How long does Putin have left in office?

[Mr Quatro]

I was wondering how much longer President Putin has left in office. I thought maybe two more years than Obama, right?

Then I found this old article of three years ago before his last election. The man we have all grown to love or hate may wind up serving till 2024.:o
Shock, uh?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/01/10542779-could-vladimir-putin-be-in-power-until-2024-10-key-questions-about-russias-elections

And even if voters do not endorse Putin, his victory is likely to be assured with the help of regional officials loyal to his United Russia party. Having extended the presidential term of office from four to six years,

Putin would remain in charge until 2018 – or 2024, if he won a second term.

By then, Putin would have chalked up 24 years in power out of the 33 years since the collapse of Communism thanks to his previous terms as president and prime minister.

[August]

I think Putin will be in office for life.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I think Putin will be in office for life.Most likely and I wish him long life. He may not be most desirable man for the post (from foreign neighbours' point of view), but atleast he is reasonably predictable.

[Oberon]

Until the heat death of the universe I'd say...

[Jimbuna]

For as long as he wants to be.

[STEED]

How long is a piece of string? :hmm2:

[u crank]

How long is a piece of string? :hmm2:

Stop asking hard questions. :O:

[STEED]

Stop asking hard questions. :O:

Can't help it its Sunday. :har:

[Catfish]

As long as Erdoghan :haha:

He has just declared democratic elections to be abandoned and made Turkey a what he calls "presidential state". Dictatorship is a better word.
He says the turkish people wanted it that way, since they elected him. But first he did not have this on his program before the last election, and then elections in Turkey tend to be "not supervised", to say at least.

[Oberon]

Plenty of those around these days, some are heads of military, some are semi-elected, others are royalty. Some are all three. :haha:

[ikalugin]

With all the advances in medical care we all know the answer:
http://img0.joyreactor.cc/pics/post/%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%BF-warhammer-40000-893597.png

But on the serious note - as long as he gets elected. And he would get elected because he is genuinely popular. Chances are that he would step down after 2018 or 2024, depending on the availiability of successor. This is because you can't run three times in a row.

[Aktungbby]

How long is a piece of string? :hmm2:

http://www.dasselenterprisedispatch.com/twine-ball-darwin.html (http://www.dasselenterprisedispatch.com/twine-ball-darwin.html) http://www.worldslargestthings.com/minnesota/mntwineSubheader.jpghttp://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/52/images/hamms-bear.jpg There's no disPutin' the title BBY:rock:

[Jimbuna]

Not surprised :nope:

[Oberon]

With all the advances in medical care we all know the answer:

That picture is brilliant. :up:
I could actually sort of picture Putin as the God-Emperor of all Mankind.
But that would be heresy, and heresy requires purging.

[Betonov]

That picture is brilliant. :up:
I could actually sort of picture Putin as the God-Emperor of all Mankind.
But that would be heresy, and heresy requires purging.

Only one thing wrong with the picture.
That eagle on the right should be double-headed :O:

[Oberon]

Only one thing wrong with the picture.
That eagle on the right should be double-headed :O:

:hmmm:

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0366/87/1418263498869.jpg

[Betonov]

Well, the Emperor in 40k has a double eagle, the Romanovs had a double eagle and the current Russian crest has a double eagle.
No heresy here :)

[ikalugin]

Only one thing wrong with the picture.
That eagle on the right should be double-headed :O:
Well the original one had a single head.
http://i.imgur.com/Sr6vYrK.jpg

[Betonov]

Well the original one had a single head.


I know, It shoudl have a double.
But upon a closer look, there is a double eagle on the third seal under the throne and the single eagle is on a marine helmet so it might just be a chapter thing.

Geek mode off

Chances are that he would step down after 2018 or 2024, depending on the availiability of successor. This is because you can't run three times in a row.


What if he pulls another switch with Medvedjev.
Sit one term as a PM and then goes back to presidency ??

[Oberon]

There's nothing in the constitution that says he can't sit out one term and run again, if Medvedev and Putin have healed the slight rift that happened a while ago when Medvedev tried distancing himself from Putin then Medvedev could be put in as President for one term and then Putin could come back.

Since the constitution contains no ruling on a total number of terms that a President may serve, a former president may seek re-election after sitting out one complete term.

In other words:

http://echo.msk.ru/att/element-797108-misc-10.jpg

(the words are 'bald' and 'hairy' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald%E2%80%93hairy) repeating)

[ikalugin]

Yea, he could run this and the next term and then switch. If Medvedev is not availiable for whatever reasons then another candidate may be elected. That said - Russia needs reforms now and political will to conduct those. In theory Putin can try to pull another 2007-present day mil reform type thing, but this time with economics.

[Bilge_Rat]

In theory Putin could be there for a long time, but there are very few president/dictator/politician who manage to stay in power until death, just look how many dictators have been pushed out just in the past 5 years.

Putin built his domestic popularity in part on rising income for the middle class and some good foreign policy moves. Now Russia is in the midst of a economic depression, falling oil prices, economic sanctions and potential quagmires in Ukraine and Syria.

If Putin does not resolve at least some of these issues by 2018, he could be in trouble. Russians will accept some amount of electoral fraud, but assume he only polls 20% and has to resort to massive fraud to stay in power. Will Russians just accept it or will they stage massive demonstrations like in Ukraine? Will the Army just stand by if Putin has to shoot hundreds of protesters to stay in power?

His position is not as secure as it seems.

[Jimbuna]

In theory Putin could be there for a long time, but there are very few president/dictator/politician who manage to stay in power until death, just look how many dictators have been pushed out just in the past 5 years.

Putin built his domestic popularity in part on rising income for the middle class and some good foreign policy moves. Now Russia is in the midst of a economic depression, falling oil prices, economic sanctions and potential quagmires in Ukraine and Syria.

If Putin does not resolve at least some of these issues by 2018, he could be in trouble. Russians will accept some amount of electoral fraud, but assume he only polls 20% and has to resort to massive fraud to stay in power. Will Russians just accept it or will they stage massive demonstrations like in Ukraine? Will the Army just stand by if Putin has to shoot hundreds of protesters to stay in power?

His position is not as secure as it seems.

As one person put it many years ago..."Live by the sword, die by the sword".

Meaning if you use violence, or other harsh means, against other people, you can expect to have those same means used against you; "You can expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want."

[ikalugin]

If he polls that badly he won't go into elections. Putin (and others on the top of Russian political leadership) are genuine patriots and wish the best for the country. The reason why Putin's policy is bold is because his popularity ratings are high.

Plus we would need to see a sensible alternative for Putin for him to loose in 2018. And who that may be (other than the well known faces of current elites)?

[Oberon]

I think a fair bit also depends on how the siloviki view Putins progress, I mean in terms of world power Putin has brought Russia back into the forefront and kept it there, people view Russia with more respect now than they did back in the early 2000s when it was the laughing stock of much of the world.
Unfortunately he did it by riding on the back of the dollar value of oil which has subsided a fair bit, however it's a fairly sure bet that this is only a temporary lull in value and that it will go back up again, especially if Saudi Arabia loses the war. Whatever replaces the Saud government might not be particularly friendly to western interests, in fact it's very likely not to be since it will view the west as propping up the corrupt Sauds. Obamas move to try and ease relations with Iran and back off a bit from Saudi Arabia might help a bit there, but there's a lot of history between the US and Saudi Arabia so that's not something that can be just swept under the rug.
I think Putin isn't in any major danger of losing his position yet, he's got himself into a good spot, his main opponents have either mysteriously died or have gone quiet, so he's relatively stable.
Of course, like the old days, you never see the knife that gets you, because it usually comes from behind and into your back. Putin is KGB (You can't say ex-KGB because it's like the Marines, once you're one, you're always one) so he knows to watch his back, he wouldn't have made it this far in Russian politics if he didn't.
Come to think of it, if Putin does run again in the next presidentials then he'll have run Russia longer than any leader since the end of the Tsars. :doh:

[Mittelwaechter]

http://abload.de/img/politicsp6s92.jpg

You can simply tell the people the truth or you can deceitfully fool the people.

