what happened to the großrossiya thread

[Sava]

let us know when you get off your soapbox

[I AM MOBIUS]

If I were Putin and the US declared that they were going to supply weapons to Kiev, I would...

Immediately take the rest of Donetsk and Luhansk. Hell, I'd even be tempted to take the rest of the red bits on this map:



You know, to protect the Russian speakers...

Certainly at the least I would move to create a land bridge through Ukrainian territory to Crimea.

And there wouldn't be a blind thing that the US could do about it.

I would also seek closer ties with China: Are China and Russia Moving toward a Formal Alliance?

Unlikely in the near future, but the U.S. should not make the strategic mistakes necessary to make it happen

I would also be giving both Iran and Syria greater support as well, just for the hell of it...

And finally, I would generally just make more of an ass of myself than I already have been - because frankly I've been behaving up til now.

Thank you for playing, Reg Collider, YOU LOSE!

[I AM MOBIUS]

Some might even go so far as to say, and with good reason, that the US are the aggressors in all this

[Felch]

Yeah, that same idiot wrote something similar a few months back. It only makes sense if you approach the situation with a vicious anti-Western bias, and the assumption that countries like Ukraine and Poland have no right to make trade agreements or alliances with whomever they choose. Basically the pro-Putin position is based on rejecting the idea Ukrainian sovereignty, and treating trade organizations and alliances as implicitly hostile and inflammatory to non-members.

[Proteus_MST]

Well, to twist Putins words a little bit around:
We cannot force the russian bear to eat honey and berries forever. We have to show understanding that sometimes the russian bear wants to snatch a nice tasty chunk of meat out of the thick fat (and peaceful) prey animals that run around in the forest

[PLATO]

That's what you implied when you spoke so approvingly of H&M's efforts. The Minsk agreement already acceded to the demands for autonomy the rebels made and that didn't turn out to be enough. Putin also hasn't conceded an inch since Russia annexed Crimea so hard to see how he's going to accept a new peace plan without yet more concessions from Ukraine.

No...I don't think that is what I implied. I believe that is more of an indication of what you believe to be H&M's positions. Russia has come under a lot more economic stress since the original Minsk deal and quite clearly both sides have had a hard time keeping it. I don't believe that other options than giving Ukraine weapons or going to war is "rolling over". Perhaps you do...and if so then fair enough.

Geopolitics with Russia is always more than just the single conflict we are talking about anyway. There is Putin and Sisi's growing relationship and Obama's request for military authorization against IS that could come into play as well. There are many different pressure points that can come into play when it comes down to actually getting an agreement. Let's not forget that Merkel may bring manufacturing deals that are mutually beneficial or Holland may bring an assualt ship whose sale would really help the French economy. There is more interest here than just Russian and Ukrainian.

The real trick is to find a way to get back to an international standard on boarders for the west and getting Russia to feel less boxed in. Arming the Ukrainians doesn't look helpful on either one of those fronts.

[PLATO]

What is the position on Tibet these days?

It is easier to forget a country that has been totally overrun than one that is in the middle of a Russian involved civil war?

The Dalai Lama is more fun to party with than Petroshenko?

[PLATO]

It "wasn't our problem" when South Korea was invaded by North Korea, but the benefits of rescuing them have been enormous. It wasn't our problem when the Kuomintang lost mainland China, but the benefits of rescuing Taiwan have been enormous. It is absolutely worth our time and treasure to keep a fledgling free-market democracy from falling into the hands of a tyrant. And that's in addition to preventing a precedent where dictators feel free to make land grabs. China's eyeballing the South China Sea while Putin marches around Eastern Europe.

I agree that this is "our" problem...just as much as it is the European's problem. Russia has illegally annexed the territory of another country and they obviously have troops on the ground in Ukraine. However, Russia is neither North Korea or 1950 China. Russia is a full geopolitical player with a nuclear arsenal and a more than robust conventional force. If they choose to take Ukraine, there isn't much short of all out war we could do militarily to stop them. I do believe that Russia's actions should have very serious consequences and the west has, imho, been remarkable allied in what they have done so far. What do you think is keeping the Russian Army at bay right now? They certainly don't fear the Ukrainian army. I would imagine that they even believe that the west would not fight for Ukraine. So why not just invade and end it...put Ukraine back in their Orbit? Could it be that the united front the west is showing is having more of an impact than most want to admit? Russians are stubborn people...they will take a lot of abuse, but they won't run from a fight. If we want to make it a military show, then count on them answering the challange...not being deterred by it.

[PLATO]

Some might even go so far as to say, and with good reason, that the US are the aggressors in all this

While I do believe that this spells out the Russian vision of things quite nicely, I don't buy Russia having an inalienable right to a "sphere of influence" that anybody has to recognize. At the end of the day, it is not Russian natural resources, economic clout, or cultural influence that makes them a player...it is Russian tanks and missles. This is being nothing more than wanting to be the bully in your neighborhood. Let's also not overlook the fact that Russian activities have been blatantly illegal and the West's have not. If Russia wants Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" then it needs to earn it...not steal it.

