Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[kranz]

Originally Posted by Dmitry Markov

I don't think there could be any "normalization" untill Kiev withdraws Nazi-Guards (as people in South-East or Novorossia call Kiev's forces) and army.

All that IMHO of course.

Nor do I, but the problem is that Kiev shouldn't allow pro-russian terrorist to run loose in Ukrainian cities.
Besides, why would they withdraw their forces from their own territory?
I understand you might have been brainwashed by the Russian propaganda but that doesn't mean you are allowed to spread it here. ('Novorossia').

[Skybird]

Of course the CIA has had its hands in the events back then, and also: now. That's part of its job. And the visit of the CIA boss some weeks ago in the Ukraine, also has not been just an exchange of meaningless profanities.

As far as Russia and America are concerned, Washington wanted NATO camping in Sewastopol, and the Kremlin told Washington where to shove that daydream. That's what it all comes down to by the end of the day.

[August]

I guess the old soviet era joke about "Pravda means truth" has lost none of it's luster.

There was no CIA paid army of agitators in Ukraine. What you have heard is nothing but Russian propaganda to excuse it's illegal land grab of a neighboring country. Really it's straight out of the old Soviet playbook. They put out the same "pravda" during the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian uprisings of the 1950's almost word for word.

[antikristuseke]

"в Правде нет известий, в Известиях нет правды" - In the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth
That phrase comes much closer

[Oberon]

I'd have said the CIA and SIS were (and are) in the Ukraine, they'd not be doing their respective jobs if they weren't, but if they had any guiding role in events it was reactive only. This event has been brewing since the last president was overthrown, and I am fairly certain that within the next couple of years unless the new oligarch takes drastic steps to appease his supporters that he will also be out on the street.

Looking at it from a strategic point of view, what gains are there for the US if the Ukraine joins NATO? NATO has the Black sea under control through Turkey membership (although admittedly one could draw concerns about the reliability of Turkey with the current leadership) and taking the Ukraine would not throw Russia out of the Black Sea since it already has other naval bases under construction to replace the facilities at Sevastopol. It makes no strategic sense other than perhaps a buffer zone against any Russian move against Western Europe which as we've already pointed out in this thread, is not exactly likely.

So no, although it's very likely that the US and EU forces have exploited this situation for their benefit, I really don't see that it's likely that they started it.

[CCIP]

Likewise, you can't say Russia hasn't exploited the situation to their full benefit, and the notion that CIA was behind coordinating this is far more advantageous to the Russians than it could ever be to the Americans. I couldn't think of a more perfect boost for Putin's domestic image than a nefarious Western conspiracy against Russia actually turning out to be 100% true. By the same token, of course, I couldn't imagine a more perfect boost to the Ukrainian government than a Russian conspiracy turning out to be 100% true. But the US? No, really not much to be gained for them given the messiness of the whole situation.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Likewise, you can't say Russia hasn't exploited the situation to their full benefit, and the notion that CIA was behind coordinating this is far more advantageous to the Russians than it could ever be to the Americans. I couldn't think of a more perfect boost for Putin's domestic image than a nefarious Western conspiracy against Russia actually turning out to be 100% true.

Absolutely, the Ukraine has been a sort of proxy battleground between two spheres of influence, the east and the west. It's not the first time we've seen this happen in history, and it's not going to be the last. Neither side may have started events rolling, but they're damned if they're not going to capitalise on them once they have.

[CCIP]

Yeah, which also brings me back to the other thing too - again, I really don't believe there's any Russian conspiracy, just opportunism of the sort we already saw Putin's Russia engaging in for years, just on a much bigger and more daring scale. I think the idea that there's some sort of neo-Soviet agenda behind it is baseless. It's just taking advantage of present-day circumstances. Any government with a strong mandate that's feeling pretty secure with internal stabilty and in absence of strong external threats to their country would act like that in the situation - just realpolitik and basic sphere of influence.

[TarJak]

Provokatzia by Ukraine: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-2...lashes/5482072

Its definitely looking like it will get worse a lot more before it gets better.

[Oberon]

Indeed, I've always been loathe to draw similarities between Putin and the Soviet Union, there's no real ideological comparison to make. If anything I'd put him more towards the Tsars than the Premiers, but even then it's shakey.

Honestly I'd say that in this whole Ukrainian situation, Putin has been on the back foot, I think he hoped that the Ukrainian government would be able to defeat the protesters and when it couldn't he was forced to do something he didn't want to do and that's rely on hard power rather than soft power with the threat of hard power. Now he's played his card and brought a ton of scorn and sanctions on Russia, and he's loathe to play the military card again, which is why we're not seeing T-80s rolling through Donetsk yet.

That being said, there's a cassus belli on a silver plate being served by the Ukrainian military at the moment so the option is still on the table, but Russia has seemingly gone into reverse at the moment which is odd for a nation that supposedly holds all the aces.

