Ukraine's European Revolution?

[mongers]

So what have we learnt from this thread, other than The DG is Russian?   

[DGuller]

 

[Admiral Yi]

CNN had an interview with Slaviansk's "mayor," who issued a heartfelt plea to Obama to stop sending supplies and money to the far rightists, and to stop sending Blackwater mercenaries to fight against them. 

[garbon]

Right? We knew you were a Russian accountant before this thread.

[Ed Anger]

CNN had an interview with Slaviansk's "mayor," who issued a heartfelt plea to Obama to stop sending supplies and money to the far rightists, and to stop sending Blackwater mercenaries to fight against them. 

If Academi was there, there would be a lot of dead Russians right now.

A man can dream.....

Sigh.

[Queequeg]

When Russian troops moved into Crimea the great majority of Westerners (including me) thought that everyone in the Kremlin had collectively taken leave of their senses. Surely Putin and his advisers understood that the Ukrainians would fight back? Surely they understood that invading a neighboring country was an incredibly dangerous thing to do? Surely they got that their actions were virtually guaranteed to start a large-scale shooting war, if not World War 3?

The Russian leadership's apparent transformation from a bunch of sober-minded realists into a bunch of wild gamblers was a cause for serious concern. If Putin was willing to roll the dice by putting troops into Crimea, what wouldn't he be willing to do? Where would he now draw the line? Were there any courses of action that could be safely considered off-limits after the formal annexation of Ukrainian territory? People in Washington were suddenly debating the best way to deal with a Russia whose behavior bore a striking resemblance to a rogue state, and none of the options were good. It appeared that the world had an openly and violently revanchist great power for the first time in over half a century, and a lot of agonized op-eds were written that said as much.

Most of this analysis, however, was predicated on one very crucial and unexamined assumption: that the Russians were actually taking a huge risk in Ukraine. But what if they weren't? Even before Viktor Yanukovych became president, the Ukrainian government was notoriously corrupt and its security and military services had been thoroughly penetrated by the far more fearsome (and far better funded) FSB and GRU. It wasn't exactly a state secret that the Russians had intimate knowledge of what their Ukrainian friends were up to. During Yanukovych's time as president simple financial corruption and the penetration of Ukrainian institutions by Russian intelligence services, processes that had been moving along gradually since Ukraine first gained its independence from the Soviet Union, went into overdrive.

After several months of near-total passivity by the Ukrainian military (initially hailed as "restraint" but increasingly revealed as incompetence and indecision) it now seems that the Russians had a very clear understanding of Ukrainian intentions and capabilities, and therefore of what their own forces could and couldn't get away with.

From this perspective (Putin and his advisers knew full well that the Ukrainian military was in no condition to leave its barracks, much less put up a real fight against anyone) many of the Kremlin's recent steps look a lot less madcap and a lot more cold, calculating, and rational. The visuals might be a bit more striking, there might be a few more armored personal carriers, "little green men," and automatic weapons involved, but there hasn't been a total change in tactics. Rather, it's business as usual: the Kremlin adeptly and cynically using the means at its disposal to accomplish its goals. That doesn't actually make the annexation of Crimea any more justified. The fact that an annexation was well-planned and well-executed doesn't change its moral status at all. But it does mean that everyone in the Kremlin didn't (as initially appeared to be the case) wake up one morning and go totally crazy. They're the same people they've always been.

Ukraine, however, isn't set in stone but is an entity that is complicated, varied, and, more than anything else, changing. As just one example among many, the new government in Kiev, fearing that it risked overthrow if it didn't get the deteriorating situation in the East under control, recently re-instituted conscription. This, of course, won't have any immediate impact. Even the most rudimentary military training takes several weeks and any kind of effective training takes much longer than that. A bunch of fresh-faced Ukrainian conscripts with out of date weapons and rusted tanks aren't going to strike fear into the hearts of the Russian general staff. But Ukraine's armed forces could become significantly more combat capable (or at least combat willing) in the next six to twelve months. A more capable Ukrainian army would significantly change the "correlation of forces" and would presumably make the Kremlin reconsider some of its recent destabilizing actions, predicated as those actions were on meeting little or no organized resistance.

Al of this is a reminder that while the Russians are perfectly capable of taking unjustified and aggressive actions they are still very skilled operators, sophisticated and capable opponents who should be accorded a great deal of respect. During the height of the "media war," if seemed as if the Russian government has suffered some kind of collective nervous breakdown so irrational and unpredictable were its actions. While the propaganda, unfortunately, remains at a fever pitch, this propaganda should be understood as a post-facto justification, not what is actually guiding Russian behavior.

