Support in recent conflicts (poll)

[Tahuti]

This has been brewing for some time... of course, the only possible way to do that is violence, per Russia.

No. The Ukraine also could have accepted the secession and simply decided not to further attack the areas.

 

[Akka]

No. The Ukraine also could have accepted the secession and simply decided not to further attack the areas.

Or Russia could simply have left Ukraine alone and nothing would have happened.

 

[kochman]

Or Russia could simply have left Ukraine alone and nothing would have happened.

There's still the chance that the pro-Russian guys would have tried to re-join the motherland anyway... eventually.

Putin was just the catalyst for it.

 

[Akka]

There's still the chance that the pro-Russian guys would have tried to re-join the motherland anyway... eventually.

Putin was just the catalyst for it.

Where were the signs pointing to a possible rise of armed rebellion ? There were none, save for some attempts at Crimea about asking for a (lawful) possible secession. In fact, I remember polls made rather shortly before the crisis showing an overwhelming majority of the population wished to stay Ukrainian.

That suddendly pro-Russian civil war erupt in a country that had no important irredentist movement, just after the Russian started to actively fan the fire, feels far too much of a coincidence for me to take it as such.

 

[kochman]

Where were the signs pointing to a possible rise of armed rebellion ? There were none, save for some attempts at Crimea about asking for a (lawful) possible secession. In fact, I remember polls made rather shortly before the crisis showing an overwhelming majority of the population wished to stay Ukrainian.

That suddendly pro-Russian civil war erupt in a country that had no important irredentist movement, just after the Russian started to actively fan the fire, feels far too much of a coincidence for me to take it as such.

I agree with you for the most part. Was just pointing out that it could have and may have been done in a civilized manner, but Putin was happy to go the extreme route for the land he really wanted (Crimea), I don't think he really is willing to lose yet more face for the current regions being fought over by making overt moves.

 

[Bootstoots]

I agree with you for the most part. Was just pointing out that it could have and may have been done in a civilized manner, but Putin was happy to go the extreme route for the land he really wanted (Crimea), I don't think he really is willing to lose yet more face for the current regions being fought over by making overt moves.

Plus, if he were to overtly invade and annex Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, he would remove a large proportion of the pro-Russian population from Ukraine. I ran the numbers on the 2010 presidential runoff election and found that, as it was, Yanukovych won 52-48 over Tymoshenko. Without Crimea, the proportion falls to 50.5-49.5, which is probably acceptable to Russia given Crimea's value.

If Russia annexes Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts as well, the former of which is the most populated oblast in Ukraine, then Tymoshenko wins 57-43. And that's not even considering the backlash against Putin for invading and (this time) having to fight a war against Ukraine to annex those territories. A Ukraine without the Donbass, and which had to fight a losing war against Russia in the process of losing it, wouldn't hesitate to join NATO and the EU as quickly as those organizations would let it in. Not to mention that actually damaging sanctions could be applied to Russia, to the extent he is worried about that, and maybe even lead to overt NATO support to the Ukrainian government in that war.

It's much better just to support local Donbass rebels with propaganda and weapons, but no official Russian soldiers. This helps to keep Ukraine unstable and weak, so that concessions can be wrung out of them later; specifically, when winter falls and they're all freezing.

 

[Daw]

Where were the signs pointing to a possible rise of armed rebellion ? There were none, save for some attempts at Crimea about asking for a (lawful) possible secession. In fact, I remember polls made rather shortly before the crisis showing an overwhelming majority of the population wished to stay Ukrainian.

Like you say, it was before the crisis, which consisted of the President born in that region was, like you've been said to, unconstitutionally deposed by pro-western dudes accompanied by rightwing ultras, neither of them liked in the region, and neither of them had any legal right to do what they did. One hell of a reason for the disturbance already.

Next thing happens is Crimea splits off while the new elite turns the county politics 180 degrees instead of going careful and gradually to stabilize the situation, plus attempts to prohibit usage of Russian language to please nationalist supporters.

All that within days.

Now if you still find it surprising they thought it was too much...

And when they started to be shot at it got a rolling snowball effect.

 

[LoneRebel]

I dunno, appointing fascists to ministerial posts is a deal-breaker for a lot of people.

I dunno, invading other countries is a deal-breaker for a lot of people.

No. The Ukraine also could have accepted the secession and simply decided not to further attack the areas.

Because countries simply accept attempts to secede from them all the time, right? Russia has a very good record of accepting secession.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because countries simply accept attempts to secede from them all the time, right? Russia has a very good record of accepting secession.

No countries do not accept attempts to secede from them all the time...which is why Russia's record could be called 'good'...as in 'as good as anyone else has'. Russia's record for meddling with the neighbors is also about the same as anyone else. Etc, etc, etc. Which is one reason why the current excoriation of Russia strikes me as being so hollow.

