He seems like a fairly level headed guy. Let's see if he can crush the terrorists in the east and restore some semblance of Rule of Law there.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
He seems like a fairly level headed guy. Let's see if he can crush the terrorists in the east and restore some semblance of Rule of Law there.
He's been elected mainly because the country was fed up of the insurgents in the east taking advantage of the chaos, and the government was unable/unwilling to take action due to its interim nature. The population apparently decided that they wanted someone to win the election as soon as possible so that there weren't more rounds of voting, and Poroshenko seems to have been the best choice because he wasn't obviously fervently pro-EU or fervently pro-Russia. He is another magnate though - it remains to be seen whether it's actually better having him than Yanukovych.
It does feel like Russia are missing the best window to invade though, as Ukrainian forces won't be as disorganised now with a proper government back in charge. Will be interesting to see how they react. Maybe they haven't done anything because they think Poroshenko is acceptably malleable...
It does feel like Russia are missing the best window to invade though, as Ukrainian forces won't be as disorganised now with a proper government back in charge. Will be interesting to see how they react. Maybe they haven't done anything because they think Poroshenko is acceptably malleable...
Last edited:
Good report on Ukraine on last night's Frontline. Interviews with Right Sector's Dmitry Yarosh and Donbass insurgent leader Denis Pushilin.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365254983/
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365254983/
Any changes to Russia's posture, rhetoric or actions after the overwhelming force to clear the Donesk airport? I wonder how far Moscow will allow Ukraine to go putting down the insurrection. This is probably their furthest step yet.
Russia's opportunity to intervene has, most likely, passed. They can't use the "unelected" excuse anymore. They'll settle for making the east unstable so they can still exercise influence.
As I said, perhaps that's down to the fact that they got Poroshenko rather than Tymoschuk or Klitschko. Perhaps they feel he's reasonably malleable.
They don't really have the option of invading the east as it would trigger sectoral sanctions by the EU and US, which would choke the life out of the Russian economy, which is techniically already in recession.
Pretty much the worst kept secret of the entire conflict. Its obvious Putin's strategy is to keep a steady flow of Russian operatives and mercenaries working in eastern Ukraine in order to destabilize the area, all the while demanding the Ukrainian government "stop its assault on their own people the east". If he were truly interested in peace, he would make an all out effort to close the border and withdraw all of his agents back to Russia.
The Ukrainian woman who works for their national security department in the middle of this video pretty much lays out the entire scheme as it is (which can also be applied to Crimea).
1. Russian operatives come, then recruit pro-Russian locals to take over key government buildings.
2. A distinctly pro-Russian spokesman emerges out obscurity to declare the area wants to join Russia.
3. A referendum at gunpoint is organized in order to fast track a vote to legitimize secession.
The only step that didn't occur in the east compared with Crimea is Putin not accepting the Donbass referendum - mainly because he was bricking it over sectoral sanctions.
Sectoral sanctions isn't the reason why Putin doesn't get involved in the south east mess directly. If he was worried about the sanctions, he wouldn't have moved on Crimea.Crimea was, is and always will be pro-Russian, he knew he wouldn't have much problem taking over the peninsula, it was part of the Ukraine in name only, and the quick bloodless annexation is the proof.
Donetsk and the rest of the southeastern region is different. They do have some serious pro-Russian element, but there are plenty of people who are not in a hurry to join the separatists and yet are opposed to those in power in Kiev. Yanukovich and the rest of the former leadership that was ousted by Maidan have serious support in those areas and I'm sure they invest money to make life difficult for the new pro-Western government and the oligarchs, who came to power by US backed coup. Plus, of course, there are Russian operatives and "volunteers" on the ground.