Western analysts (myself included) should have shown a lot more suspicion when it seemed that someone with Putin's reputation for preternatural self-control and stoicism had suddenly started acting like a spoiled child. We should have taken a deep breath, and asked "is this actual risk taking, or is it just something that looks like it?" and not gotten carried away with the 24 hour news cycle and the nonsense that it inevitably spawns. It's possible that the Russian government will, at some point in the future, start to roll the dice. But, as much as we might dislike them, the takeover of Crimea and the destabilization of the Donbass are perfectly rational in their formulation and execution.

http://readrussia.com/2014/05/05/the-russians-understand-ukraine-better-than-we-do/

[DGuller]

I agree with the conclusions of this op-ed, but I think it beats the shit out of a strawman.  I don't think anyone seriously feared any response out of Ukrainian military, it was apparent from the early days of Crimean crisis that Ukraine could be taken if Russian wanted to take it.  What made people think that Putin was gambling wildly was the fact that he was courting the status of a rogue nation, and nothing really changed in that regard.  That's the real fire that Putin is playing with.

[Admiral Yi]

Yup.

[mongers]

Who were these people who were burned?

Trans-Dniestrians.

All of a sudden I lost all sympathy.

You love the propaganda that confirms your biases ?

From what I've seen on the bbc, the funerals seem to be taking place in Odessa.

[citizen k]

Who were these people who were burned?

Trans-Dniestrians.

All of a sudden I lost all sympathy.

You love the propaganda that confirms your biases ?

From what I've seen on the bbc, the funerals seem to be taking place in Odessa.

And then they'll be buried in Transnistria. 

[derspiess]

CNN had an interview with Slaviansk's "mayor," who issued a heartfelt plea to Obama to stop sending supplies and money to the far rightists, and to stop sending Blackwater mercenaries to fight against them. 

So no complaint about our plot to infect all ethnic Russians with AIDS?

[jimmy olsen]

Looks like the Ukrainian army is finally beginning to act. Will the Russians send in the troops in response?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/least-34-killed-battle-reclaim-ukraines-slovyansk-n97886

At Least 34 Killed in Battle to Reclaim Ukraine's Slovyansk

At least 30 pro-Russian separatists were killed by Ukrainian troops Monday as the government continued its push to reclaim an occupied city, the country's interior minister said.

At least four Ukrainian troops were also killed and another 20 injured in gunbattles on the outskirts of Slovyansk, Arsen Avakov said in a Facebook post Tuesday that was translated by several news agencies including The Associated Press and Russia's state-run RIA Novosti.

The statement was widely reported early Tuesday but appeared to have been deleted from Avakov's Facebook page by 10:30 a.m. local time (3:30 a.m. ET).

The Defense Ministry said Monday a helicopter was shot down but both pilots survived, and that its forces have now effectively surrounded the city in an attempt to squeeze the occupying militias.

The area is one of several towns and cities in the Donetsk and wider region that were last month seized by armed groups demanding closer ties with Russia.

Separatist leader Igor Strelkov had earlier told the Kiev Post that around 10 of his men were killed and as many as 25 wounded in the fighting.

Meanwhile, the region's largest largest airport announced Tuesday that all flights had been temporarily suspended "by order of the State Aviation Authority of Ukraine." It did not give a reason for closure and its online departure board showed flights from Donetsk to the capital Kiev still going ahead.
- Alexander Smith

[Tamas]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/

Putin's Human Rights Council Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results; Only 15% Voted For Annexation













Comment Now Follow Comments         




The website of the "President of Russia's Council on Civil Society and Human Rights" posted a blog that was quickly taken down as if it were toxic radioactive waste. According to the Council's report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout was a maximum 30%. And of these, only half voted for annexation – meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.

The fate of Crimea, therefore, was decided by the 15 percent of Crimeans, who voted in favor of unification with Russia (under the watchful eye of Kalashnikov-toting soldiers).




The official Crimean election results, as reported widely in the Western press, showed a 97 percent vote in favor of annexation with a turnout of 83 percent. No international observers were allowed. This pro-Russia election pressure would have raised the already weak vote in favor of annexation.

To make sure no one misses this:

Official Kremlin results: 97% for annexation, turnout 83 percent, and percent of Crimeans voting in favor 82%.

President's Human Rights Council results: 50% for annexation, turnout 30%, percent of Crimeans voting in favor 15%.

Putin's people pulled this "rather unfortunate" report from the President's Human Rights Council website, but council member Svetlana Gannushkina talked about this subject on Kanal 24 (as reproduced on Ukrainian television), declaring that the Crimean vote "discredited Russia more than could be dreamed up by a foreign agent."




Putin plans to repeat the Crimean election farce in the May 11 referendum on the status of the so-called People's Republic of Donetsk. He will use the same tricks to produce an overwhelming vote for "independence" and a high turnout. The few international election monitors will object, but Putin counts on repetition of his Big Lie to convince his own people and sympathetic politicians and press in the West that the people of east Ukraine actually want to separate from Ukraine.

Will the West let Putin get away with it again?

[mongers]

Looks like the Ukrainian army is finally beginning to act. Will the Russians send in the troops in response?
........

Are they Putting on an end of term play?

[Eddie Teach]

I think now would be a good time to get your coat.