Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[voko]

I am sure West liked anti-Yanukovich side, but I saw no evidence that they helped them in any way more significant than by diplomacy. In other words, West did nothing unacceptable there.

It may be that Russia has some old-fashioned ideas of diplomacy, where a signed deal is a deal and its breach is unacceptable. No wonder, then, that the West's new diplomacy is not appreciated.

It's obvious Russia thinks that Ukraine is "their turf" and West must not play there. Therefore, they feel that West having an opinion on Ukrainian internal politics and daring to openly speak about that is an infraction. That's what I see as imperialist aspirations: Russia wants to be a superpower, it wants to have vassal buffer states around it.

And Russia sees that exactly the other way around.

The West fundamentally disagrees on that point. The West thinks that it (like everybody else) has a right to have opinions on Ukrainian politics. It can say that they like party X there and dislike party Y. It's not a breach of the rules, as West sees it.

Russia obviously sees that differently. The breach of the deal was a game changer. Perhaps the West needs to take into account Russia's old school thinking?

Sorry. I asked *you*. What is your proposed solution?

In the short term, I do not see any. I do not think that any party in the stand off will back off abruptly.

The huge difference is that American troops in Europe were, and still are present with the explicit permission of countries they are stationed in.

This is irrelevant for the discussion. Let me remind you the context:

I am of the opinion that many Russians would see this very differently. It was Russian soldiers who all marched away from Europe when the Iron Curtain fell. American soldiers are still there. And Nato has moved eastward, despite promises that it would not.

 

[Czcibor]

You are fundamentally mistaken here. This distinction does not exist for Russia. As a sovereign state, it won't accept being punished by any other state for whatever reason, but especially if the other state invokes a "crime and punishment" rationalization, as you did, because that adds insult to injury, encroaching on Russia's sovereignty. And this is not just my theory. The recent official comment by Russia's foreign affairs spokesman said just that: "unacceptable; provoking; an attempt of extraterritorial application of US legislation; null and void for Russia; against the principles of international law; US solely and fully accountable for consequences; hostile act by US".

I think that you here consider Russia as somewhat typical entity. Generally speaking criminals won't accept being punished for whatever reasons. That's a general rule, if you don't believe you may listen how interviewed criminals rationalize what they did. And also the point of punishment is to make somewhat to stop violating law if moral reasons are not enough.

It may be that Russia has some old-fashioned ideas of diplomacy, where a signed deal is a deal and its breach is unacceptable. No wonder, then, that the West's new diplomacy is not appreciated.

Good. When are you retreating from Ukraine to stop violating Budapest agreement from 1994? Or breach is unacceptable, unless it's Russia who does, then it's everything OK?

Anyway, you think that in case of some internal deal between opposition and gov in Ukraine is not being followed, it means that Russia is entitled to invade that country. Does it work in two ways? I mean if some important agreement is violated in Russia does it give other countries right to invade it? (I mean for example not paying back money to Yukos shareholders, which were expropriated because Khodorkovsky did not get on well with Putin) Or is China entitled to invade Siberia if you don't finish building promised gas pipeline on time?

 

[nikkkom]

It may be that Russia has some old-fashioned ideas of diplomacy, where a signed deal is a deal and its breach is unacceptable. No wonder, then, that the West's new diplomacy is not appreciated.

Which "signed deal" do you refer to?

 

[nikkkom]

> The huge difference is that American troops in Europe were, and still are present with the explicit permission of countries they are stationed in.

This is irrelevant for the discussion. Let me remind you the context:

> I am of the opinion that many Russians would see this very differently. It was Russian soldiers who all marched away from Europe when the Iron Curtain fell. American soldiers are still there. And Nato has moved eastward, despite promises that it would not.

Russian soldiers were there against local populations' wishes in the first place. Basically, Eastern Europe was under Soviet occupation since WWII. The proof is that not one of these countries is friendly to Russia even now, 20 years since they left. Most of them wanted to join NATO, and did so.

"Many Russians would see this differently", yes. They won't admit to themselves that they still try to subjugate neighbors by force. Contract killer also sees himself not a criminal, but as a "janitor of the forest", he "kills only other criminals". There are plenty of ways to rationalize evil.

 

[voko]

Which "signed deal" do you refer to?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...the-settlement-of-crisis-in-ukraine-full-text

Russian soldiers were there against local populations' wishes in the first place.

You are repeating the point which is irrelevant, as I already said.

