[x] Nuclear Winter (Now a Ukraine fustercluck thread)

"Simple. I push the big red button and we all die. Next."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-kerry-idUSBREA210DG20140302

:laugh:

 

I hope all of this is over soon (preferably without bloodshed), as it's becoming a bit stressful...

 

TL;DR: Russia wants to keep the naval bases in Ukraine as the bottom line, protect the ethnic Russian population and to force the Ukrainian government to seek diplomatic solution in regard to Crimea. Through doing so they either regain some of their political influence within the new Ukrainian government or gain control of Crimea outright. All without firing a single shot.

Spoiler

The situation from Russia's perspective:
Primarily Russia is securing the future of the Black Sea Fleet, in case the Ukrainian hardline Nationalists decide to break the treaty and take the Russian naval bases in Crimea. Base reinforcement was a preventative measure to nip any such action in the bud. Had Putin not done so and if the new Ukrainian government was foolish enough to take it by force (as some were suggesting) then there would have been an unavoidable war. Russia NEEDS warm water ports in Europe, this has been the the historical catalyst for over a dozen wars for Russia, under no circumstances will they give up their naval bases in Crimea. A show of strength is intended to show their commitment to keeping those bases. That is the bottom line of this situation, the ports must stay at all costs.

Naturally Russia is not happy with the turnout of the Ukrainian revolution. The way it sees it, a violent nationalist opposition overthrew the pro-Russian majority elected President of their close neighbor and ally. As a result a significant (ethnically and politically Russian) segment of the Ukrainian population now finds itself without due representation in government. In response Crimea, a historically and ethnically Russian region, declared autonomy from the "usurper" government in Kiev. A new government that through both action and rhetoric has shown that it is both volatile and not opposed to using violence to silence its pro-Russian opposition, something that they themselves condemned when it suited them. The Crimean administration has requested Russian troops stationed in Ukraine for protection from an otherwise likely attempts by the Kiev government to violently put down the Crimean revolt until the situation stabilizes.

Now this is where the situation could have got messy. A pro-Russian"wannabe" breakaway state (at least on paper), with a majority ethnically Russian populace, being threatened with violence right on Russia's own doorstep. The situation is starting to mirror the lead up to the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. However Russia has learned from that conflict and has altered their preventative doctrine accordingly. Instead of waiting for Ukraine to attack Crimea and then inevitably counterattacking, Russia laid out its cards on the table by deploying their forces within and outside of Ukrain. Through doing so they hope to cower the Ukrainian government into inaction and avoiding war in the process.

Neither side wants a war. The only way it could happen is through rash and foolish action undertaken by volatile elements in an attempt to get an easy win where there is none. In 2008 South Ossetia looked like an "easy win" for Georgia and many paid dearly for that illusion. If prior to troop mobilization Sevastopol and other Crimean bases looked "easy" then now they most certainly do not. Using Russian troops for protection of key points of infrastructure such as the Simferopol airport only strengthens their ability to protect the interests of Russia and the Crimean people.

Russia is being very cautious in how it chooses to proceed. So far Russia is following the existing treaties to the letter. No breach of any kind has so far taken place, despite all the media sensationalism. Note that pre-Duma approval, the troops defending the Simferopol airport intentionally don't have magazines in their rifles and no armour has been deployed, their presence around the airport in the current manner does not legally constitute an act of aggression or occupation. They are legally there as an informal peace keeping force. Russian troops are present around the airport, but officially they are not the ones controlling it, the Crimeans are running the show, at least on paper. The Russian troops are currently there in a role of an enabling shield, not a sword. Russian bases have been reinforced within the levels permitted by the 1994 treaty and their troop movements both within and outside of Ukraine are legally in the clear. Russia is taking every step to ensure that they are toeing the line of international laws and treaties.

Although Putin has obtained Duma's approval to deploy troops in Ukraine, so far it is held as a chip to strengthen the Russian position. A chip that has not been cashed in. Doing so without Ukrainian provocation would undermine the Russian position. Russia already has over 20,000 troops legally present within Ukraine. Double the force that was used to defeat Georgia.

In essence this tells us several things about Russian intention:

1. Such caution is not indicative of a country that set out to illegally annex Ukraine. Even without warnings from Western Powers such action would have made no sense for Russia.
   
