Role of the Baltic States

[kuri]

Hehe... No offense Kuri; but if you really believe what you have written here and not just trolling... you might be "a little late to the party". As I've said several times on this board - Geopolitics are not about doing what's right; but rather "what's right for you". The Russians play that game well, but they are still "small fish" compared to how we (US) embrace this notion.

In retrospect my post does seem naive, got a bit carried away.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Putin is not destabilizing Europe, he is trying to sabotage a move of the Ukraine to NATO/EU. Ukraine has always been part of the Russian sphere of influence (with only short interruptions during crises), so if anything is destabilizing Europe it is a move from Ukraine towards the West.

 

Of course there are all kind of issues regarding the way this movement has developed and about the ways Russia is trying to prevent this movement, but it was the movement that destabilised the situation.

 

But apart form the Ukraine, there is nothing wrong with the stability in Europe. (Southern Caucasus cannot be really be called Europe, if anybody can give a good definition of Europe anyway).

Ukraine has a right to decide its' own destiny. If they want to move twards NATO and the EU who can blame them after the way Russia treated them. On the same principle the Russian minority have a similar right. But it needs o be done at he conferance table, not on the battlefield.

Edited March 7, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Erik Springelkamp]

It is a bit like arguing an abused wife should stay with the husband because she's his wife.  Ukraine has gotten the really short end of the stick in being attached to Russia.  Things have changed to the degree that Ukraine has the ability to make up its own mind, and Russia disagrees.  

 

Which is ironic as outside of Putin's pet Russians in the east, it's pretty much ensured Ukrainian independence from Russia (barring invasion) for the next few decades at the least.   

 

In any event it was hardly destabilizing, or no more destabilizing (and shooting down less airliners) than the current state of affairs, with a clear end state.  Now?  Russia has given Eastern Europe cancer.  It's going to fester and damage the health of the region until it either kills the patient or someone kills the tumor.  

 

Russia being morally wrong or right doesn't change the analysis.

 

One may argue that the Kiev Ukrainians had good reasons to move away from Russia, but one cannot call that destabilizing Europe by Russia.

 

It is a destabilization by Kiev, that was encouraged by the EU and the US.

 

After that analysis one can start to argue why this destabilization may be worth it.

 

When I were a Kiev Ukrainian I would probably support this destabilization, because I probably wouldn't have liked the status quo.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Erik Springelkamp

[Erik Springelkamp]

Ukraine has a right to decide its' own destiny. If they want to move twards NATO and the EU who can blame them after the way Russia treated them. On the same principle the Russian minority have a similar right. But it needs o be done at he conferance table, not on the battlefield.

 

Whether they had a right to do it doesn't change the description of what happened.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

It is a destabilization by Kiev, that was encouraged by the EU and the US.

 

 

Dunno.  Seems like the seperatists would all be rightfully lining the bottom of a ditch and life would have moved on if Russia hadn't insisted on getting involved.  There's nothing inherently unstable with a western aligned Ukraine except for Russian objections to same.  

[Baneman]

...

One may argue that the Kiev Ukrainians had good reasons to move away from Russia, but one cannot call that destabilizing Europe by Russia.

It is a destabilization by Kiev, that was encouraged by the EU and the US.

 

 

Still not sure how Ukraine moving away from a Russian sphere of influence "destabilises" Europe ?

Sure, the war causes destabilisation, but that's because of the Russian objection to the movement. The movement itself from Russian to EU sphere of influence doesn't inherently destabilise anything.

[DreDay]

In retrospect my post does seem naive, got a bit carried away.

No worries bud... I certainly wish that your vision was a reality!

[DreDay]

Dunno.  Seems like the seperatists would all be rightfully lining the bottom of a ditch and life would have moved on if Russia hadn't insisted on getting involved.  There's nothing inherently unstable with a western aligned Ukraine except for Russian objections to same.

Yep, if only we could always have our way; and those that don't like it would be lining the bottom of the ditch. That's the kind of stuff that we want to stand for... riiiiight....

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Yep, if only we could always have our way; and those that don't like it would be lining the bottom of the ditch. That's the kind of stuff that we want to stand for... riiiiight.... 

 

I don't think the nazi-Ukrainian genocide of the Russian speaking population of Ukraine came to pass.  I don't think the separatists have a legitimate claim, and they do not have a means to achieve a legitmate functioning country that could not simply be qualified as being a defacto Russian owned property.  Given this assumption on my part, and the continued refusal of the separatists to even have talks that are simply not times for them to rearm and decide the cease fire doesn't apply in certain places because we crossed our fingers when we signed it, the only real reasonable end to the fighting in the Ukraine that does not result in a festering tumor in eastern europe is the catastrophic defeat of the separatists.  This was going to happen until Russia intervened with significant aid because it's important that their pet tumor exist, regardless of how it affects the rest of Eastern Europe (or even Russia when you get down to it).

