Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Waste of fuel if you ask me.
I say that to both sides.

Well, Russia has got to do something with that oil if they can't flog it.

[ikalugin]

You should view it as Russian Mexico rather than Cuba.

What do you think about the recent SC resolution?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well, Russia has got to do something with that oil if they can't flog it.

I'll weld the cistern myself if they give some.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

You should view it as Russian Mexico rather than Cuba.

What do you think about the recent SC resolution?

Do you mean UNSC 2202?

It's a good start, if it can be implemented, but I don't know if the separatists will like how much control it gives Ukraine over things like the local banking, border between Ukraine and Russia. Personally I think that they would be happier if the UNSC gave them the option for a OCSE monitored vote for succession, but Ukraine would never let that fly.

I see what you mean about Mexico, but historically I figure that Cuba is the better comparison.

[ikalugin]

Read the text again, border control authority is transfered to Kiev only after other terms are fulfilled. Ie most likely - never. You could access the text in Russian (have not seen an eng version here):
http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/4804

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

One thing that I do ponder though, I mean think of it this way. Ukraine is Russia's Cuba. So...well, what is the difference between what Russia is doing in the Ukraine now, and what the US has spent the last forty or so years doing in Cuba?

Not at all the same. You'll remember during the Bay of Pigs invasion that we aborted our support of the Cuban rebels at the last minute leaving them to be slaughtered on the beaches. I'm not saying that's better or worse, only different.

If you're talking about Guantanamo Bay, we took legal possession of it in 1903 under signed treaty. That's not at all the same as how Russia annexed the Crimea.

A closer match to your theory might be Panama but even then we never annexed the land but rather leased it and we did give the canal back to it's owners. Don't hold your breath for Russia doing the same...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Not at all the same. You'll remember during the Bay of Pigs invasion that we aborted our support of the Cuban rebels at the last minute leaving them to be slaughtered on the beaches. I'm not saying that's better or worse, only different.

If you're talking about Guantanamo Bay, we took legal possession of it in 1903 under signed treaty. That's not at all the same as how Russia annexed the Crimea.

A closer match to your theory might be Panama but even then we never annexed the land but rather leased it and we did give the canal back to it's owners. Don't hold your breath for Russia doing the same...

But the US did spend the next decade or two doing its best to off Castro and overthrow the Cuban government through some very creative methods (including but not limited to the exploding cigar), furthermore, the Cuban rebels were supplied weapons and training by the US, but yes, admittedly they didn't get the full support that the Ukrainian rebels are receiving from Russia. Nevertheless though, the US saw a Soviet Cuba as a clear threat and took steps to undermine, isolate and deteriorate it. It didn't work out, just as Putins support of the Ukrainian separatists hasn't fully worked out in his favour, but Moscow saw the loss of Ukraine to NATO and/or the EU as a threat to Russia and acted because of this. If the reverse happened to NATO then I have no doubt that they would act in a similar manner, perhaps not quite as overt, but certainly there would be action taken.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Oberon

But the US did spend the next decade or two doing its best to off Castro and overthrow the Cuban government through some very creative methods (including but not limited to the exploding cigar),

I heard the CIA is preparing an exploding bear to gift Putin

They tried with a ''bare chest in freezing temperature'' seeking missile, but it hit Canada.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

But the US did spend the next decade or two doing its best to off Castro and overthrow the Cuban government through some very creative methods (including but not limited to the exploding cigar)

Ah, I would hardly say their best, in fact it's more like pretty much confined to an embargo.

Even the exploding cigar proposal (not a plot) is just an unproven allegation. In any case that one and the others were never put into action and even the allegations of their existence ended in 1963 (along with the president who was accused of promoting them). So, assuming you believe them you have at most 3 years of it, not the "decade or two" as you claim. In fact congress passed legislation outlawing the assassination of foreign heads of state around 1970 which is only a single decade after Castro took power.

furthermore, the Cuban rebels were supplied weapons and training by the US, but yes, admittedly they didn't get the full support that the Ukrainian rebels are receiving from Russia.

Full support? More like "hardly any support at all". We never game them anything more than small arms, no heavy weapons, no electronic warfare equipment, no support troops.

As an aside I served under a guy that was standing in the door during Bay of Pigs ready to jump when the abort signal came for all US forces. He used to rag about how shoestring the whole operation was. Reminded him of Carters aborted Hostage Rescue mission in it's near lack of planning and support.

Nevertheless though, the US saw a Soviet Cuba as a clear threat and took steps to undermine, isolate and deteriorate it.