 

[nikkkom]

>>> I am sure West liked anti-Yanukovich side, but I saw no evidence that they helped them in any way more significant than by diplomacy. In other words, West did nothing unacceptable there.
[/PLAIN]
>> It may be that Russia has some old-fashioned ideas of diplomacy, where a signed deal is a deal and its breach is unacceptable. No wonder, then, that the West's new diplomacy is not appreciated.

> Which "signed deal" do you refer to?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-the-settlement-of-crisis-in-ukraine-full-text[/URL][/QUOTE]

This is an agreement between then-president and three opposition figures, signed in 21 Feb 2014. This is NOT an international agreement, neither Russia nor other countries are signatories to it.

As such, the fate of such an agreement is irrelevant to the Russia/West relations. If it was not honored, how is this West's fault?

Especially that in reality, it was not honored because president panicked, fled the country the same day and his former allies defected en masse - despite still having loyal troops on their side. It's not like US marines landed in Kiev and stormed his palace!

 

[Czcibor]

This is an agreement between then-president and three opposition figures, signed in 21 Feb 2014. This is NOT an international agreement, neither Russia nor other countries are signatories to it.

As such, the fate of such an agreement is irrelevant to the Russia/West relations. If it was not honored, how is this West's fault?

Especially that in reality, it was not honored because president panicked, fled the country the same day and his former allies defected en masse - despite still having loyal troops on their side. It's not like US marines landed in Kiev and stormed his palace!

Technically speaking it was not honoured because Yanukovych went to Russia, instead of (as he promised) help to amend the constitution in 48 hours. If Russia did not want that, they may have just not let him in.

 

[voko]

This is an agreement between then-president and three opposition figures, signed in 21 Feb 2014. This is NOT an international agreement, neither Russia nor other countries are signatories to it.

This is a bunch of truisms. Obviously, neither Russia nor the other three countries can be legally responsible for whatever happened in a technically sovereign nation. That is not the reason why agreement was "witnessed" and counter-signed by Russia and the other countries.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm sure Ukraine is thinking about Russia's incursion upon the territory and sovereignty of Ukraine:

"unacceptable; provoking; an attempt of extraterritorial application of US Russian legislation (or Putin's decrees?); null and void for Russia Ukraine; against the principles of international law; US Russia solely and fully accountable for consequences; hostile act by USRussia".

 

[Czcibor]

This is a bunch of truisms. Obviously, neither Russia nor the other three countries can be legally responsible for whatever happened in a technically sovereign nation. That is not the reason why agreement was "witnessed" and counter-signed by Russia and the other countries.

(bold mine)
I think that's exactly one of source of misunderstanding here. Considering Ukraine as only a "technically sovereign nation", not just as "sovereign nation". It has some different consequences - if they are only "technically sovereign" local population is just loot for a stronger power, not a free nation that can be p*** off with corruption and get rid of president. They have to keep inept and corrupted Yanukovych because a "great" power orders them so, and treats them as zone of influence, right? Maybe they should become more federalized, to become an ungovernable country so Russia can enforce its will easier on such... colony (protectorate, vassal state)?

You pointed out that Russia would not back down. Which I believe, because Putin would lose face if had to give back the loot. I would say that Ukraine is also not going to back down, while the West would keep sanctions. Let's assume maintaining such deadlock that we have right now - what would be the result? How long would Russian economy survive?

 

[mheslep]

You pointed out that Russia would not back down.

"We will not back down", or something like it, is a cliche from blow hard totalitarians. I'm pretty sure some googling will reveal something similar from Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Gaddafi, etc.

 

[Astronuc]

I think 2017 would be a good year for a peoples' revolution in Russia - fitting for a 100 year anniversary - but this time it should be the people, nonviolently through the right to vote for a representative government, rather than an oligarch.

Kasparov - "Putin is the problem"
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-12-17/garry-kasparov-i-see-no-exit-strategy-for-vladimir-putin

 

[Borg]

Parliament votes to repeal "nonalignment" policy.

The Parliament, firmly controlled by a pro-Western majority, voted overwhelmingly 303 to 8, to repeal a 2010 law that codified a policy of “nonalignment,” and to instead pursue closer military and strategic ties with the West.

Reminds me of this. :)

 

[Czcibor]

Paradoxically, I'd would not put too much attention to that voting. From practical perspective Ukraine is lost for Russia from a while, presumably from the moment when little green men infested Crimea.