 

Thus the most peaceful, and lasting end to this crisis is the separatists lining the bottom of a ditch, unless you think you can kill your way through enough Ukrainians that this issue will not be revisited again in the future.  

[sburke]

Ukraine has a right to self determination.  Russia's defense of it's annexation of Crimea as reflecting their exercising their rights seems to completely contradict Russia's position vis a vis Kiev.   The apologists for Russian aggression can say whatever they want about these old notions of "sphere's of influence".  Ukraine however is not obligated to live by Russian perceptions.

 

Kiev did not cause the destabilization, Russian continued intervention in Ukraine's internal affairs and the corruption it contributed to created a need for Ukraine to look to the west for societal reforms, so chicken before the egg or whatever, Russia does not get to decide Ukraine's future and Russian disregard for the agreements it supposedly is a party to is inherently at fault for the current situation.

 

As to the comment about folks ending up in a ditch.  First off I don't think that is likely.  There would have been no separatists movement without Russia and it's proxies. Assuming for the moment though that there were, Ukraine would not get into the EU nor get western support by committing war crimes and that is not an action anyone here should even consider being justified.  I am not saying that was the intent of that post, but it comes across like it.  if Northern Ireland can find peace, so can Ukraine without continued sectarian murder.

 

Does the West live at times by the same double standard- sure.  US relations with Cuba being probably the classic example.  However that doesn't justify Russia's behavior.  One can comfortably condemn both.  For standards to have a value, they need to be consistently and objectively applied.

Edited March 7, 2015 by sburke

[DreDay]

I don't think the nazi-Ukrainian genocide of the Russian speaking population of Ukraine came to pass.  I don't think the separatists have a legitimate claim, and they do not have a means to achieve a legitmate functioning country that could not simply be qualified as being a defacto Russian owned property.  Given this assumption on my part, and the continued refusal of the separatists to even have talks that are simply not times for them to rearm and decide the cease fire doesn't apply in certain places because we crossed our fingers when we signed it, the only real reasonable end to the fighting in the Ukraine that does not result in a festering tumor in eastern europe is the catastrophic defeat of the separatists.  This was going to happen until Russia intervened with significant aid because it's important that their pet tumor exist, regardless of how it affects the rest of Eastern Europe (or even Russia when you get down to it).

 

Thus the most peaceful, and lasting end to this crisis is the separatists lining the bottom of a ditch, unless you think you can kill your way through enough Ukrainians that this issue will not be revisited again in the future.

I don't understand why a Nazi-like genocide of indigenous population is an only cause that calls for a separatist movement.... If that was the case, then our country (I am assuming that you are American) would still be a part of UK. The Donbass natives seem to have more than enough reasons to fight and to die for their cause, so your view of what they deserve is a bit irrelevant here. Your notion that the rebels are not willing to negotiate is also completely factually incorrect (and indicative of your poor knowledge of dynamics that drive this conflict). Moreover, I find your proposal that a complicated and age-long issue is best resolved with a slaughter of a weaker side to be Nazi-like on its own. I hope that I have misunderstood your point, but if not… well I just hope that you are in no position of power or authority...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I don't understand why a Nazi-like genocide of indigenous population is an only cause that calls for a separatist movement.... If that was the case, then our country (I am assuming that you are American) would still be a part of UK. The Donbass natives seem to have more than enough reasons to fight and to die for their cause, so your view of what they deserve is a bit irrelevant here. Your notion that the rebels are not willing to negotiate is also completely factually incorrect (and indicative of your poor knowledge of dynamics that drive this conflict). Moreover, I find your proposal that a complicated and age-long issue is best resolved with a slaughter of a weaker side to be Nazi-like on its own. I hope that I have misunderstood your point, but if not… well I just hope that you are in no position of power or authority...

 

Paging Dr. Godwin?

 

There's a really interesting essay from the late 90's reflecting on conflict, namely resulting from the Bosnian conflicts called "Give War a Chance" I believe, and the underlying assumption is in terms of stability and long term viability, the absolute victory on the part of one party is the best option strictly talking in terms of the mentioned two dynamics.  If resistance is out and out crushed, then there's little chance of it violating ceasefires later to add rail junctions and somesuch.

 

The separatist parts of Ukraine lack any meaningful contribution to the world at large as the fictional people's republics they claim to be.  They're going to be Russian satellites that will rely, much as the seized portions of Georgia do exclusively upon the stability and long term viability of a Russian foreign policy decision to be combative with the west.   A weaker Russia would potentially either literally abandon those states, or perhaps just functionally abandon them in the future, meaning Ukraine will redress past grievances with a vengeance resulting in likely the same destruction that the idiots currently fighting in Donbass could have avoided in the first place instead of playing the "Ukrainians are all secretly Nazi" card.  

 

As demonstrated by recent fighting, a marginal or incomplete victory against the separatist elements will simply result in them being rearmed and augmented by Russian forces for another go at making Putintopia or whatever the end state is.  As further demonstrated the cease fire largely existed to further separatist ends vs a meaningful attempt at coexistence.  

 

The Ukrainians are unlikely to accept the theft of part of their nation short of abject military defeat.  This is also the case with the seperatists.  However given the reality of the conflict, it is doubtful we would see the first, and the second is really the only reasonable way to ensure we're not revisiting this conflict again in ten years and shooting down more Malaysian Airliners.  

 

Re: American Revolt

 

Of course, this is a stupid analogy if we're being frank.  The lack of territorial integrity with the mother country, the several decades old sense of statehood, existing independent governmental functions, exhaustion of peaceful means of addressing grievances, and extreme viability of the American colonies as an independent country all make it historically a reasonable alternative to British rule.  If it'd simply been Spain coming up from Florida or something, and more or less building a revolution to fit Spanish foreign policy ends to protect Spanish settlers elsewhere, and the 13 colonies were directly connected to the British Isles, then we'd be talking about a different set of circumstances.

 

All the same your lack of knowledge on American history is interesting and noted.  

[DreDay]

Paging Dr. Godwin?

 

There's a really interesting essay from the late 90's reflecting on conflict, namely resulting from the Bosnian conflicts called "Give War a Chance" I believe, and the underlying assumption is in terms of stability and long term viability, the absolute victory on the part of one party is the best option strictly talking in terms of the mentioned two dynamics.  If resistance is out and out crushed, then there's little chance of it violating ceasefires later to add rail junctions and somesuch.

 

The separatist parts of Ukraine lack any meaningful contribution to the world at large as the fictional people's republics they claim to be.  They're going to be Russian satellites that will rely, much as the seized portions of Georgia do exclusively upon the stability and long term viability of a Russian foreign policy decision to be combative with the west.   A weaker Russia would potentially either literally abandon those states, or perhaps just functionally abandon them in the future, meaning Ukraine will redress past grievances with a vengeance resulting in likely the same destruction that the idiots currently fighting in Donbass could have avoided in the first place instead of playing the "Ukrainians are all secretly Nazi" card.  

 

As demonstrated by recent fighting, a marginal or incomplete victory against the separatist elements will simply result in them being rearmed and augmented by Russian forces for another go at making Putintopia or whatever the end state is.  As further demonstrated the cease fire largely existed to further separatist ends vs a meaningful attempt at coexistence.  

 

The Ukrainians are unlikely to accept the theft of part of their nation short of abject military defeat.  This is also the case with the seperatists.  However given the reality of the conflict, it is doubtful we would see the first, and the second is really the only reasonable way to ensure we're not revisiting this conflict again in ten years and shooting down more Malaysian Airliners.  

 

Re: American Revolt

 

Of course, this is a stupid analogy if we're being frank.  The lack of territorial integrity with the mother country, the several decades old sense of statehood, existing independent governmental functions, exhaustion of peaceful means of addressing grievances, and extreme viability of the American colonies as an independent country all make it historically a reasonable alternative to British rule.  If it'd simply been Spain coming up from Florida or something, and more or less building a revolution to fit Spanish foreign policy ends to protect Spanish settlers elsewhere, and the 13 colonies were directly connected to the British Isles, then we'd be talking about a different set of circumstances.

 

All the same your lack of knowledge on American history is interesting and noted.

You are making a lot of false assumptions here. The notion that Donbass has nothing to contribute to the world is not any more grounded than saying that Ukraine has nothing to contribute either. You (nor I) don't get to be the judges of that. As far as Ukraine is concerned, they badly need the coal, metallurgy and other industrial goods that come out of Donbass; not to mention their strategic sea ports and rail lines.... I am sure that many people would have thought that Israel would have nothing to contribute to the world at the time of their independence struggle; or most of former Yugoslav states, or the Baltics; but that is not for you or I to decide. What ultimately determines the success or failure of a separatist movement is the strength of its supporters (and outside backers) vs. the strength of Federal (if that term can be applied to Ukraine) forces (and their backers).

