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

Iwasfrozen

aloyisious wrote: »

Is it because Russians are unsure of their position in global society that they are suspicious of other nations or are they suspicious because they are unsure of the same position? Does the Russian nation have a poor self-evaluation or an inbuilt suspicion of other nations that Russia (with all it's self-wealth and territorial-space) is prepared to make the Ukraine a casus-belli with Europe?

I think Russia still has delusions of being a superpower and still see themselves as a counter to American dominance in the world. Their arrogance blinds them to the reality that they are now just another European great power on par with the United Kingdom or France.

Jonny7

No big surprise in the UN Crimea vote, Russia obviously voting against, China abstaining and other countries voting for

Much more serious, a small village outside Crimea is taken by Russian armed units - looks like they are testing the Ukrainians resolve and showing they have full control of Crimea

Lemming

Jonny7 wrote: »

No big surprise in the UN Crimea vote, Russia obviously voting against, China abstaining and other countries voting for

The important part there is China's abstaining from the vote; signalling their disapproval/disagreement on Russia's behaviour, leaving Putin all the more isolated diplomatically on the international stage.

Jonny7

I still feel that in Putin's eyes - gaining control over Crimea and more importantly Sevastopol still outweighs the economic and political drawbacks of doing so

I think he's estimated Europe's response pretty well, maybe under-estimated the yanks a bit, but we'll see.. it's a gamble for him but certainly the longer it goes on the harder it will be for Russia to diffuse

Actually, I reckon after tomorrow the yanks are really gonna ramp up the rhetoric, here's the (ex) US envoy to Moscow

"I am very depressed today. For those of us, Russians and Americans alike, who have believed in the possibility of a strong, prosperous, democratic Russia fully integrated into the international system and as a close partner of the U.S., Putin’s recent decisions represent a giant step backwards. Tragically, we are entering a new period with some important differences, but many similarities to the Cold War. The ideological struggle between autocracy and democracy is resurgent. Protection of European countries from Russian aggression is paramount again. Shoring up vulnerable states , including first and foremost Ukraine, must become a top priority again for the US and Europe. And doing business with Russian companies will once again become politicized. Most tragically, in seeking to isolate the Russian regime, many Russians with no connection to the government will also suffer the effects of isolation. My only hope is that this dark period will not last as long as the last Cold War."

Sand

Jonny7 wrote: »

I still feel that in Putin's eyes - gaining control over Crimea and more importantly Sevastopol still outweighs the economic and political drawbacks of doing so

I'm not sure it does - in cold hard terms, Putin wants Crimea because it holds the naval base for the Russian Black Sea fleet. That is the key strategic asset. However, he already has that - and presuming he is capable of maintaining broadly favourable relations with the Ukrainian government he could have expected to maintain that base for the foreseeable future. The Ukrainians get Russian sailors spending their wages in their economy, and also get a sort of "soft" leverage with the Russians - neither side has overwhelming incentive to end the deal.

The economic drawbacks of Putins adventures in the Crimea include the collapse in the Russian stock market and ruble, with the knockon effect Russia is continues to at best be classed in as a risky investment - up there with South America or Africa or the worst corners of Asia. The political drawbacks include *at a minimum* Ukraine accelerating its drive to NATO membership - exactly the vista Russian policy up until now was apparently designed to frustrate.

All that for a naval base they already have. Plus a 42% ethnic "minority" in the Crimea that will either have to be repressed, ethnically cleansed or appeased in some way - all imposing further costs on Russian economic and political capital. Meanwhile, whilst Ukraine will miss the departure of Crimea, they wont miss the loss of an angry, dangerous and backward minority in their internal politics. The removal of Crimea makes it easier for Ukraine to join the EU.

The more I look at it, the more I see a purely emotional calculation on Putin's part. The collapse of his puppet in Ukraine surprised him, angered him and since then he has been making increasingly angry decisions mixed in with a perfectly understandable nationalist urge to "re-unite" Crimea with Mother Russia.

I don't think anyone would object to the Crimean Russians exercising their right to self-determination under normal, democratic circumstances - but Putin has rejected that route and Russia will pay the cost of it.

