RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

warspite1 -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 6:19:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


I´m quite sure the moderators will close down this thread if they deem it to break the rules or get out of hand. So far there has been only one useless/silly/troll comment which was ignored by all.

I´m glad the moderators have left this open and it would be a shame if you managed to get it closed just because of envy or whatever your motivations are. There is no need for an "outside police" or a crusade just because a similar thread was closed in "your" forum.

Just leave it to the moderators. Okay?
warspite1

Envy? Behave. Its called fairness and equality. Read the Scottish Independence thread. It never got out of hand, it was polite and civilised. But it was closed as it was against the rules. I just want the rules applied fairly. Why is that difficult for you to understand?



obvert -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 6:29:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

From what I've read, the people of Crimea want to leave the Ukraine and join Russia. Solution - let them. Self-determination and all that stuff.

Think of it his way. Suppose that Maine wanted to leave the US and join Canada. As long as the Canadians are willing to take them, they should be allowed to go. No need for military action. Just a simple vote by the people involved. Isn't that the whole principle behind democracy?


Think of it this way. What if Texas wanted to become a republic again, go it alone? Do you think the US would allow that? With the resources, positioning and size of Texas?

Could the Ukraine exist economically without the Crimea? I don't know, but that area is both strategically and economically important to it, and the area that they're showing on the news that's more Russian speaking and aligned politically with Russia is about 1/3 or more of the country, not just Crimea. Pretty tough to just let that go for the Ukraine.


I'd say if the Texans want to separate, then they should be allowed to do so. I've never met a separatist movement I would not support. I guess that's because my country was founded on a separatist movement. Americans would have to be complete hypocrites to not be supportive of people trying to free themselves from governments they don't accept.

As an Englishman though, I bet you see things a bit differently. For a couple hundred years or so, your nation fought freedom movements tooth and nail (and it looks like you've got another one in the works with the Scots at it again).


Born: Portland, OR USA - 1971

On one side of the family my ancestors came to Jamestown in 1650, on another, my grandmother was born in Norway and moved to Minnesota at age 4.

If you think 'Americans would be hypocrites to not be supportive of people trying to free themselves from governments they don't accept' I'd reccommend some reading. If it's in our interests we're all behind them. If not ...

My point being, the Crimea has incredible importance to both sides there, Russia and the Ukraine. You can't use Maine as a credible example, but even if you did, I don't think the US would willingly let it go either. Sorry.



CaptDave -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 6:30:33 AM)

My mother is currently reading a Tom Clancy novel -- I don't remember which one, but it's one of his last (if not the last) -- and she says this is all playing out exactly as it does in the book, almost as if Putin had read it. She's sometimes given to a bit of exaggeration, but I still find this a scary coincidence (on the other hand, in hindsight it wasn't that hard to predict).



LoBaron -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 6:47:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Re the above I think quite the reverse is true. Discussing WWII or the Cold War is historical and thus allowed.


If you care to re-read my post, I wrote 'compare' and not 'discuss'. Comparing WWII or the cold war to the Ukrainian crisis inm an emotionalized way like we have already seen in this thread. It does obviously not apply, and it potentially leads to the usual generalized political statements already posted.


Crimea is not Maine, it is not like ´31, ´35, ´38, ´39 all over again, its not Hungary ´56, yadda, yadda.



Encircled -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 7:13:06 AM)

But there are similarities, whether people like it or not.

Will the west do anything?

Probably not

Should the west do something?

Probably






wdolson -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 7:18:46 AM)

I've been away most of the day and this thread has spun up. This thread has been drifting over the line a few times.

We do discuss current events here, but while I know it's tough to leave the politics out of this, can we try to do so? Political opinions can and do range all over the map and expressing them can generate a lot of ill will, especially in the US right now. This is probably why Matrix discourages modern political discussions.

Bill



JocMeister -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 7:32:07 AM)

Thank you Bill for allowing this (for now).

Recent news is that the the UN is sending Jan Eliasson (deputy Secretary General) to the Ukraine to be UNs "eyes on the ground" and report back to the UN. Also according to Russian sources the Russian Foreign minister Larvov have spoken to China and received their backing in the conflict.

