The Ogre in Ukraine - TTLG Forums

icemann on 8/3/2014 at 15:03

I've no idea on Dagestan, but Chechnya was independent until Russia rolled the tanks in many years ago.

Pyrian on 8/3/2014 at 16:28

More like Chechnya had a brief period of independence between periods of Russian control. ~'96-'99? Really, the pattern of local resistance to Russian incursion/occupation has been going on in that area since the 1500's. :p And before that, they were resisting Mongol occupation.

Tony_Tarantula on 8/3/2014 at 17:11

Quote Posted by Muzman

Say Yanukovych was a stooge (pretty likely, I guess). With him in power was there some long term goal to increase Russian activity/presence/population with a mind to a later handover? Or was it enough just to have a pro Moscow guy in so the Uk won't go with Euro/NATO?

The impression I get is that Ynukovych was to Russia as Harmad Karzai is to the U.S. Little more than a corrupt stooge(understatement, they've found billions of dollars hidden in accounts elsewhere) who is there to do their bidding. I saw some clips before this whole crisis blew up where the guy was behind the podium and he could barely even speak the language(with a heavy Russian accent).

As for Western instigation....I get the feeling that Western intelligence agencies largely missed the boat on the initial insurrection. The protestors didn't have anywhere near the level of equipment that you see in CIA sponsored uprisings such as Libya and Syria. Odds are also good that we would have heard more out of the US press(largely Executive branch controlled, for example they caught NYT working red-handed with the DoD to ensure the "optimal optics" were portrayed) than dead silence during the months this was escalating.

That said, now that it has happened you can guarantee that our intelligence agencies(as well as DoD assets such as 10th's Advisor teams) are already on the ground.

demagogue on 9/3/2014 at 00:06

It's interesting to watch as an example of basically on-the-spot improvised foreign policy taking on a life of its own, which is unfortunately becoming more common these days it seems. There were a lot of parts simmering in the background for a long time, but it was all put together rather fast & reactive & apparently oblivious to outside pressure or a long-term view. Here's an (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/world/europe/russias-move-into-ukraine-said-to-be-born-in-shadows.html) article on it.

Also lol:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1922[/ATTACH]

Tony_Tarantula on 9/3/2014 at 01:48

A somewhat harsher perspective on how the US is handling this(messy due to loss of formatting):

Quote:

I have dealt with many governments in my life and I have come to understand you CANNOT and SHOULD NEVER put your opponent in a box publicly for his own political livelihood is then on the line and he MUST respond or be overthrown. This is simple common sense in international politics and I have preferred to be an observer rather than a player.

I have sat is meetings with governments in Asia to Europe and the ONLY reason I have done so, is because I understand that cardinal rule. I once had to advise a head of state that he had no choice but to devalue his currency. I was told that was impossible because it was a campaign promise that would not happen. I had to craft the words to say the currency would float to seek its OWN LEVEL. That was “politically” acceptable since it was not a decreed “official” devaluation despite the fact the free markets would do the same thing.

I have NEVER in my entire life witnessed such BRAIN-DEAD decisions coming from the Obama Administration in any government in the world or former administrations. To impose “sanctions” on Russia is absolutely INSANE!!!! That puts Putin in a box that he cannot escape from for if he relaxes he is then seen as weak at home and the hardliners will eat him alive. Obama has just made the crisis far worse.

Russia has retorted and it will now CANCEL all nuclear treaties. It can shut of the energy to Europe and watch them crawl. Now, any international observers will NEVER get into Crimea. We have dumb and dumber at the helm here. Obama is doing EVERYTHING perfectly wrong and this escalation will only grow far worse. Even China has rejected Obama's Sanctions. Just what did he expect? Putin will suddenly say, gee, I was wrong? Come on. This is like some stupid fight with his wife and I refuse to talk until you do what I say.

As for the Republicans itching for war, go ahead, pick up arms, and go over yourself. McCain - you are no Nelson Mandela who turned the other cheek and reached enlightenment. You came out of prison bitter and nasty itching for war. What is that? Revenge of the Over-The-Hill-Crowd? Stop sending kids to fight your deranged ideas of king of the mountain. This older generation cannot die off fast enough to save humanity.

Sorry - this is no way to run a government. You cannot humiliate Putin and actually expect progress - this is inviting war. You cannot defeat China & Russia. So what is anyone trying to accomplish here? Freedom and Liberty for All?

When I was called in by China and met with the Central Bank, they stated right up front, they agreed with our analysis, but they could not come out and politically say what we were saying. This is no different. You cannot come out and try to make Putin back down before the entire world. This is pure stupidity. If I were him, that audacity would prevent any negotiation at this point and I could not blame him or China for saying the Obama is seriously out of line. Putin cannot now yield or he will lose control of government. This is absolutely the worst political move I have EVER witnessed in my life for it has ZERO chance or doing anything positive and it will throw away everything every presidency has tried since Nixon - create a dialog for peace.

