Ukranian Crisis

[Feanor]

Back to the Ukraine situation..
I guess will will understand further Rebel/ RF intentions, if/ when a new offensive begins towards Mariupol in force or north of this position.

I think the RF intentions are to have the situation settle, with wide autonomy for the rebel provinces within Ukraine, allowing them to permanently spoil things like deals with the EU, and attempts at NATO membership.

Interesting and thank you for the unit designations. Thought the troublemaking 'thug' Cossacks were booted out? Looks approx 12-15k across both LNR and DNR in numbers

No. If these are Russian style MRBdes, then they're ~4500 people each. I doubt they're at 100% TO&E though, so maybe 20-25k total?

 

[Feanor]

I think what concerns Russia is the rapid expansion of NATO and EU influence into Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union pushed the frontiers of Russia back in the West to where it had been in the 17th century, on the Northern European plain where it has always been most vulnerable to invasion. Russia is indefensible without buffer states in Belarus and Ukraine. This is not to say they have to incorporate them into some kind of Empire, just deny them to other external, potentially hostile, influences.

NATO may be a 'defensive' alliance but statesmen have to evaluate potential threats on the basis of capabilities and not stated intentions, as Russia has painfully learned in the past. It didn't really surprise me to see the Russian, US, or European responses to the fall of the Yanukovysh government, and to be honest, I'm not really too interested in all the 'who did what to whom first' stuff that is being posted; nations will pursue their own self interests. That's how these crisis's arise in the first place, when the legitimate interests of rising, declining and established powers come into conflict. Some countries, like Ukraine, just have the misfortune of existing in places where larger neighbours will impose limits of their sovereignty. Just my 5 cents mate.

I do take issue with the defining of weapon systems as purely defensive though. IMHO weapons can be used for either offensive or defensive purposes. Even something such as a anti-missile battery can be offensive at the operational or strategic level. And, as it comes along with US personnel, it implies a physical as well as political commitment to the host nations defence, which is what the Russians obviously resent.

Excellent post. I think you're pretty much spot on.

Correct me if I am wrong but Libya was a European initiative that the US had to support, both politically and materially (allies didn't have enough PGM). I am no Obama fan but blaming him for the Libya mess is incorrect IMO (at the start anyway). The "Arab Spring" sucked in all Western bleeding hearts and the resulting public pressure ended the dictators but replaced them with something worse.

He certainly didn't have to support it. He chose to. He may have felt obligated, but by supporting it, he incurs at least part of the responsibility. Either way, NATO as a whole, the west, is the perceived threat to Russia. Not the solo US.

 

[gazzzwp]

What? So because some time went by, we just pretend it didn't happen? Russia is doing what western powers always have been. Today Obama is moderate, tomorrow a Republican comes to office and it changes. Russian foreign policy is stable and generally predictable.

No one is saying that it didn't happen. The evidence is that the US these days has much more of a moderate tone. You are speculating regarding the future US administrations; nothing more.

He backed down because not to do so would make him look like an idiot. It wasn't US moderation, it was Putin outplaying the US. It was a brilliant piece of foreign policy maneuvering on Russia's part, to save their long time ally Assad. Given that Assad is a brutal dictator, and Gaddafi was a relatively moderate one, the US looks hypocritical and downright corrupt for bombing Gaddafi's Libya into a failed state, while letting Assad stay in power and even supporting him by striking ISIS positions in Syria. It doesn't demonstrate American benevolence, it demonstrates the disgusting nature of international politics in general, and American foreign policy in particular.

Nothing but pro-Russian spin. It took a lot of principles and maturity by Obama to adopt the Russian plan. Was the Russian plan really that brilliant? It was just an obvious suggestion from Russia knowing that unless they came up with an alternative their ally would be hit. So the US out manoeuvred? No.. A good example of mature co-operation from an outstanding leader.

What? The US just gets a pass on everything that happened in the past, as soon as a new president takes office? Are you even serious?

This is a fast moving world where new positions are taken rapidly based on old mistakes. The bad boy on the block at the moment is Russia. The US is on the ascendency in moral terms and is still the nation that the EU and the civilised world looks to. This conflict is not about America's old mistakes, it's about Russia's current mistakes.

The concerns Russia has are political not military.

Agreed in part. They do not want western values such as democracy and openness.

It's not a question of blame. It's a simple question of what Russia wants, and why, and whether they will get it or not, and at what cost.

Trying to put politics in moral terms is lunacy.