EDIT:

Also Swedish defense analyst Stefan Ring deems any western interference as highly unlikely. He states economical reasons for this. Germany for example is importing over 50% of their natural gas from Russia. Many of the European nations are reliant on Russian oil like Sweden and Denmark. The EU in general is dependent on Russian oil and gas which means many EU/Nato nations will object to going on a collision course against Russia.

He summarized his analysis with the closing statement: "No European nation will go to war against Russia for Ukraine".

Personally I think he is correct. In today's world only one thing is certain. Money rules.



GreyJoy -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 8:09:32 AM)

Letting aside the moral considerations, I do believe there is not an aprioristic "right" or "wrong" when it comes down to geo-politics.
This time Russia, for many of the reasons already pointed out here, has the upper hand. Nobody, not even the US, can do anything here. Just like Russia (or China) could do anything to prevent the western interventions in Iraq or Afganistan after 9/11.
Also I do believe that it's a bit naïve to talk about "democracy" or "rights" when it comes down to these matters. It's just power, as it has always been.

Just to put things in prespective... leave alone the 20th century... let's go back to the 3rd century BC... Do you remember Saguntum? when Cartago claimed the city because it was inside the Ebrus line and Rome pretended it was her ally and considered the aggression as an act of war? Who was right of the two?
I'd say both of them, cause both of them were seeking their interests, which is what the human kind has been doing for 100k years now. Plain and simple



Encircled -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 8:32:29 AM)

Nothing wrong with being "naive" when it comes to principles

What happens if Ukraine decides to fight?

Everybody just stand aside and see what happens?

The list of examples where that has proved to be a disaster are quite compelling







JocMeister -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 8:37:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Nothing wrong with being "naive" when it comes to principles

What happens if Ukraine decides to fight?

Everybody just stand aside and see what happens?

The list of examples where that has proved to be a disaster are quite compelling



Most likely everyone will stand back a watch yes. Money talks and the EU/Nato needs Russian oil and gas.



Chris21wen -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 8:41:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Question is, what will the rest of the world do? will they sit on there hands or do something? I think the new government will need to ask for some kind of help. but what kind?[:(]
GP


Lots of political sanctions already taking place. But most experts seem to agree that any military interference from the outside is extremely unlikely.

Although both Nato, Russia(!) and the EU has guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for the dismantlement of its nuclear weapons...



which is one of the (understandable) reasons why other nuclear powers won't give up their arsenal. You could never trust anyone and you can't do so in future when it comes down to diplomacy, sadly that is.
And a nuclear arsenal seems to still be the ace you should have in your stack.


Any anybody who thinks they aren't is deluding themselves.

It is unfortunate that most third world countries, ex-communist and ex-dictatorship do not know how democracy, voting and freedom of speech works. Eventually they all seem to resort to violence to try and get what one faction or the other wants, and I includes Ukraine's current 'government' in this.



Encircled -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 8:44:43 AM)

*Message to the world from the West*

Just in case you needed any more confirmation about our duplicity and our interests in you being solely related to what natural resources we can get from you, we are letting Russia overrun the Ukraine because we are worried about the future of our gas supplies.

Yours

The countries that tell you to "Do what we say, not what we do".

Ok, slightly tongue in cheek but you can see how it looks to the rest of the world.



JocMeister -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 8:55:10 AM)

Pretty much yes. Bullwinkle linked a to a very interesting article on the first page of the thread.



LoBaron -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 9:35:03 AM)

Part of what makes the situation so difficult to control is that Sevastopol still is the main base for the Russsian Black Sea Fleet, and close to 60% of the population of the Krim peninsula are Russians. This combined is the major reason why the situation escalated so quickly there.

Paired with the fact that about 16%-17% of the total population of the Ukraine are ethnical Russians, and probably 1/3rd of the population are decidedly pro-Russia, the current conflict sadly has the potential for civil war, with or without Russian involvement.



aciddrinker -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 9:47:59 AM)

TBH is hard to understand for many people whats going on do the fact that they dont have any idea about history of Russia/USSR and central Europe. If i good remember Crimea was added to Ukrainian SSR in 1956. Now do the fact that nationalist at Ukraine done Coup d'état, Russia just take what thinks that is own by them(they already sized Crimea). Puttin will not care about any restriction from the west becouse he will not suffer(i dont belive that they put embargo for Russian oil and gas) but only some Russian citizen's. In whole Russian history unit was nothing, people was just living to serv few elites on top. So now we are at point when by next few years Putin will just cut Ukraine chunk by chunk and 'west' will do nothing. Like today http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/721751 they start mobilze baltic fleet.

