Print

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

[Knit tie]

2) Why should Putin have any scruples about using regular Russian troops in the rest of Eastern Ukraine if he evidently didn't about using them near Mariopul?

That's a really good question. Evidently Putin decided to try to push forward a ceasefire (?) to make West lift their sanctions (??) and move Donbass back into Ukraine with pro-Russian elites there ().

I'm not sure who suggested that plan to Putin, but whoever did that can go and receive a medal from Ukrainian government for protecting the homeland, since that plan is literally the worst.

What better plan can you think of, Segarr? No, seriously, how would've things been better for Russia if it annexed Donbass as well?

[Helgoland]

Russia could've just let the revolt in Eastern Ukraine fizzle out after it became clear that it wouldn't turn into a mass uprising against Kiev...

[Sergarr]

2) Why should Putin have any scruples about using regular Russian troops in the rest of Eastern Ukraine if he evidently didn't about using them near Mariopul?

That's a really good question. Evidently Putin decided to try to push forward a ceasefire (?) to make West lift their sanctions (??) and move Donbass back into Ukraine with pro-Russian elites there ().

I'm not sure who suggested that plan to Putin, but whoever did that can go and receive a medal from Ukrainian government for protecting the homeland, since that plan is literally the worst.

What better plan can you think of, Segarr?

I can name three at least:
1) Surrender everything outright, including Crimea.
2) Expand Novorossiya to form a land corridor with Crimea through a large military operation.
3) Replace the Ukrainian government with pro-Russian one, while the new government is still weak from transition and technically illegitimate.

Each of these have their own strengths and weaknesses, but they're all better than the current situation, since all of them actually solve some problems. The current plan has not resolved any problems at all: Crimea is still half-blockaded, Donbass is still in the war-zone, the Ukraine is still anti-Russian, the West is still sanctioning Russia.

[Knit tie]

Russia could've just let the revolt in Eastern Ukraine fizzle out after it became clear that it wouldn't turn into a mass uprising against Kiev...

Russia wants a non-anti-Russian Ukraine. Letting Ukraine suppress the pro-Russian revolt would've guaranteed that the official Ukraine's party line becomes "kill the moskal!" for the forceeable future with no possibility of change, which still exists due to either Novorossiya becoming a part of Ukraine again or the Ukrainians just becoming disillusioned with the new government, which is much more likely.

@Sergarr: I honestly don't know what to think of the current policy of Kremlin, I have to confess. On one hand, what we have right now is a stalemate, on the other, the options you presented either didn't solve the problem at all (surrender) or were most likely going to escalate it beyond all possible control (replace government). I don't know.

[Frumple]

Russia wants a non-anti-Russian Ukraine.

Sweet zeus, if that was the goal someone in russia was not just holding the idiot ball, they were vigorously molesting it to the point of further distraction.

[Sheb]

Ok, I've been thinking about what Helgo said: that this whole situation changed his politics, generally showing him the need for a strong defense. I realized I've been through something similar: three years ago, even after Georgia, I would have advocated disbanding the Belgian army and spending the money on hookers, social services and lobbying for a European army. Now, I think we need a strong defense to protect our allies from Russia (hopefully through deterrence rather than through actually having to fight), and I say stupidly emotional stuff about risking my life for the Fatherland European Union.

In hindsight, the 1991-2014 period was probably the best period for a small European country like Belgium, from a geopolitical point of view. With the collapse of the USSR, we didn't have to worry about being turned into a nuclear battlefield by the US and the USSR. Most of Europe was either in, or lining up to join the "ever closer Union".

Sure, countries still had their national interests, but now they were defended by long-winded speeches about the composition of sausages and legal memos the size of a Tolstoy novel about what is the right curvature for a cucumber. For the first time in history since pretty much forever, Europe was at peace.

And just as we were settling in this life of decadent sex, smelly protected cheese and looking down on the Americans, Russia come barging in. Suddenly, we have a country that doesn't play by the rules the rest of us respect, that is willing to use force to further its national interest within Europe.

I don't think Putin is a bloodthirsty reincarnation of Hitler that want to turn the whole world into a big Putinstan. I don't think he is an irrational madman. But by using force to get what he wanted, he broke a taboo and made Europe a more dangerous, less pleasant place.