The US Revolutionary war example was far-fetched, I'll give you that. It was simply used to illustrate a point that separatism does not need to get spurred up by genocidal policies of the "mother-country". In regards to Donbass, Kosovo is probably a much more relevant (and recent) example to follow. So are you proposing that we give back Kosovo back to Serbia? I would think not... so what makes Donbass so different?

Edited March 7, 2015 by DreDay

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

You are making a lot of false assumptions here. The notion that Donbass has nothing to contribute to the world is not any more grounded than saying that Ukraine has nothing to contribute either.

 

It's either surrounded by the Ukraine, which in the event of Dosbassian Republic of Putin will be ill-inclined to lift a finger to help it, and Russia which it will be the puppet of.

 

That's not a lot to offer anyone. Further the greater crisis of the Ukraine in terms of East vs West revolved around either providing so-so industrial products to Russia or being the breadbasket of Western Europe.  The stuff coming out of Donbass meant a lot to the Ukraine's ability to keep doing Ukrainian things, not so much to anyone who wasn't either the Ukraine, or Russia. Further the fact it has all those resources means that "reconquest of Donbass" will remain a Ukrainian national policy item until it occurs or we no longer have a Ukraine.  If Russia has another bad spell, or we're looking at 1991 all over again, or even just the fact that post-Putin the Russian government is more interested in engaging with Ukraine than propping up Donbass, there's going to be some sad days to be in Donbass.

 

Where you're losing sight is the separatist elements you're all citing had:

 

1. Viability of being separate from the mother country.  Either functionally, or the mother country was unable or unwilling to pursue them post breakup (and even then, Russian nationalists still covet the Baltics)

2. The mother country was killing the heck out of the separatist body from more or less the get-go.  This is why Kosovo is so different, there was a distinct Albanian element that was violently suppressed.  Fighting back or dying was the only option left.  The difference is the Russians in Donbass simply decided that the Ukrainians in Kiev were going to become Nazis so they violently carved off an eastern part of the country and tried to invite Russia in.  This is escalation well and beyond a reasonable reaction to what Kiev did, and indeed looking at the fair, and reasonably effective elections held later in the rest of the Ukraine rather an interesting contrast to the actions of the "People's Republics"

[kaburke61]

What is really tiresome from the Putin-bots, is the notion that this is somehow a US-caused problem.

 

Gee...whose tanks are in Ukraine right now? Funny, I don't see any M1A2s (or American troops), deployed currently, I certainly see a few Russian units.....

 

And, how was Ukraine wanting to pursue agreements with EUROPE, America's fault.

 

Typical "It's all America's fault" parroting from the propaganda-brainwashed Putin-bots. After all, NOTHING Russia ever does is it's fault, it's ALWAYS somebody else fault..the poor Russians, they just want peace so badly!

[DreDay]

It's either surrounded by the Ukraine, which in the event of Dosbassian Republic of Putin will be ill-inclined to lift a finger to help it, and Russia which it will be the puppet of.

And what else is new here? Are there not more than enough puppet states that the major powers take protectorate and control over? Are you concerned that there is now another one now, or just that this one happens to be Russian puppet and not ours?

That's not a lot to offer anyone. Further the greater crisis of the Ukraine in terms of East vs West revolved around either providing so-so industrial products to Russia or being the breadbasket of Western Europe. The stuff coming out of Donbass meant a lot to the Ukraine's ability to keep doing Ukrainian things, not so much to anyone who wasn't either the Ukraine, or Russia. Further the fact it has all those resources means that "reconquest of Donbass" will remain a Ukrainian national policy item until it occurs or we no longer have a Ukraine. If Russia has another bad spell, or we're looking at 1991 all over again, or even just the fact that post-Putin the Russian government is more interested in engaging with Ukraine than propping up Donbass, there's going to be some sad days to be in Donbass.

I am not sure that I follow you here. The notion of Ukraine being a breadbasket for Europe is not particularly embraced (to put it mildly) by Europe that already has more than enough bread… The saddest days imaginable are occurring in Donbass right now and it is not due to some economic factors, but rather indiscriminate fighting that is taking place there right now…

Where you're losing sight is the separatist elements you're all citing had:

1. Viability of being separate from the mother country. Either functionally, or the mother country was unable or unwilling to pursue them post breakup (and even then, Russian nationalists still covet the Baltics)

2. The mother country was killing the heck out of the separatist body from more or less the get-go. This is why Kosovo is so different, there was a distinct Albanian element that was violently suppressed. Fighting back or dying was the only option left. The difference is the Russians in Donbass simply decided that the Ukrainians in Kiev were going to become Nazis so they violently carved off an eastern part of the country and tried to invite Russia in. This is escalation well and beyond a reasonable reaction to what Kiev did, and indeed looking at the fair, and reasonably effective elections held later in the rest of the Ukraine rather an interesting contrast to the actions of the "People's Republics"