As more interesting, one of allies of Moscow (Kazkhstan) decided to sell coal to Ukraine:
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/241252.html
And their president proclaimed that officially before official meeting in Moscow with Putin. Don't he get it that Russia haven't sent its mercs to coal mines in Donbass, to let her ally undermine whole offensive? ;)

From good news for Putin it seems that ruble strengthened.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-central-bank-stepped-in-to-support-ruble-1419321261

However it seems through central bank offensive, plus forcing gov owned companies and oligarchs to sell their foreign currencies.

 

[Czcibor]

There seem to be serious energy problems in Ukraine, including blackouts. (I quote article because of accesibility problems)

Gas in Ukraine

On another front
Ukraine needs energy reform to fix the economy and weaken Russia’s grip

GAS is flowing again from Russia to Ukraine, but blackouts have hit factories and homes. Ukraine’s prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, says Ukraine’s independence is compromised by its energy dependence on Russia. Mykhailo Gonchar of the Centre for Global Studies in Kiev claims that in its battle in Ukraine, Russia has opened an energy front where it has big advantages—thanks to Ukraine’s own failings.

Until the 1970s Ukraine powered the Soviet Union. But since independence in 1991, inefficiency and falling production have left it reliant on Russia. The problems are crystallised in Naftogaz, a state-controlled gas giant with a bigger budget deficit than Ukraine. Ukraine has spent $6.4 billion keeping the company afloat this year, much of it going to Russia’s Gazprom.

After Naftogaz was created in 1998, it soon became a fount of corruption. Artificially low prices and patchy metering offer ample pickings. Opaque finances and central control over extraction, transport, storage and sales allow rent-seekers to act with impunity. Yevgeny Bakulin, who led Naftogaz under President Viktor Yanukovych, is under investigation for corruption. Yet he has won a seat in parliament for the Opposition Bloc led by Yuri Boiko, another former Naftogaz official.

The new energy officials, including Naftogaz’s 36-year-old boss, Andriy Kobolev, are an improvement. Mr Kobolev is opening up the company’s books. He has secured reverse-flow supplies from Slovakia, a deal for imports from Norway and an international loan to refurbish ageing pipelines. But Ukraine’s energy oligarchs will complain, and some wonder if Mr Kobolev has the strength to take them on.

Prices need to be raised to market levels, with subsidies only for the neediest. Energy conglomerates, including Naftogaz, must be broken up. Ukraine has to do this both to balance its budget and as a member of the European Energy Community treaty. Mr Kobolev argues for shock therapy. “It’s better to cut off the dog’s tail all at once,” he says. This requires politicians to be “brave enough” to deliver unpleasant news, which Mr Yatsenyuk promises to do.

Yet Mr Yatsenyuk has ducked hard decisions on energy. Inflation ate up an initial price increase demanded by the IMF. Rather than putting up prices again, Ukraine pushed up taxes on private producers. Mr Yatsenyuk told big manufacturers to purchase gas exclusively from Naftogaz, strengthening its monopoly under the pretext of increasing revenue. “They robbed Peter to pay Putin,” says one foreign diplomat, saying this amounts to “two own goals in a game they can’t afford to lose.” A third was a plan to import coal from South Africa. The deal, meant to offset disruption in supplies from eastern Ukraine, ended in another scandal over the coal’s quality.

With separatists in Ukraine’s east controlling the biggest coal mines, Ukraine has been forced to buy coal and electricity directly from Russia. Otherwise power shortages could have been devastating, a fact Russia underlined by holding up a coal train at the border. Ukraine’s new energy minister, Volodymyr Demchishin, is hoping to retrieve coal from storehouses in the besieged city of Debaltseve.

Meanwhile Ukraine could raise output at its nuclear power stations—if they are safe. An emergency shutdown knocked out a plant in southern Ukraine last month, awakening ghosts of Chernobyl. Worse, Ukraine imports most nuclear fuel from Russia, despite increased co-operation with Westinghouse, an American firm. And Ukraine relies on Russia to store nuclear waste. As Mr Gonchar notes, with so many pressure points, the Kremlin does not need troops to “strangle Kiev”.

http://www.economist.com/news/europ...economy-and-weaken-russias-grip-another-front

 

[Astronuc]

Outraging Russia, Ukraine takes big step toward NATO
http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-parliament-takes-historic-step-toward-nato-102848451.html

Kiev (AFP) - Ukraine took a historic step toward NATO on Tuesday in a parliamentary vote that stoked Russia's anger ahead of talks on ending the ex-Soviet state's separatist war.

