They've taken every piece of territory they think they can hold. The suggestion they're showing "restraint" is just another way of saying the Ukrainian Army can hold some territory, despite the flow of men and arms from Russia.
True, I'm actually amazed, with all of Ukraine's internal problems and a super power sniping from the sidelines, that Ukraine has not actually lost more territory. As I see it every time the UA gets the upper hand against the rebels they are decimated by cross border rocket barrages. These separatists / rebels have more firepower at their disposal than most medium sized nations, what they seem to lack is manpower as the locals for the most part seem to just want to be left alone leaving the separatists to rely on Russian and foreign volunteers.
They are indeed getting help, just the bare minimal. If Russia really wanted to intervene, Ukraine would be neutralized in under a week. I just find the whole situation dismal, I believe Russia has shown too much constraint. If they took Ukraine all together in the beginning, this perpetual state would be non existent.
The article is very astute in some regards but dead wrong in others, and the resulting conclusion is rather far from the truth, in my opinion.
This Ukrainian crisis is really putting that to the test internally. Putin has currently surrounded himself with people who support the move on Ukraine, but it's left quite a few rich and powerful people deeply unhappy because it puts their business interests at risk, or even actively in harms way. We'll see what happens.
Not quite. The cross border firings occured only during the Ukrainian offensive along the border. However it's true in a greater sense, that being that Russia will simply not let Ukraine win this war. Period. Ever. Which means that the Ukrainian governments consistent insistence on winning this by force arms borderline criminal. Western sanctions aside, Russia can afford to keep this conflict going indefinitely. And I think the Ukrainian government, or rather certain political figures in it, hope it will do so. The war lets them disregard real economic and governmental problems for which they have no solutions (education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.) while blaming everything on Russia (including the results of their own idiotic and corrupt domestic policy). This is why I have very little sympathy for the government of Ukraine. Under the guise of defending the nation, it's consistently chosen escalation instead of negotiation, knowing that Russia will be just as willing to escalate. If they really wanted to defend the country from Russian aggression, they should have sat down to the table with Putin, right after he took Crimea.
It's not so much that they have fire power, it's more that they have plenty of ammo, and seem to be fairly good at concentrating their fire power where it counts. Currently they're pounding Debal'tsevo into the ground, but have little in terms of artillery elsewhere in Donetsk region. Same in Lugansk region, a few areas where they have overwhelming fire power, and almost nothing anywhere else. The rebels are few in number overall, but they generally concentrate force in the areas that count the most, and maintain a competent defense elsewhere. And of course they have no shortage of ammo, unlike Ukraine which has a greater number of arty pieces but a shortage of ammo, and problems with supplies.
Russian politicians thought they could play the ambiguity game. Unfortunately it's gone on too long, and backfired. They're paying the costs of open intervention, without reaping the benefits. And of course at this point the actual costs of open intervention have increased. It was a bad decision made on faulty assumptions.
Very good points and hard to argue against.
I think if the new government of Ukraine sat down one on one with Russia, and promised to not join the EU or NATO, and asked for economic aid and discounts on oil and gas, Russia would have been very obliging.
They in this case refers to a fairly small group of Ukrainian politicians. They need the war, because without it they likely face another Maidan by their disillusioned population. They have a fundamental fear of falling under Russia's sphere of influence, primarily because they see what Putin has done to the oligarchs in Russia and secondarily because they would much rather rob their population blind, without foreign interference.
How much of that will simply go to paying for the war, for ongoing bills (like gas, electricity, and coal payments), and for interests on prior debts?
But that's the core issue. It's their choice to join EU (let's forget NATO for a moment). I think we know there is a large majority of Ukrainians that want to face west. Putin at the moment is acting like a jilted ex.
Even by your own excellent updates, we know very little has gone to the front to pay for the war. I'm not entertaining PMC's..How much of that will simply go to paying for the war, for ongoing bills (like gas, electricity, and coal payments), and for interests on prior debts?
A jilted, abusive, ex.
Yes. But it's clear that Ukraine would not be able to join the EU any time soon, and that in its present state the EU association agreement would likely do more harm then good. The smart thing to do would have been to promise not to join the EU (for now), without committing to anything with Russia, and instead focus on fixing what's wrong with the country. Once the Ukrainian economy is strong, and Ukraine isn't a third world country, then it can start to make its own choices. Weakness invites aggression, and in this case we have weakness AND arrogance.
This really isn't applicable. Countries aren't people.
Right. They have outperformed Ukraine across almost every measurable metric of social and economic development. But no. Clearly what Ukraine is doing works much better. Who would want to follow the Belorussian example?
This is a case for acting prudently and rationally in a complicated situation, instead of throwing a tantrum that costs your country thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and permanently handicaps your economic development by ruining ties with your biggest trading partner.
