Conquer Club

This war is not a land grab, and it is not a war about specific leaders. What is being decided in Ukraine — the largest country in Europe — is whether the post-Soviet space will be allowed to free itself from a vicious cycle of inefficiency, corruption, violence and failed governments to build instead modern, open, democratic societies.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ukraine-is-todays-west-berlin/2015/02/24/f1bc755a-bab3-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html?hpid=z3

From the same article:

Second, the economic cost for Russian President Vladi­mir Putin must be raised through further economic sanctions, which will eventually help to weaken his position inside Russia, as happened to Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s.

Third, the military cost for Putin must be raised by supplying Ukraine with defensive weapons, specifically antitank weapons that can halt the further advance of the Russian tanks and armored vehicles. Ukraine may not be a member of NATO, but Ukraine can be encouraged to form bilateral or trilateral regional alliances that can work with NATO and the United States to enhance regional security. And just as the goal of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership program must include full membership for Ukraine in the E.U., full membership in NATO must remain an option if conditions are met.

This is all very easy for an american newspaper to say, when it's mostly Russia and europe that would bear the burden of further economic sanctions and not the USA.

And providing defensive weapons to ukraine is going to be enormously ineffective. What if the Russians suddenly decide to use more advanced weaponry on Ukraine? Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia's top tier weapons, even if NATO provides weapons. Ukraine is gravely outnumbered and outgunned.

Having Ukraine join NATO is also not an option, for the same reasons admitting Georgia is not an option.

waauw wrote:And providing defensive weapons to ukraine is going to be enormously ineffective. What if the Russians suddenly decide to use more advanced weaponry on Ukraine? Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia's top tier weapons, even if NATO provides weapons. Ukraine is gravely outnumbered and outgunned.

Nailed it. At best, more weapons will increase the body count; at worst it will prompt Russia to take off the kid gloves and simply flatten Ukraine, which it could do in about 72 hours anytime it feels like it.

Better Ukraine is defeated with as little bloodshed as possible than defeated as bloodily as possible. Germany seems to be the only sane nation left in the world.

waauw wrote:And providing defensive weapons to ukraine is going to be enormously ineffective. What if the Russians suddenly decide to use more advanced weaponry on Ukraine? Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia's top tier weapons, even if NATO provides weapons. Ukraine is gravely outnumbered and outgunned.

Could Putin really get away with that? The sense I get is that Russia's choice not to outright conquer Ukraine in one shot, as saxi suggests, is what has caused the international response to be relatively mild so far.

waauw wrote:From the same article:

Second, the economic cost for Russian President Vladi­mir Putin must be raised through further economic sanctions, which will eventually help to weaken his position inside Russia, as happened to Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s.

Third, the military cost for Putin must be raised by supplying Ukraine with defensive weapons, specifically antitank weapons that can halt the further advance of the Russian tanks and armored vehicles. Ukraine may not be a member of NATO, but Ukraine can be encouraged to form bilateral or trilateral regional alliances that can work with NATO and the United States to enhance regional security. And just as the goal of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership program must include full membership for Ukraine in the E.U., full membership in NATO must remain an option if conditions are met.

This is all very easy for an american newspaper to say, when it's mostly Russia and europe that would bear the burden of further economic sanctions and not the USA.

And providing defensive weapons to ukraine is going to be enormously ineffective. What if the Russians suddenly decide to use more advanced weaponry on Ukraine? Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia's top tier weapons, even if NATO provides weapons. Ukraine is gravely outnumbered and outgunned.

Having Ukraine join NATO is also not an option, for the same reasons admitting Georgia is not an option.

You mean like tanks, rocket launchers, and other heavy artillery that the rebels are already getting from Russia? Yeah, a bit late for that.

Metsfanmax wrote:

waauw wrote:And providing defensive weapons to ukraine is going to be enormously ineffective. What if the Russians suddenly decide to use more advanced weaponry on Ukraine? Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia's top tier weapons, even if NATO provides weapons. Ukraine is gravely outnumbered and outgunned.