Lawmakers in the government-controlled chamber overwhelmingly adopted a bill dropping Ukraine's non-aligned status -- a classification assumed by states that refuse to join military alliances and thus play no part in wars.
. . . . .

 

[Czcibor]

That misrepresents, to put this mildly, the original report by TASS: http://tass.ru/en/russia/765766

So, not "Russia's railway authorities", but merely a train operator. That report was followed by another:

http://tass.ru/en/world/765988

It seems to be quite popular business strategy nowadays because Ukrainian Railways canceled their connections with Crimea.
https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraine-cuts-power-cancels-trains-to-crimea-376191.html

Anyway, how is going bridge building that Putin promised when he annexed this peninsula? :D

Visa and Mastercard also canceled their service for Crimea because of US sanctions:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/26/russia-crisis-visa-crimea-idUSL6N0UA0XJ20141226

 

[Evo]

Sorry, had to do a clean up.

 

[Czcibor]

Alexander Bednov "Batman", one of those so "separatist" leaders was assassinated by different group of "separatists".

"Kremlin-backed Plotnitsky began eliminating pro-Russian commanders of Lugansk People's Republic. First one to go was Col. Alexander Bednov who was assassinated today along with his fighters. According to the remaining members of the GBR "Batman" unit, the next in the target list are commanders Dremov"


(Event seems to be neglected in English language part of internet, I can give links to mainstream Polish newspapers, if anyone wants properly respectable source and use google translate)Because of lack of answer concerning the bridge, I had to look it up:

"A government official told journalists in late August that the general contractor would be the Stoytransgaz company. An announcement on the project’s website later confirmed that a general contractor would be chosen without open bidding.

Recently, however, a new rumor has surfaced: that Stroytransgaz could end up being the subcontractor and that the general contractor will be the Federal Agency for Special Construction. The new scenario, should it prove to be true, may actually work out better for Stroytransgaz. Major Russian construction companies have in large part been wary of the high-profile Kerch Strait, which they see as a potential liability."

"Plans as they currently stand call for the bridge to be built by 2018, with a total budget of around $5.3 billion."

http://www.worldcrunch.com/business...ympics-bridge-building/c2s17373/#.VKg8Bc3d9wA

Amnesty International accuses pro-Ukrainian volunteers of blocking humanitarian aid:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/eastern-ukraine-humanitarian-disaster-looms-food-aid-blocked-2014-12-23
(AI seems to "forget" in whole article from where the aid come from and why Ukrainians can not thank Russians for their blockade in exactly the same way)

Opinion: OK so Putin conquered that but it seems that he is unwilling to actually maintain what he just conquered.

 

[mheslep]

A "Kremlin-backed Plotnitsky began eliminating pro-Russian commanders of Lugansk People's Republic. First one to go was Col. Alexander Bednov who was assassinated today along with his fighters. According to the remaining members of the GBR "Batman" unit, the next in the target list are commanders Dremov"

Is that a Soviet communist party star on the hat of that soldier standing behind the commander?

 

[nikkkom]

http://www.newyorker.com/?p=2944383

This may be a bit off-topic, but I found this article on current political situation in Russia informative.

 

[nikkkom]

"At the frontline, near Donetsk, a volunteer from the "Crimea" company shares an uneasy history of Ukrainian Muslims and of their battle for acceptance in the war in Eastern Ukraine."

 

[nikkkom]

Separatists unload weapons (likely MLRS rockets) from a truck. You can take a guess where the truck came from. Mars, probably, because Russia absolutely denies supplying them.

No translation, unfortunately. They are saying "these are New Year gifts for Poroshenko, Yulia-jerk,... for Senya [Arseniy Yatsnuk]...".

 

[nikkkom]

A "separatist" unit which consists mostly of... Chechens (so much for "it's only locals fighting there"), arrived to Donetsk from Krasnodon (a smaller Donbass town) and demand that a soldier from another separatist unit is given to them to be executed. They say he has killed one of their men two days ago.

 

[Czcibor]

Seems like big propaganda victory for Russian mercenaries, after heavy fight they captured ruins of Donetsk airport.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ked-separatists-seize-donetsk-airport-ukraine

(nice result for a cease fire)

 

[nikkkom]

Seems like big propaganda victory for Russian mercenaries, after heavy fight they captured ruins of Donetsk airport.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ked-separatists-seize-donetsk-airport-ukraine

This location become a somewhat ridiculous "symbolic" battle. The airport had two large buildings, a tower, and a number of auxiliaries. And due to particulars of surrounding terrain, all resupply routes to it are under separatists' fire. It's a salient of sorts.

