We can all see what is happening. More precisely, we see that we are shown. In fact, we do not know the truth. But even according to this, it is possible to draw some conclusions. Ukraine is between hammer and anvil now...What direction is the Ukraine heading in?
Kyiv's political/economic direction is definitely Westward. The talks in Minsk will probably yield greater autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, but I highly doubt Kyiv will agree to the sort of federalism proposed by Putin which amounts to national dismemberment by other means. Putin will no doubt strive to ensure that eastern Ukraine joins a growing list of Russia's trademark "frozen conflicts".What direction is the Ukraine heading in?
Simpleχity;1063784104 said:Kyiv's political/economic direction is definitely Westward. The talks in Minsk will probably yield greater autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts,
Maybe not. The districts currently occupied by the rebels are rust belt. The sanctions may make effort of keeping the conflict frozen not worth it.Simpleχity;1063784104 said:Putin will no doubt strive to ensure that eastern Ukraine joins a growing list of Russia's trademark "frozen conflicts".
Even that is going to be pretty limited in practice. Kiev currently occupies most of the two provinces. So, unless the final treay forces Kiev to withdraw, any autonomy in practice, is going to be limited to those particular districts that the rebels currently control.
There is the reality of where the troops are, but then there is winter fast approaching, a $5.3 billion gas debt default by Kiev, Russian control of the gas, a failing Kiev economy, sustaining on huge IMF loans that will require Kiev to privatize their pipeline, increased taxes, decreased pensions, unemployment, and estimated $5 billion wasted on the war in Eastern Ukraine with disastrous consequences and that means the politicians jobs are shaky. Just another day at the office. No. Big US and EU bailouts are going to be required and the oligarchs are notorious for pocketing all the money. Not exactly a success story.
Probably not the entire country, but certainly the arc of six eastern/southeastern oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Mikolayev, and Odessa. This would provide Russia with a land bridge to both the illegally annexed Crimea and the Russian inspired "frozen conflict" in Moldova's eastern Transnistria region. It would also denude Ukraine of all coastline on the Sea of Azov and Black Sea thus rendering Ukraine a land-locked nation.In reference to the 5 billion wasted on the war- that money was not wasted at all. Had the Ukrainians not fought, Putin would have forced anchluss on their entire country.
Simpleχity;1063784427 said:Probably not the entire country, but certainly the arc of six eastern/southeastern oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Mikolayev, and Odessa. This would provide Russia with a land bridge to both the illegally annexed Crimea and the Russian inspired "frozen conflict" in Moldova's eastern Transnistria region. It would also denude Ukraine of all coastline on the Sea of Azov and Black Sea thus rendering Ukraine a land-locked nation.
Putin doesn't want to annex it. He can barely afford the illegally annexed Crimea. But he does want this area to have a puppet government under Moscow's control. Putin refers to this area as Новоро́ссия (Novorossiya = New Russia), which is what this territory was called during the Czarist reign of Catherine the Great.Not true! The Eastern regions voted to be annexed by Russia and Russia refused. Nothing more needs be said. You're just wrong!
Even that is going to be pretty limited in practice. Kiev currently occupies most of the two provinces. So, unless the final treay forces Kiev to withdraw, any autonomy in practice, is going to be limited to those particular districts that the rebels currently control.
Simpleχity;1063784427 said:Probably not the entire country, but certainly the arc of six eastern/southeastern oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Mikolayev, and Odessa. This would provide Russia with a land bridge to both the illegally annexed Crimea and the Russian inspired "frozen conflict" in Moldova's eastern Transnistria region. It would also denude Ukraine of all coastline on the Sea of Azov and Black Sea thus rendering Ukraine a land-locked nation.
Good point.Important note. Most on the map.
Most of the biggest cities of Donbas, including two capitals, are under militia's control. It's about 2/3 of population of region.
Maybe I will disappoint somebody, but I have to say Russia is not going to leave. Ukraine for Russia it's not like Iraq fro USA or Libya for Europe. First they brought "democracy" to "tyrannized" nations, bomb them, killed thousands of people and then left them in chaos and blood. Ukraine is too close to Russia - even geographically, not to mention vast economical and social links. And after all this mess in Ukraine happened Russia would leave? Don't make me laugh, please.
From the first beginning Russia's intention in respect of Ukraine were to provide its interests through support of allied regions and through re-construction of Ukraine and making it federal state. Then pro-Russian regions would get more political and economical rights and leverages for protecting and increasing their relations with Russia. For example, most of heavy industries in such cities like Zaporozhye, Donetsk and so on depended on Russian orders and these industries suffered from nationalistic turbulence in Kiev. Shortly, Russian plan on Ukraine wasn't to destroy this state. The plan was to have more influence in the whole Ukraine through the regions traditionally inclined towards Russia. And of course to prevent Ukraine from joining the aggressive military block of NATO.
Nevertheless, the things went as they went.