Could Putin really get away with that? The sense I get is that Russia's choice not to outright conquer Ukraine in one shot, as saxi suggests, is what has caused the international response to be relatively mild so far.

He doesn't have to conquer. People in Kiev are already showing signs of stirring against the new government. They are displeased the war and crisis are taking so long. Not to mention, that it it is also starting to divide NATO into multiple camps. Americans and poles want greater NATO involvement, the germans and french prefer negotiations, and the greek and hungarians want to restrengthen their ties to Moscow.

It is in Russia's, or Putin's rather, best interest to prolong the war.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

waauw wrote:From the same article:

Second, the economic cost for Russian President Vladi­mir Putin must be raised through further economic sanctions, which will eventually help to weaken his position inside Russia, as happened to Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s.

Third, the military cost for Putin must be raised by supplying Ukraine with defensive weapons, specifically antitank weapons that can halt the further advance of the Russian tanks and armored vehicles. Ukraine may not be a member of NATO, but Ukraine can be encouraged to form bilateral or trilateral regional alliances that can work with NATO and the United States to enhance regional security. And just as the goal of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership program must include full membership for Ukraine in the E.U., full membership in NATO must remain an option if conditions are met.

This is all very easy for an american newspaper to say, when it's mostly Russia and europe that would bear the burden of further economic sanctions and not the USA.

And providing defensive weapons to ukraine is going to be enormously ineffective. What if the Russians suddenly decide to use more advanced weaponry on Ukraine? Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia's top tier weapons, even if NATO provides weapons. Ukraine is gravely outnumbered and outgunned.

Having Ukraine join NATO is also not an option, for the same reasons admitting Georgia is not an option.

You mean like tanks, rocket launchers, and other heavy artillery that the rebels are already getting from Russia? Yeah, a bit late for that.

Russia has permitted Ukraine to keep its air force. But, the entire Ukrainian air force could be destroyed in about 60 minutes were Russia to choose to do that. The remnants of the Ukrainian navy might take a day to put at the bottom of the sea.

For now, slowly burning Kiev serves Russia's interests better than a fist through the face. It allows Ukraine to be bankrupted through endless war spending and, more importantly, destabilizes the Ukrainian government by creating a war-weary populace (I heard on the BBC World Service today that 45% of western Ukrainians said they would support the overthrow of the current Kiev regime). If America makes it so that these advantages are no longer present, Russia will simply proceed to the other option. Either way, Kiev has no hope and continued resistance is useless and futile.

Why do so many Western commentators (e.g. the one quoted in OP) love advocating interference in other people's problems? Sanction this, invade that, tell everyone else in the world what to do.

Even ignoring the question of whether or not a country like the US actually has the right to boss other people around, surely Iraq, Libya and Ukraine provide perfect case studies of just why foreign powers should mind their own business. Every time they stick their oar into a situation that they don't really understand, things get worse.

mrswdk wrote:Why do so many Western commentators (e.g. the one quoted in OP) love advocating interference in other people's problems? Sanction this, invade that, tell everyone else in the world what to do.

Even ignoring the question of whether or not a country like the US actually has the right to boss other people around, surely Iraq, Libya and Ukraine provide perfect case studies of just why foreign powers should mind their own business. Every time they stick their oar into a situation that they don't really understand, things get worse.

Everybody sticks their nose in everybody's business. It is a global system now. Literally, everyone.


--Andy

The United States has entire college departments devoted to studying the post-soviet system and how to make it better. Not even the post-USSR has that.

mrswdk wrote:Why do so many Western commentators (e.g. the one quoted in OP) love advocating interference in other people's problems? Sanction this, invade that, tell everyone else in the world what to do.

Even ignoring the question of whether or not a country like the US actually has the right to boss other people around, surely Iraq, Libya and Ukraine provide perfect case studies of just why foreign powers should mind their own business. Every time they stick their oar into a situation that they don't really understand, things get worse.

Hang on, Russia sends operatives into Ukraine to sow anti-government sentiment, then sends armed operatives in to escalate the conflict, then once there's a nice little fire burning they send in some tanks and other heavy weapons, and you're criticising the western powers for interfering in other people's business?