[Lonestar]

This has to stop somewhere, and when it does, we'll be involved. Better to do it now, before more damage is done.

I agree that it has to stop somewhere.

NATO borders sound good for the stopping point.

If you personally want to do something about it, well, the UA is recruiting foreigners. Knock yourself out killer.

[I AM MOBIUS]

While I do believe that this spells out the Russian vision of things quite nicely, I don't buy Russia having an inalienable right to a "sphere of influence" that anybody has to recognize. At the end of the day, it is not Russian natural resources, economic clout, or cultural influence that makes them a player...it is Russian tanks and missles. This is being nothing more than wanting to be the bully in your neighborhood. Let's also not overlook the fact that Russian activities have been blatantly illegal and the West's have not. If Russia wants Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" then it needs to earn it...not steal it.

I agree completely with all your points.

Mine is that from Russia's POV, old habits die hard, and perhaps they feel justified in their actions up until now.

Also, when we talk about legality, let's not forget the way that Yanukovych was deposed.

Concerning your point:

If Russia wants Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" then it needs to earn it...not steal it

One of the reasons the protests erupted in the Maidan is because Yanukovych signed Russia's economic counter proposal to the EU's.

As to conspiracy theories, it is possible things are rarely black and white: The untold story of the Maidan massacre

The Russians see an ally stolen from them; encroachment from the west and NATO forces in the very lands of the former Soviet Union - are their actions really that surprising?

I mean, consider America's treatment of Cuba as a comparison...

Obviously I'm not condoning Russia's actions in the slightest, but I can totally see the sequence of events that got us to where we are now - and why further escalation is a really, really bad idea.

[I AM MOBIUS]

If you personally want to do something about it, well, the UA is recruiting foreigners. Knock yourself out killer.

[Colonâ„¢]

...Russia has come under a lot more economic stress since the original Minsk deal...

Due to energy prices, not due to sanctions. The West has little to press Russia with in this regard. The whole notion that Putin is going to behave better because of the economy is also rather wishful.

This sums it all up really:

"For months now, Europe’s often fractious leaders have spoken with one voice on Ukraine, ruling out a military solution and pleading with all parties to find a way to resolve the dispute diplomatically. But in Minsk, they confronted the reality that Mr. Putin retains the upper hand precisely because he is prepared to use military force to get what he wants in diplomacy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/world/in-ukraine-its-putins-game.html

In Ukraine, It’s Putin’s Game

By ANDREW HIGGINSFEB. 11, 2015

BRUSSELS — His country’s oil export revenues and currency have slumped. Its economy is shrinking, and some of his own allies in Moscow have questioned where he is leading them. Yet when President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sat down Wednesday in the Belarussian capital of Minsk with the leaders of Ukraine, Germany and France to discuss the conflict in eastern Ukraine, he still held the decisive cards.

For months now, Europe’s often fractious leaders have spoken with one voice on Ukraine, ruling out a military solution and pleading with all parties to find a way to resolve the dispute diplomatically. But in Minsk, they confronted the reality that Mr. Putin retains the upper hand precisely because he is prepared to use military force to get what he wants in diplomacy.

In a sign of Europe’s commitment to diplomacy, both Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, the Continent’s most powerful political figure, and President François Hollande of France, the leader of Western Europe’s biggest country, traveled to Minsk on Wednesday in a last-ditch attempt to revive a moribund peace process begun in September with a truce deal, which was also negotiated in Minsk. They did so despite what Ms. Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said was just “a glimmer of hope.”

However, in Minsk, Europe’s faith in a “political solution” — a mantra repeated over the past year at every meeting in Brussels of leaders and foreign ministers — confronted the hard reality created by Mr. Putin, whose support for separatist rebels gutted the last Minsk agreement, empowered their quest for a clear military solution and amplified voices in Washington calling for military aid to Ukraine.

“Putin has got everyone spun up over what he is up to in Minsk, but he is playing a long game,” said Fiona Hill, the United States’ top intelligence officer on Russia from 2006 to 2009. “He plays on multiple fronts. We start talking about a military response, and he starts talking about diplomacy.”

Ms. Hill, now director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution and co-author of “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin,” predicted that any new cease-fire accord would “only be temporary like the last one” because Mr. Putin constantly shifts between diplomatic and military options, depending on which he sees as giving Russia the most advantage.

The West, she added, assisted Russia’s tactical maneuvering by making it clear what it wanted while Mr. Putin constantly keeps everyone guessing. “You can win on a weak hand if your opponent is always showing you their hand,” she said.

Speaking in Brussels on Monday during a meeting of European foreign ministers that again reaffirmed the sanctity of diplomacy over force, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, stressed that Wednesday’s talks in Minsk between the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists needed to strengthen, not rewrite, September’s so-called Minsk Protocol.