2. Russia aims to remove Ukraine's ability to silence the Crimean opposition by force, by legally deploying troops around key Crimean access points and reinforcing their bases Russia is placing their own forces as a buffer between the pro-Russian Crimean opposition and potential use of Ukrainian forces to regain control of Crimea. A Russian show of strength on Ukrainian border is meant to signal to Ukraine that trying to force Russia out of Crimea will have serious consequences. The potential for Russia to instantly pour pre-approved troops into Ukraine further leverages Kiev away from seeking a military resolution.
   
3. Without the option to use force Ukraine will have to rely solely diplomatic means in order to negotiate with the Crimean opposition. This is greatly advantageous to Russia, the heavy pro-Russian sentiment of the population forms a Win-Win-Win scenario with the following outcomes:

WIN 1: Russia get to use its political leverage over Crimea to ensure that the Black Sea Fleet stays in Crimea in return for facilitating the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.

+

WIN 2: In doing so Crimean and other pro-Russian views will have to be represented within the new government, thus Russia regains a portion of its political influence in Ukraine.

or

WIN 3: Crimea agrees to split away from Ukraine following the March referendum, joining Russia as a fully or semi-autonomous region.
Russia has its foot in the door, thus Ukraine is forced to respect the rights of the Crimean people. The only way Russia loses out is if Ukraine attacks, in that event everyone loses. Russia has been trying to prevent that from happening by flexing muscles to show that any such attack would be suicide.

 

Wow. Obviously a bit biased, but that's a fantastically well-written and well-thought-out piece that shows off a perspective that hasn't gotten a lot of attention. I think that if more people across the pond over here got to see that side of things, you'd see a lot of people rethinking their opinion on the matter. Especially since the majority of news we've gotten boils down to two things:

1. "Ukraine people revolt against government and are sparked further on by action against the protests." Thus, protesters have largely been painted largely in a pretty positive light, in spite of obviously awful things occurring on both sides. Plus, I mean; America is largely built upon principles of enabling people to control and revolt against their government if needbe. You'd be hard-pressed to find a textbook over here that paints the revolutionary war heroes in a remotely negative light.

2. "Russia sends troops to occupy a part of Ukraine in response to the new government being formed." Considering the fact that Putin is largely painted in media over here as being just a tad bit crazy and unpredictable, combined with not being our biggest fans; when you then combine it with the fact that a single wrong step on either side here could result in full-out war, it's pretty easy for Russia to be seen as being a crazy aggressor looking to spark conflict. Obviously not the case as you've pointed out, but it's pretty easy to look that way from the other side of the world.

It's has been a pretty interesting discussion so far. This is by far the most ethnically diverse community I've been a part of, and this has likely been the most civilized conversation I've had in terms of politics. What a crazy age we live in, where random people across the world can have civilized chats.

 

Many good points you've made there Komodo, but most of them are on a "what if" basis. You can argue that the Russian government is seeking to prevent a potential conflict with nationalist elements in Ukraine's new government - but that's assuming that the new government would go to such lengths, and that's assuming a lot. It's impossible to fully predict what could happen in the future, so it seems a bit far-fetched to say that this is the main reason for why Putin has been taking such aggressive action, though certainly a good pretext to justify them and I’m sure it’s a significant factor too.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that a strong European Union with many members and partners is bad for the Russian state... simply because Russia is not a member (and there are no plans on either side to make it one). This leads to economic isolation, especially considering how former members of the Eastern Bloc - as well as some countries that used to be part of the USSR directly - meaning Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia (not to mention German Reunification), have all distanced themselves from Russia after regaining independence and sought alternatives in the West.

Ukraine is obviously a different case, due to how successful the Russification of this territory has been over the course of history, though it is still quite similar. It used to be a direct part of the Soviet Union, but things have obviously changed since 1991 and recently Ukraine has been seeking closer ties with the EU also (as much as the media in the West now claim that Yanukovych has always been a puppet of Putin, this has not been the case until recently - as Komodo has pointed out previously). Nevertheless, there were clear signs that Ukraine was heading in the direction of the EU, even if membership wasn't possible anytime soon.