But the only move that makes logical sense as a consequence of Putin`s actions so far is to go on and annex as much of Eastern Ukraine as he can get away with. Yes, of course it's less pro Russia than Crimea (which is probably also less pro Russian than was made out during the annexation), but the sole effect of the unrest is to piss off the people on the ground, which also includes a hell of a lot of disenfranchised ethnic Russians. All he's done really is make people who were ambivalent before more and more hostile against him - fortunately it seems to be easier to find more neutral sources in the media than it was in Crimea and plenty of people seem to be able to see through the propaganda that Russian tv and radio are spewing out by the day. So what's Putin's end game? If it was only to annex Crimea then why get involved in Donbass and Donetsk? If it's to keep the Ukranian people on the Russian side then why make sure that the only people who are really suffering are those same people? If it's to annex the east then why not make a move already? The time to do that was after the "people's vote" for the Donetsk People's Republic.
I don't swallow Raoul's line that he's so scared of sanctions because the EU are equally scared of the sanctions they'll have to impose if Russia invade, which is surely playing into Putin's hands. I just don't understand the endgame here.
I don't swallow Raoul's line that he's so scared of sanctions because the EU are equally scared of the sanctions they'll have to impose if Russia invade, which is surely playing into Putin's hands. I just don't understand the endgame here.
Crimea is pro Russian, I know that for a fact.
As far as Donbass region, the only thing I can think is of is that Putin probably wants to weaken the position of the current Ukrainian government by helping(not openly, of course) the separatists. I can't see Russia invading it though, it makes no sense for a lot of reasons.
As far as Donbass region, the only thing I can think is of is that Putin probably wants to weaken the position of the current Ukrainian government by helping(not openly, of course) the separatists. I can't see Russia invading it though, it makes no sense for a lot of reasons.
But it equally makes no sense to go destabilizing it unless he plans to invade. That's the paradox to me.
And re: Crimea, I'm not saying that it's not pro Russian - I suspect that the majority probably is pro Russia, but I certainly don't believe it's as much as 97%. If I had to guess as a layman it's probably maybe 50-60% really strongly pro, but again I'm happy for you to correct me as you are probably better informed.
And re: Crimea, I'm not saying that it's not pro Russian - I suspect that the majority probably is pro Russia, but I certainly don't believe it's as much as 97%. If I had to guess as a layman it's probably maybe 50-60% really strongly pro, but again I'm happy for you to correct me as you are probably better informed.
I've been to Crimea and noticed it was distinctly pro-Russian. One woman unapologetically and told me "this is Russian land", which I didn't expect from someone who seemed apolitical. If the referendum were held under legitimate circumstances, I'd imagine about 60-70% would have voted to be part of Russia (just a guess). There are still ethnic Tartars, Ukrainians, and various other minorities who don't like Putin; don't want to be part of Russia who would not have voted to secede, so there's no way it would have been the 97%. The heavy Russian leaning must be respected; but what must be (and has been) rightfully rejected is the Sudetenland style land grab / invasion by one country into the sovereign territory of another, in order to accomplish it. There are also Energy ramifications as Putin has set his sights on the Black Sea gas deposits that were recently discovered off the coast of Crimea.
As for Eastern Ukraine - had the west not intervened, there's no doubt in my mind we would be seeing Russian boots on the ground in the east, Russian acceptance of the DonBass referendum, coupled with Duma/Putin approval for annexation, along with further disturbances in places like Kharkov and Odessa. I think Putin's strategy now is to de-escalate in the east, deal directly with Poroshenko, patch up his relationship with Merkel and others in the Eurozone in order to ensure European money continues to fund Russian gas sales in the near term.
Over the next 4 years, the race will be on to get the Chinese pipeline infrastructure built and operational before Europe itself races to become energy independent of Russian gas, which is a real possibility. That will spell disaster for Putin as the Russian economy, which is already weak, relies on 70% of its income from foreign gas buys - and the EU is quite comfortably their number one buyer.
As for Eastern Ukraine - had the west not intervened, there's no doubt in my mind we would be seeing Russian boots on the ground in the east, Russian acceptance of the DonBass referendum, coupled with Duma/Putin approval for annexation, along with further disturbances in places like Kharkov and Odessa. I think Putin's strategy now is to de-escalate in the east, deal directly with Poroshenko, patch up his relationship with Merkel and others in the Eurozone in order to ensure European money continues to fund Russian gas sales in the near term.
