Russia has invaded Ukraine

[ohmymimi]

Not a shot fired. Putin outwits the West and who/what will stop him getting his way?

Shortly after Ukraine gained independence, much time and energy was spent on building statehood and its symbols. Rational economic policies were slow to emerge, and in political turbulence they were rarely followed through consistently. Corruption became endemic, and many now see the country as governed by groupings bridging the private and the public spheres, the lawful and the illegal.

Not so long ago it seemed that Ukraine was on the brink of change. The Orange Revolution of 2004 raised many hopes. It attracted huge sympathy and support inside and outside the country. And blueprints for economic reform were available. In 2005, the Blue Ribbon Commission for Ukraine, a body sponsored by the United Nations Development Program that reviewed Ukraine’s economic and social policies in light of the Orange Revolution, delivered more than a hundred proposals for social and economic change to the newly elected President Viktor Yushchenko.

But five years later, the World Bank noted that after the Orange Revolution “laws and institutions did not change materially.” The Bank listed Ukraine’s fiscal crisis, investment climate, financial system, and public sector governance as the priority sectors for reform and drafted large and thorough sets of short- and medium-term measures to improve the system. Sector-oriented reform proposals are also available. A 2011 study, Turning Ukrainian Agriculture into an Engine of Growth, came up with a large set of proposals for the country’s agricultural sector.

Though political conditions in Ukraine have changed for the better, the zeal of eight years ago has evaporated without truly deep economic reform. So much is currently amiss in the Ukrainian economy and society that any new wave of reforms should ideally reach across the whole society and should be long lasting—stretching across political and elections cycles. Desirable as such consistency would be, reaching for the ideal is illusory in any society. But setting the right priorities is also difficult. That, however, is precisely what Ukraine must do.'

Obviously, Yushchenko can hardly be called a tool of Russia.

So where to from here?

'First, Ukraine can no longer rely on a terms of foreign trade windfall. Domestic prices must be set at a realistic level; much needed greater efficiency cannot come from explicit and implicit subsidies. To continue evolving Ukraine needs access to domestic long-term funding. The current combination of dependence on foreign funding and lost international credibility is nothing short of lethal.

Second, the weak and corrupt Ukrainian state must be reformed. Corruption and state favors are the greatest barriers to more free markets with healthier competition and a growing small and medium enterprise sector. Current pension and subsidy burdens put the state in an impossible position fiscally and indirectly force the growth of the shadow economy.

Third, the oligarchic structure of the economy can only be counterbalanced by an economy more exposed to foreign competition and investment. That can only be realized when the previous two tasks have been tackled in a credible and consistent way. As matters stand, Ukraine cannot really expect much foreign investment, nor can Ukraine really be recommended to most investors.'

All of the above is from the Carnegie link.

Piglet and Beagle, I don't know who you are, where you are from. But your arguments seem to be motivated by hatred of all things Russian for reasons that are routed in the past and should be left behind.

Civilized European citizens don't need people dragging this baggage of hatred inside the EU and creating nationalistic wars on the EU border, or even implicating NATO.
We don't want and will not fight your delusional fights with the Russians.

European law stands for peace and good neighborly relations. EU works by consensus of all the member states. Member countries need to be ready to share this values of peace, respect and good relations before they can be accepted.

Ukraine is not fit to be associated with the EU.

Hopefulgoat

You have previously insulted me by claiming that I am an apologist for Nazism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now you allege that I have a hatred of all things Russian. This is also untrue.

I do not advocate a war.

I criticise Russia for its military invasion and occupation of Ukraine. This is not motivated by a hatred of Russia. I do however observe that Russia has some defects, notably political corruption and commercial gangsterism, and is currently seeking to expand its control over its neighbours.

Of these points, are there any you would like to argue are wrong?

It is both interesting and curious that hopefulgoat rakes up the shameful history of Ukrainian participation in persecution and genocide (but does not mention contemporaneous crimes by the Russian-dominated Soviet Union), and then tells us that reasons rooted in the past should be left behind.

Piglet, instead of repeating your colourful descriptions of various features of Russia, why don't you address mu point about Ukraine educating the young about Bandera collaboration with the and Nazi and crimes they committed?

You also need to address the point of oppressive and totalitarian nature of the anti Russian rhetoric. People obsessed with forbidding their co-citizens speaking their native language, destroying their monuments and renaming their streets are not capable of bringing about what you describe as "European laws and human rights". Quite the opposite, they will bring just another brand of oppressive, totalitarian, and corrupt government.

Western 'help' didn't result in democracy in Iraq, in Libya or in Syria. You just get one group fighting another group for totalitarian control with the expectation that a western patron will come with bombs and tanks and do the winning for them. The result is a failed state.