For starters, we now need to take our defense seriously. The only way to make sure Putin won't try anything in Latvia or Lithuania is to make sure he knows it won't work. And those are billions of defense spending we could spend on education or  research or French self-consciously intellectual movies about the life of gays muslims in the banlieues.

Secondly, it greatly increase the possibility of war. Real, nasty war, in which thousands of people like me would end up shooting at thousands of people like Knit Tie. Sure, no one, Putin included, wants a big war in the EU. But then, no one wanted WWI either. The fact is that in a situation like pre-WWI Europe, where everyone is armed to the teeth and watching, all it take is one spark, one misunderstanding to create a big war. By disregarding the post-1991 state of international order in Europe, Putin put us all closer to such a situation, putting us all in danger. And that, more than an interest in Ukraine, is why I am worried about Russia's recent actions.

[Knit tie]

Russia wants a non-anti-Russian Ukraine.

Sweet zeus, if that was the goal someone in russia was not just holding the idiot ball, they were vigorously molesting it to the point of further distraction.

Poroshenko's government is buddy-buds with neo-nazis and has a party line of "Europe is good, Russia is the enemy!", doing nothing would've lead to an anti-Russian Ukraine anyway.

@Sheb: I completely agree with you there. Europe is growing paranoid due to Russia no longer being docile/peaceful/lawful/whatever term you want to use. Paranoia leads to wars.

And I have to add, wars are the best way to ensure peace and friendship while both sides recover. So the best way to guarantee peace with no possibilities of war in Belgium for the near future is having a meatgrinder somewhere in Belarus or Kazakhstan with all the NATO participating. So far, everything's been going towards it.

Although, regarding the actual future, I have to say, there will be no war of Russia with NATO. Not now, nor ever in our lifetimes. When we talk about Russia-NATO wars we are both just speaking about the absolute worst case scenarios, that's a bit like thinking about a satellite falling on you while you are going to a shop to buy some bread.

[smjjames]

Theres also nukes, but then again, they're more likely to be used in desperation or by someone panicking than as a first strike.

The days of M.A.D. are mostly over, but it's sort of lingering faintly in the shadows.

[Helgoland]

@Sheb: I completely agree with you there. Europe is growing paranoid due to Russia no longer being docile/peaceful/lawful/whatever term you want to use. Paranoia leads to wars.

If I understood him correctly, that was not his point at all: Paranoia is usually defined as unsubstantiated fear, and he talked about building up a deterrent based on rational reasoning...

And I have to add, wars are the best way to ensure peace and friendship while both sides recover. So the best way to guarantee peace with no possibilities of war in Belgium for the near future is having a meatgrinder somewhere in Belarus or Kazakhstan with all the NATO participating. So far, everything's been going towards it.

Hehe, Knit, maybe you should brush up on Central European history: 1815, 1871, 1918... The only instance of friendship through meatgrinder is post-WWII Germany, and while I agree that this is probably the only way to lasting peace with Russia (as I've previously argued), I don't think that's what you meant.

[smjjames]

The whole meatgrinder thing is actually a fairly recent one, the earliest could possibly be the American Civil War, the Crimean War (the first one) was also particularily bloody, so I hear.

[Sergarr]

no one wanted WWI

Everyone who mattered wanted WWI. WWI was not just some "accident" war. Accidental wars do not happen on that scale.

[Helgoland]

no one wanted WWI

Everyone who mattered wanted WWI. WWI was not just some "accident" war. Accidental wars do not happen on that scale.

Everyone wanted a war, to settle the pecking order and be home by Christmas to tell stories about it. Nobody wanted WWI.

[FearfulJesuit]

Proxy wars are where it's at, and have been since the end of WWII.

Hell, it's arguable that the situation in eastern Ukraine is already a proxy war.

[Sheb]

Yeah, my point was not that we're growing paranoid, it that by being willing to use force, Russia effectively changed the rules of international relations in Europe, and the new ruleset is more dangerous and expensive.

And can you explain why you seem so confident that Russia and NATO will never go to war? Sure, nobody wants a war, but that never stopped us in the past.

I disagree with WWI. No one wanted a large war. The Austrian wanted a war, true, but a small one against Serbia to settle their score with them.

[Owlbread]

-snip-