Can we have a Ukraine/ Russia/ Crimea thread for dummies?

[chicaguapa]

In other words, could someone explain the situation in really simple terms please. I don't understand it but feel it's important and I should know what's going on.

And because DD(12) asked me this morning and I couldn't answer.

It is vital for Putin that Ukraine doesn't settle down enough for sensible elections, because that would give legitimacy to the Ukraine government, which he needs to declare has no authority.

Which suggests that he will not want to UN to help.

Yes, Putin thinks the government is illegitimate. The West hopes that Putin will play ball with the government and accept their rule, but it is not in his interests to do so. So far it looks like Putin has come out on top yet again.

Sky News interviewed the separatist mayor off Slavyansk in Eastern Ukraine and he was asked about disbanding the self defence force occupation of buildings etc and he said that he doesn't take orders from EU politicians.

He is obviously different to Yats; Yats is on the blower to the EU politicians as much as possible.

Sky also showed an Orthodox priest speaking to the self-defence forces and the priest said "we won't kneel to our enemies, we only kneel to God".

I get the impression that the East will not give in easily.

Uproar in Ukraine that lasts too long is in nobody's interests, least of all Russia's because Ukraine owes Russia $2bn and counting for gas.

The condition in which Russian speakers or ethnic Russians live in any future Ukraine have yet to be hammered out. The EU is well aware that the UN Human Rights Panel has recently criticised Estonia and Latvia for their treatment of Russian language minorities in those states and may well push for Estonia and Latvia to settle that long-simmering issue equitably at this point, as well as throwing its weight behind an equitable approach for eastern Ukraine as part of the constitutional reforms now being demanded of Ukraine in return for EU money. The EU will not see a return for its investment until Ukraine is up and running smoothly again, and it is doubtful if anyone in Brussels or Berlin could get behind an all out 'anti terrorism' approach by Kiev for many reasons, including historical ones/deep-seated reluctance of the German public to be associated with force in Ukraine.

The begrudging efforts of Kiev to reach out to that large minority in the east have not addressed eastern concerns. To the contrary, they have been characterised by spectacular tone deafness (see Yatseniuk statement in parliament) and a completely muddled policy where they insist there will be anti-terrorism measures, followed by random deployment of units with morale problems and issues of loyalty, and poorly executed displays of tanks. What is lacking is any semblance of good faith and clarity in the approach to the problem of deep ethnic division in Ukraine that has been boiling openly since independence, and simmering beneath the surface since 1919. This problem cannot have come as a surprise to the Kiev revolutionaries.

Politicians in Berlin and Brussels would be forgiven for wondering if they were dealing with a group of rank amateurs not used to dealing with political reality, and motivated by atavistic instincts rather than any appreciation of the need to solve problems in a practical and concrete way because a lot of other people's money is at stake.

Donetsk is the richest region of Ukraine. You'd think that Yats would try and be nice to them. Eastern Ukraine has most of the wealth of Ukraine.

Unfortunately, I think that the situation may be escalated and I winder if that is what outside forces really want.

Outside forces like Putin.

An unstable Ukraine would be an ideal target for his next invasion. "They were in a mess and asked me to help!"

I think that whatever Yats and the gang do next will have had to have clearance from the EU and the US, so if he does escalate it then I think the policy will become clearer.

I think that as the banks go bust and the debts can't be repaid that we may all be manoeuvred into a word war. I don't think it will happen immediately. I think the lines are being drawn and countries will probably prepare by increasing military spending. Some analysts mention 2017.

PigletJohn, I don't think Putin wants war and instability. As Obama said, Putin does not want confrontation with the States because Putin's forces are not as capable as US forces. But I think confrontation is now probably coming some time in the future, and this deterioration in relations is just the beginning.

However, Putin accused the States of stirring up the trouble in Georgia and that did not lead to a confrontation, so maybe a confrontation can still be avoided and maybe this is just another test. But the frightening thing is the gloabl bankruptcy and an elite who will not be prepared to relinquish control by accepting bankruptcy.

