europe will be fine. Can't say the same about Russia however as it looks into a bleak uncertain future, having thrown away 10 years of economic progress overnight and on a whim. They are ok now while they still have funds to prop up the rouble. But what happens when those funds run out? Ignore the basics of economics at your peril as the Greeks are finding out.

Shurimgreat

WakeUp wrote: »

Greece will veto any further sanctions directed toward Russia and they arent the only countries who dont have an appetite for such an approach. why would we want Ukraine in the EU what benefit would it bring only problems the place is a corrupt basket case lead by hot headed simpletons. on the one hand threats and what not to let the Greeks go and on the other some believe its a good idea to have Ukraine in the union. its just baffling really. its makes zero economic and political sense to have them in the EU. none at all. Ukraine in Nato if it ever happened would eventually lead to thermonuclear war with Russia. Russian tanks would roll into Kiev long before that ever looked like coming to fruition. theres just no chance of that ever happening. here are the thoughts of a former US ambassador to the Soviet union Jack Matlock...


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/former-u-s-ambassador-ussr-u-s-nato-provoking-ukrainian-crisis.html

The Greeks will have to decide at some stage soon whether they want to be in the EU or on the outside and part of a new pro Russian bloc. They can't have it both ways.

WakeUp

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The Greeks will have to decide at some stage soon whether they want to be in the EU or on the outside and part of a new pro Russian bloc. They can't have it both ways.

I would agree with you there if the Greeks decide to really get into bed with the Russians thats a decision they will have to face eventually. the Americans who are driving this though more importantly from our point of view European leaders will have to decide at some stage is Ukraine worth a devastating war with Russia that may just mean lights out for one and all. this isnt a computer game or something where people dont really die or nations dont really get vapourised this is real. Ukraine rightly or wrongly its a red line for Russia. and that line has been drawn they aint backing down. the continent has seen two horrible devastating wars. many of us wont live to tell the tale if theres a third one. and the Americans want to start arming the Ukrainians they must be insane if they think that is going to do anything other than make a bad situation a million times worse.

US President Barack Obama should provide arms to the Ukrainian government, considering that the Minsk ceasefire has failed between Kiev and the independence supporters in eastern Ukraine, US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham said in a press release on Tuesday.
“It is inexcusable to adhere to a failed ceasefire agreement as Russia and its Ukrainian proxies escalate their uncompromising siege of Debaltseve,” the senators said in the press release. “It is long past time to provide defensive weapons to Ukraine.”
The senators explained that because conditions on the ground indicate diplomacy has been ineffective, the United States should help build-up the Ukrainian security forces.

“Western leaders say there is no military solution to the conflict in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin clearly does not think so. He continues his aggression, and in the absence of greater Western support for Ukrainian forces, a Russian-imposed military solution is exactly what will continue to unfold,” the press release said.

http://sputniknews.com/us/20150217/1018401183.html?

the minsk agreement was always doomed to fail this muppet talks about diplomacy and agreements yet the Americans failed to bother their arses to be party to the talks. it was only going to fail. American senators calling for war in Europe because this is where its going if it continues on this course. phuck them.

Sand

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The Greeks will have to decide at some stage soon whether they want to be in the EU or on the outside and part of a new pro Russian bloc. They can't have it both ways.

They can - if Russia is willing to extend them a bridging loan to give them some breathing space to negotiate in exchange for Greece vetoing any further sanctions (like SWIFT for example) then there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I'd have my doubts that Russia would see the value in it, but if Greece only needs a few billion, what's that to Russia when they are losing that every couple of days from their economy?

Icepick

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Not,really sanctions hurt The EU just as much as Russia.

You have an old script mate.
Kremlin stopped spreading this nonsense months ago.

Shurimgreat

Sand wrote: »

They can - if Russia is willing to extend them a bridging loan to give them some breathing space to negotiate in exchange for Greece vetoing any further sanctions (like SWIFT for example) then there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I'd have my doubts that Russia would see the value in it, but if Greece only needs a few billion, what's that to Russia when they are losing that every couple of days from their economy?

The Greek proposals around bridging loans and the like are dead in the water. They want a bridging loan and then bonds related to economic growth. Which is another way of saying we might pay you back or we might default depending on economic growth.

Waiting for economic growth is risky. To me it looks like the Greeks are trying to dictate to Europe and the Troika (the very people who hold all the cash). Generally that's not the way it works as we found out in Ireland. If the Troike say "sell your grandmother for more funds" we wouldn't have much choice. The Greeks need Europe more than we need them. The same probably goes for the Russians who a year from now will be running to the IMF cap in hand as they did before.

Sand

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The Greek proposals around bridging loans and the like are dead in the water. They want a bridging loan and then bonds related to economic growth. Which is another way of saying we might pay you back or we might default depending on economic growth.

