How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Yet]

5 hours ago, womble said:

 

Mostly, though, Crimea's problem in a siege is water, and I don't imagine they can tanker in enough water (along with all the other feedstock of the war machine and fodder for the civilian population), even if the Kerch rail link remains up. Once the UKR have sealed off the peninsula's land approaches, that's the beginning of the end for the Crimea garrison.

i dont think do. taking down the water supply means the people will suffer. the militairy will be the first to receive fresh water. This makes turning the water supply off an imhuman tactic which UKR wants to stay far from. 

Next to that, RU have shown before (crimea 2014, cherson) that they are quite handy with ferries. which all together might make a classic siege a bit more challenging than some of us might think (if there is no collapse).

[Yet]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

 

Ho-ly-cr@p

Ive just shown just this picture to people that that indifferent about the UR-RU war and shown with my hands what 120mm and 155mm is about to fly around. stance and indifference immediately visibly changed to interested and caring. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Yet

[Seminole]

52 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Mate, I really, really don't want to sound rude...but you get that bringing Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine or XVIII-cent. issues

I admit, I reached for Jefferson because of two reasons: he offers a succinct definition of just (as in rightful) government, and no one can properly accuse him of offering that definition as a 'Putin talking point'.

[Seminole]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

I think this is covered above but had to say that while this sounds great it isn't quite the case.  Putin chased out everyone that didn't like RU and brought in a bunch of Russians and now we have a vote?  It's like kill everyone in a village, bring in new people, have them elect a sheriff from their own who then gets to decide whether to prosecute for the murder of the villagers.

In light of that it's important to examine what did the polling suggest before Putin's little green men showed up?

The United Nations Development Programme conducted a series of polls in Crimea between 2009 and 2011 about the question of leaving Ukraine and joining Russia with a sample size of 1,200:

Quarter	Yes	No	Undecided
2009 Q3[35]	70%	14%	16%
2009 Q4[35]	67%	15%	18%
2010 Q1[36]	66%	14%	20%
2010 Q2[36]	65%	12%	23%
2010 Q3[36]	67%	11%	22%
2010 Q4[36]	66%	9%	25%
2011 Q4[37]	65.6%	14.2%	20.2%

[Lethaface]

On 4/20/2023 at 10:28 PM, Battlefront.com said:

My perspective as a historian (of sorts) is that society's general attitude towards life dictates its approach to war.  The more lawless and brutal the society, the more barbaric the behavior on the battlefield.  Exhibit A right now is, of course, Russia.

What is already in the mind of the soldier makes matters worse.  If the soldier is violent and disrespectful of others in civilian life, then he's primed to do horrible things in war.  Exhibit B is Wagner.

It is important for people to understand that Einsatzgruppen were not random samplings of Reich society (remember the members were not just Germans).  Instead the men manning these murder units were, by and large, the mental misfits that served no positive role in society even under the best conditions.  They were given uniforms, weapons, and instructions to be who they really were.  I have the same sense about Arkan's Tigers, which drew from pre-war violent criminal elements.

This is why political and/or religious extremist movements are so dangerous.  Even before a conflict they have already discarded most of the things which keep people from being violent towards each other.  They also disproportionally draw from the same pools of recruits as Einsatzgruppen, Ustaše, Arkan's Tigers, Wagner, etc.  Unfortunately, this is timeless.

Steve

One of the 'interesting' findings is that (some of) the worst of these units where 'ordinary men' (yes I have that book) mostly consisting of small boring village policemen with, probably, some power fantasies which turned into killing machines. 

[Blazing 88's]

First time using the IGNORE option. What a great feature.

[chuckdyke]

36 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

So if Cuba invades Florida and claims it is Cuba now because many Cubans live there, will a referendum, among the mainly Cuban people remaining in Florida after the invasion, be 'legitimate' ?

It is a State and States in the US have about the same status as countries inside the EU. They decide domestic policies. 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Seminole said:

I don't consider the plebiscite conducted by the Russians after their invasion to be legitimate, conducted as it was literally 'under the gun'.  I suspect there was a boycott by what would have otherwise been no votes.