The Ukrainian war is cheap by western standards, but it's cheap by Ukrainian ones. They've slashed healthcare (already shitty), education, pensions, and raised taxes, just to help pay for it. On top of that they spent IMF loans on the war, instead of using them the way the IMF said they should. Iirc the last number I saw was 3 mln USD per day. This may not be much by western standards, but this is just war spending. It doesn't cover the increases in MVD, SBU, and MoD funding, and it's still quite a lot.
The last part hits the nail on the head. The Ukrainian elites have as little interest in being held accountable by European standards, as they do in being held accountable by Russian ones.
Too much to ask of most governments. But at the end of the day, I don't care if it's too much. They had an opportunity to play in the interests of the country, instead they played in their own personal interests. A recurring story in Eastern Europe.
An agreement with Ukraine that left Russia happy would have sent the entire thing down a different route quickly. There's a few other things that would probably have stopped it altogether (like offering Oleg Tsarev a spot in the new government).
If the new government, instead of a policy of confrontation with their own east, chose a policy of conciliation then they could sell it not as surrender, but as healthy compromise in a democratic nation. The majority of the Maydan were not insane skinheads, they were liberals. They didn't want war with Russia, to reclaim "lost provinces of Voronezh and Kuban", they wanted democratization at home. Even federalization might not have been a bad choice, if it was done with western advisers instead of along a Russian suggestion.
Well the rebels, and Russia, are simply trying to scare the Ukrainian government into negotiating. I'm surprised they haven't realized yet that it doesn't work. Only military victory has been able to do that. First time the disasterat Ilovaysk, that collapsed the southern front, now the Debal'tsevo pocket which opens the specter of a rebel push northward in Donetsk region.
Not sure I agree with the last part of this statement. We all realise the path into the EU takes at least 4-10 years, depending on various economic, political and structural requirements. I just don't see why Putin had to use his aggressor card to the extent he has. Your last sentence alarms me somewhat.
Apologies if you found this offensive - it wasn't intended as such. It was for context as the RF foreign policy seems to run through one person. Don't get me wrong, I think Lavrov does an excellent job as FM.
It was an example for future comparison. IMV a future Ukraine has the potential to be either a Belorussian style economic model or a Polish one at best.
But that is exactly what Putin is doing with his own economy! Ruining ties with its large economic partners, costing political relations and as a result gaining economic sanctions as a consequence. I'm surprised the RF (Putin) didn't take a 'softly softly' approach. It will be extreamely difficult to ever 'turn' Ukraine back now.
Agreed by western standards it's cheap.. But from the $40bio USD committed, plus further to come - It won't be considered a waste if ~$1-2bio winds up funding Ukrainian defences. Let's not forget some western partners will also be quietly happy, if some of those funds are channelled directly into the war effort.
The last part of the statement by me was countered by what I stated just prior to this. It will take time and the EU has patience and capital. Yes, massive poltical, economic and structural reform/ change will need to take place, but it's successfully been accomplished before. IMV, the dye has been cast, to which direction Ukraine's elites which to face. If it was me, I know which I would rather be held accountable by..
Doh! Russia did tried this approach from 1991 to 2008. It did not work. The situation during this time just about all over the globe went from quietly optimistic to downright depressing. It is time to try something else.
It's all a matter of perspective to be frank. Georgia, the dissolution of Yugoslavia, and the recent overthrow of Yanukovych....So on and So Forth. Both sides have more than enough reason to believe and fight in there ideals.
The Ukrainian government's first duty is not to some abstract set of morals. Their first duty is to their own people. If jumping through hoops to keep Russia happy, saves the lives of several thousand of their citizen, then for fucks sake, they should have jumped through hoops.
What they want is not so much an area of their influence, as an area of where the west will not spread itself.
Hmm. No. Now it's not lines. It's grey areas. But if you think strong countries no longer screw over weak ones, you're living in a fantasy world. The west supported nutcase violent insurgents against a government in Libya, but France is busy helping the Malinese against a very similar insurgency. Don't try to tell me the west are some sort of good guys, trying to make the world better.
Are they imaginary? The west started rolling eastward back when Russia was weak and wasn't menacing anyone. It was too busy trying not to fall apart at the seams. And it took a huge Russian effort to push US bases out of Central Asia.
Belarus did.
Russia is a national oligarchy. So yes, Putin and company are not good for Russia. The problem is a lack of alternatives. But this is a simple case of the west sending a message to Russia at the expense of Ukraine. Russia is in the wrong internationally, but the Ukrainian government is wrong with regards to its own people.
Let's not re-write history. Saakashvili had a program of violently ending the breakaway republics. He got Russia to broker an autonomy agreement with Adzharia, then used militarized police to violate said agreement, and bring the place under complete control. He tried the same bullsh*t with South Ossetia in 2006, but it didn't fly. He then tried it again violently in 2008. Russia didn't provoke him into this. He had a program, and he was systematically pursuing it.
Military power is not the only type of threat.