European laws and democracy is the reflection of the political maturity of the society in Europe. Ukraine will not become European by signing an association agreement. It will still be Ukraine.

Hopefulgoat

I notice you are determined not to admit that Russia has carried out a military invasion and occupation of Ukraine. Perhaps from your perspective it would be so difficult that you prefer to avoid the subject.

After your insults and untrue allegations about me, are there any points from my earlier post that you would like to argue are wrong?

Piglet, once again, UK, France, and Germany, and actually all the 28 member states have a centuries long and gruesome history of war behind them. We don't ramp it up. We left that behind at the door of European Union.

Ukraine needs to leave its nationalistic rhetoric behind.

That's a no, then.

European citizens don't need people dragging their baggage of hatred inside the EU and creating nationalistic wars on the EU border, or even implicating NATO.

Europe stands for peace, stability and good neighborly relations.

So apart from you dragging your baggage of 70-year old atrocities on here, and then saying the past should be let go, you have nothing to say about Russia creating a crisis by its military invasion and occupation of a neighbouring country.

I wonder if you think this is an act conducive to peace, stability and neighbourly relations. I certainly don't.

Or perhaps it is a potential cause one of the "delusional fights" you have thought up, but which I have never advocated.

You are wrong in the values you ascribe to Russian intentions, PigletJohn. They are exactly the same as America's intentions and there is plenty of 'political corruption and commercial gangsterism' to go around. Why is one so wrong and the other so acceptable?

Within Ukraine, 'winner takes all' politics have resulted in the sort of posturing HopefulGoat has mentioned, the epitome of fiddling while Rome burns. Ukrainian politics have been about power within Ukraine first and last, and point scoring, and effectively stealing money from the west and securing cheap gas and oil from Russia. Politicians of all stripes have bled the country dry. Mos are what can accurately be called 'filthy rich'.

When you speak of 'contemporaneous crimes by the Russian-dominated Soviet Union' (during WW2) you imply some equivalence. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that Nazi crimes were committed in the course of a war of aggression declared on both eastern and western fronts whose aim was world domination and the extermination of Jews and Slavs alike (followed by everyone else).

My position is centred on Russia's military invasion and occupation of its neighbour, which I find reprehensible. The pro-russian people on here refuse to acknowledge the fact.

I mention facts about Russia in response to pro-Russian apologists.

It is regrettably true that the numbers killed by the Russian-dominated Soviet Union exceeded those killed by Nazi Germany.

Would you care to explain the basis of that last claim of yours, PigletJohn?

Stalin's regime killed about 20 million (excluding battle casualties)

Hitler's regime about 10 million

Why ignore the fact that there was a war, and that approximately 26 million Soviet citizens and members of the armed forces perished as a direct result of Nazi aggression?

You mention facts about the USSR in order to make current anti-Russian rhetoric in the west seem rational and reasonable, or maybe to try to give the impression that anyone in the west cared about the fate of millions murdered by the Communist regime or spoke up about it. Unfortunately, neither past nor present seems to matter much to the west -- despite pleas of the newly installed government of Ukraine to those who rushed to recognise it, nobody appears to care enough to do anything about the Russian occupation of Crimea.

Instead, the bleating of the west about democracy (ironically in the wake of an event that was not democratic at all) is accompanied by talk of loans and 'reform'. It is clear they mean indentured servitude and decades of poverty for Ukraine, accompanied by a land and resource and industry grab that will benefit only the wealthy both within and outside Ukraine. The Carnegie recipe for recovery above has many hallmarks of the philosophy 'if you want to make omelettes you have to break eggs' about it -- the government must face a rise in prices, and it must also countenance shrugging off its pension and subsidy burdens. Never mind the old and the middle aged depending on their pensions. Cutting off subsidies means businesses will need to be shut down or sold (to whom?) and employees will be let go. There will be jam tomorrow for some at least so that's all right.

I think it's a mistake to conflate the USSR and the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation has the same ambition as the USA and China have -- maintaining or spreading power and influence, and making money. If you insist on mixing up the Soviet Union and post Soviet Russia, at least acknowledge that the USSR/Russia shares both the values and the interests of other major powers, and that nobody can lay claim to a history free of genocide or injustice or running roughshod over principles they claim to espouse.

You think that Stalin's actions are just really not so different from other leaders'? Seriously? His deliberately imposed famine in the Ukraine alone killed up to 7 million. As Pigletjohn says, he actually killed more people than Hitler. These are not war casualties. They are people shot, starved, worked to death, etc.

Math

Do you have any comment on the fact that Russian has instigated a military invasion and occupation of Ukraine?

Not seventy years ago, but now?