But on the question itself, polling has been conducted before and after.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

From March 12 – 14, 2014, Germany's largest pollster, the GfK Group, conducted a survey with 600 respondents and found that 70.6% of Crimeans intended to vote for joining Russia, 10.8% for restoring the 1992 constitution, and 5.6% did not intend to take part in the referendum.^[41][42] The poll also showed that if Crimeans had more choices, 53.8% of them would choose joining Russia, 5.2% restoration of 1992 constitution, 18.6% a fully independent Crimean state and 12.6% would choose to keep the previous status of Crimea.^[41]

Gallup conducted an immediate post-referendum survey of Ukraine and Crimea and published their results in April 2014. Gallup reported that, among the population of Crimea, 93.6% of ethnic Russians and 68.4% of ethnic Ukrainians believed the referendum result accurately represents the will of the Crimean people. Only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people.^[43]

In May 2014, Washington, D.C., pollster Pew Research published results of a survey that encompassed Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia, in which it was reported that 88% of Crimeans believed the government of Kyiv should officially recognize the result of Crimea's referendum.^[44]

Between December 12 and 25, 2014, Levada-Center carried out a survey of Crimea that was commissioned by John O'Loughlin, College Professor of Distinction and Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Gerard Toal (Gearóid Ó Tuathail), Professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech's National Capital Region campus. The results of that survey were published by Open Democracy in March, 2015, and reported that, overall, 84% of Crimeans felt the choice to secede from Ukraine and accede to Russia was "Absolutely the right decision", with the next-largest segment of respondents saying the decision to return to Russia was the "Generally right decision". The survey commissioners, John O'Loughlin and Gerard Toal, wrote in their Open Democracy article that, while they felt that the referendum was "an illegal act under international law", their survey shows "It is also an act that enjoys the widespread support of the peninsula's inhabitants, with the important exception of its Crimean Tatar population" with "widespread support for Crimea's decision to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation one year ago". Their survey also reported that a majority of Crimean Tatars viewed Crimea's return to Russia as either the "Absolutely right decision" or the "Generally right decision"

First, anybody who starts making arguments that are nearly identical to that of Russia's fascist government should take a big pause and reassess how they view the world around them.  Especially if that person is comparing fascist actions to the principles underpinning the US Constitution.  It is not to say that everything that Russia says or does is wrong, but the odds are very low.  You'd probably do better going to Las Vegas and betting against the casinos.

The problem with opinion polls is that even under the best circumstances they are difficult to assess.  They are particularly difficult when conducted under repressive governments.  We've discussed many times here about this very thing.  What we PROBABLY know is that pre 2014 invasion there was legitimately strong support for becoming a part of Russia and it is likely that much of this sentiment remains.

As unclear as the polling is, what is crystal clear is that the seizure of Crimea was done through naked aggression in contravention of international laws and even Russian law (Russia did not declare its treaties null and void, nor did it declare war on Ukraine).  There was no true Crimean "revolt" against Ukrainian control, unless you count all the Russian funded and organized activities that leveraged local organized crime syndicates and the remains of the Yanukovych security apparatus that fled there after they lost power.

Therefore, the current arrangement for Crimea is 100% illegal and therefore Russia's occupation of Crimea is 100% illegal.  The only proper remedy to this rather straight forward reality is to return Crimea to the control of Ukraine.  The will of the people who live in Crimea is not relevant since the will of the people never was the reason for, nor the cause of, Russia occupying Crimea.  If it had been, we would have seen a legitimate referendum instead of the sham that Russia produced at gunpoint.

Until Ukraine's legal authority over Crimea is reestablished, all talk about what the people of Crimea want is irrelevant because under the current regime there is no way to know what the Crimeans really want.  People are not allowed to express themselves as groups or even individually.