 

[Gucumatz]

I support total annexation of Palestine and Israel by a third party state

The only time the area has been relatively peaceful in like the last 2 millenia was under the Ottomans , why not try again?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I support total annexation of Palestine and Israel by a third party state

The only time the area has been relatively peaceful in like the last 2 millenia was under the Ottomans , why not try again?

Just a guess, but you are going to have a hard time finding a third party state that is not deemed totally unacceptable by at least one significant world or regional power.

 

[Daw]

I dunno, invading other countries is a deal-breaker for a lot of people.

Because countries simply accept attempts to secede from them all the time, right? Russia has a very good record of accepting secession.

As a matter of fact, as I have posted above, I was born in USSR that consisted of 15 republics (Russia one of them). Now, since it is seems to be agreed upon that legally Russia is the successor, it in fact has a record of 14 accepted secessions counter 1 unaccepted. And although, as I have posted above, I never supported even that 1, I do still consider the 14:1 score a very good record indeed.

 

[LoneRebel]

No countries do not accept attempts to secede from them all the time...which is why Russia's record could be called 'good'...as in 'as good as anyone else has'. Russia's record for meddling with the neighbors is also about the same as anyone else. Etc, etc, etc. Which is one reason why the current excoriation of Russia strikes me as being so hollow.

Funny, I could turn that around and say that the current excoriation of Ukraine is hollow for the exact same reason.

I was born in the USSR which consisted of 15 republics. And it was a bitter moment to me as a teenager when the TV showed the ceremony of removing the red flag from the Kremlin. Because it was like my motherland was stolen away from me.

But today I don't mind them being independent states. I also don't mind them being EU members, NATO members, whatever else it is they like to be members of if it makes them happy.

I still look at these countries as at some extension of my country I was born in, and it shall not be offensive, it's not the so much feared "Russian Imperialistic" thing, but rather like having a remote sibling who you grew up together with, and who is now as adult as yourself, has their own family, their own job, their own plans for the future, and you actually don't even talk much to each other. But you still love them and wish that they are happy.

There are many regions in Russia, and they are different, and my sentiment to them (meaning wish to keep them) is different as well. There are some I would release an off-hand way because they cause more trouble than benefit. There are some I would try my best to talk down to stay to find something to mutually satisfy the interests.

In any case, if I was left with just 2 options, either to shoot or to let go, I would let go. Perhaps just to preserve the chance that they may wish to come back one day.

Never supported Chechen war by the way. Neither of them.

What a romanticized view of things. Though I suppose it beats the Russian ultranationalist position any day. Still, I somehow doubt the majority of non-Russians within the former USSR remember it as fondly as you do. Did you enjoy queueing up for basic commodities that much?

The interesting thing is that it's not too difficult to go from "I still look at these countries as some extension of my country" to "they're just Russians in denial who need to be brought back into the fold", which is the sentiment of a good number of Russians.

As a matter of fact, as I have posted above, I was born in USSR that consisted of 15 republics (Russia one of them). Now, since it is seems to be agreed upon that legally Russia is the successor, it in fact has a record of 14 accepted secessions counter 1 unaccepted. And although, as I have posted above, I never supported even that 1, I do still consider the 14:1 score a very good record indeed.

The USSR (or Russia) "accepted" those secessions because it was literally falling apart, not because they wanted to grant independence to all those peoples out of the limitless goodness of their heart.

 

[Traitorfish]

I dunno, invading other countries is a deal-breaker for a lot of people.

I can't think of many people who were on the Putin-train until that point and no further. Either they already saw him as a gangster or they accepted his justifications. On the other hand, I've encountered a few people who were tentatively optimistic about the government in Kiev, but gave up when it turned out the government was willing to appoint pretty much anyone if it helped buttress their popular support.

 

[LoneRebel]

I can't think of many people who were on the Putin-train until that point and no further. Either they already saw him as a gangster or they accepted his justifications.

Haha. As critical as I am of Russia's actions (I'm not going to let the Russian people off the hook by blaming Putin alone, when he wouldn't be able to do anything if a good percentage of Russia's population weren't behind him), I still love Putin's macho stunts and the badass image he projects. I know they're just that, stunts, but they're endearing in a weird way.

Not to mention, Putin gives short men something to be proud of. So there's that.

 

[Daw]

What a romanticized view of things.

Yeah, like that. I tell you what I feel and you have fun with it. Sheer civilized westerner, all so polite and understanding, no match for us barbarians. Well done pal, keep it up.

Though I suppose it beats the Russian ultranationalist position any day.