For propaganda you're especially predisposed after internalizing you are not exposed to it.

[Bilge_Rat]

If you ignore Chernenko and Andropov, both of whom had very short terms, the only Russian leader who died in office since Stalin was Brezhnev.

Krushchev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin were all forced from office, not a very good track record.

As to who could replace him, behind every Mubarak, there is a Sisi. :ping:

The Chinese have a better system, by replacing the "Great Leader" every 10 years or so, you keep the ambitious players in line waiting their turn.

The problem with a one man show is that very ambitious pols know they have to push the leader out of the way to move forward.

[ikalugin]

I think a fair bit also depends on how the siloviki view Putins progress, I mean in terms of world power Putin has brought Russia back into the forefront and kept it there, people view Russia with more respect now than they did back in the early 2000s when it was the laughing stock of much of the world. Unfortunately he did it by riding on the back of the dollar value of oil which has subsided a fair bit, however it's a fairly sure bet that this is only a temporary lull in value and that it will go back up again, especially if Saudi Arabia loses the war. Whatever replaces the Saud government might not be particularly friendly to western interests, in fact it's very likely not to be since it will view the west as propping up the corrupt Sauds. Obamas move to try and ease relations with Iran and back off a bit from Saudi Arabia might help a bit there, but there's a lot of history between the US and Saudi Arabia so that's not something that can be just swept under the rug. I think Putin isn't in any major danger of losing his position yet, he's got himself into a good spot, his main opponents have either mysteriously died or have gone quiet, so he's relatively stable. Of course, like the old days, you never see the knife that gets you, because it usually comes from behind and into your back. Putin is KGB (You can't say ex-KGB because it's like the Marines, once you're one, you're always one) so he knows to watch his back, he wouldn't have made it this far in Russian politics if he didn't. Come to think of it, if Putin does run again in the next presidentials then he'll have run Russia longer than any leader since the end of the Tsars. [/QUOTE]"]I think a fair bit also depends on how the siloviki view Putins progress, I mean in terms of world power Putin has brought Russia back into the forefront and kept it there, people view Russia with more respect now than they did back in the early 2000s when it was the laughing stock of much of the world.
Unfortunately he did it by riding on the back of the dollar value of oil which has subsided a fair bit, however it's a fairly sure bet that this is only a temporary lull in value and that it will go back up again, especially if Saudi Arabia loses the war. Whatever replaces the Saud government might not be particularly friendly to western interests, in fact it's very likely not to be since it will view the west as propping up the corrupt Sauds. Obamas move to try and ease relations with Iran and back off a bit from Saudi Arabia might help a bit there, but there's a lot of history between the US and Saudi Arabia so that's not something that can be just swept under the rug.
I think Putin isn't in any major danger of losing his position yet, he's got himself into a good spot, his main opponents have either mysteriously died or have gone quiet, so he's relatively stable.
Of course, like the old days, you never see the knife that gets you, because it usually comes from behind and into your back. Putin is KGB (You can't say ex-KGB because it's like the Marines, once you're one, you're always one) so he knows to watch his back, he wouldn't have made it this far in Russian politics if he didn't.
Come to think of it, if Putin does run again in the next presidentials then he'll have run Russia longer than any leader since the end of the Tsars. :doh:

Actually back in the 2007 (and somewhat earlier) it was obvious that oil rent income model was not sustainable. Even before that we have limited the effects oil income had on the budget with via the budget rule and limits on transfers of revenues to budget and so on.
Then the crisis happened and reforms were pushed back onto the shelf. In 2014 it became obvious that reforms are needed, because reserves would run out at some point in the future and the budget has to be balanced. This was reflected (for example) in the most recent adress to the Federal Councill on the 4th (or was it 3rd?).