People hide behind this word politics far too much. What is going on in Ukraine is not actually politics. It is invasion, destruction and murder. The political part is the lies and deception. Important to define these things properly.

Silly nonsense. Libya was wrecked into a failed state by NATO intervention in 2011. Not to mention that the consequences of NATO actions in the post-Soviet period are still felt today. Finally, NATO is not run by Obama. And countries aren't judged by their presidents. Countries are institutions whose policies are expected to be consistent over the long term. It does matter that Obama is softer on foreign policy, but ultimately you don't get to pretend like nothing from the very VERY recent past applies, simply because a Democrat takes office.

From Wiki:

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The United Nations Intent and Voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity" ...


Which says it all really. The UN taking a stand.

Obama is the most influential person where NATO is concerned I disagree with you there.

 

[gazzzwp]

Can anyone blame the eastern Europeans for being scared of Russia and wanting to protect themselves with NATO? Given the history, no. But the more important question is this: why did the big players in NATO, the western Europeans and US, so eagerly want the eastern Europeans to join?

This conflict is about the rights of the Ukranians to choose. Prior to that the rights of Poland to chose, and the Baltic states etc.

In Ukraine if the people of the East had objections it should have been the subject of negotiations. Instead masked gunmen turn up at Government buildings as provocateurs sent by Russia to spread rumours of Nazi type genocide about to be inflicted upon them. Fear and panic and riots were inevitable.

That's where this all went wrong. The rest was Ukraine trying to defend itself from Russia and protect it's territory.

Funadmentally it is about the right of a sovereign nation to choose.

I object to the accusation that the EU was to blame. The economic position of the EU is not ideal everyone knows. Still they chose the EU over an economic alliance with Russia which says a very great deal indeed.

 

[Strannik]

This conflict is about the rights of the Ukranians to choose....

How true! I cannot agree more. It is about right to choose for people of Crimea, and for people of Donbass, and for people of western Ukraine.

In Ukraine if the people of the East had objections it should have been the subject of negotiations. Instead masked gunmen turn up at Government buildings ...

.

Again I could not agree more, however why limit it only to "people of the East"?. There should not be place for such behaviour, there should not be place for violent Maidan burning the whole city centre together with police in Kiev, and burning 48 innocent civilian alive in Odessa.

... provocateurs sent by Russia to spread rumours of Nazi type genocide about to be inflicted upon them...

That I am less agree with, as all you need to see those neo Nazi, is to open your eyes and watch recent documentary on let's say German TV. I also suspect that people of Doneck and Logansk who endured endless bombardments, as well as inhabitants of every Eastern Ukrainian village big and small who endured brutal occupation of those neo Nazi would have a few words about this 'mythical' genocide, that you mentioned.
Perhaps I could just follow your example and say to you: "Nothing but pro-western spin."

 

[stojo]

In Ukraine if the people of the East had objections it should have been the subject of negotiations. Instead masked gunmen turn up at Government buildings as provocateurs sent by Russia to spread rumours of Nazi type genocide about to be inflicted upon them. Fear and panic and riots were inevitable.

Don't you think that you should apply the same standards, to masked anti-Russian gunmen who turned up at Government buildings in Kiev? Which happened before any Russian incursion, or riots in the east.

Or the gunmen are totally fine, as long as they are "on right side"?

May I remind you, that the crisis started exactly when anti-Russian gunmen in Kiev refused to obey the agreement made by opposition leaders, and the president, on early elections, constitutional changes, etc... -- and simply moved into the Government buildings, performing a coup.

Or that is also fine, so long those are anti-Russian gunmen, and anti-Russian coup?

 

[BlueRose]

From Wiki:

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The United Nations Intent and Voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity" ...


Which says it all really. The UN taking a stand.

Obama is the most influential person where NATO is concerned I disagree with you there.

*Cough* The UN taking a stand there was relying off U.S. material and supply, they in part destroying, and fracturing Libya as we pointed out. Only Obama could authorize his support for that, and several other ventures as I have pointed out.

Funny Update:
The rebels have captured some trophy Humvee's . Hmmm, I wonder where they came from? It surely must be obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hdZ_WcNMI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ocCJqk4QQ

 

[gazzzwp]

Don't you think that you should apply the same standards, to masked anti-Russian gunmen who turned up at Government buildings in Kiev? Which happened before any Russian incursion, or riots in the east.

Or the gunmen are totally fine, as long as they are "on right side"?