Over the next 4 years, the race will be on to get the Chinese pipeline infrastructure built and operational before Europe itself races to become energy independent of Russian gas, which is a real possibility. That will spell disaster for Putin as the Russian economy, which is already weak, relies on 70% of its income from foreign gas buys - and the EU is quite comfortably their number one buyer.
I think Putin will be content with keeping pro-Russian parts of Ukraine unstable, for fear that if Ukraine stabilizes, it will almost certainly move away from the Russian sphere of influence. If its unstable, (in Putin's mind), at least it buys him leverage with Kiev. The downside of course is that remaining influential in eastern Ukraine will undermine his credibility with Europe, whose gas purchases fund a significant part of the Russian economy.
Good article that highlights the propagandist slant of RT news, in contrast to the likes of other state funded outlets like Deutsche Welle, France 24, RAI, BBC, and corporate run CNN.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/growing-power-putin-propaganda-machine-100000180.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/growing-power-putin-propaganda-machine-100000180.html
Ukraine is still Putin's smokescreen for Crimea, no one's talking about it now.
I agree to a certain extent, although I think it will come back on the table now that the Ukrainian Presidential elections are over. The west still has sectoral sanctions on the table and can use them as leverage on Putin. Judging by his backing off from invading eastern Ukraine, he's obviously scared of the devastating effect they would have on the Russian economy.
Apparently Poroshenko plans to offer an amnesty window to everyone in the east who's been holding government buildings and offer a corridor for safe passage back to Russia for any Russian mercenaries still in the area. Sounds like he's at least serious about clearing up the civil unrest if nothing else. Oh, and he's also claimed that he wants immediate integration with the EU, hoping to secure visa free travel to the EU from Ukraine by 2015.
He's certainly saying all the right things. I know plenty of Ukrainians who would love to visit or work in Europe, so that's likely to be a popular policy with citizens. The ball really is in Putin's court at this point. He's still talking a lot of bollocks about the Ukrainian government needing to stop its "assault on its own citizens" whilst conveniently ignoring his own responsibility to call on the rebels to disarm and stopping Russian mercenaries from streaming into eastern Ukraine (although he has allegedly told his border guard services to clamp down on that).
Just when you think things are stabilizing, Russia has sent tanks and rocket launchers across the Ukrainian borders.
Well, that's no good.
But the funny thing it's exactly the same tactics that helped overthrow previous government regime in Ukraine. I for one is against both Russia and EC/USA tactics in Ukraine.
I mean i was there a lot and i can say for sure that most of the people like 80% do not give a shit whether Ukraine would be pro-western as they call it or pro-Russia. I mean they just want a job, safe conditions for family, blah-blah, stuff everyone wants. But then there are 10% of the people, mostly in the east, that are extremely pro-russian, they see EC and USA as enemies, that "will kill you in your sleep", that is actually an accurate quote of what was said to me. And then there are 10% mostly on the west that are extremely "pro-EC" or to be more precise anti-russian actually. I mean these guys are ready to live in hell if it's far away from Russia. These sort of people will burn books if they were published/written by Soviet authors. It's really moronic all that. Most of these people were at Maidan square trying to influence the government. In pretty much the same way, taking over some buildings, blocking Parliament. I have a lot friends in Ukraine that believe that treaty with EC is better, but none of them were actually there and all of them described all that stuff as a "mess".
Generally i think Ukraine missed the trick with their treaties and allegiances. I mean it's not something government should force upon people. You need a proper referendum, like they'll have in UK. Just explain position, pros and cons and let the whole country choose. Cause the last 15 years or so Ukraine basically is running between two options. There a third option of course, declining both treaties and then signing some deals with both EC and Russia. So that Ukraine is neither part of EC trade union, neither of Russia's one, but has special trade relationship with both in different spheres. But in order to do that you actually need what they call a strong centrist political party. And it's a pipe dream of sorts. All over the world. I remember when i was in USA i used to also hear a lot how people were tired with all this republican and democratic agendas and how they just want no-nonsense centrist political party.