Competition wise - Putin just lacks it. And it didn't dissapear, it has never existed in the first place (after the initial transitionary period that is). You are welcome to provide examples of such people if you know any. So it is a choice between the old faces - Putin or Medvedev or someone they suggest.
Note that Putin is de facto above both of the main factions in the government, both the security services types already mentioned here and the financists.

[Oberon]

Most of the oligarchs were Putins main rivals in the early days, and well, more than a couple of them have had unfortunate accidents. Journalists and human rights critics have also had unfortunate accidents as well.
Then, of course there's Liberal Russia, whose leader started it up one day and was murdered the next. Then, of course there's Nemtsov, although to be fair his death could equally have been done to put Putin in a bad light, since it was pretty damn obvious.
Then there's journalists, like Elena Kostyuchenko, who haven't exactly been well treated by the custodial services of Russia.

Let's face it, if Putin sees you as a threat, you suddenly become arrested for financial improperity, or you die. Putin isn't stupid, and he's doing no less than hundreds of leaders before him and after him have done. Even the western democracies have no doubt made people disappear, it's what political leaders do. Anyone who plays that game knows it, the best thing to do is make yourself too big to go quietly.

[ikalugin]

Interestingly enough you do not mention any credible, non marginal politicians. Liberals by 2000 (ie after 90s) and certainly by 2014 were not in that category. Unless you count in the battle with old guard oligarhs in the early years of the regime (which I have specifically cut out due to how those oligarhs have operated in the 90s) all you describe are journalists/activists being murdered (sadly this is reality - there is a degree of corruption going around and sometimes journalists die and that happens without Putin's intervention).

Let's face it, if Putin sees you as a threat, you suddenly become arrested for financial improperity, or you die.Interesting claim. Define "dangerous". Were the journalists that you have described dangerous to Putin (or his regime) rather than some people well below him in the order of things?

[Platapus]

The Russians need to elect Mikhail Prokhorov as president. The Russians need a President they can look up to.

[ikalugin]

Only after USA elects Trump :P

[Mr Quatro]

This is just speculation, but President Putin may have been radicalized. :o

Not by the Muslims, but by the Russian orthodox church ... Here's a very good article recent too: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e7_1449487676

To restore Russia as a major power in the world. Putin also plans to revive the monarchy with himself as emperor and Tsar. His first step on becoming tsar was to revive the political power of the christian orthodox church.

I don't have a link, but several years ago I was like in a dentist office or something and picked up a copy of the New Yorker and was shocked to read that the Kremlin has a chapel just down from the President Putins office and that he has been seen going into it many times.

All of this points to a serious problem. What if President Putin thinks that he is Gods right hand man to solve the worlds population problems? :hmm2:

[August]

What if President Putin thinks that he is Gods right hand man to solve the worlds population problems? :hmm2:

You'd feel better if he decided to solve that problem for secular reasons?

[Onkel Neal]

You'd feel better if he decided to solve that problem for secular reasons?

You're funny.:har:

[Oberon]

Interestingly enough you do not mention any credible, non marginal politicians. Liberals by 2000 (ie after 90s) and certainly by 2014 were not in that category. Unless you count in the battle with old guard oligarhs in the early years of the regime (which I have specifically cut out due to how those oligarhs have operated in the 90s) all you describe are journalists/activists being murdered (sadly this is reality - there is a degree of corruption going around and sometimes journalists die and that happens without Putin's intervention).

Interesting claim. Define "dangerous". Were the journalists that you have described dangerous to Putin (or his regime) rather than some people well below him in the order of things?


It depends on what they were sniffing at, truth be told it might well not be Putin but those who run him that have ordered their silence.
The west is certainly not completely innocent of such matters, I recall an interesting case in the UK involving an unfortunate gentleman by the name of Dr David Kelly who committed suicide in 2003, likewise the curious incident of Gareth Williams, although that could have been a foreign intel agency who pulled that one off.
Honestly I respect Putin and his rather masterfully created image, and I can also respect him for bringing the oligarchs to heal after their attempts to run the country, although to be fair to them, considering that Yeltsin was President at that time, they were probably doing more work than he was. Putin cut through the corruption and brought Russia back as a power to be respected and feared on the world stage, I can respect that and I can see how to the average Russian that would make him a popular figure.

But there's other things that un-nerve me about Putins Russia, the laws regarding Homosexuality, for one thing, the corruption in the police force that is so often ignored or even encouraged in some areas by local officials, the way that freedom of speech can sometimes lead to a bad end...although, to be fair in that respect a similar thing can happen in the west, especially if you're the wrong ethnicity or religion.
It's those little things, that probably don't even effect the average Russian citizen in their daily lives, and as such would not cause them any real concern or reason to doubt Putins directions, but when you step back and look at the bigger picture, it's not a direction I like seeing Russia take.
I realise that Russia is not the west, and it takes a very particular type of government to run Russia in any organised form, in that respect I can understand Putin running for so long, he is doing no different to what his predecessors did, all the way back to the Tsars and beyond, but to try and call it a democracy is a bit like calling a wolf wearing sheeps fur a sheep. The Chinese communist government is probably more democratic in that manner, but I guess if Putin was to crown himself Tsar it would probably end with another mess in St. Petersburg and I'm really not so sure if the cannons on the Aurora still work... :hmmm:

[Dmitry Markov]

Well, since Aurora is being refit at Cronstadt probably they'll look after her cannons as well. Last time I've seen her - they were in quite a good shape - glistening as your mirror. Of course these aren't the ones that were equipped in 1917 - those original ones were lost being taken ashore to serve as ground batteries during Defence of Leningrad.
As for mess in St.Petersburg - if it will be only there I woudn't care - they call us in Moscow a big village ;-)

[Catfish]

...
Interesting claim. Define "dangerous". Were the journalists that you have described dangerous to Putin (or his regime) rather than some people well below him in the order of things?

One word: yes. Journalists and the media are much more dangerous for any dictator, statesman or president, than a mere rival. You can discredit a rival or competitor before killing (like spreading word he's a homosexual, a pedophile, or a traitor), so no one will shed a tear, maybe even with the media's help; but media gone wild against you as a leader is a multi-headed beast and not that easy to kill.

From Anna Politovskaya to Pussy riot, anyone who openly or hidden, seriously or making fun dared to criticize, has been forbidden or is dead. Maybe it's not even Putin himself everytime, but you know this obedience hurrying ahead with all those subordinate thugs thinking their boss expects it is a very common occurrence, especially with "one-man-governments" (to put it more pleasantly). Whether it was (or is) chekists, FSE or KGB, or the russian Mafia – who cares.

We have also seen this with South America and the US secret services involved, of course. Usually those presidents who were not on the right side (in all possible contexts) had inexplainable plane accidents, back then. It was not always as obvious as with Allende.
:D

The russian political climate in which all this takes place ... the once-promising reluctant start of a civilian society in Russia, has come to a grinding halt. And yes, we can also blame the West for that. NATO-eastward expansion, violating treaties, the same western attitude towards Russia since 1989 like during the cold war.. all not very nice.

[Bilge_Rat]

And yes, we can also blame the West for that. NATO-eastward expansion, violating treaties, the same western attitude towards Russia since 1989 like during the cold war.. all not very nice.

well, its easy to blame the West for whatever Russia does, but it's the former East Bloc/Baltic States themselves that campaigned to join NATO and the EU. Considering what Russia is doing now in Ukraine, I'm sure the Baltic states are very glad to be NATO members.

[Catfish]

well, its easy to blame the West for whatever Russia does, but it's the former East Bloc/Baltic States themselves that campaigned to join NATO and the EU. Considering what Russia is doing now in Ukraine, I'm sure the Baltic states are very glad to be NATO members.

Yeah right, and NATO hesitated and cared so much about how Russia would think about all surrounding states joining the NATO.
What Russia is doing in the Ukraine (not that the West did anything there? lmao) is a direct consequence. It would have never happened with someone like Gorbatschow or Yeltsin at the helm, who asked for becoming a NATO member back then, but were brusquely refused.

Regarding the former eastern block i could maybe understand Finnland, but when i see what happens in Poland politically, and how nationalistic the new government is, i am more frightened of them, than of Russia.

[U505995]

You see comrades, in motherland president votes himself in for the people.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/55058991.jpg

[ikalugin]

All of this points to a serious problem. What if President Putin thinks that he is Gods right hand man to solve the worlds population problems? As we say - the voice of the people is the voice of the God. Hence, in a way, as far as he retains his popularity he may feel like he has more or less a total mandate to do what he thinks is right for the country and it's people.

The whole orthodoxy angle is a blowback of sorts after the Soviet era - the collapse of Communism has left an ideological vacuum that had to be filled. That was done by the religion (surprise).
Not that I do not think that the Church needs improvement (after all nothing on earth is perfect and that tax evasion and customer rights abuses should be looked into), but at the same time I do not think that it should be demonised as the people who would go for a theocracy or monarchy. If anything they would rather not have monarchy, as under the Tsars Church was a state department run by the Tsar apointed person.

As to the journalists and activists - they have no real power (an overstatement, but still). Hence actions by them could not really dammage Putin's halo/popularity rating.
Now, lower level officials (ie local leadership in Chechnya) can be affected by those things, so they do have to worry.

As to pussy riot, that thing was overblown, while the important actions to discipline the Church were not covered. And if anything that covers under the perceived right not to be offended, something westerners dealing with SJW should know all too well.

[Bilge_Rat]

Yeah right, and NATO hesitated and cared so much about how Russia would think about all surrounding states joining the NATO.

and do you think that if NATO had stopped at the German border, that all would be quiet? Putin has made no secret that he wants to expand Russian influence back to the border of the former USSR. IMHO, without NATO, you would have the same type of "hybrid war" in the Baltic states.



What Russia is doing in the Ukraine (not that the West did anything there? lmao) is a direct consequence.

Ukraine has been a part of Russia for centuries, a majority speak Russian, a large minority are ethnic Russians, up until last year, Russia was their main trading partner. So why is it that a majority of Ukrainians want to join NATO and the EU? IMHO it has a lot more to do with Russian actions and intentions than anything the West may have done.

Regarding the former eastern block i could maybe understand Finnland, but when i see what happens in Poland politically, and how nationalistic the new government is, i am more frightened of them, than of Russia.

Poland does not invade its neighbours. :ping:

[ikalugin]

Ukraine has been a part of Russia for centuries, a majority speak Russian, a large minority are ethnic Russians, up until last year, Russia was their main trading partner. So why is it that a majority of Ukrainians want to join NATO and the EU? IMHO it has a lot more to do with Russian actions and intentions than anything the West may have done.Because they were lied to.

and do you think that if NATO had stopped at the German border, that all would be quiet? Putin has made no secret that he wants to expand Russian influence back to the border of the former USSR. IMHO, without NATO, you would have the same type of "hybrid war" in the Baltic states.
The reason for the influence expansion was to create a buffer against agressive and expansive NATO. Should there have been a common security framework, there would be no need for expansion.

[Catfish]

and do you think that if NATO had stopped at the German border, that all would be quiet?

Yes. Do you really think Russia would have invaded Poland by now, had Poland not joined NATO? Really??

Putin has made no secret that he wants to expand Russian influence back to the border of the former USSR. IMHO, without NATO, you would have the same type of "hybrid war" in the Baltic states.

Why do i always have to repeat that: Putin was NOT head of the state when Poland joined the NATO. Yeltsin was, he had asked for a kind of joint venture, but it was denied. Gorbatchev or Yeltsin would not have done such things at all as Putin does, now.
After 1989 it became clear, that Russia had been afraid of the NATO all he time, and of the cowboy-like behaviour of US presidents like Nixon, and Reagan.

Ukraine has been a part of Russia for centuries, a majority speak Russian, a large minority are ethnic Russians, up until last year, Russia was their main trading partner.

Umm, yes. So it not too far-minded to see it belongs more to Russia, than to its western neighbours. If they WANT to join the west, ok. Does the majority want it? Really? Or is it western media hype?
B.t.w. did you know Ukraine did not exist as a country, before the german Wehrmacht and High command decided to make it so?

So why is it that a majority of Ukrainians want to join NATO and the EU?

They do not all want that.

IMHO it has a lot more to do with Russian actions and intentions than anything the West may have done.

Russian action certainly adds, to the equation.

Poland does not invade its neighbours. :ping:

With those Kaczyński brothers, as with the new elected government ..(?)..hmm. Ok after all i guess you are right :up:

[Oberon]

B.t.w. did you know Ukraine did not exist as a country, before the german Wehrmacht and High command decided to make it so?

Not quite, Ukraine had existed before then. It officially declared independence from Russia on the 25th January 1918, as the Ukrainian People's Republic.

[ikalugin]

Not quite, Ukraine had existed before then. It officially declared independence from Russia on the 25th January 1918, as the Ukrainian People's Republic. I guess you treat all other "states" created by the breakdown of the Russian Empire and the Civil War the same way? How about Far Eastern Republic?

Now, I understand Polish claim for their statehood (which is real), but making Ukrainian People's Republic into something more than what it was is a bad idea I think. As next we would be talking about how Ukrainian Cossacks invented submarines by glueing their boats together or about how proto-Ukrainians dug out the Black Sea.

[Bilge_Rat]

Yes. Do you really think Russia would have invaded Poland by now, had Poland not joined NATO? Really??

I did not say that, but there is no reason to think the Russia would be acting differently in Ukraine if NATO had not expanded eastward.


Umm, yes. So it not too far-minded to see it belongs more to Russia,than to its western neighbours. If they WANT to join the west, ok. Does the majority want it? Really? Or is it western media hype?

there are many polls floating around to gauge public opinion, i.e.:

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/06/Russia-Ukraine-Report-43.png

Among Ukrainians living outside Donbas and Crimea, majorities support receiving economic aid from Western countries (71%), joining the EU (67%) and increasing sanctions on Russia (65%). More than half also want to receive military assistance (54%) and join NATO (53%), though support for these measures is more tepid and regionally divided. Ukrainians in the west are much more supportive than those in the east of becoming a member of NATO (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://pewrsr.ch/Rus-Ukr2015&text=Ukrainians%20in%20the%20west%20are%20much%20m ore%20supportive%20than%20those%20in%20the%20east% 20of%20becoming%20a%20member%20of%20NATO) (68% in west vs. 34% in east) and receiving military aid (66% support in west vs. 38% in east). Neither western nor eastern Ukrainians, however, want to join the Eurasian Economic Union with Russia (82% and 61% oppose, respectively).

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/nato-publics-blame-russia-for-ukrainian-crisis-but-reluctant-to-provide-military-aid/

Ukraine does not "belong" to Russia any more than Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldavia, Kazkahstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikastan, etc., all of which used to be part of Russia or the USSR at one time.

History moves on.

[ikalugin]

I did already mentioned that Ukrainians were lied to? Essentially they were promissed (by the "pro russian" elites, "pro russian" my ass) that by joining EU and NATO they would receive western european standards of living from the get go.

Same thing happned back in the 1991, when they were promissed that by separating from the USSR and RSFSR they would become the eastern France or southern Canada.
And as we know even Belarussia did better economically:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/GDP_PPP_per_capita_CIS.svg/langru-580px-GDP_PPP_per_capita_CIS.svg.png
In fact, due to the decrease in population post 1991, Ukrainian GDP (not per capita) did not recover from the break up of the USSR:
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2007/so_ek_r_u/soekru_u/12_2007/page_02.htm
Reaching smashing 74 percent of 1990s levels just before the crisis hit.

As to if anything belongs to anyone - this could be argued about any state, I have provided the examples above. In my opinion it was a Soviet mistake to increase rights of the regions and regional elites, the same mistake Russia did after the break up.