That is true but they were minor steps that were soon aborted (except for the embargo and tipping off the Bolivians about Che Guevaras whereabouts). They are hardly comparable to Russias actions in Ukraine any more than a smack on the hand is comparable to a hammer blow to the back of the head.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Oberon

But the US did spend the next decade or two doing its best to off Castro and overthrow the Cuban government through some very creative methods (including but not limited to the exploding cigar), furthermore, the Cuban rebels were supplied weapons and training by the US, but yes, admittedly they didn't get the full support that the Ukrainian rebels are receiving from Russia. Nevertheless though, the US saw a Soviet Cuba as a clear threat and took steps to undermine, isolate and deteriorate it. It didn't work out, just as Putins support of the Ukrainian separatists hasn't fully worked out in his favour, but Moscow saw the loss of Ukraine to NATO and/or the EU as a threat to Russia and acted because of this. If the reverse happened to NATO then I have no doubt that they would act in a similar manner, perhaps not quite as overt, but certainly there would be action taken.

You know, that argument works for me. The only thing I object to is the painfully awkward Soviet-style denial of their role in the fighting. Ukraine, cede the Russians their portion and be done with it.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

You know, that argument works for me. The only thing I object to is the painfully awkward Soviet-style denial of their role in the fighting. Ukraine, cede the Russians their portion and be done with it.

Aye, it's not really fooling anyone anymore. Trouble is, if Russia admits it 'officially' then the thumbscrews come out with the economic embargoes and the like. So it's a bit Catch-22, but yeah, the Soviet style "nothing to see here" isn't really fooling anyone, not in the west at least. I think really it's probably for internal digestion more than external.
As for Ukraine, losing the small parts of Ukraine that are currently occupied might be the best solution for it, but the question is whether it would stop there or whether more provinces around the ceded area would then rise up and we get the whole cycle begin over again.
It's a messy scenario really, not helped by the ethnic tensions in the region anyway, the east/west split is pretty big in Ukraine when it comes to ethnic make-up and political loyalties, and if the east of the Ukraine leaves then the Ukraine itself is left with no real industry and an economy that'll make Greece look like Bill Gates. Which means the EU, IMF and US will have to step in to prop up the Ukrainian economy until the political fallout settles.
As CCIP puts it, there's no black and white (or red and blue if you prefer ) in this situation, and the unpredictability of Russias future does not help matters much. The big rearmament program going on in Russia is taking a lot of resources to complete, which means that thanks to the embargoes, the resources are having to be sourced from elsewhere in the Russian economy, putting other programs on hold, such as social spending. In short, it's an old 'guns or butter' question and they're going for the guns...you can't really blame them too much because the ones they have right now are mostly obsolete or broken. The problem lies in how much this will undermine Putins grip on Russia, probably not too much since Russia tends to lean towards authoritarian leaders as a whole, so Putin is probably seen by quite a few as being a good figure to stand up against the old enemy in the west (and fascists in the Ukraine, of course) and keep Russia strong.
In a way, I hope Putin does stay in power, it's better the devil you know, and if Putin steps down and gets replaced with a hardliner, part of the subset of Russian politics that view Putin as being too cautious...then we're really going to be in a world of trouble.

In short, this is just the beginning, for both Novorussia and for NATO. No-one can say for certain what lies ahead.

[August]

Y'know I can't recall a military build up that didn't eventually culminate in some degree of warfare. Has their military been increasing in size or just modernizing?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Y'know I can't recall a military build up that didn't eventually culminate in some degree of warfare. Has their military been increasing in size or just modernizing?

AFAIK mainly modernising. Most of their stuff hasn't really been upgraded en masse since the 1980s, you've got carriers like the Kuznetsov which really badly needs an overhaul, the Mi-24 which, although it's a capable chopper, is very outdated and looking to be replaced with the Mi-28N and Ka-52. ikalugin has more accurate coverage on the upgrades than me, but I don't think they're looking to expand...if anything it might actually be shrinking slightly but using more capable weaponry, switching slightly from the en masse approach to more kill per unit, but obviously with a force as large and hulking as Russia...it's going to take a while and a lot of rubles.

[CCIP]

Yeah, the Russian military is shrinking in size. There's drive to get rid of conscription and whoever finally signs an end to it will be very popular indeed (which means it'll most likely have to be Putin), but the Russian state is too addicted to the free manpower at the moment to let it go just yet. But the military is gradually professionalizing and reducing size. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Russia has learned a lot of military lessons over the past couple of decades.

It also seems a little facetious to point at Russia's alleged military buildup when the US spends more on military than everyone else in the world combined. Doesn't that logic make the US the most dangerous state in the world?

[Oberon]

To be fair to the US they're also drawing down their military size, it's just they've had a lot to begin with so it doesn't seem like a big drop but when you compare the US of the 1980s to the US of today then you'll see that numerically there's a bit of a drop. The key, as Russia is also doing, is maintain the level of military power but using less manpower to do it.

We've gone for that in a biiiiiiig way in the UK....