This is the most sensible approach, but it does ignore the realities of geo-politics. Simply put, Russia will not allow itself to be encircled by an anti-Russian alliance be it economic or military. Honestly, fair play. The USA has a formal doctrine in place that says they will declare war on any state that interferes in North or Central America. The UK if it were still in that position would do the same thing.
It sucks for the little people caught between the big powerful countries but ultimately you gotta play by their rules because they make the rules. I also have sympathy for Russia, other than maybe Poland, no other country has been repeatedly invaded and attacked. It is understandable in that light, even if it seems unlikely now that anything like that could happen again, that Russia would want to maintain strong ties in her buffer states.
Attempting to isolate Russia from these historic buffer states is in fact an act of aggression towards Russia and furthermore when you consider the history of the region and the country itself, the paranoia is only going to be reinforced by such actions. It sucks for Ukraine in that they really cannot have total self determination. Russia simply will not allow them to move towards the west. At least that is how I see it.
Russian paranoia on NATO is completely unfounded and merely a reaction to the reality that NATO's potential expansion into the former Soviet sphere would prevent Russia from spreading its own tentacles to the same former Soviet states, when in fact each of the states are sovereign, and should be able to make their own choices. At the end of the day, its all about power and identity, and the use of military and economic policies to create leverage over the other side.
In terms of European expansion, there's really little Russia can do now to prevent Ukraine (as well as Moldova and Georgia) from signing the EU partnership agreement on Friday. Putin's mafia tactics, including the repeated use of energy and economic blackmail to influence these states have only pushed them to the realization they are better off working with Europe. So when all is said and done, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia will be out of the Russian sphere. I suppose Putin can still claim to have annexed Crimea, which is small potatoes when you look at the greater cost/benefit.
In terms of European expansion, there's really little Russia can do now to prevent Ukraine (as well as Moldova and Georgia) from signing the EU partnership agreement on Friday. Putin's mafia tactics, including the repeated use of energy and economic blackmail to influence these states have only pushed them to the realization they are better off working with Europe. So when all is said and done, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia will be out of the Russian sphere. I suppose Putin can still claim to have annexed Crimea, which is small potatoes when you look at the greater cost/benefit.
It's NATO and the EU's fault that the former Soviet states don't want to associate with their former occupiers.
Well of course we filled their heads with nonsensical ideas about freedom and democracy. In Putins eyes we are like the bad uncle that fills his kids heads with ideas you don't want them to have.
They're like the gang leader who hates his goons when they try to get out of the game and go legit.
This paranoia is spread both ways. USA and EC are extremely paranoid about Russia's ambitions. Which translates into sometimes ridiculous attempts to somehow restricts Russia's trade opportunities and etc.
But basically both parties are employing the same tactics to access the new markets. It's not like people of Ukraine ever had a proper choice in the matter. Yanukovych made a mistake when he tried to force the treaty with Russia without proper considerations. Now Poroshenko is doing the same thing only for treaty with EC. If a proper democratic procedures were to take place, the obvious solution would be a statewide referendum on the subject with all pros and cons explained to the public. That's how a real democracy works. Government can take a side in the debate, but ultimately these kind of decisions belong to people. Russia does not want it, but EC also does not want it as well. They both prefer to work with current government to force the issue.
EC's mistake is thinking that the whole Ukraine undoubtedly wants to be with EC. Actually Ukraine is divided on this topic and most of the people there, if given a three-way choice (treaty with Russia, treaty with EC, independent position without being part of any unions), would vote for the third option. Because Ukraine's trade is very much dependent on russian market, not only in terms of import, but in terms of export as well. For example most of the production industry is oriented at CIS countries and it will be impossible for them to sell their products to EU cause europeans do not need them.
It's actually far more than just about trade or economics. If Putin were a stable leader who didn't annex parts of others countries and promote proxy insurgencies in other regions, I doubt anyone would care about the latest gas dispute. At its core, this is about whether countries have the sovereign right to decide their own policies and who they choose to align themselves with without coercion or fear of invasion from the neighborhood bully. Its obvious Putin's mafia style bullying has only pushed Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine to seek democratic policy choices, and now he is going to have to live with his miscalculation.
So does it concern only Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova or Iran and Iraq as well as dozens other countries like Libya have the right to decide their own policies without external interference? No, the way of the world is no country can be left really independent in it's choices. It's all about allegiance. And all allegiances as any negotiation or contracts is about strong-arming. That's why USA have military bases all over the world. To protect not countries really but their allegiance. It's same for Russia. And all this talk about national security, democracy, principles and stuff is fairly idle, because every single time everything really boils down to one thing and that's money. It's how you buy technologies from, who you selling tech, resources whatever to. It's not like many countries can have a free pick in weapons market for example. That what happens in Syria. Russia siding with Assad because he buys their weapons and support their policy, ambitions and USA siding with rebels because they hope overthrow Assad and have somebody in charge who would buy their weapons and support their policy in the region.
Pretty much the same stuff only not as drastic happened in Ukraine. There was a power struggle. It not like Ukraine had any proper nationwide dialogue about problems and the way to go. That my point. Both USA/EU and Russia employ pretty much the same tactics, just Russia do it now in eastern regions, and EU, USA have done it before in Kiev. As i said if Ukraine would ahve a proper referendum in a proper conditions, without war and all, it will be very close 50-50. And if they could have an option of being somehow associated with both Russia and EC they would probably take that one.
No doubt about it, all sides employ economic leverage to advance their policy preferences. Only difference is Russia is a bit on the authoritarian side, and is using out and out propaganda of fascism to create jingoistic foreign policy that is actually isolating it, as opposed to helping advance its cause. Russia's path to greatness must come through internal political reforms that promote democracy, better governance and less corruption - not invading neighboring countries to steal land, and using energy as a weapon of blackmail. These are mafia tactics and are rightfully being rejected by Europe, the US, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and others. If you look at what Russia has gained (basically the facade of having Crimea) compared to what it has lost (international credibility, energy revenue, an economy in recession, massive capital flight, a loss of three states from its sphere of influence, and potential sectoral sanctions), its quite clear that Putin has massively miscalculated and is now not coincidentally trying desperately to save face to spare further economic collapse.
Both sides are using excessive propaganda actually. In Russia they are claiming that nationalistic forces took control of Ukraine calling them fascist as well. So that' kind of funny, the pot calling the kettle black situation really from both sides. There are some facts that Russia is eager to bury like corruption ties with Yanukovich. But there are also some stuff that USA and EC are working extremely hard to hush down. Like the fact that they were working with a radical group that has close ties with chechen terrorists. You know the ones who organize public transport bombings in Russia. And one of the these ukranians guys even went to social media and basically pledged his support for more terrorist's acts in Russia together with chechens in response to the Crimea situation, that was even before referendum. And what makes the situation even more tricky is that these exact chechen terrorist fraction, the Umarov's one, is responsible for training the Boston bomber. So you can see how USA especially is eager to cover this stuff up. So it's not so rosy from the EU, USA.
Also you kind of overestimating the fallout because of the sanctions etc. Russia has a very low level of debt, and the economy while not healthy is not exactly in free fall either. Their energy income is also sort of alright. I mean they just signed one mega-deal with China, they already working towards the second one. Putin was in Austria just a couple of days ago and Austria said they are very committed to the South Stream(a big pipeline for gas transport around Ukraine) project that currently frozen. And even criticized EU on the matter. But what is more important is that North Stream that will deliver the gas to Germany and bring in much more revenue is completely unaffected. USA can't even talk about somehow compromising it, because it's vital for Germany. It's even not subject to the EC energy treaties, it's an exception. So it's debatable how much Russia actually gained and lost. As Austria showed there is no universal acceptance in Europe that Russia should be isolated. And while Russia's position on these rebels/terrorist on the East of Ukraine is amenable, well could be amenable. The lost of Crimea naval base was never in consideration. Especially given that Crimea is mainly populated by russians, as nation i mean.
The China deal is a big question mark. For one the pipeline still needs to be built, and there's no indication as to which of the two countries will pay for it. Even under the rosiest of circumstances, the deal will not benefit Russia financially before 2018, at a minimum. The south stream pipeline has currently been suspended while the EU investigates the suspicious nature of how contracts were awarded, and again, even if it is completed, won't yield much for Russia until 2018, and even then would carry no more than 12% of Europe's gas. What is missing from the Russian strategy is that Europe is already looking at diversifying away from Russian gas, which means that by 2018, any gains the Russian make on new pipelines may be mitigated by European diversification towards increased imports from Norway, North Africa, US and Qatari LNG, domestic shale, and alternate energy sources. And obviously, individual EU states won't be able to moonlight with Russia outside the purview of EU regulations.
Now, consider that the Russian economy, which is already in recession at this moment could slide into an even deeper recession should the sectoral sanctions be implemented by the US and EU. As it stands, oil and gas currently fund approximately 52% of Russia's budget and the current standoff with Ukraine is costing them quite a bit in lost revenue. When you combine that with the 160 billion Euros in capital flight they have seen in 2014, it doesn't exactly paint a rosy picture, although I'm sure state run propaganda are downplaying it for domestic audiences.
Putin is obviously doing an abrupt about face because he's crunched the numbers and realizes any short term popularity he got from Sochi and Crimea will be quickly wiped out when the economy tanks and people begin to see an economic crunch in their daily lives, at which point the jingoistic euphoria he's been riding for the past six months will leave him with nothing to show for himself. The fatal flaw in his logic is this entire concept of Russian exceptionalism and the idea that Russia is somehow uniquely different than the rest of the world and therefore requires its own "sphere of influence", complete with proxy states like Ukraine and others. This sort of self-righteous narcissism is leading his country on a straight path towards economic ruin.
So, is this resistance in the east all but over?
Will the Ukraine troops head into Crimea next?
Will the Ukraine troops head into Crimea next?
The rag tag Russian nutters still control much of Donetsk and parts of Luhansk. They were fled their previous stronghold in Slavyansk a few days ago. I reckon they will eventually encircle Donetsk and have one final battle in which the rebels will either surrender, die, or flee to Russia (most likely the latter).
I doubt the Ukrainians are dumb enough to attack Crimea, as its considered part of Russia (well at least by the Kremlin). It would be like attacking Russia, which the Ukrainians wouldn't do. I'm sure the continued threat of sectoral sanctions will eventually loosen Putin's grip on Crimea, but its a bit murky as to what will happen next. You really have to consider the massive humiliation Putin would face back home if he had to give it back to Ukraine. That said, he is going to have to deal with massive sectoral sanctions that would crush the Russian economy, which is a tool Europe and the US continue to hold over him.
I doubt the Ukrainians are dumb enough to attack Crimea, as its considered part of Russia (well at least by the Kremlin). It would be like attacking Russia, which the Ukrainians wouldn't do. I'm sure the continued threat of sectoral sanctions will eventually loosen Putin's grip on Crimea, but its a bit murky as to what will happen next. You really have to consider the massive humiliation Putin would face back home if he had to give it back to Ukraine. That said, he is going to have to deal with massive sectoral sanctions that would crush the Russian economy, which is a tool Europe and the US continue to hold over him.
Surely Russia occupying Crimea is worse than the Ukraine fighting to liberate it.
Would the Russian army proper be willing to fight the Ukrainians in Ukraine (which Crimea is according to everyone but Russia)?
Putin has seemingly hesitated to support the eastern rebels with enough of the Russian army to turn the tables.
Would the Russian army proper be willing to fight the Ukrainians in Ukraine (which Crimea is according to everyone but Russia)?
Putin has seemingly hesitated to support the eastern rebels with enough of the Russian army to turn the tables.
Its a bit more complicated in that most people in Crimea identify as Russian and view as Russian land, even before Putin snatched it.
I don't think it will come down to a military conflict as both sides have too much to lose. The best scenario for Ukraine is for the US and Europe to continue to wield the thread of sectoral sanctions to get Putin to negotiate a peaceful compromise on Crimea - maybe one where Crimea is autonomous but accessible by both countries.
This suggests that they see themselves more as Ukrainians than Russians.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../06/do-crimeans-actually-want-to-join-russia/