PS. sorry for my bad english.



koniu -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 10:18:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aciddrinker
If i good remember Crimea was added to Ukrainian SSR in 1956.



In February 1954 the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) gave Crimea as a gift from the Russians people to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
In that time it was only artificial border change on USSR internal map.

But when USSR fall, mostly to avoid internal military conflict between republics all republic sign treaty. In this treaty they agree that all republics (those that will stay in Russia Federation and those that gain Independence will keep their borders they have at day of signing treaty). This is how nothing meaning decision in 50s can create situation that in extreme can start WW3 or major regional conflict bigger that Yugoslavia war. This can lead to biggest military conflict Europe saw since WW2.


Historically speaking Crimea is more Russian than Ukrainian. But that those not change fact that today it is part of Ukrainian territory and Pacta sunt servanda



JocMeister -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 11:14:59 AM)

-Ukrainian sources claim two warships "have illegally entered Sevastapol harbor during the night" The same sources also claim Russian planes violated Ukrainian airspace during the night.

-Foreign minister Lavrov claims ultra nationalist on Crimea are threatening the lives of the Russian population and destabilizing the area and local interests.

-Ukrainian border guards claim Russian forces are currently "pouring in over the border to Crimea". At least 10 "combat helicopters" and 8 "Jet planes" have landed on the Crimea.



obvert -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 11:24:01 AM)

Also from the BBC news, which battle gets to the top of the popular news items for the day;



[image]local://upfiles/37283/1B4488B0BB194272B9208B9684878A3D.jpg[/image]



Encircled -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 11:24:27 AM)

BBC live coverage

BBC live coverage of the crisis

The snake v crocodile fight is ace btw!



JocMeister -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 11:27:43 AM)

I don´t know if I should be happy or sad that people rather watch a snake eat a crocodile than worry about the Ukrainian crisis? [:D]



jay102 -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 12:28:44 PM)

Putting aside emotional analogy or idealization, international politics is about power and interest. Ukraine(at least the eastern part) is Russia's soft belly. No Russian politician in power would let it slip into western sphere of influence without some resemblance of action. From another side of the coin, isn't it a bit regrettable for Russia that the west can project soft power deep in its backyards that it had to resort to military(which is of course unseemly) to protect its vital interest?



Terminus -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 12:31:25 PM)

And isn't it regrettable that Putin has convinced Russia that NATO is an imminent military and political threat?



obvert -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 12:42:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I don´t know if I should be happy or sad that people rather watch a snake eat a crocodile than worry about the Ukrainian crisis? [:D]


These are very complex questions. I feel the same. [:D]



USSAmerica -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 12:48:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]


Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).



Miller -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 12:55:32 PM)

The best thing for the west to do is nothing, and they will. Its a very different planet to the one in late 30's. Russia will take back the area they want and the Ukrainians will have to like it or lump it. Not fair or right of course but that's life. The US/EU will moan a bit but it will all soon be forgotten. All IMHO of course.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 1:13:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Pretty much yes. Bullwinkle linked a to a very interesting article on the first page of the thread.


This is another one from the same Politico.com site. ( A very interesting start-up here in the US. Old-school 5-Ws reporting, pretty non-partisan, lots of facts, inside-baseball for political junkies.)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/russia-energy-ukraine-104158.html?hp=l5

This one is a survey of the oil/gas issue from multiple perspectives. I'm sure industry insiders would say there's a lot more to it, but it was a good primer for me.

Eastern Europe might need to accelerate moving away from a fossil-fuel economy, and western Europe too. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of how that's going in the west. But oil/gas is Russia's Achilles Heel. They don't make much of anything the world wants or needs besides that.

If energy were cut off to Europe next winter could the world cope? Maybe. I think yes, but with huge disruption. Petroleum is a fungible commodity; Russia would sell it elsewhere, at higher transport costs without the pipelines, and the West would buy from other sources. Whether there is sufficient LNG shipping capacity to keep Europe warm I'm unsure of.