William Hague was on the Andrew Marr Show. It was very interesting. I think it is becoming possible to see what is going on. I don't think we will be involved in any military conflict with Russia. I think this is a long game. Hague said that he thinks that Russia has miscalculated just as they miscalculated about Yanukovych leaving power. Hague said that over the long term, the consequences - financial, trade, relations with Europe etc - will harm Russia.

He said that Europe would begin to lessen its dependence on Russian oil and that there are talks about importing oil or gas from America. I think that is a win-win for America, and a lose-lose for Russia. He also said that the prospects of a new pipeline from Baku to Europe, bypassing Russia and not using Russian oil or gas, would become more important. However, this pipeline will take several years before it is ready. But this is clearly a long game that will weaken Russia.

Hague also said that Ukraine will be more united against Russia. I think that is another win for the West. He also said that Europe would begin to recast its relations with Russia. Again, I think this is a lose for Russia.

But, I am not sure that it will work out like that. The weakness in it is that it is a long game and in the long run things change. I don't think that all of the countries in the EU will stick it out for the long game. There will probably be cracks in their united stance, and some will likely be more friendly to Russia than others. I am not sure that Germany, the real powerhouse of Europe, will remain firm against Russia. Then there is also the sentiment of European peoples and the growing populist anti-EU parties which may lead to a weakening of the current political elite's united stance as Euroscepticism grows.

France is a very important country. At the moment it is fully on board, but if their current elite lose power in elections to Eurosceptic parties, France may become more independent from Europe and Paris may even become a financial centre that attracts Russian oligarchs and which becomes more favourable to them than London due to a more friendly political class.

Russia has instigated and carried out a military occupation of Crimea (and only Crimea). Not seventy years ago but in the very recent past. The only question mark about that is what happens now.

What happens now is that nobody is going to intervene, and the upcoming referendum will most likely result in a vote to join Russia and lots of rioting which the west will deplore but how can you support one set of rioters in Kiev and tut-tut another elsewhere without looking like hypocrites and instigators of regime change, or a coup as that sort of event is also known..

I do not think Russia will try to occupy or invade any other parts of Ukraine. Ukraine has taken steps to secure Donetsk and I think Russia will not push where there is resistance. After the dust settles Russia will run its own horses in Ukrainian politics and there will possibly be ongoing pressure for referenda in the east and south east, with ongoing unrest, especially as draconian 'shock therapy' hits the economy and pockets of Ukrainians.

Hagu's remarks underscore the fact that nothing is going to be done about Crimea it's all 'naughty stool manana for Russia', with vague talk of Russia being squeezed in different ways. He forgets that there is also a Baltic pipeline to Germany and the general German policy of maintaining its diplomatic and trade relationship with Russia which does not seem to have changed at all through this crisis. He also forgets the importance of Russian money in the City (strange for a Tory) and I agree he underestimates Euroscepticism to discount the rise of the right is a huge mistake. I think Germany and France will draw closer together if Ukraine eventually joins the EU because a Ukraine-Poland-Baltic states axis within the EU would upset the primacy of the west both in cultural and economy.

Culturally the east is far more conservative than say the Netherlands or Britain, and the fault lines within Europe will be exposed with closer Ukrainian ties to the EU. Within eastern European countries, the existence of a liberal elite that embraces western values will not sit well with majorities that are far more conservative; within the eastern countries the right wing can expect to make political gains as the reality of association with Europe hits home.

A discussion of the oil trade in the US context. Energy security has been a cornerstone of American policy for a while now. Lobbying to end the ban on crude exports is relentless, but no American politician wants to look as if he or she is a stooge of the oil companies while consumers face high prices at the pump. America is a net exporter of diesel and petroleum already. The American electorate and American business will chafe at the idea of paying high prices for trucking, airfare, etc., while Europe buys American oil or gas.

Hague also forgets that Britain cannot really speak for Europe thanks to government-sponsored Euroscepticism in the UK. So I think much of what he says about Europe is sabre rattling by someone who is on the outside of the important group.

math

I say that Russia has instigated a military invasion and occupation of the Ukraine. But you prefer to say that Russia has instigated and carried out a military occupation of Crimea.

If Mexico was to invade and occupy Texas, would you consider that an invasion of the USA?

Our media haven't given us much information about the ethnic makeup of areas of South-Eastern Ukraine.

There are big pro-Russian protests in Donetsk shown on Sky, and Sky earlier today said that Donetsk is 95% ethnic or pro-Russian. Is that correct? beaglesaresweet, do you know if this is accurate?

No, I have just looked on wikipedia. About 48% are Russian, 47% Ukrainian. Apparently, the town of Donetsk was founded by a Welshman, John Hughes, who set up a steel plant and some mines there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk