The Knight's Gate in Kiev

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I couldn't resist making a Mussorgsky reference while thinking on the current turmoil in Ukraine.
--
Reading the news and the reactions to the events I'm a bit surprised as how certain things remain the same even if the Cold War ended about a quarter of a century ago. From my desk it would seem that the western media paints the Russians as the evil monsters taking over the poor Ukrainians in Crimea. From the East it would seem that the Russians in Crimea would face imminent death from the evil West.

No shots have been fired in Crimea (yet) to my knowledge, although things in Donetsk seem to be a bit more "active" (although you would have to read Xinhua because the western news are still repeating the already refuted threats to the Ukrainian military bases in Crimea).

Beyond how evil Yanukovich really is (apparently very evil) or how obvious is for Russia to desire their main base in the Black sea to be under their indisputable control, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of people living in Crimea are ethnic Russians, and I don't see how they can go back to how things were.

Now, things in Donetsk and other cities in the East are a bit more complicated as according to admittedly oldish polls, the Ukrainian and Russians are more or less evenly split demographically. True, the majority voted for Yanukovich in the eastern provinces/oblasts, but still there are significant ethnic Ukrainians in those regions, more interesting are places like Odessa where technically the Russians are a third of the population but the overwhelming majority are Russian speakers.

Personally I don't think the country can remain whole but it is clear that the populations are quite intertwined, at least in the East making any changes a potentially explosive proposition.

What do you gals & guys think?

[Griffin NoName]

Reading the news and the reactions to the events I'm a bit surprised as how certain things remain the same even if the Cold War ended about a quarter of a century ago.

Here in the UK it is being presented as the Cold War is back.

I wonder about WWIII except that I don't think anyone in the west would bother to fight. In fact, they are all grandstanding but it seems like hot air to me. There's something quite pompous about William Hague pronouncing this and that when clearly we will actually be doing nothing.

On how to resolve it, build a big wall dividing east and west, one side to be russian, one side ukraine, and tell everyone to take their pick of where to live. I don't see why this wouldn't work, except it has been pointed out to me that it didn't work in the Balkans. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially if the allowed Banksi to decorate the wall.

[roystonoboogie]

It is an interesting one. The UK* is currently in a bit of an anti-EU phase, and we seem to be moving further away from Europe politically. Plus, we are utterly reliant on Russian gas at the moment. Huge amounts or Russian money are being poured into the UK* economy, and as much as we might not want to be seen supporting Putin, we are kind-of in bed with him.We already know Putin is not above turning off the gas - he did it to Ukraine a few years ago - so the UK Government will be doing backflips to show how friendly it is to Russia and Putin.

Meanwhile Ukraine is in revolt because it wants to be politically closer to Europe (which it would appear the UK* doesn't), and politically further away from Russia (which it would also appear the UK* doesn't). Yanukovich is/was an insane despot, but then so is Putin, and the problem will be that if Ukraine successfully reorganises itself as a proto-European country, our enforced friendship with Russia will mean that we are not going to form those closer ties with Ukraine. I suspect that will be the case across much of the EU.

I understand that Crimea is a semi-autonomous part of Ukraine, but I don't know how strong its own political will and political muscle is: can it remain semi-autonomous? I seriously doubt that Russia would allow Crimea the same degree of freedom that Ukraine does, so it would probably become just another part of Russia if Ukraine cannot negotiate a withdrawal of Russian troops.

As for Balkan-style walls - it has worked (after a fashion) in Cyprus for years, another island, another strategically important military base. It is far from a perfect solution, but it could be made to work. Hopefully. I just hope the war stays cold and doesn't heat up.

*Well, the bottom right-hand corner of it anyway.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I seem to recall that when the Indians and Pakistanis were asked to choose the process was anything but peaceful...

As for Crimea being independent, well, I seriously doubt the Abjhaz and the South Ossetians are, but they just didn't want to be under the Georgian flag, and keep in mind that they aren't Rus while most Crimeans are.

[Darlica]

I fear Europe is on the brink of war again.

Russia has more or less annexed the Crimea peninsula.

To suggest that that Crimea should belong to Russia instead of Ukraine because the majority of the people speak Russian is pretty much to say that California should belong to Mexico because the majority is Hispanic...

Russia has a lot of military interests in the area, military bases on Ukrainian ground, a lot of military ships outside the coast in fact one of the most powerful marine fleets in the world is floating around in the Black sea at the moment.
A majority of the people on Crimea are Russian or Russian descendants yes, but the land undoubtedly belongs to Ukraine, most Russian speaking people moved there during the Soviet era, to man the military bases or cater to the tourists and the rich and famous. Crimea and Jalta specifically with it's Black Sea shores was the Holiday paradise Soviet citizens (and many other "esterners") dreamed of. The Party had it's official summer/vacation homes here as had the "Elite". It was the place to be seen.  


I suppose living next door to Russia this whole thing makes me nervous (it's 690,88 km between Stockholm and St Petersburg and only about 349 km between the Swedish mainland and Kaliningrad).

There was an aspiring revolution in Ukraine, PM left his position to the opposition, the government was overthrown, dates for a new election were in the pipeline. The Putin friendly President responsible for ordering snipers to shoot at the protesting masses, of opposition leaders deaths and disappearances and the use of torture, refused to resign on an direct order of the newly formed parliament but instead fled in to the arms of Putin.

And then the Russian troops started to move.  

And yes, those are Russian elite troop, those upstanding Russian Crimeans who just picked up a gun and took to the streets. Many of them have state of the art hyper advanced clothing and weaponry, so advances the camo prints on their uniforms are computer generated (brand new), they have the new Kevlar helmets used for the special operations squads, not the standard steel ones, the weapon have advanced holographic sights and is way beyond the standard Russian military issue. There are plenty of photos to to prove that.

Now this could just be another bloody conflict between Putins Russia and one of the other former Soviet states (there are a lot of those conflicts, Kazakhstan, Chechnya and more) where the rest of the world just stand by as on lookers (concerned onlookers but still) if it wasn't for on little thing.
When the Soviet union fell apart and Ukraine became a independent country it suddenly had a wast arsenal of nuclear weapons, because old Soviet had huge bases for both tactical and strategic nuclear robots there.
The rest of Europe (and probably the rest of the world too) got a bit nervous about this, and promised Ukraine that if they had their nuclear weapons destroyed along with the lines of the Budapest Treaty they would help to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity...  Ukraine wanting to go "west" did what they where asked to do.
 
Do you see where this is leading?

It seems we are about to find out if those promises were worth anything more than the paper and the ink used to write them, or even less.


Some voices where raised here in Sweden before the Sochi Olympic games that this was a parallel to Berlin 1936...
Have we all been watching aplauding Putin's remake of one of Hitler's biggest PR successes?

There hasn't been a violation of a state's integrity like this in Europe since Soviet troops invaded Prague in 1968.


And if Putin takes Crimea and or Ukraine or parts of it what will stop him from invading other neighboring countries? His word? Finland has parts which has traditionally belonged to The Old Russian empire... The Baltic States?

Make no mistake the man is a megalomaniac, a very intelligent such, former head of KGB.

It doesn't look good.

[Swatopluk]

The only thing that would seriously hurt Putin would be sanctions against the Russian financial sector (Russia would have no problem to sell its oil and gas elsewhere, if Europe would start a boycott). But it would also hurt the bottom line of the politically well connected financial sector in the West, so this is not going to happen.

Only mad GOPsters would sent troops (and even many of those only when the guy in the White House is not one of them). Superpowers are not bound by laws unless they step on the feet of other superpowers.

Historically the Crimea belonged to the Tartars, then to Russia and since 1954 (or 1952, not fully sure) to Ukraine. A gift from Chrushtshow (aka The Exexecutioner of Ukraine since he organized the genocidal famine that killed several million Ukranians).

[Darlica]

I would'nt recommend to send in troops either.
But sanctions? Embargoes? Yes. Something needs to be done.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I guess the fact that I live at the other side of the Atlantic means that the Russians I've met are pretty much like the Hispanics, just looking for a better place to live, and I don't have the "privilege" to see their warships in the Baltic, so I'm not so paranoid about them (I'm paranoid about the rednecks in the deep south, because, well, I just had to drive to my son's future school and the signs of The South are quite clear). 
--

To suggest that that Crimea should belong to Russia instead of Ukraine because the majority of the people speak Russian is pretty much to say that California should belong to Mexico because the majority is Hispanic...

Mmm, parts of it, yes, and parts of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. I dunno about going back to Mexico, but would you blame them if one of these days they make a referendum to secede? In fact, that same thing has happened with Puerto Rico, even if the vote went to the status quo. Actually you don't even have to go that far, Catalonia and Scotland are thinking on such measures. My point is that if the people living there (and done so for at least a century, mind you) decides to secede, can you blame them?

Besides, I seriously doubt about an outright annexation, it didn't happen with Abjhazia and South Ossetia, even if they are de-facto Russian "protectorates".

Regardless of how stupid or not their reasons are, if the actual population doesn't want to be part of a country, should they be forced to remain? Note that the same applies to Chechenia, Tibet and Xinjiang in China, portions of the palestine, etc, etc, sadly they are pretty much powerless while the Crimeans (like the Ossetians and the Abjhaz before them) have a very willing and powerful ally in this case. That reminds me of some Panamanian dissidents that had the US as a godfather, so that they could secede from Colombia and become a US "protectorate" for almost a century.

It's not the righteousness of your cause, it's what you have and who you know.

[Darlica]

Regardless of how stupid or not their reasons are, if the actual population doesn't want to be part of a country, should they be forced to remain?
It's not the righteousness of your cause, it's what you have and who you know.

Absolutely, the problem is, it seams like a lot of the Russian Crimeans will to leave Ukraine is  propaganda from Putin. It was a non issue as long as Yanukovich was the president.
The few Crimean Tartars who are left rise concerned voices about what would happen to them if Russia took over...

Anyhow I think it's wrong of Putin to meddle in Ukraine's domestics. If they held a democratic election at Crimea and the decided to become independent or belong to Russia instead. Fine and dandy. But that's not what happening. And the Russian Crimeans can in no way or form be compared to Tibetans or the Palestinians.

And I'm not saying that the opposition now in power in Kiev is a bunch of angels either, there are strong indications that ultra nationalists have fingers in a lots of pots and are trying to grab as much power as they can.
That's another can of worms.  But there where also those who strive for actual democracy.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I've been following the events unfolding and the more I read the less sense it made, on one end I heard an interesting conversation between the Estonian foreign minister and the American envoy Victoria Nuland (the one of FU the EU fame) in which the former was noticeable distressed about the radical right wing elements in power if Kiev. I also heard the full leaked conversation (FUEU for short) and surprise surprise, the people suggested by Victoria Nuland for key positions in Kiev are the ones in power now. I even heard one allegation that the snipers in Kiev weren't Ukrainian or Russian soldiers but Ukrainian right wingers.

But the key thing here was how the whole thing has been playing in Putin's hands like a glove, it's almost too easy to see how the situation would deteriorate in the exact way it has, and now with the referendum pretty much validating Russia's position, there isn't a scenario in which Russia doesn't prevail, in fact there is a very real chance that other eastern oblasts try the same thing.

If it was obvious that a) Russia would use any excuse to take Crimea, and b) that the majority would vote to secede, why on earth push in that direction? Are western -and more specifically, American- diplomats that incompetent?

This morning I was listening to the radio and after I heard for the umpteenth time how Germany get's 30% of it's gas from Russia that a crazy idea popped into my head, what if the US diplomats haven't been incompetent on this?
---
I remembered how for years the Iraq war didn't make sense, there was no obvious advantage for the US (as a country) to get in and the human and economic cost of the war can only confirm that view. Better yet, the same person that talked Bush Sr. out of outright invading Iraq in '91 was the same pushing for the invasion (one Richard Cheney), so why push so hard when it was perfectly clear how bad it would be? Then you had to remember that the price of oil prior to the war was between $16 to $18 a barrel, and after it reached $100+ (which interestingly enough is the price today). Also, Iraq (with Iran) is one of the places where traditional oil production still happens, that is, the pressure of the well makes the oil flow easily to the surface, without the need for much water pumping or fracking. Those wells weren't under western corporations control but after the war, all oil production is under corporate control and the average Iraqi doesn't benefit much from the business. At this point is clear to me that the war was fought for the Oil & Gas corporate interests in detriment of everybody else, and incredibly some officials don't even try to conceal it, I do remember one American official mentioning in one interview that one of the measures of success in Iraq was that the oil fields were now exploited by corporate interests.
---
The situation in the Ukrainie doesn't make sense, by all measures it compromised the territorial integrity of Ukraine, endangers all diplomatic endeavors in which Russia is aligned with the west, and more importantly, it places Germany and other EU countries in a very worrisome game of chicken with Russia which at any time can just cut the tap of gas if it feels that the west is going to far. What possible benefit could be gained by pushing Russia then?

It is worth mentioning that even before the snipers a number of US senators and representatives were pushing hard for help from the government to build plants to liquify gas for export, specifically to western Europe and I find their timing quite curious. On the other hand for these past months there have been some attempts by big oil to start doing fracking in the UK and continental Europe but not surprisingly the Europeans don't have much interest in polluting their underground water reserves.

Now today with Crimea integrating with Russia and Europe+US talking sanctions, there is a renewed interest in fracking in the EU.

Perhaps I have my conspiracy theory hat on today, but it is hard to debate that once again the oil industry is the indirect beneficiary of a situation that doesn't seem to benefit anybody else.