I'm not defending every action western governments have ever taken, far from it, but criticising the west for this on those terms is laughable...

crispybits wrote:Hang on, Russia sends operatives into Ukraine to sow anti-government sentiment, then sends armed operatives in to escalate the conflict, then once there's a nice little fire burning they send in some tanks and other heavy weapons, and you're criticising the western powers for interfering in other people's business?

I'm not defending every action western governments have ever taken, far from it, but criticising the west for this on those terms is laughable...

same could actually be said about the maidan government.

Poland sent operatives into Ukraine to sow anti-government sentiment, then sends trained men to escalate the conflict, then once there's a nice little fire burning they try and promote NATO involvement and impose sanctions

It takes 2 to tango

notyou2 wrote:It takes 2 to tango

You can, for a while.




--Andy

Slobodan Milosevic didn't had Nukes, Putin has... Although some Western journalists compare them, they are not comparable.

waauw wrote:From the same article:

This is all very easy for an american newspaper to say, when it's mostly Russia and europe that would bear the burden of further economic sanctions and not the USA.

Too bad for Europe, it has too many puppet politicians.

waauw wrote:And providing defensive weapons to ukraine is going to be enormously ineffective. What if the Russians suddenly decide to use more advanced weaponry on Ukraine? Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia's top tier weapons, even if NATO provides weapons. Ukraine is gravely outnumbered and outgunned.

Lets help everyone understand why would Ukraine lose every conflict with Russia:
1. Current Ukrainian weapons is stuck at 1991, apparently Russian isn't. How far has Russia advanced can be seen from the battlefields in Eastern Ukraine in real example. From my point of view Putin couldn't even wished for better demonstration battlefield then the one given by the West.
2. Even if West gives sophisticated weapons on Ukraine over half of those would end up in Russia for examination.
3. Giving someone a weapon doesn't mean that he can use it as well. You need training for that, and training takes time(usually over 6 months).

So basically Ukraine is fighting a lost war.

crispybits wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Why do so many Western commentators (e.g. the one quoted in OP) love advocating interference in other people's problems? Sanction this, invade that, tell everyone else in the world what to do.

Even ignoring the question of whether or not a country like the US actually has the right to boss other people around, surely Iraq, Libya and Ukraine provide perfect case studies of just why foreign powers should mind their own business. Every time they stick their oar into a situation that they don't really understand, things get worse.

Hang on, Russia sends operatives into Ukraine to sow anti-government sentiment, then sends armed operatives in to escalate the conflict, then once there's a nice little fire burning they send in some tanks and other heavy weapons, and you're criticising the western powers for interfering in other people's business?

I'm not defending every action western governments have ever taken, far from it, but criticising the west for this on those terms is laughable...

Maiden protests were organized by the West, which lead to undemocratic change of legitimate government. And that was second undemocratic change of Ukrainian government in the last 10 years. After that you can laugh as much as you want but you cant expect democratic actions from the other side. Think a littlebit before you write something.

mrswdk wrote:Why do so many Western commentators (e.g. the one quoted in OP) love advocating interference in other people's problems? Sanction this, invade that, tell everyone else in the world what to do.

Even ignoring the question of whether or not a country like the US actually has the right to boss other people around, surely Iraq, Libya and Ukraine provide perfect case studies of just why foreign powers should mind their own business. Every time they stick their oar into a situation that they don't really understand, things get worse.

crispybits wrote:Hang on, Russia sends operatives into Ukraine to sow anti-government sentiment, then sends armed operatives in to escalate the conflict, then once there's a nice little fire burning they send in some tanks and other heavy weapons, and you're criticising the western powers for interfering in other people's business?

I'm not defending every action western governments have ever taken, far from it, but criticising the west for this on those terms is laughable...

waauw wrote:same could actually be said about the maidan government.

Poland sent operatives into Ukraine to sow anti-government sentiment, then sends trained men to escalate the conflict, then once there's a nice little fire burning they try and promote NATO involvement and impose sanctions

GoranZ wrote:Maiden protests were organized by the West, which lead to undemocratic change of legitimate government. And that was second undemocratic change of Ukrainian government in the last 10 years. After that you can laugh as much as you want but you cant expect democratic actions from the other side. Think a littlebit before you write something.