Now Kremlin thinks what to do next. The same as the West thinks, White House thinks and so on. Russia supported peaceful negotiations in Minsk, and the pause in military actions appeared. Now Kiev prepares for new advance and it seems like Donbas militia does nothing, thus Russia is leaving. I think this is wrong opinion.
Unification is the desire of Russian ultra-nationalists like Vladimir Zhirinovsky and MrFirst.I agree, a Novorossiya was a possible, goal.
But my guess is that Putin's long term goal is to force all of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus into anchluss with Russia. This would basically restore these nations to the Russian empire as "federal states".
Putin has stated that the border between Ukraine and Russia is "artificial" and that Ukrainians and Russians are "one people". Likewise, he has called Kazakhstan an "artificial" nation and has made direct overtures to Belarus to voluntarily engage in full anchluss (Belarus has a joint airdefense agreement).
Correct on both counts. Strelkov was always complaining about the low volunteer rate in Luhansk/Donetsk oblasts for his militias. Putin finally had to send in three Russian armored battalions at the end of August to save the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. At Illovaisk, Putin promised a safe-corridor for encircled Ukrainian troops. Traveling with white flags, the Donbass battalion was massacred within this safe-corridor. Hundreds died.My guess is that Russia has:
A. over estimated the strength of pro Russian sentiment in the east (they were probably counting on truly spontaneous local risings in 4-5 oblasts, not partially instigated risings in parts of just two oblasts).
B. Under estimated the will of the Ukrainian people to resist. Despite being battered, the Ukrainian military has not collapsed and Ukrainians still support the war.
Most of the oblasts remain under government control.Good point.
Simpleχity;1063784956 said:Putin doesn't want to annex it. He can barely afford the illegally annexed Crimea. But he does want this area to have a puppet government under Moscow's control. Putin refers to this area as Новоро́ссия (Novorossiya = New Russia), which is what this territory was called during the Czarist reign of Catherine the Great.
Rebel map of the envisioned country of Novorossiya
Flag of Novorossiya in Donetsk
Putin has stated that the border between Ukraine and Russia is "artificial" and that Ukrainians and Russians are "one people". Likewise, he has called Kazakhstan an "artificial" nation and has made direct overtures to Belarus to voluntarily engage in full anchluss (Belarus has a joint airdefense agreement).
It is embarrassingly true. The constitutions of Ukraine and Crimea both stated that any changes in the legal status of Crimea must be approved by the Ukrainian government.Let's say you think that Russia annexed the Crimea illegally, although obviously that's not true.
The General Assembly "calls upon all States to desist and refrain from actions aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including any attempts to modify Ukraine's borders through the threat or use of force or other unlawful means," the resolution said.
The General Assembly underscores that the March 16 referendum held in Crimea "having no validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol."
The resolution "calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol" and "to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status."
I have spent quite a bit of time in Ukraine over the past two decades.Okay, it`s your right to think so. I have another question. We do not know the history of Russia and Ukraine in details. How do you know it so well?
What about the fact that the government in Kiev was illegitimate at the time of annexation? Does this not make the situation a little more complicated?Simpleχity;1063789621 said:It is embarrassingly true. The constitutions of Ukraine and Crimea both stated that any changes in the legal status of Crimea must be approved by the Ukrainian government.
You can't just invade a region of a neighboring country and annex it simply because it was yours in the past. Most European borders would be at risk if this was acceptable. Alaska also.
On 27 March 2014, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly passed this Resolution which was vetoed by Russia:
I have spent quite a bit of time in Ukraine over the past two decades.
There was nothing in the Ukraine constitution which covered a president abdicating and fleeing across a border. They did the best possible under the circumstances and parliament voted to officially remove him from office. Hundreds had been killed and hundreds more were either wounded or missing. The economy was about to implode. Russia was overwhelming Ukraine's Crimea region at the time and Putin had tens of thousands of threatening troops on the mainland border. Pro-Russia agitators were beginning to forcibly take over government buildings in the east.What about the fact that the government in Kiev was illegitimate at the time of annexation? Does this not make the situation a little more complicated?
They are artificial nations. This is just a matter of history. The problem of Ukraine is that its political leaders do not understand this simple thing. In Kazakhstan they understand, and that allows them to avoid a lot of problems.
Your definition of "dont understand that they are artificial" seems to mean that they dont defer and submit to Russia.
You are right- neither the Ukrainian people nor the Ukrainian leadership "understand" this- and I dont think they are going to "understand" it in the future.
Rather, the Ukrainians are going to build up their defensive capacity to the point where future Russian attempts to enforce the "understanding" are too costly for the gain. Finland would be a good example for Ukraine to follow.
Finland has very good relationships with Russia- though they dont defer or submit to Russia. Russia also knows that any attempt to force "understandings" on Finland would be very costly.
but the reality is that Ukraine is artificial state. This country has never existed before 1991
Dissolution of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) ceased to exist on December 26, 1991 by declaration no. 142-H of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, acknowledging the independence of the twelve remaining republics of the Soviet Union, and creating the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?