"I am very depressed today. For those of us, Russians and Americans alike, who have believed in the possibility of a strong, prosperous, democratic Russia fully integrated into the international system and as a close partner of the U.S., Putin’s recent decisions represent a giant step backwards. Tragically, we are entering a new period with some important differences, but many similarities to the Cold War. The ideological struggle between autocracy and democracy is resurgent. Protection of European countries from Russian aggression is paramount again. Shoring up vulnerable states , including first and foremost Ukraine, must become a top priority again for the US and Europe. And doing business with Russian companies will once again become politicized. Most tragically, in seeking to isolate the Russian regime, many Russians with no connection to the government will also suffer the effects of isolation. My only hope is that this dark period will not last as long as the last Cold War."

History tends to repeat itself. At the risk of Godwin, one of the key puzzles of post-WW1 Germany was that it had two choices: self sufficient militant ultra nationalist "revenge" which could only lead to a great war that Germany (without oil or the rare minerals required for modern military production) could only ever lose, or a pragmatic, export orientated, trade dependant essentially pacifist policy aimed at prosperity and economic power which by its nature would mean cultivating friends and trade partners, not enemies. The post-WW2 "economic miracle" and indeed a common European market was always a possible option - not always the best option, or easy, given the Great Depression and a very real hostility to Germany in France and other neighbouring countries, but possible. The French for example flirted with early steps to a common market with Germany in the early 30s but drew back after Germany pursued a customs union with Austria.

But to ultra nationalists like Hitler, trade, exports, economic interdependence meant dependence on superpowers like the USA which they felt was beneath a 19th century great power like Germany. Hitler's war aims could be best understood as a great, last attempt at forging a 20th century German empire that could rival the USA, not be dependent on it. Since WW2, after the militant strain in national strategy was quite literally beaten out of them in a conflict probably more damaging than the Thirty Years War was, Germany has pursued the second option, and thrived and is recognised today as the indispensable European state - without whom nothing in the EU can get done.

I think the same options and decisions are open to the Russian leadership today, and I think the likes of Putin automatically reject the very concept of Russia as "a close partner of the U.S." Hence, Russia, at best a regional power, is engaged on a very dangerous, destabilising and erratic course of expansionism in another, last great attempt to forge a 21st century empire that can rival the USA, rather than being dependent on it. Ultimately, Russia is going to pay a very, very heavy price if it pursues that course. Russia might have oil and gas, but Saudia Arabia has huge oil reserves, and it would be widely perceived as madness if it proposed to engage in open conflict with the USA as national policy (and when I say USA, I mean the country and the "west" that the USA has defined from WW2 onwards).

Jonny7

Sand wrote: »

The Ukrainians get Russian sailors spending their wages in their economy

Well, from today, it's Russians benefiting from Russian sailors spending their wages

Sand

Yup, true - I think whatever happens from here, Crimea will be Russian sovereign territory. But I doubt Russia and Putin had to pay the price they will have to pay now for it.

ardmacha

One interesting thing about today's referendum was the perception that pay etc would be higher in Russia. The Ukrainians have paid a high price for their corrupt government, if their politicians had attended to the general economy rather than their own pockets then the referendum today might not have been the foregone conclusion it was. Not unlike how FF, by putting the interests of their builder cronies about that of the country, have damaged prospects of a United Ireland.

comongethappy

Excellent post Sand.

comongethappy

ardmacha wrote: »

One interesting thing about today's referendum was the perception that pay etc would be higher in Russia. The Ukrainians have paid a high price for their corrupt government, if their politicians had attended to the general economy rather than their own pockets then the referendum today might not have been the foregone conclusion it was. Not unlike how FF, by putting the interests of their builder cronies about that of the country, have damaged prospects of a United Ireland.

True.

Whatever about ideologies or legitimacies of government, looking at GDP data, Ukraine has performed very badly since independence.

Ukrainians of all ethnicities deserve better.

Eggy Baby!