[TarJak]

I'm not sure many would agree with him being on the back foot through the whole mess. I think he's probably brought forward some contingencies for the circumstances and also taken advantage of the disunity in Ukraine, particularly in the Crimea land grab.

You're bang on about the cassus beli that Ukraine has just handed them though.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Oberon

That being said, there's a cassus belli on a silver plate being served by the Ukrainian military at the moment so the option is still on the table, but Russia has seemingly gone into reverse at the moment which is odd for a nation that supposedly holds all the aces.

Well the fat lady hasn't sung yet and I wouldn't try to push my luck.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

I guess the old soviet era joke about "Pravda means truth" has lost none of it's luster.

There was no CIA paid army of agitators in Ukraine. What you have heard is nothing but Russian propaganda to excuse it's illegal land grab of a neighboring country. Really it's straight out of the old Soviet playbook. They put out the same "pravda" during the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian uprisings of the 1950's almost word for word.

Of course it could not be what in your patriotic selfunderstanding should not be. Also, if the CIA guys were there, proud defenders of freedom, truth and honesty that they are they would have worn a shiny armour so bright that they would have lit up like a light towers in the night, easy to be be identified by that.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'd have said the CIA and SIS were (and are) in the Ukraine, they'd not be doing their respective jobs if they weren't, but if they had any guiding role in events it was reactive only. This event has been brewing since the last president was overthrown, and I am fairly certain that within the next couple of years unless the new oligarch takes drastic steps to appease his supporters that he will also be out on the street.

Looking at it from a strategic point of view, what gains are there for the US if the Ukraine joins NATO? NATO has the Black sea under control through Turkey membership (although admittedly one could draw concerns about the reliability of Turkey with the current leadership) and taking the Ukraine would not throw Russia out of the Black Sea since it already has other naval bases under construction to replace the facilities at Sevastopol. It makes no strategic sense other than perhaps a buffer zone against any Russian move against Western Europe which as we've already pointed out in this thread, is not exactly likely.

It's a.) poking the Russians in their patriotic eye, and b.) staying committed to US strategy of encircling Russia, and China. They did so since the end of the cold war. Also, from the Crimean you are closer to the Russian border, an d have better radar control of and ELINT options in the whole area.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Yeah, which also brings me back to the other thing too - again, I really don't believe there's any Russian conspiracy, just opportunism of the sort we already saw Putin's Russia engaging in for years, just on a much bigger and more daring scale. I think the idea that there's some sort of neo-Soviet agenda behind it is baseless. It's just taking advantage of present-day circumstances. Any government with a strong mandate that's feeling pretty secure with internal stabilty and in absence of strong external threats to their country would act like that in the situation - just realpolitik and basic sphere of influence.

Putin started to plan for playing tough in autumn, and that was the time when signs showed that Yanukovich at last appeared to become weak maybe, no longer decisively standing up against possibly joining the EU (and by that sooner or later NATO).

Mind you also that the Ukraine is dancing on the Kremlin's nosetiup since years and years, especially regarding the gas deals. The Ukraine did nothing in the past 20 yearsa to moidernise its national heating system and thgus is desperately depending on gas, which it can only afford to buy in the needed amounts if it gets a price dramatically below market levels - at Russia's tremendous costs. Also, the oliogarchs in the Ukraine more and more claimed parts of polltical infoluence and contro, for them and their - partially cirminal - business interests. Well, that cannot be in the interest of any hegemonial power inb the region, and rememeber how Putin cracked down on the olio9garchs in ruzssia wehen they threatened to take over the state and bypassing the Krenmlin - he exec uted several examples and suddenly they all fell back into line. Message of it all: do you profit-enriching stuff as long as you want, but do not dare to get in the way of the Kremlin's policy-making: you play by Kremlin rules, or you won't play at all.

The Crimea was non-negotiable form the Russians' point of view, for reasons of national history, pride, and Sevastopol. The Ukrainian East howeder was not automatcially ion Putin'S shopping list, because it would cause a whole heap of bills and costs if it became Russia's responsibility to economically and financially maintain it. What Putin wanted more is to weaken a united Ukraine and to prevent a strong central government, securing s strong Russian influence in Ukrainian internal policy-making that way. And that goal he has reached. To leave the Eastern provinces to the responsibility of Kiev, is only clever. It leaves Kiew weaker than without the East, because the East now isan open, bleeding wound in its side, doing more damage that way than if taking the East away. Also, it gives greater headaches to the EU, especially financially.

What Putin does, is classical power projection on all levels. Morals play no role in that. The danger he risks is that the people in the East will turn away in disappointment when they realise that Russia is not coming to their "rescue" like on the Crimean. They could feel sold and betrayed.