I did a little reading over the weekend on US law relative to exporting oil and natural gas, and it's pretty thick. The US has a bit of excess these days thanks to North Dakota and other fracking regions. Congress would need to streamline the procedures to get it where it needs to go. I don't know if that would happen in the current Washington environment.

Outside of oil/gas the economics of this crisis are really on Europe to deal with. The US is a very minor trading partner with Russia. Peanuts really. The banking interests in Europe have to either change or be made to change and put pressure on the oligarch community if they want Putin to feel any heat.

If Ukraine fights I don't know what happens. Russia will not cede their warm water port easily. Any student of Russian history knows this dream goes back to Peter the Great and before. In the medium term, if partition occurs, I think NATO membership for the western portion should be an option, as well as a Ukrainian "Marshall Plan" funded by Europe. As the old saying goes, the best revenge is living well. The eastern Ukrainians may come to wish they had leaned toward Europe after all.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 1:21:29 PM)

I also did some reading on the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. I found out some of what I thought I knew was wrong, and there's more to the pact than I had known.

The Black Sea is probably the most restricted international body of water in the world. The Convention is one of the oldest continuous sea-control treaties in the world, and was observed even by Hitler when he was in a life-and-death struggle with the USSR.

Bottom line, the USN cannot operate carriers in the Black Sea. It cannot operate submarines there. Even if it could it is impossible to covertly enter the Black Sea. The tonnage restrictions on surface combatants in the Convention are extremely restrictive and the permitted time-on-station just a few weeks. Getting into the Black Sea, past and through the center of Istanbul, is one of the most difficult navigations in the world.

Russia, as a riparian power, has much more freedom to use the Black Sea militarily than any NATO power except Turkey. Power projection into Ukraine from the sea is really not an option.

Anyway, it's a naval subject. Google it and read away. Really interesting body of history.



mind_messing -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 1:24:36 PM)

Buisness as usual for the ex-Soviet sphere. You can do what you want, just so long as it's what we want you to do.

The more I read in to it, the more I see how Putin simply can't come out a winner. Economic sanctions are pointless: the West can pressure the Russian economy, but NATO needs Russian gas. The only people willing to die for the Ukraine seems to be the Ukrainians: the West is simply not wanting to fight, and even if it did, it would achive nothing.

Best case: Interm government holds things together, but Crimea declares independance. Russia signs a bunch of treaties with Crimea to keep it seperate from the Ukraine.

Worst case: Interm government collapses under Soviet pressure and we end up with the Ukrainian government being the revolving door as it was in 1917-1919.



JocMeister -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 1:27:08 PM)

Thanks for the link Bullwinkle. I´ll read it tonight.

Any kind of military intervention would have to be UN sanctioned. And that is simply not going to happen. Its going to happen exactly like Miller describes. We will all moan and bitch about and in 2 weeks it will be business as usual. Putin knows this, the EU knows this and NATO knows this.

Everything happening right now with all "political pressure" applied against Russia is just an empty show.



mind_messing -> RE: OT: Ukrainian crisis (3/3/2014 1:27:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I also did some reading on the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. I found out some of what I thought I knew was wrong, and there's more to the pact than I had known.

The Black Sea is probably the most restricted international body of water in the world. The Convention is one of the oldest continuous sea-control treaties in the world, and was observed even by Hitler when he was in a life-and-death struggle with the USSR.

Bottom line, the USN cannot operate carriers in the Black Sea. It cannot operate submarines there. Even if it could it is impossible to covertly enter the Black Sea. The tonnage restrictions on surface combatants in the Convention are extremely restrictive and the permitted time-on-station just a few weeks. Getting into the Black Sea, past and through the center of Istanbul, is one of the most difficult navigations in the world.

Russia, as a riparian power, has much more freedom to use the Black Sea militarily than any NATO power except Turkey. Power projection into Ukraine from the sea is really not an option.

Anyway, it's a naval subject. Google it and read away. Really interesting body of history.


That really is the crux of the poor position the West is in. Unless they form a fairly united NATO (unlikely!), there's nothing the US can do to posture other than blow diplomatic gusts. No carriers, no power projection.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.511719