May I remind you, that the crisis started exactly when anti-Russian gunmen in Kiev refused to obey the agreement made by opposition leaders, and the president, on early elections, constitutional changes, etc... -- and simply moved into the Government buildings, performing a coup.

Or that is also fine, so long those are anti-Russian gunmen, and anti-Russian coup?

Sorry but that is not the version that I saw in the media.

The version recorded is that the people of the country began protests during the reign of the Yanukovych Government towards a more pro-western Government.

Fearing they were losing control the Government opened fire on the pro-western protesters.

The protesters persisted which resulted in Yanukovych fleeing the country.

That is as I read it on several media sites. If you have a different version please share your sources.

From Wiki:

Yanukovych, at first, accepted the contingencies as fair but ultimately refused to sign at the urging of Russia.[30] Thereafter, Yanukovych signed a treaty and multi-billion dollar loan with Russia instead, which sparked civil unrest in Kiev that ultimately led to violent clashes as law enforcement troops cracked down on protesters.[31] As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled the country to Russia and has not returned. Russia has accused the United States and the EU of funding and directing a coup.[32] Prominent Ukrainian politicians and security officers, however, testified that Yanukovych was 'not so much overthrown as cast adrift by his own' internal allies in his last days in power.

 

[gazzzwp]

*Cough* The UN taking a stand there was relying off U.S. material and supply, they in part destroying, and fracturing Libya as we pointed out. Only Obama could authorize his support for that, and several other ventures as I have pointed out.

Funny Update:
The rebels have captured some trophy Humvee's . Hmmm, I wonder where they came from? It surely must be obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hdZ_WcNMI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ocCJqk4QQ

Why should murdering tyrants continue to wreak terror on it's people indefinitely and unchecked? Mass murder was being committed and the UN passed a resolution. Gaddafi committed terrible atrocities. I'm sure you know of them.

At least the country has a chance without the dictator. The same applies to Iraq. It may take decades to stabilise these areas, but with dictators in control it would probably take longer.

How long was Stalin in charge of the USSR? How many millions died?

That illustrates the point very well. Just because NATO fulfilled the work of the UN it does not mean that NATO is evil. On the contrary NATO stands against such evil.

That's why decent nations such as Holland, Belgium, UK are all members. Thank God too.

 

[Feanor]

Gazzwp it's pretty clear we're not going to agree. I think our fundamental disagreement lies in the fact that you believe in the traditional fairy tales of classical liberalism, taking them at face value, and thus to you the west is automatically the "good guys". I'm going to withdraw from the political discussion with you because it's unproductive, letting you have the last word. I do still disagree, I just don't see the point in continuing this circular argument.

 

[Feanor]

Funny Update:
The rebels have captured some trophy Humvee's . Hmmm, I wonder where they came from? It surely must be obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hdZ_WcNMI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ocCJqk4QQ

Nothing funny about it. Ukraine has operated old Humvees for years. They were an American donation. They've surfaced many times in photos, including ones I posted here.

 

[stojo]

Sorry but that is not the version that I saw in the media.

Well, then you are utterly miss-informed I am afraid.

"Ukraine opposition leaders sign deal with government
Deal sets out plans to hold early presidential elections, form a national unity government and revert to the 2004 constitution "

Ukraine opposition leaders sign deal with government | World news | The Guardian

And some hour later (New York times):

"A deal aimed at ending a lethal spiral of violence in Ukraine began to show serious strains late Friday just hours after it had been signed, with angry protesters shouting down opposition members of Parliament who negotiated the accord and a militant leader threatening armed attacks if President Viktor F. Yanukovych did not step down by morning. .....

Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of Right Sector, a coalition of hard-line nationalist groups, reacted defiantly to news of the settlement, drawing more cheers from the crowd ....

The agreements that were reached do not correspond to our aspirations,” he said. “Right Sector will not lay down arms. Right Sector will not lift the blockade of a single administrative building until our main demand is met — the resignation of Yanukovych.”
He added that he and his supporters were “ready to take responsibility for the further development of the revolution.”....

he said, vowing to lead an armed attack if Mr. Yanukovych did not announce his resignation by 10 a.m. on Saturday. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0

At that point, it was more than obvious that none of the oposition leaders controll the situation any more. That the Maidan is in the hands of far right militants, non willing to compromise.

Day after this Yanukovich left the Kiev, and five days later -- Russians invaded Crimea.

At least the country has a chance without the dictator.

I really cant belive this people.