Nicker on 9/3/2014 at 04:51

Quote Posted by Gryzemuis

Obama has already yelled that a referendum would be illegal.

As much as I want Russia to GTFO of the Ukraine, this sort of opinion coming from The United States of If we don't like your leaders we will send our own terrorists to kill them and destroy your economy if you resist and we will kill civilians in neighbouring countries to get the job done if we have to, sounds a bit hollow.

demagogue on 9/3/2014 at 06:43

The counterpoint to Tony's post is that Obama has no interest in getting Russia out of Crimea. There was never going to be a solution whatever happened. That critic sounds naive to think there could have been. I get his general point for a lot of cases, but not sure about this one.

The purpose of sanctions is just to make Russia's economy suffer, and keep suffering until Russia's elite get weary of Putin's games and deter him from making a habit of it. Let them become like Cuba & NKorea if they want to so badly, seems to be the message I'm reading. Nothing to do with persuasion, but isolation.

That was the punchline of the article I linked. The difference between Russia today 50 years ago is that 50 years ago the USSR was economically hemetically sealed from the world outside the iron curtain (nevermind it bankrupted the country). But outside pressure meant nothing. Now the plurality number of shareholders of Gazprom are American, and a million other ways their economy is linked with the rest of the world, Europe most of all.

Edit: Legal issues...

Quote Posted by Gryzemuis

Obama has already yelled that a referendum would be illegal.

It's unconstitutional under Ukraine's constitution. This is different than the referendum of Scotland or Quebec where it was done constitutionally with the home-country on board. Someone might want to make an argument that it's in such a desperate situation that it can't afford to do it constitutionally (cf. "a constitution isn't a suicide pact"), which is a viable extra-legal argument, but it's a tough sell here. It's not like there will be a genocide unless Crimea sucedes next week so there's no time for constitutions. As for international law, there's the law of state secession & recognition maybe, but I don't know if it'd be too helpful. States may not recognize the annexation, but it'd still de facto happen. It's also so tied up with politics it's hard to talk about it purely legally. It's much easier to deal with under domestic law.

I don't know if the impeachment of the last president was constitutional because I haven't seen anyone talk about it in detail yet; only generalities. There was a supermajority vote in Parliament, which is a typical kind of thing constitutions use for impeachment, but whether it was done in the right way I don't know. This is another of Putin's main arguments, so I'd be interested in seeing the details.

As for the Poland agreement getting tossed out that triggered Putin coming in to begin with, that's another open legal question I'd like to see addressed. I don't know if they were legally bound to keep the president and have earlier elections, or if it was just a diplomatic understanding. I think, since it controls domestic politics, I don't know if it'd be binding since normally international law can't bind states' domestic politics... which puts it in the world of diplomacy. If it was legally binding, there's a doctrine that agreements don't hold if there's been "changed circumstances" (though not if the changes are in bad faith just to get out of the agreement). This might have to go to the reasons for the quick impeachment, if that falls properly under the 'changed circumstances' doctrine & wasn't in bad faith. I can see an argument it was in bad faith, but I'd think the main people that get to decide what's best for Ukraine politics is Ukraine's government; not another country presuming to know their constitution better than they do & in a better position to administer their law for them.

It's an interesting case study just for how tied up the law and politics are though; not sure they could be entirely separated.

Nicker on 10/3/2014 at 00:08

Quote:

It's an interesting case study just for how tied up the law and politics are though; not sure they could be entirely separated.

I am sure it is impossible. They are both expressions of our social animal instincts and they are intertwined with our solitary animal instincts to maximise our personal benefit from a given ecology. Every time we develop some mechanism for improving social order, someone will find a way of exploiting it or outright perverting it.

Of course, even a well conceived mechanism of social equality, like common law, will always confer greater benefits to the aristocracy. At least they can't claim exceptions to the rule by virtue of their elevated class but they will get better justice than the poor.

Anytime we codify rules someone will find ways to exploit them, contrary to the actual intention of the rule or to the general purpose of having rules at all. Again, the aristocracy usually have better resources to apply to this game as well as to the game of making the rules themselves.

Eat the rich.

Tony_Tarantula on 10/3/2014 at 02:11

Quote Posted by demagogue

Problem, is that the US wanting sanctions isn't going to result in Russia becoming like Cuba. As we've already seen the response was a collective middle finger pointed at Obama.

Gryzemuis on 16/3/2014 at 19:28

80% Voter turnout.
93% Voted for the Krim to join Russia.
Democracy at work.