But he acknowledged that fully putting it into effect was no longer an option because of what he called “certain evolutions on the ground,” namely a steady advance by pro-Russian fighters that has extended the territory they control by more than 200 square miles since September.

In the weeks preceding Wednesday’s Minsk summit talks, pro-Russian rebels, fortified by fresh supplies of Russian weapons, seized the ruins of the Donetsk airport and launched a determined offensive against the town of Debaltseve, an important rail junction and the last pocket of Ukrainian-held territory in a wide swath of territory north of Donetsk.

The gap between Europe’s dogged diplomacy and Mr. Putin’s approach to Ukraine, which mixes regular calls for peace with stealthy supplies of Russian weapons and even soldiers to the separatists, has left Moscow and Brussels “playing entirely different games,” said Amanda Paul, a Russia expert at the European Policy Center, a Brussels research group.

“Putin can outmaneuver us because he knows what our limits are. He knows we will not deploy troops. He knows that even if the United States decides to send some arms, Russia is still strong enough to defeat Ukraine,” she added. “But we have no idea what Putin’s limits are. He does not show his cards. The West does. Maybe there is not a military solution, but we should keep Russia guessing.”

While vague on his objectives in Ukraine beyond a determination to block what he sees as a plot by NATO to push deep into former Soviet territory, Mr. Putin has made clear his desire to divide the European Union, reaching out to countries like Hungary and Greece, where a new left-wing government has raised doubts about the wisdom of sanctions imposed on Moscow over Ukraine. So far, however, the 28-nation bloc has managed to stay unusually united, in part because it has stuck to relatively modest sanctions, in step with Washington.

Linas A. Linkevicius, the foreign minister of Lithuania, one of the few European countries that support sending weapons to Ukraine, said, “Diplomatic efforts are of course worthwhile, but we can’t judge whether they are working, even if we get Russia’s signature on an agreement. We have learned that we can only judge events on the ground.”

“We cannot trust a single word of the Russian leadership,” he added. “They are all worthless.”

The last Minsk agreement began to unravel almost as soon as it was signed. There were violations of the cease-fire on both sides, but particularly from the rebels, whose leader at the time, Pavel Gubarev, denounced the accord as a sellout and declared “we want to spit on this ‘peace.’ ”

Since then, the rebels have consolidated their previously fragmented land into a more defensible territory and have vowed to resist any return to a so-called “demarcation line” fixed in September. Mr. Fabius, the French foreign minister, indicated that France and Germany, which have taken the lead in Europe’s diplomatic push, would accept revisions to the earlier accord, saying that it would be respected “as far as possible.”

An annual security conference in Munich last weekend was dominated by discussion about Ukraine and debate over whether Wednesday’s peace talks would yield “Minsk plus,” a relaunch of last year’s accord, or “Minsk minus,” a confirmation that the earlier agreement was dead and would be replaced by a new deal that enshrined the rebels’ military gains.

Skepticism was rife about the prospects for a deal that did not reward armed force, and the German government has been deliberately downbeat since, suggesting that the Minsk meeting not even take place and that if it did, hopes of an enduring settlement were slim.

Asked whether it was more likely there would be a “Minsk plus” or a “Minsk minus,” Norbert Röttgen, the Christian Democrat who is chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the German Parliament, said he feared a minus from the Western standpoint.

“I think there will either be nothing, because Putin unfortunately tactically has the upper hand in the short term,” he said. “And Poroshenko only has a limited amount of room to maneuver.

“Or there will be a new cease-fire, a second Minsk, which would include a significant shift of the demarcation line to the West. The violation of Minsk 1 would then be honored in Minsk 2, and whether Putin would then keep to Minsk 2, there are considerable doubts,” Mr. Röttgen added.

Despite growing exasperation with Russia’s meddling and its repeated denials of arms supplies, European nations have strong reasons to reject the idea of arming Ukraine, even with defensive weapons, and to rely solely on economic sanctions.

“The only sector where Putin has nothing to fear is arms,” Paolo Gentiloni, the foreign minister of Italy, said during an interview with The New York Times editorial board on Wednesday. “Russia is weak in many sectors, but very strong in arms.”

Any weapons sent to Ukraine by the United States, he said, might even help Mr. Putin as it “could support his narrative” that Russia has legitimate reasons to fear Western military encroachment on its borders.

Alison Smale contributed reporting from Berlin, and Rick Gladstone from New York.

[Hauldren Collider]

"Speak softly and carry a big stick."

We have been doing the exact opposite of this ever since Obama took office. Europe's always been bad about it, but when the White House is too, people like Putin get to have their way.

[N35t0r]

Due to energy prices, not due to sanctions. The West has little to press Russia with in this regard. The whole notion that Putin is going to behave better because of the economy is also rather wishful.

No, the idea is for him to lose support in russia.