Just to let you know (if of course you indeed happen not to know what you're talking about) Russian ultranationalists are in fact quite few in number and also much hated all over Russia.

to talk Still, I somehow doubt the majority of non-Russians within the former USSR remember it as fondly as you do.

Yeah, like I said, I was a teenager when USSR fell, so I assume my parents bore most of the hard time for me then. However, I do remember visiting Lithuania in 1989, and it seemed to be quite prosperous even compared to Moscow. However yet, as far as I remember it was the first half of the 1990s (i.e. right after the fall, not before) when the shops shelves really were as empty as bowling lanes, and it was really a feast when you could get some dry milk let alone a chicken (which was next to impossible to find).

Did you enjoy queueing up for basic commodities that much?

Never enjoyed, still never enjoy. Particularly, I didn't enjoy it when I had to run about half of London to find a hardware store to buy a plug adapter (which appeared to be surprisingly hard to find available) to charge my laptop. Or I didn't enjoy it in Germany when I got hungry after sunset only to discover that all eateries are closed. Or it was in Germany again when I wanted my car washed (what a weird idea!), and it happened to be Sunday, so I traveled from the vicinities of Freiburg to Munich suburbs before I found a carwash operated by some Turkish guys who didn't care it was Sunday and thus didn't close.

The interesting thing is that it's not too difficult to go from "I still look at these countries as some extension of my country" to "they're just Russians in denial who need to be brought back into the fold", which is the sentiment of a good number of Russians.

Yeah, I assume everyone readily sees what he is ready to see, so you can of course look at is this way if you like. However, since it is my personal feelings we are talking about, so I reserve my right to also interpret them, I assure you you are wrong.

The USSR (or Russia) "accepted" those secessions because it was literally falling apart, not because they wanted to grant independence to all those peoples out of the limitless goodness of their heart.

Fair enough. And yet Georgia was not overrun in 2008 when there was a chance to do so. Nor were Ossetia and Abhasia.

I suggest this as a hint that Russia in fact does recognize peoples right for self-definition and independence, and it only takes Ukraine to do the same.

I would like you to admit at the end of the day that the thing with Crimea is justifies both legally and morally and the only reason to not accept it is that it does not meet your interests/plans/expectations and/of feeds your fears (and pretty groundless ones imo).

 

[kochman]

Plus, if he were to overtly invade and annex Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, he would remove a large proportion of the pro-Russian population from Ukraine. I ran the numbers on the 2010 presidential runoff election and found that, as it was, Yanukovych won 52-48 over Tymoshenko. Without Crimea, the proportion falls to 50.5-49.5, which is probably acceptable to Russia given Crimea's value.

If Russia annexes Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts as well, the former of which is the most populated oblast in Ukraine, then Tymoshenko wins 57-43. And that's not even considering the backlash against Putin for invading and (this time) having to fight a war against Ukraine to annex those territories. A Ukraine without the Donbass, and which had to fight a losing war against Russia in the process of losing it, wouldn't hesitate to join NATO and the EU as quickly as those organizations would let it in. Not to mention that actually damaging sanctions could be applied to Russia, to the extent he is worried about that, and maybe even lead to overt NATO support to the Ukrainian government in that war.

It's much better just to support local Donbass rebels with propaganda and weapons, but no official Russian soldiers. This helps to keep Ukraine unstable and weak, so that concessions can be wrung out of them later; specifically, when winter falls and they're all freezing.

Very good point.
Whatever the outcome of this, I wonder if the EU won't shrink away from allowing the Ukraine to enter its fold. It is potentially going to face more Russian aggression and the EU won't want to pony up to fight Russia, but an EU member nation would obligate this.

 

[Bootstoots]

Ukraine is the second-poorest country in Europe after Moldova, IIRC. The EU will make all sorts of agreements to gain more access to a very cheap European labor market, but full EU membership would impose costs on the EU that I'm not sure they're willing to bear. There will probably be a long and protracted process of "structural adjustment" before they even consider granting it membership.

NATO, on the other hand, is more dangerous. It obliges its members to defend against attacks to any other member, membership doesn't really have any economic requirements, and it would allow NATO weaponry to enter Ukraine overtly. That's the sort of thing it might be worth some restraint to prevent.

Now it does appear the Russians are stepping up their campaign a bit, including artillery attacks and more heavy weapons supplies, after the Ukrainian forces have finally started making serious headway against the separatists. It's probably a balancing act to keep it perpetually unstable and weak, but not necessarily to annex more territory. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Russians go in overtly and occupy and/or annex the Donbass if the insurgency fails entirely, although I think it's more likely than not that they won't.

 

[Akka]

Splitting Ukraine is the only responsible course of action.

According to the Russian definition of "reasonable", of course.

 

[REDY]

Actually I dont think that all people who voted for Yanukovich want to be (Novo)Russians.