Putin probably doesn't want war. Among other reasons, he is dependent of Western Europe for money and development, and his economy is in a poor state. His army is much bigger than any of his neighbours individually, so he can intimidate and invade them as long as they don't support each other.

He calculates what speed he can go at, and which of his neighbours are weak enough, in his ambition of creating a mighty Russian Empire.

Although he is very keen on using a crooked referendum to suck people into Greater Russia, they have no chance of ever getting out. He is very peeved that some countries were allowed to achieve independence in the chaos after the collapse of the old Soviet Union. Any talk of independence in his new Russia is punishable by imprisonment.

Without this coup and the subsequent "government" supported by the EU politicians,Ukraine would have kept Crimea and Donetsk would not be asking for separation and a referendum. Without the wish to get closer to the EU and NATO without even asking the population of the East and South of Ukraine, Ukraine would have been bankrupt but still intact. It would have had to ask for help from Russia and the EU and some sort of joint deal may have been possible. But after the coup, Putin has been forced into a tough position without many good choices.

He is worried about the encroachment of NATO and the threat to Russia. this is what he said in his speech.

"President Vladimir Putin on Thursday acknowledged that the decision [over Crimea] was also prompted by strategic concerns about Ukraine joining NATO.

“When the infrastructure of a military bloc is moving towards our borders it makes us also take steps in the opposite direction, and this is our right as well,” Putin said during his annual televised question-and-answer session, responding to a question about NATO’s post-Cold War expansion towards Russia’s borders. “We are forced to take some measures in response.”

“Our decision on Crimea was partially connected to that,” Putin said.

Although the main driver behind the annexation was the need to protect the residents of Crimea, “we had other considerations as well: If we don’t do anything, after a while they will use the same principles and drag Ukraine into NATO. And they will say, ‘It’s none of your business.’

“And then the NATO ships will be in the city of Russian military glory, the town of Sevastopol,” he continued.

Putin said the notion of NATO vessels in Sevastopol was more than merely an emotional issue for Russia.

While modern weaponry made Crimea’s location in the Black Sea less important today than it was in the 18th or the 19th century, he said, “if NATO troops go there they will deploy offensive weapons there and that is of geopolitical importance for us.”

“Russia will be pushed out from the area around the Black Sea – that will leave us with only a small part of the shore, 600 kilometers or so. So this is pushing out of Russia from this very important region of the world.”

www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/putin-concerns-about-ukraine-joining-nato-prompted-crimea-annexation

I think Putin would rather the couphad not happened and that things stayed as they were, because now he is already in some sort of confrontation with the West, and that is not good for Russia and its economic development. Jaw jaw is always better than war war, but in the end I don't think Putin will be given the choice.

"Putin has been forced into a tough position without many good choices"

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Putin has found himself an opportunity to enlarge Greater Russia.

He has chosen to do what he thinks he will get away with.

This has been a consistent theme of Russian statements since the Russian Federation came into being. The decision to ignore this very clear statement of Russia's position on NATO encroachment into eastern Europe over the course of 30 years is incomprehensible.

When a message is as clear as this one is, and as consistent, and it is ignored, and when other means of drawing eastern Europe into the EU and western sphere of influence exist (i.e. economic ties whether as members of the EU or via economic association) the only conclusion to draw is that the US does in fact have specifically military designs on Russia that exist separately from the gradual assimilation of eastern Europe into the west's economy and cultural fabric.

Ukraine is very much a European issue.

So is the expansion of Greater Russia.

No, everyone knew that Putin could not afford to lose the port in Crimea. It is very strategic for Russia. He had little choice and he took the risk because he didn't really have a choice. He doesn't really know what will happen next. He can only guess.

By the actions Yats and the gang take next, we will see what the real policy is. Yats is a puppet, Putin knows that, but Putin does not know what the puppetmasters will do next. The ball is in their court, Putin will be on the receiving end.

Your C&P above demonstrates Putin's assumption that his Russia has for some reason the right to dominate Eastern Europe, and the Black Sea.

The fact that the Soviet Union collapsed, and many nations took the opportunity to become independent, peeves him. He feels entitled to take back what used to belong to the Soviet Union.

He is wrong.

'Putin's assumption that his Russia has for some reason the right to dominate Eastern Europe, and the Black Sea'

It is defence. He has seen Nato countries and/or the US attack Kosovo, Irag, Afghanistan, Libya and threaten to strike Syria and seen Saudi Arabia back the jihadists who are trying to overthrow Assad. He knows that it is only a matter of time before Russia is next.

' He feels entitled to take back what used to belong to the Soviet Union.'

No, this is what some hawkish puppets in the West accuse him of. He doesn't want to take the Bandera neo-nazis and Right Sector and Russophobes. He prefers the West to welcome them. But he has the interests of ethnic Russian people and the long friendship and ties with Ukrainians in mind and he also has to be prepared to defend Russia against attack from a stronger, richer West who are openly hostile to him and want to topple him so that they can get their hands on Russia's rich resources.

I see no reason to believe that.

Though, funnily enough, I have seen Russia intimidate, invade and occupy its smaller weaker neighbours. Some of those who have not recently been invaded may feel threatened.

"No, this is what some hawkish puppets in the West accuse him of. He doesn't want to take the Bandera neo-nazis and Right Sector"

even if that Russian propanda had been true, he wouldn't need them, because he already has plenty of neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and right-wing extremists of his own (as you know).

I agree they do feel threatened, but Russia also feels threatened by the West. The smaller countries are used as pawns in a chess game that are being moved from Russia's sphere of influence to the Western spher of influence. Russia doesn't want to invade these countries because it will not be able to hold them if the people are against it. Russia is not the Soviet Union. Putin is not Stalin whatever puppets may try and tell us.

So you keep on bleating, PigletJohn....

Yet over the last 30 years the only entities that have expanded are the EU and Nato.

Oh and the US has meantime invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade among other elements of involvement in the breakup of the so-called 'Yugoslavia' (which the US supported), overthrown leaders and in some cases former allies in North Africa, and continues to use drones to bomb targets in Pakistan and border regions with Afghanistan.

The case of the former Yugoslavia is interesting because of the pressure brought to bear on it by the US to force disintegration, at first by means of withholding credit and loans unless various states in the federation were allowed to hold referenda, followed by NATO military involvement as a tool of US foreign policy.

The EU has no army and has never invaded anybody.

Countries are queuing up to be allowed to join

And you are talking absolute 100% garbage to suggest that the EU has expanded in the same way that Russia has invaded, occupied and annexed its weaker neighbours by overwhelming military force.

Putin knows what is going on.

"Poland’s Role in Destabilizing Ukraine: Polish Military Trained Neo-Nazi Militants for EuroMaidan Protests"

www.globalresearch.ca/polands-role-in-destabilizing-ukraine-polish-military-trained-neo-nazi-militants-for-euromaidan-protests/5378129

There is a policy to isolate and weaken Russia. Putin has resisted so far.

Will all of Europe get dragged in against Russia. Poland probably will, but will Germany really fall for it? Will Farage and Le Pen and Wilders form a challenge to the hawks in the EU who are pushing for tough consequences for Russia? Will Europe go along and become an enemy of Russia or will some European countries break from the group? We don't yet know. But it is all very important for what happens in the future.

'And you are talking absolute 100% garbage to suggest that the EU has expanded in the same way that Russia has invaded, occupied and annexed its weaker neighbours by overwhelming military force.'

We are talking about Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not the communist Soviet Union.

It was Russia that supported the unification of East and West Germany, when Thatcher and Mitterand were against it. Russia does not want an empire, but it also doesn't want NATO on its borders pointing missiles at it.

With Russia having so many of its own neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists. I wonder why Russian propaganda keeps saying that they are a problem of other European nations?

Do Russia's supporters perhaps hope that they will be believed and not challenged?