Sand wrote: »

You make a convincing case for Yeltsin being a poor president, based on freely available and reported evidence. Out of curiosity, how many journalists critical of the Kremlin were mysteriously murdered or attacked in Yeltsin's time, compared to Putins? It seems to be a real health hazard to report negatively on Putin's achievements - could this affect the objective appraisal of Putins performance? And does Putin benefit enormously by comparison to Yeltsin who was basically a deeply flawed individual? As opposed to comparison to say...Angela Merkel?

I.E. Do we subscribe to the old Russian stereotype of a strongman ruler or chaos as being the only choices for the Russian people, who apparently cant be trusted with the basic freedoms we take for granted in the West?

Bold: 93 journalists died during Yeltsin's tenure from extraordinary incidents such as terrorist acts, crossfire and murders. 67 of these were murdered. In comparison, 107 journalists died from extraordinary incidents during Putin's tenure. 98 of these were murders.

Italics:I believe that yes, comparisons to the very poor Yeltsin are definitely a factor in Putin's popularity. Even then, he's not this popular just because he's not Yeltsin. Remember that when he came into office he was pretty unpopular, and his reaction to the Kursk disaster cemented that early unpopularity. Leaders are always compared to their predecessors. Obama, for example, is often compared to Bush.

The main reason for his popularity is of course his track record. The situation regarding political freedoms aside, I won't go into too much detail regarding his economic track record, but the tripling of wages, the halving of poverty and unemployment, and the near-doubling of GDP are remarkable achievements.

And of course, the prevalence of state media in Russia contributes to his popularity as well, but not nearly as much as his track record.

Underlined:As for the psychoanalysis of Russians and Russian culture, Russians do prefer a strong leader- polls have proven that on multiple occasions. Their country has a totally unique political tradition which is understandable considering their history (although there were times where the Russians flirted with democracy- I'm discounting the 90s here. Look further back).

The Russians have a history of autocracy simply because Russia was full of peasants. Compare it to France or the UK or the Netherlands which had strong, burgeoning middle classes that pioneered political reforms.

There's one thing that's certain about Russia- its becoming more and more middle class. As the middle class expands in size, authoritarianism will seem less appealing to Russians. Ironically, Putin gave the Russian middle class the opportunity to thrive with his economic policies and now its the Russian middle class that are protesting his authoritarian politics and acting as the vanguard of political reform.

I've always believed that Putin is authoritarian, of course, but I've assumed that he represents an authoritarian transitional period for Russia which, although repugnant to our western liberal values, is ultimately supported by the majority of Russians.

Even then, love him or hate him, you cannot deny that Putin has had a marked impact on the future layout of Russian and world history.

Regarding supposed Russian love for authoritarianism, the Russians were overwhelmingly in favour of democracy after the dissolution of the USSR but they were swiftly rebuked by Yeltsin's vision of "democracy" which wasn't really a democracy, just an oligarchy with a figurehead president who suspended the constitution when he was on the strop.

I think the same options and decisions are open to the Russian leadership today, and I think the likes of Putin automatically reject the very concept of Russia as "a close partner of the U.S."

Putin could have brought Russia closer to the USA, but he has obviously been put off by American behaviour since Iraq (an invasion which Putin supported, along with Afghanistan) such as its unilateral withdrawal from certain treaties and agreements. Even then, both sides are to blame. Putin gets a convenient bogeyman and so do the Americans. The military-industrial complex wins, the taxpayer loses...

ardmacha

comongethappy wrote: »

True.

Whatever about ideologies or legitimacies of government, looking at GDP data, Ukraine has performed very badly since independence.

Ukrainians of all ethnicities deserve better.

Had Ukraine performed as Poland, things might be quite different. Poland didn't get going for a few years but since 2000 has pulled away.
.

I travelled from Lublin to Lviv about 6 years ago. There were houses extensions, decent cars and general progression on the Polish side, although this eastern region is not the most prosperous it was noticeably wealthier than the Ukrainian side of the border, all of it once the Austro-Hungarian Galicia.

Dannyboy83

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Putin could have brought Russia closer to the USA, but he has obviously been put off by American behaviour since Iraq (an invasion which Putin supported, along with Afghanistan) such as its unilateral withdrawal from certain treaties and agreements. Even then, both sides are to blame. Putin gets a convenient bogeyman and so do the Americans. The military-industrial complex wins, the taxpayer loses...