So, as each of Russia's former allies turns to the other side, the Russian government will go to desperate measures to protect its economy - the same ones that any other government could be prepared to take if it found itself in a similar situation, where what remains of its empire is rapidly falling apart and the situation in the country itself isn't much better. Right now, I think the Russian state is just taking advantage of the situation in a way that they think will preserve as much of its remaining influence in far Eastern Europe as it can.

With all of that said, please don't misinterpret what I've just said. I do not ally myself with any government on this planet (including the Polish one), so I am not "taking sides" with anyone. I just hope that as little violence occurs as possible. Enough people have died for dirty causes already, and if there's one accurate word to describe the recent political games in Eastern Europe - "dirty" is the most appropriate one.

 

America uses propaganda and no one bats an eye.

Russia uses propaganda and everyone is up in arms.

op2:

 

That really depends on who you talk to and what you read/watch, but I'm assuming you mean news of the English-speaking world, the EU countries and their allies. There are plenty of media outlets in Western Europe that are keen to suck Russia's cock instead of the US, even if they're not in the mainstream. You'll find quite a few Russophiles as well, and they're just as annoying as those who keep wanking over the stars and stripes. As for state-run media, what did you expect? The countries you're referring to are most likely allied with NATO and such organizations, and it's their job to produce propaganda against the Russian state at this moment.

Although it may seem as though Poland is supporting Ukraine 100% in this matter, that is not really the case. The Polish government is all keen on getting involved and befriending the new rulers of Ukraine because they're our neighbours - they want to be allies, so they see this as a good opportunity to develop closer ties. That and there's the obvious Russophobia among Polish politicians, who probably think that Putin is going to turn crazy dictator, take over Europe and start sending Poles to gulags (some Poles share such views, usually those who are elderly or the nationalists)...

However, the opinions of the Polish people seem pretty divided on this. Many are buying the government's propaganda and/or just sympathize with Ukrainians (as a nation we have plenty in common with) because they see Russia as the oppressor. On the other hand, there are also plenty of people who generalize and see all of those who took part in Euromaidan as fascists (as we know, many though not most of them were - but the vanguard of the protest was certainly made of up of fascists). Seeing flags of УПА infuriated many Poles, as they still remember the sickening massacres of Polish families committed by Ukrainian nationalists in Wołyń and eastern Galicja.

So to them the Polish government is supporting Ukrainians who see these murderers as their heroes, and those Poles see nothing wrong with Russia taking Crimea (where there is a Russian majority anyway); some of them probably wouldn't mind if Russia went as far as removing from power the current government in Ukraine.

 

lets all just hope that it Bosnia doesn't happen again. Also, I don't think I'm a Russophile but I just like their system of government as in they don't skirt around deciding to do something

 

What has Bosnia got to do with any of this? The situation there is completely different.

 

I'd love to get involved in a discussion where there is so much debating and so much being written, and it being a very serious theme.
But I just can't stand politics

 

Politics don't like you either.

 

I just feel stupid when I enter into it, it's really interesting to read though

 

You know a politician is lying when his or her mouth is open.

 

Anything in particular you're referring to? All I can think of in terms of memorable propaganda is this old kinda stuff:

And I mean, well...not exactly the most convincing piece of editorialism to an educated crowd.

 

South Ossetia war in 2008 is the most recent example. But other than that I meant every single news report on anything outside US.

Spoiler

[YOUTUBE]w7CE8kKYMPU[/YOUTUBE]

 

I guess that counts as propaganda, although you tend to see a good amount of that kind of shitty reporting on both sides of things over here (with Fox news being shitty Conservative, and CNN being more shitty Liberal), so it kind of tends to usually even out.

 

Everyone uses it and when x's political opponent y uses propaganda, it is obvious that x will create propaganda regarding y's use of propaganda. It's happening all of the time, everywhere, in every single country on this planet... I fail to see what the big deal with that is - it's business as usual.

Since WW2 this word has had negative connotations, but many people fail to understand that they're being influenced by propaganda all of the time. Propaganda is any type of information relayed in a biased kind of way that promotes a certain cause. You can use it for good or bad things, though that also depends on what you see as good and bad.

 

Alright, so the way I see it Putin will "officially" back down from invading Ukraine to let the West keep its face and they will call it a deal. The alternative is RF invades and the EU/NATO does nothing, proving that they have no power.

P.S. On a funny sidenote German media did a U-turn and started supporting RF. Merkel must have brokered a nice gas discount.