First of all, perhaps you would care to research the numbers of Kosovo Albanian civilians killed by Serbian forces vs. Donbas Civilians killed by the Ukrainian Army? Untill you try to come up with some independent and reliable source of those numbers; your argument holds no validity whatsoever. As for “fair and reasonable elections” held in the rest of Ukraine – give me a break! Are you aware of pro-Russian candidates being assaulted by armed mobs in Kiev and denied any voice in the TV debates? If that’s your version of free and fair, then by all means keep praising the Kiev regime; but don’t be surprised when the people in Donbass (and now more and more in Kharkov and Odessa) want nothing to do with this kind of “free and fair” government.

As I’ve said before, I am not particularly pro-Donbass or Pro-Russian by any means. I consider all sides involved in this conflict to have “f-ed” it up majorly. However, if you only want to focus on one side of this coin and to give a blank check to the Kiev government (that is fully backed, and dare I say – puppeteered by US) – you are simply fooling yourself and none else.

[DreDay]

What is really tiresome from the Putin-bots, is the notion that this is somehow a US-caused problem.

 

Gee...whose tanks are in Ukraine right now? Funny, I don't see any M1A2s (or American troops), deployed currently, I certainly see a few Russian units.....

 

And, how was Ukraine wanting to pursue agreements with EUROPE, America's fault.

 

Typical "It's all America's fault" parroting from the propaganda-brainwashed Putin-bots. After all, NOTHING Russia ever does is it's fault, it's ALWAYS somebody else fault..the poor Russians, they just want peace so badly!

Just out of curiosity - would you care to point out a full list Putin-bots on this board?

[kaburke61]

Nope, I think it is plain enough....but thanks for asking.

 

Kiev government, puppeteered, by US...yes, who's fooling who?

 

When it was a Kiev government, puppeteered by Russia, things were all perfect I guess. Then when Kiev got tired of that, and wanted to ally with EUROPE, it's a bad thing huh?

 

Of course it's America's fault!

 

Jeez

Edited March 7, 2015 by kaburke61

[DreDay]

Nope, I think it is plain enough....but thanks for asking.

 

Kiev government, puppeteered, by US...yes, who's fooling who?

 

Jeez

Not sure who is fooling who, but I am pretty posetive on who a fool is in this thread..."I think that it is plain enough" pal...

[kaburke61]

LOL....hit a nerve huh? Nice reply....Anyway 'said my piece, of course you have no real reply, back to enjoying the thread.

[DreDay]

LOL....hit a nerve huh? Nice reply....Anyway 'said my piece, of course you have no real reply, back to enjoying the thread.

The only thing that hits a nerve with me pal is a blissful ignorance, backed up by false sense of confidence. I would appreciate your thoughtful and well researched analysis; but if you chose to communicate in ambiguous one-liners, I hold my right to stand by my previous post.

Edited March 8, 2015 by DreDay

[kaburke61]

I thought the first post was pretty straightforward. Please enlighten us, (not U.S.), with your "thoughtful and well research analysis", on exactly how this is (as usual) America's fault? I already gave you

two points to reply on......

[DreDay]

I thought the first post was pretty straightforward. Please enlighten us, (not U.S.), with your "thoughtful and well research analysis", on exactly how this is (as usual) America's fault? I already gave you

two points to reply on......

I have spent plenty of time on this board building out my arguments and points. I don't need to be thrown a bone to chance nor do I particularly care to convince you of anything, let alone something that I don't believe myself. If you have a thoughtful point to make - please do so and I will be obliged to respond. Otherwise, please refer to my post #169.

[kaburke61]

Yep, that's what I thought....thanks for clarifying. Regarding "#165", I have not read one actual "fact" from you on those two points. I have seen you constantly blame, or insinuate, but no justification to those (just those two would be fine) points, or even the point in #168 about (dare I say) "puppeetering".

Edited March 8, 2015 by kaburke61

[DreDay]

Kaburke61, this would be my last post to you until you care invest some time and brainpower to show me your basic understanding of the subject matter. I have already spent more than enough time on this board trying to show "the flip side of the coin" to those members that actually care to hear it and to process it as part of their analysis. I absolutely would not waste a spare second of my time trying to build out an argument to someone who does not care to show any knowledge nor appreciation of what is being discussed here. How about you show me some solid facts about "Putin-bots" spewing their propaganda on this board; and maybe then I will consider engaging you in a more meaningful conversation. Till then - "peaches and luv!" (as they say down here).