All of that said, Ukraine retakes Crimea it is not in its long term best interests to have a rowdy separatist province causing trouble for it long term.  Therefore, I would try and sort out how big of a problem there might be and then honestly let Crimea go if that's what they really want.  The trick is getting to the stage where Crimeans can really know what they want and to have an appropriate sample to draw from.  I'd do something along these lines:

1.  Promise all pre-2014 residents an internationally recognized referendum in 5 years to determine if they wish to be part of Ukraine outright, semi-autonomous under Ukraine, or part of Russia.  Threshold would be 60%, not 50%.  This gives the people a reasonable amount of time to assess an alternative to the Russian authority they are already familiar with.

2.  All post-2014 Russian citizens would be allowed to remain in Crimea, under special provisional conditions, if they renounce their Russian citizenship and agree to a 10 year ban on participation in any voting or government job that involves management or decision making.

3.  Property illegally seized would be returned to their original owners without compensation to the current occupants or claimed owners.  Any damage or destruction to property before vacating would revoke their provisional citizenship and they would be sent back to Russia.

4.  Any provisional citizen found to have committed certain serious crimes during the occupation would have their provisional citizenship revoked and they would be sent back to Russia.  Ukrainian citizens would be given the choice between facing judicial punishment or exile in Russia.

5.  Any citizen found to be colluding with any Russian based organization designed to influence the referendum vote would be subjected judicial punishment or revocation of citizenship and subsequent exile to Russia.

That's just a very quick, off the cuff (though thought about over the past 8 years) means of sorting out the mess Russia has made for Crimeans.  And if at the end of this 60% of the population wishes to become a part of Russia, then let them go back to Russia.

Steve

[JonS]

5 hours ago, Lethaface said:

So if Cuba invades Florida and claims it is Cuba now because many Cubans live there, will a referendum, among the mainly Cuban people remaining in Florida after the invasion, be 'legitimate' ?

I get your point, but it's possibly a bad example? AIUI, the mass of Cubans currently in Florida are there because they really don't want to be part of Cuba as it is currently constituted. Wouldn't a plebiscite after your hypothetical invasion come back overwhelmingly to stay as part of the US?

If, say, Putin had declared back in 2015 that Russian policy henceforth was that anyone unhappy with Russia could move down to Crimea, with their relocation costs part-funded by the state and accommodation and employment provided on arrival, and then some years later there was a plebiscite over whether Crimea would stay part of Russia or revert to Ukraine ... then the analogy would hold, I think. But that poor analogy is getting pretty tortured by now, worse than the random civilians picked up and deposited in Guantanamo Bay, to circle back to Cuba.

Edited April 22, 2023 by JonS

[Beleg85]

39 minutes ago, Seminole said:

I admit, I reached for Jefferson because of two reasons: he offers a succinct definition of just (as in rightful) government, and no one can properly accuse him of offering that definition as a 'Putin talking point'.

Now the problem with people constantly bringing writings of folks like Jefferson, Adams, Paine etc. is that they are only valid within American context. As much as I am fascinated by your Founding Fathers and their debates, please understand that around the globe they are not considered particulary relevant or inspiring political thinkers, nor is Declaration of Independence; at least not to the extent they are for Americans. Simply as that- American model of democracy, citizenship and political well-being is limited to US. Don't get me wrong, it's cool its there, USA is land of liberty, shield of freedom etc, but very few political entities (even most democratic ones) outside States were ever directly modelled by this system. Comparing it to political mentallity in Russia is material for a dark comedy in itself.

If you really need to support your claims, at least quote Monteskieu, Locke, Rousseau or Hegel- they did impacted political framework around the world in much more profound way. But of course none of them have anything to do with situation in Crimea either; it was simple, plain thugish land-grab by former imperial power modo mongolico.

Now extending your point, why not even Confederate States of America are  a thing anymore? They seem to enjoy rather popular acceptance. Except for slaves, of course.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Beleg85

[Vanir Ausf B]

 

[Battlefront.com]

47 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

One of the 'interesting' findings is that (some of) the worst of these units where 'ordinary men' (yes I have that book) mostly consisting of small boring village policemen with, probably, some power fantasies which turned into killing machines. 

Yes, and this is a very disturbing trend in all democracies even today.  Some of the absolute worst people on this planet become police officers because they seek power.  In the best cases they get filtered out early or, if they somehow manage to thwart all the checks and balances until they retire (sometimes not by choice), leave at some point without causing too much harm.  Worst case they commit some crime that uncovers who they really are.  There are so many examples of this in all democratic states I shouldn't need to cite any to back up my statement.

So it is not difficult to imagine a generally benign police force quickly turning into an instrument of terror if the governmental authority fundamentally changes its form.  The good cops either quit, are forced out, or themselves "taken care of" in typical autocratic fashion.  The cops who do it for a job probably stay, even with strong personal reservations.  The bad cops, which used to be a minority that was largely kept under control, sudden get put into positions of power and influence.  Instead of being subjected to control they now are in control.

Unfortunately, the reverse is not true.  A repressive government turning into a democratic one takes years and years and years to reform its police force into something resembling the current standard amongst democracies.  Which is another reason why we shouldn't expect anything happy out of Russia if it should have a coup or break up into separate states.  It will take 2 decades of GOOD stewardship to get them to be anything other than the corrupt thugs that they currently are.

Steve

[danfrodo]

40 minutes ago, Seminole said:

In light of that it's important to examine what did the polling suggest before Putin's little green men showed up?

The United Nations Development Programme conducted a series of polls in Crimea between 2009 and 2011 about the question of leaving Ukraine and joining Russia with a sample size of 1,200:

Quarter	Yes	No	Undecided
2009 Q3[35]	70%	14%	16%
2009 Q4[35]	67%	15%	18%
2010 Q1[36]	66%	14%	20%
2010 Q2[36]	65%	12%	23%
2010 Q3[36]	67%	11%	22%
2010 Q4[36]	66%	9%	25%
2011 Q4[37]	65.6%	14.2%	20.2%

ah, good point.  I'll cede this issue to you based on what you are showing.  I still don't agree w RU violent annexation but can't argue that it was unpopular if the above is representative of the people there.

Edited April 21, 2023 by danfrodo

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, JonS said:

I get your point, but it's possibly a bad example? AIUI, the mass of Cubans currently in Florida are there because they don't want to be art of Cuba as it is currently constituted. So, a plebiscite after your hypothetical invasion would probably come back overwhelmingly to stay as part of the US.

If, say, Putin had declared back in 2015 that Russian policy henceforth was that anyone unhappy with Russia could move down to Cuba, with their relocation costs part-funded by the state and accommodation and employment provided on arrival, and then there was a plebiscite over whether Crimea would stay part of Russia or revert to Ukraine ... then the analogy would hold, I think. But that poor thing is getting pretty tortured by now, worse than the random civilians picked up and deposited in Guantanamo Bay, to circle back to Cuba.

I agree that Cuba is a bad example for the reasons you sate, but there really isn't any example I can think of that works because generally people relocate from Country A to Country B because they don't want to be in Country A.  Therefore, they are not likely to want to rejoin Country A after getting to Country B.

A better analogy, I think, is if the Cubans fled Cuba, got to Florida, claimed they should be able to decide Florida's status (i.e. because they were there before the current mix of people), and voted to become part of Spain or voted to become independent altogether.  The reasoning here is that if the right to self determination is decided by who was there first, the expression of that is for them to decide.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

Close to two hundred years ago Belgium split away from the Netherlands, a hundred years later the Benelux formed. It ook two small countries hundred year to reconcile their differences. I think a reconciliation between these two culturally similar people will take much longer.

Edited April 21, 2023 by chuckdyke

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

ah, good point.  I'll cede this issue to you based on what you are showing.

Don't cede.  He's made a flawed Russian talking point as a basis for his argument.  And like the other pro-Russian talking points he's advanced in this thread, he's got a steep hill to climb before anybody should cede him anything significant.

6 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I still don't agree w RU violent annexation but can't argue that it was unpopular if the above is representative of the people there.

I bolded the reason why you shouldn't cede anything.  The polling is not only unreliable, Russia worked for 20+ years to form those opinions through subversive means.

Let me put it another way.  There isn't anything that the Russian government says or does to indicate it has any interest in what people think, especially if that thinking is contrary to its kelptocratic nationalist intentions.  Anything that Russia says it is doing on behalf of the people is, therefore, automatically suspect of not being done on behalf of the people.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

How many Spanish speakers in Texas or California want to be part of Mexico? People like to live and economic opportunities play a role. After all we moved to Australia for the same reason.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Seminole said:

I admit, I reached for Jefferson because of two reasons: he offers a succinct definition of just (as in rightful) government, and no one can properly accuse him of offering that definition as a 'Putin talking point'.

I think you took a wrong turn ending up on this forum.  Maybe your GPS is screwy or you have trouble reading a map. but you might want to look again to see where you really want to go - it ain't here.

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Don't cede.  He's made a flawed Russian talking point as a basis for his argument.  And like the other pro-Russian talking points he's advanced in this thread, he's got a steep hill to climb before anybody should cede him anything significant.

I bolded the reason why you shouldn't cede anything.  The polling is not only unreliable, Russia worked for 20+ years to form those opinions through subversive means.

Let me put it another way.  There isn't anything that the Russian government says or does to indicate it has any interest in what people think, especially if that thinking is contrary to its kelptocratic nationalist intentions.  Anything that Russia says it is doing on behalf of the people is, therefore, automatically suspect of not being done on behalf of the people.

Steve

Part of ceding was hoping I could do my little part to make the discussion go away .  And I wasn't going to take the time to see if his data was any good, so was throwing in the towel because there's bigger hills for me to die upon.  

Meanwhile, I am wondering how the forum breaks down into UKR spring offensive camps.  I see two main camps in the world of internet opinion:

1.  UKR offensive will be big, sudden surprise attack on (mostly) one axis and we will know it's the real deal and will come late spring.

2.  UKR will conduct increasingly aggressive corrosion plus some attacks of small-ish depth, like 5-10 kms, in multiple areas to shape the battlefield and completely confuse Putin as to where to put his reserves.  Then will strike later in summer in a much bigger way and we will then know that's the real deal.

I am believer in #2

[Lethaface]

51 minutes ago, JonS said:

I get your point, but it's possibly a bad example? AIUI, the mass of Cubans currently in Florida are there because they don't want to be art of Cuba as it is currently constituted. So, a plebiscite after your hypothetical invasion would probably come back overwhelmingly to stay as part of the US.

If, say, Putin had declared back in 2015 that Russian policy henceforth was that anyone unhappy with Russia could move down to Cuba, with their relocation costs part-funded by the state and accommodation and employment provided on arrival, and then there was a plebiscite over whether Crimea would stay part of Russia or revert to Ukraine ... then the analogy would hold, I think. But that poor thing is getting pretty tortured by now, worse than the random civilians picked up and deposited in Guantanamo Bay, to circle back to Cuba.

Perhaps, but sometimes bad examples have to make do  

I had some interesting thoughts about binary choices between getting intermittently waterboarded for 15 years while being forced to listen to loud disliked music versus being conscripted/pressed into service as cannonfodder for the Russian Federation in Crimea. I came up with option C : Escape to Ukraine. Another bad example that will have to make do.

I mean doing any kind of plebiscite in a territory one has recently annexed, as a form of justification for the annexation, is a good example of getting high on ones own supply.

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Lethaface

[quakerparrot67]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I agree that Cuba is a bad example for the reasons you sate, but there really isn't any example I can think of that works because generally people relocate from Country A to Country B because they don't want to be in Country A.  Therefore, they are not likely to want to rejoin Country A after getting to Country B.

A better analogy, I think, is if the Cubans fled Cuba, got to Florida, claimed they should be able to decide Florida's status (i.e. because they were there before the current mix of people), and voted to become part of Spain or voted to become independent altogether.  The reasoning here is that if the right to self determination is decided by who was there first, the expression of that is for them to decide.

Steve

 NM

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by quakerparrot67

[Lethaface]

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, and this is a very disturbing trend in all democracies even today.  Some of the absolute worst people on this planet become police officers because they seek power.  In the best cases they get filtered out early or, if they somehow manage to thwart all the checks and balances until they retire (sometimes not by choice), leave at some point without causing too much harm.  Worst case they commit some crime that uncovers who they really are.  There are so many examples of this in all democratic states I shouldn't need to cite any to back up my statement.

So it is not difficult to imagine a generally benign police force quickly turning into an instrument of terror if the governmental authority fundamentally changes its form.  The good cops either quit, are forced out, or themselves "taken care of" in typical autocratic fashion.  The cops who do it for a job probably stay, even with strong personal reservations.  The bad cops, which used to be a minority that was largely kept under control, sudden get put into positions of power and influence.  Instead of being subjected to control they now are in control.

Unfortunately, the reverse is not true.  A repressive government turning into a democratic one takes years and years and years to reform its police force into something resembling the current standard amongst democracies.  Which is another reason why we shouldn't expect anything happy out of Russia if it should have a coup or break up into separate states.  It will take 2 decades of GOOD stewardship to get them to be anything other than the corrupt thugs that they currently are.

Steve

Unfortunately I agree on all accounts. 

[sburke]

2 hours ago, Seminole said:

The Florida State University Army ROTC, Seminole battalion, actually has the 'unique privilege of a battle streamer on its colors' subsequent to the Battle of Natural Bridge.

umm what is your point?  You do realize this is consistent with your choices historically speaking?  Celebrating a confederate victory in 1865?  wtf?

[kluge]

2 hours ago, Yet said:

i dont think do. taking down the water supply means the people will suffer. the militairy will be the first to receive fresh water. This makes turning the water supply off an imhuman tactic which UKR wants to stay far from. 

Next to that, RU have shown before (crimea 2014, cherson) that they are quite handy with ferries. which all together might make a classic siege a bit more challenging than some of us might think (if there is no collapse).

Crimea will be fine without the water supply. Pre-2014, most of water usage in Crimea was agricultural in nature. Post-2014 Ukraine turned off the water supply but Russia was nonetheless able to keep the population supplied with water. And there's water stored in reservoirs so there will be minimal impact. So if the water gets turned off (again), the population will be fine.

Turning off the water is a key symbolic action that highlights the connection between Ukraine and Crimea. But it's unlikely to be operationally significant.

[NamEndedAllen]

5 hours ago, Seminole said:

That's why I linked to the census info in the Wikipedia article.  It shows various census going over a century.  Stalin's deportation of the Tartars is evident, but the place has never registered above 26.5% Ukrainian (self-identified).  The census conducted in 2001 by Ukraine pegged the demographics at 60% Russian, 24% Ukrainian.

 

I doubt Thomas Jefferson would be considered a 'pro-Moscow propagandist', but the assertions in the American Declaration of Independence raise an important question regarding who rightly decides the question.

What would be more galling to Western democracies:  A plebiscite to determine the will of the people of Crimea, or a war to compel them to live under a government they may not assent to?

Imposing a government against the will of people seems antithetical to democratic tenets.

 

Even if the people living there don't want that?  Why is ignoring them so simple, and why is their input so unvalued?

If Crimea launched an insurgency against the Ukrainian government, would NATO support their separation as in Kosovo, or would NATO help crush the rebellion?  It seems less simple than some would have it.

1. What countries recognize Crimea to be within the international borders of Ukraine?

2. What countries recognize Crimea to be within the borders of Russia?

 

BIG HINTS. Also from Wikipedia:

1.  Nineteen.  Guess which ones, and how many are democracies vs dictatorships

2. One hundred and twelve. Guess how many of the most democratically governed nations in the world are included.