Fuck the EU indeed.

[Griffin NoName]

I've lost the plot. If the people who live in Crimea all want to be Russian, why does it matter, and why is it illegal?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It matters if someone powerful enough wants you to or doesn't want you to be something else, for instance, when Kosovo declared independence from Serbia the west unanimously endorsed it, but if Crimea wants to be part of Russia the west doesn't like it, the other side of the coin is if Chechenia wants to be independent Russia will oppose it with bombs if necessary.

If you have no friends you are f*cked, like the Kurds, or the Tibetans, or the Uyghurs.

Note that even in the west independence isn't desirable and more or less actively rejected like Catalonia, Scotland or at times Puerto Rico and Quebec.

[roystonoboogie]

I think the problem with the referendum is that it is being held at gunpoint. Is it fair? Is it valid? Is it legitimate? My personal feeling is no. The people of Crimea, much like the people of Scotland, Catalonia etc, have a universal human right to self-determination. Is the referendum unbiased and fair? Not if there are Russian military boots on Crimean soil it is not.

The Crimean people may be able to gain concessions and advantages from both Russia and Ukraine, unless Russia just 'takes' Crimea and exploits it as it has done in the past. Unless Crimea retains its autonomy, the Crimean people lose.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Under different circumstances I would likely agree if it weren't because independently interviewed people actually agreed with secession, nobody to my knowledge was voting at gun point and the vote was secret as any other vote with some observers, even if not the best available.

Be mindful of the rhetoric of western media which is very clearly biased, perhaps not as much as Russian media but not impartial by any means. Currently I'd suggest Al Jazeera or perhaps even Xinhua as more impartial than other media on this subject in particular.

[Griffin NoName]

Alot of what is going on is to do with what Putin might do next. That's a given for escalation.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I think he did everything he had to do already, now the question is if the heads in Kiev take the bait. Putin never strikes without a excuse, if the guys in Kiev decide to hurt Russians in the east -or even more stupid- try to take Crimea by force, Putin would strike quickly and mercilessly.

In Georgia he prepared the stage for months and then he waited for Saakashvili to screw up (and behave like a complete idiot).

The funny thing is that as much as Putin is a chess player in these events, I suspect that he is being played as a fiddle by western oil & gas interests.

[Swatopluk]

Why Western?  It's not as if the oligarchs in his own country are not in a symbiontic relationship with him and them.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Because whomever is pumping that gas from his end is the long term loser.

[Griffin NoName]

They are all fiddling with each other.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Today's news make Mr. Putin as the complete winner (if the deal is actually signed): China would purchase the gas that Europe would stop buying. I imagine that western oil must be happy as well as that makes the prospect of fracking in the EU far more palatable.

At this point it would seem that the biggest loser (after Ukraine obviously) would be Germany, plus Hungary, the Czech Republic and every other EU country using Russian gas.

Once more the "F*&% the EU" sounds incredibly appropriate. 

[Aggie]

Time for Canada to scrap plans for LNG shipping facilities on the BC coastline, and to start building gas pipelines east for shipments to Europe.

That's pure NIMBYism, and takes a lot more infrastructure, but I'm not happy with moving oil and gas via the West Coast.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm sure once the pole melts making a pipeline from Canada to Norway/Finland would be a breeze, besides, who cares if off shore wind is cheaper...

[Swatopluk]

Norway has its own gas and will replace at least a third of what is now not coming out of Russia anymore.

[Griffin NoName]

Today's news make Mr. Putin as the complete winner

What news? Did I nod off during BBC News at 10?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm reviving this thread because...
---
I have to say that:

1. I thought Putin was both smart and rational, I was soooo wrong. and
2. The military being incompetent isn't news. That incompetent.. well, what a clever way to fully undermine your country in one fell swoop.

[Griffin]

I thought he was rational, was being the operative word here. Now, he isn't.

I've just discovered I have a fourth cousin (once removed) fighting with the Ukranian army in Ukraine. His mother just told me and she is so worried about him. Well, you would be. I just hope he survives it.

[Aggie]

My father's family fled the Ukraine shortly before the Holodomor, which is why I am Canadian. I caught up on my Ukrainian history (especially of that period) last fall before the latest invasion. This war sickens me. I will be there with my tools to help rebuild when Ukraine wins.

[Griffin]

I'm reviving this thread because...
---
I have to say that:

"That incompetent.. well, what a clever way to fully undermine your country in one fell swoop."

Not quite as clever as our new PM and Chancellor perhaps. We are almost a failed state.

It was interesting rereading through the 2014 posts in this thread. Did Putin really think he could just repeat what he did in Crimea, in the Ukraine? **

** why do we say "the" Ukraine?

[Aggie]

I'm reviving this thread because...
---
I have to say that:

"That incompetent.. well, what a clever way to fully undermine your country in one fell swoop."

Not quite as clever as our new PM and Chancellor perhaps. We are almost a failed state.

** why do we say "the" Ukraine?

Well, really we should be calling it Ukraïna, I suppose.  My guess is the 'the' is a reflection of not historically recognizing it as an independent state. It's always a little weird how the English world (and many other language scapes, I assume) insists on sticking to its own names for countries that bear little resemblance to the name these places call themselves (think Japan, Korea, Germany).

As for the UK, popular culture has been suggesting you're not quite a failed salad.

[Swatopluk]

THE Netherlands are long established as are THE United States. On the other hand lot of states that were parts of other countries for very long periods go without an article.
I see no logic there. In Germany it's for example normal to add 'the' to Senegal, Ivory Coast or Tchad but not to Ghana or Sierra Leone. If part of the name is a common word (like 'land' or 'coast') an article would seem logical but it is NOT applied consistently (e.g. we do not add 'das' to DeutschLAND or ÖsterREICH*) but to leave out 'die' in front of Türkei (Turkey) is wrong (-kei/chei is the suffix that turns a people into a state). In most cases the article is used only, if it's less about the state but it's state (unanticipated pun): "The Germany of to-day" [as compared to last century]. "To-days's Germany" does not work in German. It would be "heute's Deutschland" but 'heute' (to-day) has no second case and one has to use 'heutig' in the first case instead. But this requires the use of the article ("das heutige Deutschland")
Where the definite article is mandatory, is, if a state is referred to by its form of state since in those cases the name is used in its adjective form and the type of state is a normal noun requiring the definite article: 'Korea' but 'the Korean republic'.
States ending in -an (but not -stan) also seem to require the definite article in Germany: der Sudan, der Iran (also der Irak).
No real logic there.

So, personally, as a German, I find the article in front of 'Ukraine' completely insignificant.
Where we had a problem was, when Chechoslovakia ("die Tschchoslowakei") broke apart. The old established term for the land of the Chechs was "die Tschechei" but this term has a bad taste since the nazis. It still feels weird to use "TschechIEN" instead. I have no idea why we kept "die Slowakei" despite it being as tainted by nazi language use as "die Tschechei"). In the case of Yougoslavia and the states that came out out the separaration there was never an alternative to the ending "-ien" with the exception of Kosovo (das...).

*or HolLAND for that matter, which is how most Germans refer to the Netherlands. Btw, we usually use "England" (and just occasionally "Großbritannien"), when we mean the UK.

[Griffin]

As for the UK, popular culture has been suggesting you're not quite a failed salad.

The lettuce won - Truss did not last as long.

I think "the" before country name may be even more complex. For example sometimes we say The Sudan but sometimes we say just Sudan. It depends on context and what other words are used. We might say "In the Sudan...." but "there are none in Sudan...." - I'm not sure if one can extrapolate rules.

However we have drifted off topic.

[Swatopluk]

Is Putin more like Göring or Bomber Harris? OK, this type of bomabrdment did not work the way we expected. What do we bomb next?
Fortunately, in WW2 there were no nuclear power plants to target yet.

[Griffin]

The News programs are all about Gaza now. Ukraine v. Russia after being main topic is now an after-thought. Media should be even-handed.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I do see news on Ukraine and... those aren't great for Ukraine's effort; they're running out of ammo so the Russians will keep getting a better hand in the short/mid term.
---
I have come to the conclusion that Ukraine was the loser from the very beginning, played by the east & west. Keeping the war going will only kill more and more Ukrainians (and some poor eastern Russians). The west is too happy to provide incentives to keep the war going because they think that will weaken Russia, making the Ukrainians useful cannon fodder instead of doing the logical thing: cut their losses, negotiate admitting that the eastern portion is lost (as it was before the war started), and immediately admit Ukraine to NATO. That is cheaper in all possible aspects but I guess all weapons manufacturers are all too happy to keep sending expensive tanks and planes and rockets financed by the west's taxpayers. Horrible and stupid.
---
Gaza... the last counter I saw today was close to 34K dead in Gaza of which we know 2/3rds are women and children. Israel has done several times more damage in 6 months than Russia in two years. That without counting all of Bibi's other endeavors to remain in power at all costs. And to top it all he managed to kill westerners in Gaza in the most obviously brutal way.

Yup, Gaza has become a bigger story and probably deservedly.