Both of you need to read what I actually said. I didn't say the actions the russians have taken were crazy wrong, or that the west was totally innocent. I said that criticising only the west for something that Rusia is just as happy to do too is ridiculous. There are surely things that the west has done that Russia holds the moral high ground on to show the differences?

(PS I'm anti-intervention, I wish the west would get out of other people's business, so I agree with the sentiment in mrswdk's post, just lets not kid ourselves that we're the only naughty kids in school here....)

I never said that Western powers were the only ones who have this mentality. I just don't understand why Western commentators so rabidly push for intervention in so many problems in other parts of the world, despite history showing that such interventions almost always make things worse. Maybe the Russian press and public are the same, I don't know.

Re the Ukraine thing: if the US and EU had not fanned the original protests and facilitated the removal of an elected government from office, would there have been a huge backlash from government supporters that would give Russia space to start interfering in the way that it currently is? Highly unlikely.

mrswdk wrote:
Re the Ukraine thing: if the US and EU had not fanned the original protests and facilitated the removal of an elected government from office, would there have been a huge backlash from government supporters that would give Russia space to start interfering in the way that it currently is? Highly unlikely.

Do you doubt that the Russians had boots on the ground within week 1 of the Euromaidan?

"if the ruskies had not fanned" etc.

Russian opposition leader and Putin critic Boris Nemtsov shot dead in Moscow. He leaves behind 4 children.

It's funny how Putin's opponents get eliminated. What a thug he is.

notyou2 wrote:Russian opposition leader and Putin critic Boris Nemtsov shot dead in Moscow. He leaves behind 4 children.

It's funny how Putin's opponents get eliminated. What a thug he is.

Not saying Putin is behind it or anything, but it seems a lot of those in Russia that speak out against him or his policies end up dead. Like Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian Journalist and outspoken critic of Putin. She was found dead just outside of her apartment in 2006. Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev, who was out spoken on human right's issues in Russia, particularly that of the police abusing their authority; he was gunned down outside of his house as well 2009. Now we have the leader of the opposition party in Russia that routinely spoke out against Putin and his policies, and was gunned down.

While this could be like the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, who spoke out against Obama and was murdered by U.S. forces, I personally doubt it.

What would Putin gain by having Nemtsov gunned down in public? If he has that kind of power to order hits on opponents, surely he would also have the power to have Nemtsov just quietly disappear and have his body wash ashore a year or two later? A person simply vanishing is less likely to produce the recriminations and backlash a very public assassination does.

73% of Russians supported the merger with Crimea while Nemtsov vocally opposed it; his views were extremely unpopular so it's not surprising there were probably many people who might liked to have seen him dead. Since the police say they have CCTV footage, I'm sure the perpetrators will be captured and brought to justice.

Yes, I'm sure a suitable patsy will be found.

If we're making a list of who had the most to gain from Nemtsov's death, the U.S./UK would have to be on the top of it. Nemtsov was an unpopular figure who organized a handful of poorly-attended rallies and had no name recognition outside Russia. But the dramatic death of "a Putin critic" will help further mold public opinion against Russia at a time when support from NATO's junior partners is starting to wane.

DoomYoshi wrote:

mrswdk wrote:
Re the Ukraine thing: if the US and EU had not fanned the original protests and facilitated the removal of an elected government from office, would there have been a huge backlash from government supporters that would give Russia space to start interfering in the way that it currently is? Highly unlikely.

Do you doubt that the Russians had boots on the ground within week 1 of the Euromaidan?

"if the ruskies had not fanned" etc.

That doesn't invalidate my point at all. Had the EU and US not interfered and pushed the old government from power, there would have been no impetus for Russia to go ape and start pushing back.

That doesn't mean that what Russia's doing is legal, but it's fairly obvious that if you oust a leader who is friendly with Russia and stick your own anti-Russia puppet in his place, sabotaging Ukraine's planned expansion of trade ties with Russia in the process, then Russia is going to get pissed off.