But it so happened that it was held by well-prepared troops, including volunteer battalions, so separatists had a few humiliating defeats there trying to storm it. And it become sort of a legend, all "war junkies" now want to be there, or at least want to be on artillery positions which cover it, or tank regiments which also cover it.

By now both buildings are extremely heavily damaged. The tower has finally collapsed two days ago. Both of them, being complex, large, 3-4 story buildings, already had seen both sides occupying parts of them at one point of another.

I'd prefer this particular silliness to stop, but it seems impossible by now to convince some people that these ruins aren't worth fighting for - the people do die there every day. Yesterday there were reports of 240mm mortars being used by separatists - that's big stuff. And "Pions", Ukrainian self-propelled 203mm howitzers, are there.

Last reports I read were that today's shelling was mad, and Ukrainians again lost more than half of the complex (2 dead, 7 wounded), but they claim they counterattacked again.

I'd be quite skeptical of such claims... but this did happen in the past, not once, but about three times in last few months. Need to wait for more info.

 

[nikkkom]

If you have read about Grad shelling which hit very close to a bus and killed about a dozen civilians, this is the best available video on youtube. Russians claim that "ukrainian nazis did it with a claymore". Sigh...

 

[nikkkom]

A few days ago there was a bit of fuss about new uniform of Russian Post (national postal operator). I didn't think about it much (it could be a fake), but now the story got confirmed and moreover, it become clear why they decided to change the uniform in the first place.

The old uniform was in yellow-blue, which is similar to Ukrainian flag (see picture).

Can't have that. So, the new uniform is...

 

[nikkkom]

Donetsk airport facts.

Google search for its images:
https://www.google.com/search?q=донецкий+аэропорт&tbm=isch

Google maps link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0679412,37.7403702,1687m/data=!3m1!1e3
"New Terminal" is a big rectangular building with five passenger bridges. Old terminal is the next building to the East (right).
The tower is a circular structure West-west-north from terminals.

South face of New Terminal before fighting:

The same location, as it looked 2-3 months ago:

Tower in late November:

It finally fell this week.

 

[nikkkom]

Drone video from 2015-01-15
Drone comes from the West, files over new terminal, then there is scene change, after which it apparently flies from East to West, over old terminal, then new one, then flies to the location of destroyed tower.

 

[mheslep]

A few days ago there was a bit of fuss about new uniform of Russian Post (national postal operator). I didn't think about it much (it could be a fake), but now the story got confirmed and moreover, it become clear why they decided to change the uniform in the first place.

The old uniform was in yellow-blue, which is similar to Ukrainian flag (see picture).

Striking resemblance to Nazi SS uniforms. Oblivious postal volk?

 

[lisab]

Donetsk airport facts.

Google search for its images:
https://www.google.com/search?q=донецкий+аэропорт&tbm=isch

Google maps link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0679412,37.7403702,1687m/data=!3m1!1e3
"New Terminal" is a big rectangular building with five passenger bridges. Old terminal is the next building to the East (right).
The tower is a circular structure West-west-north from terminals.

South face of New Terminal before fighting:
View attachment 77763
The same location, as it looked 2-3 months ago:
View attachment 77764

Tower in late November:
View attachment 77765
It finally fell this week.

Whew, that tower looks like it's made of Jenga blocks!

 

[mheslep]

That air control tower was likely hit by tank fire, maybe infantry carried missiles. I don't think indirect fire weapons would do that to a steel reinforced concrete tower. The point being, do the Russians have tanks that far in Ukraine (~100 miles)?

 

[nikkkom]

That air control tower was likely hit by tank fire, maybe infantry carried missiles. I don't think indirect fire weapons would do that to a steel reinforced concrete tower. The point being, do the Russians have tanks that far in Ukraine (~100 miles)?

Here's a video from July 2014 where they already use tanks:



Now (January 2015) tanks are routinely in use. Here is a December video with five tanks at once.



Column of six tanks in November:



Six tanks and about a dozen artillery pieces:



You thought Ukrainians are exaggerating when they say it's a full-blown undeclared war?

 

[nikkkom]

As to "what hit the tower": it's not a secret: