Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[Sheb]

If I recall correctly, back in March some Hungarian nationalists from Jobbik reportedly proclaimed that Hungary should annex Ukrainian territories that were once part of Hungary (Transcarpathia with the town of Uzhgorod). The Jobbik party isn't in control of Hungary, though.

Hardly surprising given Putin's many link with the European far-right. He had a bunch of nationalist observing the referendum in Crimea too.

[mainiac]

Well then they held true to their final threat. The thing is, would our current world leaders do the same?

Why wouldn't they?

In case you haven't noticed, Russia is no longer pushing hard in Ukraine.  They are stirring up trouble with special forces but that is a penny-ante long shot bet.  If they were seriously trying to make a move they would be trying to force the issue as quickly as possible.  Time is on Ukraine's side.

And even if you do look at it like that, Hitler could of kept his annexed territories with the full consent of the Allies if he would not have annexed any further.

Yes he could have kept 9 million Czecks as unwilling inhabitants of Germany.  Do you have a point?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Time is on Ukraine's side.

Why do you think so?

[Knit tie]

Time is on Ukraine's side.

Why do you think so?

One one hand, the longer this drags on, the more chaos can Putin cause. On the other hand, NATO will grow very, very tired of this show very soon and Russia's economy is not really prepared to take all the sanctions they will pile up on it. And if the economy crashes due to his actions, Putin will not stay in power for very long. His own oligarch buddies will turn against him.

[mainiac]

Time is on Ukraine's side.

Why do you think so?

For the same reasons I told you a month ago.  Putin can only get away with stuff if he acts quickly and as time goes on Ukraine stabilizes from the crisis and rallies around the flag.  The longer this drags out the more sympathetic Ukraine looks and less sympathetic Russia looks.  Special forces can't stir up rebellion where no separatist sentiment exists.  The surge in separatism was a reaction to the bitter divisions of the government change, as time goes on and especially as the elections draw near that fades.  Political hot topics tend to have a shockingly short shelf life, even the amazingly high profile ones.

Look at the effects of September 11th in the US: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

9/11 is seen as a generation defining event.  But the political effect was almost completely gone a year later.  I'd say that the revolution in Ukraine is an even bigger domestic event then 9/11 (for the respective countries) but it's effects will quickly fade all the same when it becomes yesterday's news.

One one hand, the longer this drags on, the more chaos can Putin cause.

I would say the opposite.  The longer this drags on the less chaos there is for Putin to exploit.

[Guardian G.I.]

Time is on Ukraine's side.

Why do you think so?

One one hand, the longer this drags on, the more chaos can Putin cause. On the other hand, NATO will grow very, very tired of this show very soon and Russia's economy is not really prepared to take all the sanctions they will pile up on it. And if the economy crashes due to his actions, Putin will not stay in power for very long. His own oligarch buddies will turn against him.

Various Western politologists and the like at Western news channels and websites back in early March all predicted that Western sanctions put in place due to the annexation of Crimea would surely cause the Russian oligarchs to immediately turn against Putin.
As recent months show, Putin was evidently so horribly pressed by them that he was practically ready to hand himself over to the Hague.
I'm a bit sceptical about the "oligarchs ousting Putin" scenario.

[10ebbor10]

We should however not forget the Ukrainian government, and it's economy, are also only months away from default and/or collapse.

Especially if Russia keeps raising the gas price.

[mainiac]

Various Western politologists and the like at Western news channels and websites back in early March all predicted that Western sanctions put in place due to the annexation of Crimea would surely cause the Russian oligarchs to immediately turn against Putin.

Not really.

[vagel7]

And even if you do look at it like that, Hitler could of kept his annexed territories with the full consent of the Allies if he would not have annexed any further.

Yes he could have kept 9 million Czecks as unwilling inhabitants of Germany.  Do you have a point?

The point is that what would stop western nations from sacrificing Ukraine in the name of peace?

[mainiac]

And even if you do look at it like that, Hitler could of kept his annexed territories with the full consent of the Allies if he would not have annexed any further.

Yes he could have kept 9 million Czecks as unwilling inhabitants of Germany.  Do you have a point?

The point is that what would stop western nations from sacrificing Ukraine in the name of peace?

The part where the situations aren't remotely similar.



Ukraine isn't a isolated state from NATO like the Czecks were England and France.

[RedKing]

I'm with the pessimists here. I see Putin playing the long game, using agents provocateur to stir up trouble in eastern Ukraine and foment separatist activity.

If Kiev stays its hand, you see another highly suspect "referendum" and the region follows the lead of Crimea into Russia's waiting arms.
If Kiev initiates a crackdown with force, Putin claims to be protecting the Russian populace in the region and deploys a crapton of Russian troops into the region and winds up with de facto control. I don't think Vlad gives a flying vodka fuck about de jure control (see: South Ossetia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh).

Either way, he ends up winning and with some semblance of a moral high ground (at least from the domestic POV).

[vagel7]

And why must NATO help Ukraine?

Hell, the world doesn't even want to put sanctions into use and the ones they have put are puny visa restrictions and asset freezes, what makes you think that they would wage war?

[mainiac]

And why must NATO help Ukraine?

Hell, the world doesn't even want to put sanctions into use and the ones they have put are puny visa restrictions and asset freezes, what makes you think that they would wage war?

And why must Russia invade Ukraine?

You are positing a Russia that is acting far more boldly then Russia actually is.  Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine because it would be hopelessly outnumbered by even a half-hearted NATO intervention.

I'm with the pessimists here. I see Putin playing the long game, using agents provocateur to stir up trouble in eastern Ukraine and foment separatist activity.

That's not the long game, that's the short game.  Russia is never going to have a better opportunity then right now.  While it's possible that some unexpected twist will give them a new opening that's the outside bet.  It's worth trying for because it costs Russia almost nothing to try but they know it's not likely.

Look at real world insurgencies.  The CIA didn't create the Mujahadin out of thin air, they just supplied existing groups.  The KGB didn't invest south american left wing revolutions, those predated the Soviet union.  Imperial Germany didn't invent the Bolsheviks to destroy the Russian Empire, they just helped them.  Astroturf groups have a vanishingly short lifespan before they are exposed as foreign agents.  They can be occasionally useful in briefly creating ambiguity when the world isn't paying attention but Ukraine is already in the spotlight.  The KGB can't quietly cultivate an astroturf group in Ukraine because you can't do covert ops when you aren't covert.

If Kiev stays its hand, you see another highly suspect "referendum" and the region follows the lead of Crimea into Russia's waiting arms.

The Russians can't rig an election they don't control.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

And why must NATO help Ukraine?

Hell, the world doesn't even want to put sanctions into use and the ones they have put are puny visa restrictions and asset freezes, what makes you think that they would wage war?

And why must Russia invade Ukraine?

You are positing a Russia that is acting far more boldly then Russia actually is.  Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine because it would be hopelessly outnumbered by even a half-hearted NATO intervention.

Mm, disagree here. NATO wouldn't do crap militarily. Ukraine isn't part of NATO. Therefore, since it's not on the table, it doesn't worry Putin. What he is worried about is A. The /actual/ sanctions that would follow an invasion and B. The collateral PR damage said sanctions and Ukrainian land war would cause at home.

[RedKing]

If Kiev stays its hand, you see another highly suspect "referendum" and the region follows the lead of Crimea into Russia's waiting arms.

The Russians can't rig an election they don't control.

What part of the Crimean referendum did you not notice? The part where it had 95% voting yes (questionable at best), or the part where unmarked Russian troops were already on the ground before the vote? What makes you think a referendum in Donetsk would be any different?


Let's see....I said this over a month ago:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5109194#msg5109194

Expect pro-Russian demonstrations to magically erupt around Donetsk and Kharkhov, possibly leading to more "totally grassroots, we swear we're not involved" referendums in those regions similar to Crimea. Or, things go uglier and there's some civil unrest/rioting in those regions and some Russians/pro-Russian Ukrainians killed, giving Putin a tenuous casus belli to send in Russian troops to restore peace and order.

And expect more finger-wagging and sanctions from the West, but no real teeth.

Gee, I should have picked lottery numbers while I was at it.