Agree with the above.
There is American footage of Obama meeting with Putin around the time of the reset.

It seems Obama felt himself and Medvedev had common ground, but when he met with Putin around the time of the reset, it was a very different story.

Putin said fairly plainly and honestly, he wasn't interested in listening to promises and couldn't be bought off, he had heard it all before from previous US administrations (and to be fair, I'm sure he probably had).

I actually think Medvedev could have been a good leader, he seemed to have more vision and was more positive, but he would need Putin in the background regardless - he wouldn't be strong enough or ruthless enough.

In one of your earlier posts, you said corruption has improved.
I don't agree with that, but I think what you actually meant was stability.

There is no doubt that stability has improved since the Yeltsin era and as long as Putin can keep stability, the Russians will be happy to keep him. A lot of that is beyond his control with regard to Oil Prices, but he brought the internal political system and criminal system under a form of control - and exactly as you said - Russians crave a strong leader.

I came to the conclusion that Russia is a bit like the Mongol empire. During the Mongol period, you could cross the empire from one side to the other without being attacked by bandits.
Before the empire, and after it, that wasn't possible.

So the Mongol empire, no matter how bad/brutal it seemed to outsiders, seemed like an improvement to the insiders, and even though they are aware of it's flaws and corruption - it's better than the possible alternative(s).

Sand

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Bold: 93 journalists died during Yeltsin's tenure from extraordinary incidents such as terrorist acts, crossfire and murders. 67 of these were murdered. In comparison, 107 journalists died from extraordinary incidents during Putin's tenure. 98 of these were murders.

Italics:I believe that yes, comparisons to the very poor Yeltsin are definitely a factor in Putin's popularity. Even then, he's not this popular just because he's not Yeltsin. Remember that when he came into office he was pretty unpopular, and his reaction to the Kursk disaster cemented that early unpopularity. Leaders are always compared to their predecessors. Obama, for example, is often compared to Bush.

Sure, but not in the same way Putin is compared to Yeltsin. No one thinks that Bush or Obama are binary choices, with no possible alternative. Yet its presumed that any establishment of democratic norms and freedoms in Russia will inevitably result in chaos and disorder - that its either an anti-liberal strongman like Putin, or a chaotic drunk like Yeltsin: that the Russian political landscape doesn't contain a single European style leader that can deliver economic prosperity, stability and freedoms we take for granted.

The main reason for his popularity is of course his track record. The situation regarding political freedoms aside, I won't go into too much detail regarding his economic track record, but the tripling of wages, the halving of poverty and unemployment, and the near-doubling of GDP are remarkable achievements.

As I noted above, Putin's trackrecord in comparison to other European leaders is quite poor: they have managed to deliver prosperity, stability *and* personal freedoms. He can only manage 2 out of 3, and even then its patchy.

Underlined:As for the psychoanalysis of Russians and Russian culture, Russians do prefer a strong leader- polls have proven that on multiple occasions. Their country has a totally unique political tradition which is understandable considering their history (although there were times where the Russians flirted with democracy- I'm discounting the 90s here. Look further back).

The Russians have a history of autocracy simply because Russia was full of peasants. Compare it to France or the UK or the Netherlands which had strong, burgeoning middle classes that pioneered political reforms.

I'm quite surprised by this view given your earlier sensitivity to stereotyping of the Russians and Russia.

Dannyboy83

Russia Today's Youtube account has been banned due to gross distortion of facts:

http://rt.com/news/rt-youtube-suspended-glitch-534/
Viewers attempting to access the RT YT channel were denied access and told: “This account has been suspended due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, gaming, misleading content, or other Terms of Service violations.” The services were suspended around 0700 GMT.

Scofflaw

Crimean referendum results compared to previous poll results:



cordially,
Scofflaw

comongethappy

That seems on the level.

comongethappy

Looks like Russian forces are not giving Ukrainian forces a chance of leaving.

A military building in the Crimean capital is under attack, reports of injuries.