Libya, a country that Gaddafi turned into the most prosperous country in Africa (whether you like it or not) exists no more, halve of the country is in the hand of Al-Qaeda affiliated criminals, other halve in the hand of equally spurious paramilitary groups. In just one year after "liberation", more people have been killed than during the entire reign of Gaddafi, and yet -- people who where killed should be, somehow, grateful for the fact that they are dead, since their relatives are now ruled by gun-totting criminals, who Washington hates a little less than they did Gaddafi.

 

[swerve]

Gaddafi didn't lift a finger to make Libya prosperous. He took over a country which was booming because of oil - extracted by foreign firms employing skilled foreigners - & left it 40 years later still totally dependent on oil, largely still produced by foreign firms employing skilled foreigners, with menial work & a lot of non-oil related skilled & semi-skilled work dome by cheaper foreigners, e.g. Malians & Egyptians.

In those 40 years he spent many billions on weapons which were allowed to rust, or packed up & never used (see what happened to Libya's large stocks of Mirage Vs & spares - sold to Pakistan at scrap price, many of them unused & in as new condition), on pointless & destructive wars in Africa, in which tens of thousands (many of them Libyans) died, nothing was achieved except death & destruction, & in which his army was regularly defeated by theoretically weaker forces (see Chad & Uganda as examples of his many humiiiating defeats: in the latter he ended up ransoming his expeditionary force, which had been taken prisoner by Tanzanians), & in aid to the most incompetent & brutal dictators, such as the evil Idi Amin.

He left his country a mess.with no institutions other than those devoted to his or his childrens' aggrandisement, e.g. a national football team which would have been a joke, but for the horrific treatment of losing players. One of his sons was keen on football. This son was made captain of a leading league team, captain of the national team, & head of the national football federation. Only the son was mentioned in reports of games. The ball had to be passed to him. Players risked torture of themselves & their families for tackling him. Millions were spent to place the son in foreign teams, which didn't field him because he was a bad player. Similar arrangements were made for anything else, e.g. businesses which his children were interested in. More vast sums were spent on such nonsense, & many opportunities lost for other Libyans & the country.

Gaddafi harmed his country & its neighbours. It's almost certain that they'd be better off if he'd never existed. He squandered Libya's wealth, & prevented (deliberately, so they didn't threaten his position) the creation of the independent institutions a country needs for stability & development. His country is still suffering the after-effects of that. If he'd ruled a country without great natural riches, he'd be remembered as just another incompetent murderer & thief, like Idi Amin.

 

[stojo]

.....

You just made a couple hundred words of a political rant, nothing else.

I am, however, intersted in facts.

During Gadaffi's reign Human Development Index (a measure of a general well bing - composite of education, income, and health), rose by 22.4%. Which is enormous.

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/LBY.pdf

Gender inequality index fell far bellow any country in the region, education dramatically improved, literacy rate increased dramatically (again, especially among women: from around 35% in 1980 to more than 80% in the nineties).

Number of universities rose from one to more than a dozen.

Did he amassed fortune him self -- yes. Did his family amassed fortune (as in any other family run middle eastern country -- yes). Was that a corrupt government --well more or less, average of its neighbors...

2010 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results

If you disregard usual political ranting about "autocracy" Libyans, as whole lived far better during Qaddafi's reign than any time before, or since -- for that matter.

Some of you like to believe liberal fairy tails, but in some countries in the world: removal of strong political leader, won't lead into "democracy" -- it will lead into anarchy: and Libya is prime example of that.

Now you have gun-totting Al-Qaeda affiliated, sharia law loving terrorists, running half of the country, trying to revert the society in the middle ages. What an improvement

PS: Since this whole Libya thing is off-topic, I will stop here...

 

[Rimasta]

You just made a couple hundred words of a political rant, nothing else.

I am, however, intersted in facts.

During Gadaffi's reign Human Development Index (a measure of a general well bing - composite of education, income, and health), rose by 22.4%. Which is enormous.

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/LBY.pdf

Gender inequality index fell far bellow any country in the region, education dramatically improved, literacy rate increased dramatically (again, especially among women: from around 35% in 1980 to more than 80% in the nineties).

Number of universities rose from one to more than a dozen.

Did he amassed fortune him self -- yes. Did his family amassed fortune (as in any other family run middle eastern country -- yes). Was that a corrupt government --well more or less, average of its neighbors...