Waiting for economic growth is risky. To me it looks like the Greeks are trying to dictate to Europe and the Troika (the very people who hold all the cash). Generally that's not the way it works as we found out in Ireland. If the Troike say "sell your grandmother for more funds" we wouldn't have much choice.

If we're recognising that Greece wont grow enough to service its debts, then we might as well recognise that the Troika plan has failed. If the current plan should be continued, its assumes there will be growth. Growth based debt doesn't seem to me to be that risky relative to the current situation. If Greece doesn't grow, its not going to repay its debt anyway. Recognising that in the terms of the deal doesn't add any additional risk.

It also has to be remembered that debt is like money...it has no actual, intrinsic value other than what is agreed. It is an agreement where A recognises that they owe B. Money loses its value in crisis conditions - how much is a bottle of water worth in a desert? More than paper, that's for sure. B should be careful not to overplay their hand because if A ceases to recognise the debt....well, B has a worthless IOU for kindling.

PopePalpatine

Icepick wrote: »

You have an old script mate.
Kremlin stopped spreading this nonsense months ago.

Maybe the Kremlin's cut down on scriptwriters due to their economic crisis? :pac:

Lockstep

Poroshenko has confirmed the Ukrainian military has withdrawn from Debaltseve.

Scofflaw

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Not,really sanctions hurt The EU just as much as Russia.How are the european farmers going to fare for a second year not selling to Russia.
Russia still has loads of countries to trade with as you can see in the map below.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/09/20140901_isolated.jpg

Countries Russia cannot trade with there represent 37% of the world's import markets.

The EU, on the other hand, is cutting itself off from 2.3% of the world's import markets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Elmer Blooker

Anyone who thinks sanctions only hurt Russia and the rest of us (in the EU) get off scott free are deluding themselves. Just wait until later in year when there will gigantic rotting compost heaps and very very angry fruit and veg producers all wanting to be compensated by Brussels, anyone who thinks there will be enough in the EU coffers to go round are also deluding themselves.
Spain, already "the next Greece" as some are saying will be particularly badly hit. This article is about Greece but also applies to any country that will lose badly in this sanctions war in which the USA seems to be unaffected by.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/greece-farmers-russian-sanctions-rotten-fruit

Iwasfrozen

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Anyone who thinks sanctions only hurt Russia and the rest of us (in the EU) get off scott free are deluding themselves. Just wait until later in year when there will gigantic rotting compost heaps and very very angry fruit and veg producers all wanting to be compensated by Brussels, anyone who thinks there will be enough in the EU coffers to go round are also deluding themselves.
Spain, already "the next Greece" as some are saying will be particularly badly hit. This article is about Greece but also applies to any country that will lose badly in this sanctions war in which the USA seems to be unaffected by.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/greece-farmers-russian-sanctions-rotten-fruit

No one said Russian sanctions don't hurt Europe but it's a small price to pay. If we don't punish countries who invade and occupy other nations regional stability would suffer. If Putin gives back Crimea I'm sure the EU will be happy to open negotiations to lift the sanctions.

Iwasfrozen

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Not,really sanctions hurt The EU just as much as Russia.How are the european farmers going to fare for a second year not selling to Russia.
Russia still has loads of countries to trade with as you can see in the map below.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/09/20140901_isolated.jpg

Loving how Crimea is marked as "not Russia", intentional?

gandalf

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Anyone who thinks sanctions only hurt Russia and the rest of us (in the EU) get off scott free are deluding themselves. Just wait until later in year when there will gigantic rotting compost heaps and very very angry fruit and veg producers all wanting to be compensated by Brussels, anyone who thinks there will be enough in the EU coffers to go round are also deluding themselves.
Spain, already "the next Greece" as some are saying will be particularly badly hit. This article is about Greece but also applies to any country that will lose badly in this sanctions war in which the USA seems to be unaffected by.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/greece-farmers-russian-sanctions-rotten-fruit

Who here said that these sanctions aren't going to hurt Europe, of course they are going to hurt us. When you stand up to a bully you have to be prepared to take some pain yourself. Russia has to be made understand that you cannot cherry pick when International Law applies to them, it has to understand that its neighbours should be free to make their own decisions without the fear of a proxy or open war breaking out in their territory sponsored by the Kremlin.

The longer this goes on the more damage is occuring to the Russian economy and the less attractive it becomes for investors longer into the future. There is only so long that controlling the price of vodka will keep the population happy.

Lockstep

Sanctions hit the EU but they hurt Russia far more, given how utterly dependent they are on the EU states to buy their oil/gas which account for nearly two thirds of their exports and energy prices are currently extremely low.

Russia has far more to lose by sanctions than the EU does, especially given the extremely low price of oil right now.

Elmer Blooker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one said Russian sanctions don't hurt Europe but it's a small price to pay. If we don't punish countries who invade and occupy other nations regional stability would suffer. If Putin gives back Crimea I'm sure the EU will be happy to open negotiations to lift the sanctions.

