2022: The year the world returns to war?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Putin prevents it. You'd have to get rid of Putin. And since you get do it through elections, your hope is lost. Do you accept you live in a dictatorship?

Not really. Russia is practically a monarchy. You can't change or elect a king that is Putin. Otherwise it's alright. For average citizen Russia is arguably less of a "police state" than USA. I have had some interactions with Moscow police, albeit not as a suspect, and they are cool.

[Pointman]

This thing is also interesting about how USA "promotes democracy and human rights":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

[JoseCuervo]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Yanukovich was elected by people of Ukraine. Toppling an elected president can not be framed as "democracy winning". The moment you say it's ok to illegally topple an elected president because he is corrupt or in any other way "bad", you pretty much admit that democracy doesn't work. If you believe in democracy, Ukrainians could elect a better leader next time. That guy, unlike Putin, wasn't trying to change constitution to rule forever or anything like that.

Sham elections don’t count as being elected in my books, but please enough with your whataboutism hijacking this thread.

Back to the topic at hand, CBS is reporting Russian troops have received their orders to invade. This nightmare seems like it is about to begin.

[Language]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Yanukovich was elected by people of Ukraine. Toppling an elected president can not be framed as "democracy winning". The moment you say it's ok to illegally topple an elected president because he is corrupt or in any other way "bad", you pretty much admit that democracy doesn't work. If you believe in democracy, Ukrainians could elect a better leader next time. That guy, unlike Putin, wasn't trying to change constitution to rule forever or anything like that.

Yanukovitch was a legitimate president, until the day he decided that the best way to break up large, peaceful protests, was to fire live rounds and start murdering his own people.

At that point he went from legitimate and democratically elected, to a tyrant. A coup is typically defined by a military overthrow. That was not the case at all here. It was the free will of people. Even Putin basically realized it was game over for him when he helped Yanukovitch escape in the middle of the night and gave him exile in Russia with everything he stole.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Pointman

For average citizen Russia is arguably less of a "police state" than USA.

*the average straight Russian

Being gay seems less awesome

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Ducay

You're right, but I suppose my main confusion is around why some western power just doesn't go and get themselves involved? Like realistically, Russia isn't dumb enough to get itself in a war with the West, not even Putin is that dumb. So basically all you have to do is call his bluff and post troops up there and Putin's hands are tied.

Because again, no one wants to take even a small chance of being dragged into a huge war just to protect Ukraine. Sure, Russia would probably be deterred and stand down. Or they might view a Western power's troops on their border as an existential threat that needs to be responded to. How do you think the United States would feel if China sent troops to the US border in Mexico?

You can't assume that rationality or self-preservation will 100% win out in these situations in the face of significant escalation. If that were true, then virtually no wars would ever happen to begin with.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Not really. Russia is practically a monarchy. You can't change or elect a king that is Putin. Otherwise it's alright. For average citizen Russia is arguably less of a "police state" than USA. I have had some interactions with Moscow police, albeit not as a suspect, and they are cool.

Ya, if 'average' means straight and not a critic of Putin.

[JoseCuervo]

Originally Posted by Language

Yanukovitch was a legitimate president, until the day he decided that the best way to break up large, peaceful protests, was to fire live rounds and start murdering his own people.

At that point he went from legitimate and democratically elected, to a tyrant. A coup is typically defined by a military overthrow. That was not the case at all here. It was the free will of people. Even Putin basically realized it was game over for him when he helped Yanukovitch escape in the middle of the night and gave him exile in Russia with everything he stole.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just like Putin, he was not democratically elected. When there is one name on the ballot, or opposition ballots are being thrown out, that is not democratically elected. That is called a sham election, and Russia and their subject countries have been holding them for decades. See Trump “Stolen election” but in reality.

US intelligence saying we are hours away now…

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I believe it was almost entirely about two factors:

1. Ensure that Russia keeps its strategic naval base in Sevastopol
2. Posing a hard tough response to what we perceived as a western-backed coup.

Looking back at it, I would rather have it never happened.
We didn't seem to gain much by it and strain with the west hurt us. Annexing is also such an outdated thing to do, it should be banned really.

On the other hand though Crimea is really Russian region and should have been Russian all the way. It was like if Canadian's PM would declare that from now on Nova Scotia is a part of Quebec. And then some 50 years later Quebec decides to become independent. I guess, Canada would be like "Ok guys, you can go live as an independent country if you so wish, but you gotta give Nova Scotia back to Canada really".

Why did the Soviet Union transfer Crimea to Ukraine in the first place? Was it just because the infrastructure and geography made it easier to administer the region from Kyiv?

I know right now, they have issues with water because Ukraine controls the flow of water into Crimea. I also heard that a lot of the businesses struggle there now, especially the tourist related ones because they relied on direct connections to Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

I mean, I kind of get Russia's de jure claim to Crimea. If I was the modern Russian government, I wouldn't want to own the decisions of the Soviet government. Does the current Russian government claim to be a successor of the Soviet Union though? If they do, they should have to inherit those choices as well.

[FurnaceFace]

Pointman (or others with in depth knowledge), do you think the intent or endgame here to gain some land? Is there anything strategic in say the Sea of Azov worth fighting over to keep Donetsk et al? If Ukraine said “you want it? Fine. Russia you can have it and in return you back off and agree to go no further.” Even if a Ukraine agreed to remain neutral I don’t see how any of this really helps Russia a lot. Russia are still stuck in the Black see with no true open ocean access. I guess now it might be easier to sneak subs through the Bosporus but I would imagine they were already able to do that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Pointman (or others with in depth knowledge), do you think the intent or endgame here to gain some land? Is there anything strategic in say the Sea of Azov worth fighting over to keep Donetsk et al? If Ukraine said “you want it? Fine. Russia you can have it and in return you back off and agree to go no further.” Even if a Ukraine agreed to remain neutral I don’t see how any of this really helps Russia a lot. Russia are still stuck in the Black see with no true open ocean access. I guess now it might be easier to sneak subs through the Bosporus but I would imagine they were already able to do that.

I think they tried this with Czechoslovakia one time.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Why did the Soviet Union transfer Crimea to Ukraine in the first place? Was it just because the infrastructure and geography made it easier to administer the region from Kyiv?

I know right now, they have issues with water because Ukraine controls the flow of water into Crimea. I also heard that a lot of the businesses struggle there now, especially the tourist related ones because they relied on direct connections to Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

I mean, I kind of get Russia's de jure claim to Crimea. If I was the modern Russian government, I wouldn't want to own the decisions of the Soviet government. Does the current Russian government claim to be a successor of the Soviet Union though? If they do, they should have to inherit those choices as well.

I'd imagine businesses in Crimea are struggling because of the sanctions. Tons of countries don't allow business with that area since Russia seized it.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by JoseCuervo

Just like Putin, he was not democratically elected. When there is one name on the ballot, or opposition ballots are being thrown out, that is not democratically elected. That is called a sham election, and Russia and their subject countries have been holding them for decades. See Trump “Stolen election” but in reality.

US intelligence saying we are hours away now…

Hours later there's still nothing.

Ironically, both Biden and Putin want the same here: they want the supposed invasion look more possible than it really is. Biden wants to bring as many leaders as he can into the "invasion is imminent, we are on a brink of a massive war, let's all get together and stop Putin". Putin, in turn, also wants the invasion to look imminent and potentially catastrophic, so that the west would give Russia security guarantees they wanted all the way. For all the direness of the situation, there's way out. Biden wants to look like a peace-saving diplomatic wizard who stopped Europe from nightmarish war. Putin wants to look like a guy who made a tough posture and secured guarantees for his country. Win-win.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'd imagine businesses in Crimea are struggling because of the sanctions. Tons of countries don't allow business with that area since Russia seized it.

Yeah, that is probably a major issue and probably the number one thing.

I watched a Vice video about Crimea and they asked some ethnic Russians in Crimea their opinion, and all the average people on the street liked being unified with Russia. But the business owners on the other hand had mixed feelings and said their businesses relied on tourists with Ukraine. Some supported unification with Russia but now regret it. Crimea was a popular tourist destination for people from Russia during the Soviet days, but not so much now. Russians are more likely to travel to Turkey or Greece than to Crimea. The Crimean economy was dependent on internal visitors from Ukraine and Russians haven't filled that gap yet.

It just seems like for economic and logistical purposes, it made sense for Crimea to be in Ukraine, but for some people, nationalism trumps practicality.

[Pointman]

Putin has just said, that the biggest danger about Ukraine joining NATO is that Ukraine would try to take Crimea back, which would lead to an all out NATO-Russia war.

This actually shows some way forward. It seems - only my guess at this point - the they are discussing a trade along these lines:

Russia pulls troops back, allows Ukraine to join NATO in some future
West and Ukraine recognize Crimea as Russian, drop sanctions

Some guarantees about not putting nuclear missiles near Russia may also be in discussion.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Pointman (or others with in depth knowledge), do you think the intent or endgame here to gain some land? Is there anything strategic in say the Sea of Azov worth fighting over to keep Donetsk et al? If Ukraine said “you want it? Fine. Russia you can have it and in return you back off and agree to go no further.” Even if a Ukraine agreed to remain neutral I don’t see how any of this really helps Russia a lot. Russia are still stuck in the Black see with no true open ocean access. I guess now it might be easier to sneak subs through the Bosporus but I would imagine they were already able to do that.

Gaining land doesn't seem like a Russian goal here. Except for forcing the West to recognize Crimea as Russian. Those lands are no big deal basically. Territory is not that important in XXI century. Rebels lands are shelled and will need billions in investments before becoming useful. There's some coal down there, but coal is not a game changer these days. Russia doesn't really stand to gain much from invasion itself. Medvedev speaks now in Russian media and he says that with Georgian war in 2008 Russia has shown NATO that we are no pushovers. That's I believe the goal now as well. Russia is trying to show NATO off and get some guarantees. End goal is probably recognition of Crimea and something about Ukraine being missile-free and/or nuclear-free. Seems like banning Ukraine from entering NATO was an opening diplomatic gambit for Putin with a plan to drop this demand in return for recognizing Crimea. I could be wrong though. It's very fluid situation with late night talks, few leaks and tonnes of disinformation

[Pointman]

Putin just said he will "make a decision on whether or not he will recognize rebel republics" today. This would give Russia a somewhat legal ground to intervene if Ukraine advances in rebel republics. Next step is probably rebel leaders ask for military protection. Then Russia may or may not enter rebels territory. This still could be postering though. It's understood that not much is actually happening on the ground now.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Putin just said he will "make a decision on whether or not he will recognize rebel republics" today. This would give Russia a somewhat legal ground to intervene if Ukraine advances in rebel republics. Next step is probably rebel leaders ask for military protection. Then Russia may or may not enter rebels territory. This still could be postering though. It's understood that not much is actually happening on the ground now.

Confirmed by AP:

Russian President Vladimir Putin convened top officials Monday to consider recognizing the independence of separatist regions in eastern Ukraine, a move that would ratchet up tensions with the West amid fears that the Kremlin could launch an invasion of Ukraine imminently.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/putin-m...ions-1.5789456

[Pointman]

Russian media and officials are framing it as Ukraine is poised to invade rebel republics and the only way to stop a massacre is to recognize their independence and thus deter Ukraine from invasion.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Russian media and officials are framing it as Ukraine is poised to invade rebel republics and the only way to stop a massacre is to recognize their independence and thus deter Ukraine from invasion.

Deter Ukraine from invading their own country? Quite a reality Putin is crafting...