2010 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results

If you disregard usual political ranting about "autocracy" Libyans, as whole lived far better during Qaddafi's reign than any time before, or since -- for that matter.

Some of you like to believe liberal fairy tails, but in some countries in the world: removal of strong political leader, won't lead into "democracy" -- it will lead into anarchy: and Libya is prime example of that.

Now you have gun-totting Al-Qaeda affiliated, sharia law loving terrorists, running half of the country, trying to revert the society in the middle ages. What an improvement

PS: Since this whole Libya thing is off-topic, I will stop here...

So you would characterize Gaddafi's rule at the end as strong? What with his people rising up against him, it sure didn't seemlike that. And not all the factions were die hard Islamists. Just remember, those Islamosts are fighting against people, meaning not everyone is jumping on their band wagon. What happended to Libya was most likely inevitable. Qaddafi, wasn't going to live forever, and I doubt any of his sons could've held the country together.

How low are our standards for civil society when we look at Assad, Saddam, Qaddafi, and the attitude is this is as good as it gets. Things may be bad, but doing nothing isn't always an option for those that live under such regimes. It is better to die standing up, than to live on your knees.

 

[Preceptor]

Please confine discussion to the events and situation in and around the Ukraine. Using the circumstances and events from elsewhere in the world to justify a specific opinion or point of view derail the discussion. Further, this is an international forum and people are going to have different points of view based upon their location, origins, and level of access to/sources of information.

Please respect that others can look at the same situation and have an entirely different opinion or perspective on it.
-Preceptor

 

[gazzzwp]

Gazzwp it's pretty clear we're not going to agree. I think our fundamental disagreement lies in the fact that you believe in the traditional fairy tales of classical liberalism, taking them at face value, and thus to you the west is automatically the "good guys". I'm going to withdraw from the political discussion with you because it's unproductive, letting you have the last word. I do still disagree, I just don't see the point in continuing this circular argument.

I'm not sure we are that far apart really. What I don't see evidence for is the idea of a Western conspiracy behind Maidan. I see accusations coming from Russia and pro Russian folk yet nowhere have I read anything remotely convincing. I read RT a lot, but find the spin and political bias just too much sometimes for it to be taken as a serious media provider.

Anyway thanks for the discussion. Please keep up the hard work on providing the information here.

 

[gazzzwp]

Well, then you are utterly miss-informed I am afraid.

"Ukraine opposition leaders sign deal with government
Deal sets out plans to hold early presidential elections, form a national unity government and revert to the 2004 constitution "

Surely this is what caused the downward spiral -

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko accused Russia on Friday of direct involvement in the sniper fire that killed dozens of protesters in Kiev on 18-20 February last year.

Speaking at a commemorative gathering in Kiev, he said Russian presidential aide Vladislav Surkov had organised "groups of foreign snipers". The president cited information he had received from Ukraine's security services.

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Russians to rally in Moscow to mark 'coup'

 

[Strannik]

Surely this is what caused the downward spiral -

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko accused Russia on Friday of direct involvement in the sniper fire that killed dozens of protesters in Kiev on 18-20 February last year.

Speaking at a commemorative gathering in Kiev, he said Russian presidential aide Vladislav Surkov had organised "groups of foreign snipers". The president cited information he had received from Ukraine's security services.

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Russians to rally in Moscow to mark 'coup'

Yeah, that is the smoking gun!
Pity the prove for the allegation had to join the long queue of un presented yet proves. Certainly it will have it's turn no earlier than prove about the plane being shot of the sky by evil separatists.

BTW P.Parashenko, is well known for being reliable source of news. Just few days ago he swear to the whole world that the Ukrainian troops are not surrounded in Debalcevo.

 

[gazzzwp]

Yeah, that is the smoking gun!
Pity the prove for the allegation had to join the long queue of un presented yet proves. Certainly it will have it's turn no earlier than prove about the plane being shot of the sky by evil separatists.

BTW P.Parashenko, is well known for being reliable source of news. Just few days ago he swear to the whole world that the Ukrainian troops are not surrounded in Debalcevo.

I've got to be honest I see Poroshenko as the ideal leader in this situation that could well bring the Ukraine out of it's current crisis. I see him as a man of integrity with perhaps the most unenviable job in the world.

Regarding his claim about the encirclement. If his troops were encircled then judging by how many broke out and how quickly it says very little for the quality of Russia forces guarding the net!

Don't forget his duty is to maintain morale of his troops in the face of overwhelmingly superior Russian fire power.

Not an enviable task.