Scofflaw

In late 2013 there were 385,462 citizens in Sevastopol, according to the Sevastopol Statistics Service. This number included children under 18 and other people not eligible to vote. However, Mykhailo Malyshev, Chair of the Crimea Supreme Council Referendum Commission, stated that in Sevastopol alone 474,137 voters participated in the “referendum,” making Sevastopol’s voter turnout 123 percent.

Hmm. I wonder if there's any research done on the relation between referendum results and the likelihood that they're fraudulent. I'm pretty dubious about any referendum that returns a result over 90%.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if the genuine result was in favour, but the evidence for a rigged vote seems very solid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

comongethappy

I'm sure the majority would favoured joining Russia.

It looks like election fraud is a habit the Russians struggle to shake.

Dannyboy83

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm pretty dubious about any referendum that returns a result over 90%.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if the genuine result was in favour, but the evidence for a rigged vote seems very solid.

But 123% is on the Paltry side for a Russian election.... I recall how Vladimir Vladimirovich was elected with 146% of the vote in 2011.

Conmaicne Mara

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But 123% is on the Paltry side for a Russian election.... I recall how Vladimir Vladimirovich was elected with 146% of the vote in 2011.

Vote early, vote often, comrade

renegademaster

can you really believe your eyes!! imperialisticly driven team GB on it's high horse today about Russia signing Crimea into the Russian federation! "no amount of sham and perverse democratic process or skewed historical references can make up for the fact that this is an incursion of a sovereign state and a land grab of part of it's territory with no respect for the law of that country or international law..." I cannot believe this is the same man that was happy for his country to go with Sarkozi into Libya under false pretenses to murder Gaddafi, flying fighter jets on a round trip from UK bases to North Africa and back in a time of austerity for the average fool on the street back in Engerland.

Jonny7

renegademaster wrote: »

I cannot believe this is the same man that was happy for his country to go with Sarkozi into Libya under false pretenses to murder Gaddafi, flying fighter jets on a round trip from UK bases to North Africa and back in a time of austerity for the average fool on the street back in Engerland.

The same man who agreed with European leaders, the US, the Arab league and under a security council vote by the UN (which included Russia and China) to intervene in Libya

renegademaster

Jonny7 wrote: »

The same man who agreed with European leaders, the US, the Arab league and under a security council vote by the UN (which included Russia and China) to intervene in Libya

you may remember Putin was the only leader asking the UN, at the time, why they changed their game plan a month or so into the operation??

Jonny7

renegademaster wrote: »

you may remember Putin was the only leader asking the UN, at the time, why they changed their game plan a month or so into the operation??

Russia lost hundreds of millions, possibly billions in contracts and deals with Libya

This is the same Putin who is blocking aid convoys from reaching starving men women and children in Syria .. whilst at the same time being only one of two nations supplying arms and completing contracts with the man many deem responsible for that horror

I don't want to go off topic, if you are going to talk about hypocrisy, you might want to get things in perspective

renegademaster

Jonny7 wrote: »

Russia lost hundreds of millions, possibly billions in contracts and deals with Libya

This is the same Putin who is blocking aid convoys from reaching starving men women and children in Syria .. whilst at the same time being only one of two nations supplying arms and completing contracts with the man many deem responsible for that horror

I don't want to go off topic, if you are going to talk about hypocrisy, you might want to get things in perspective

you may remember Putin was the only one out of 8 world leaders who insisted on not arming the organ eating/western backed rebels, on Irish soil!! oh to be a fly on the wall at that one-sided meeting that day

gandalf

Dmitry Peskov is putting in a performance that Gerry Adams would be proud of on BBC Hardtalk at the moment. Black is white and white is black. The west need to stand up against the facist tendencies of Putin.

renegademaster

gandalf wrote: »

Dmitry Peskov is putting in a performance that Gerry Adams would be proud of on BBC Hardtalk at the moment. Black is white and white is black. The west need to stand up against the facist tendencies of Putin.

tis true what Putin said today, the west will call something white today and black tomorrow!!

Jonny7

That's Syria not Libya, and Putin agreed with the 7 point plan at that G8

Which he subsequently broke - by blocking aid convoys on the grounds of, and I kid you not, "sovereignty"