Please explain the circumstances in which Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954.
Was it a democratic decision? Were Crimeans consulted in 1954?
Does that decision made by a regime (U.S.S.R.) that no longer exists and is now considered repressive have any legitimacy today?

AbusesToilets

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Please explain the circumstances in which Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954.
Was it a democratic decision? Were Crimeans consulted in 1954?
Does that decision made by a regime (U.S.S.R.) that no longer exists and is now considered repressive have any legitimacy today?

Crimea was part of the Ukraine, internationally recognised as such. Harping on about the actions of the Soviets decades ago doesn't somehow legitimise the invasion and annexing by Russia of another countries sovereign territory.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Please explain the circumstances in which Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954.
Was it a democratic decision? Were Crimeans consulted in 1954?
Does that decision made by a regime (U.S.S.R.) that no longer exists and is now considered repressive have any legitimacy today?

Would you have an issue if David Cameron sent 10,000 British troops to dublin , cork, Galway and so on been it apparently belonged to them before

Markcheese

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Please explain the circumstances in which Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954.
Was it a democratic decision? Were Crimeans consulted in 1954?
Does that decision made by a regime (U.S.S.R.) that no longer exists and is now considered repressive have any legitimacy today?

Does it have anything to do with the native Tartars being almost wiped out ? Did the tartars vote for genocide ? The past is a funny thing - !
Yes Crimea becoming part of Ukraine, was pretty much a stroke of a pen -Ukraine showed a lot of restraint when little green men appeared in Crimea . happened quite a lot ,all the "republics" in the Caucasus had their borders messed about with - and that's worked out well - Chechnya didn't have much luck with succession from Russia -

Lockstep

Important to highlight that Crimea was annexed by Russia in 1783 (and forcibly split from the Ottoman Empire in 1776 by the Treaty of Kuchuk Kanardji)

Pretending that Crimea was "always Russian" goes into some fairly damn dangerous irredentist territory.

Elmer Blooker

Lockstep wrote: »

Important to highlight that Crimea was annexed by Russia in 1783 (and forcibly split from the Ottoman Empire in 1776 by the Treaty of Kuchuk Kanardji)

Pretending that Crimea was "always Russian" goes into some fairly damn dangerous irredentist territory.

Crimea is almost entirely Russian speaking. They voted Yanukovich and rejected the coup. They don't want to be ruled by mobs of extreme Ukrainian nationalists from Kiev.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png/1024px-UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Другий_тур_2010_по_округах-en.png/1024px-Другий_тур_2010_по_округах-en.png

Ren2k7

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Loving how Crimea is marked as "not Russia", intentional?

Uh oh. Dan Ivandjiiski's (aka, Tyler Durden) paymasters in Moscow won't like that jpeg.

Ren2k7

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Please explain the circumstances in which Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954.
Was it a democratic decision? Were Crimeans consulted in 1954?
Does that decision made by a regime (U.S.S.R.) that no longer exists and is now considered repressive have any legitimacy today?

Kalingrad (previously Konigsberg) was unilaterally annexed into Russia at the end of WWII. Presumably you feel it should be returned to Germany, who held possession of it for centuries? Hmm?

Ren2k7

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Crimea is almost entirely Russian speaking. They voted Yanukovich and rejected the coup. They don't want to be ruled by mobs of extreme Ukrainian nationalists from Kiev.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png/1024px-UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Другий_тур_2010_по_округах-en.png/1024px-Другий_тур_2010_по_округах-en.png

I take it then that because you speak the English language you want Ireland to become part of the UK again?

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Crimea is almost entirely Russian speaking. They voted Yanukovich and rejected the coup. They don't want to be ruled by mobs of extreme Ukrainian nationalists from Kiev.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png/1024px-UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Другий_тур_2010_по_округах-en.png/1024px-Другий_тур_2010_по_округах-en.png

Going by that map care to explain why so few russians controlled all the electorate against overwhelming numbers of Ukrainian people .
A coup ??
Now come on its all in black and white or in this case blue and red

stevedublin

Lockstep wrote: »

Important to highlight that Crimea was annexed by Russia in 1783 (and forcibly split from the Ottoman Empire in 1776 by the Treaty of Kuchuk Kanardji)

Pretending that Crimea was "always Russian" goes into some fairly damn dangerous irredentist territory.

So your solution is to give Crimea to Turkey then?

Elmer Blooker

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Kalingrad (previously Konigsberg) was unilaterally annexed into Russia at the end of WWII. Presumably you feel it should be returned to Germany, who held possession of it for centuries? Hmm?

Kaliningrad was NOT unilaterally annexed by Russia / Soviet Union, it was ceded to them by an agreement between the Allies at the Potsdam Conference.

Going by that map care to explain why so few russians controlled all the electorate against overwhelming numbers of Ukrainian people .

What exactly do you mean by overwhelming numbers of Ukrainian people?
The maps clearly show that Russians are in the majority.