Russian soldiers in Crimea?

[Chronicled]

I think you're wrong, Blaxican.
Perhaps not militaristic support, but I do believe that China would supply Russia. We don't need that one bit.

To reiterate the smart-assery of Pros. You're all a bunch of Russophobic idiots. This isn't going to be WWIII. This is the 21st century, and I doubt that any current modernized countries are willing to spark that kind of a conflict. Nobody 'wants' a world war, and I don't believe that any body is 'willing' to take it that far.

 

[Blaxican]

What does China have to supply Russia with in a military engagement if not military aid? Bargain bin dixie cups and television sets? China isn't known for its arms manufacturing.

 

[Horizon]

Bargain bin dixie cups and television sets?

Ohhh my god, hahaha.

 

[Insanity]

To add: Most Chinese armaments are imported to them by Russia, which is, and likely will be for some time, one of the largest arms-dealing and producing countries on the globe.

The best China can do is support Russia financially, but they'd avoid it if they could for a lot of economic reasons.

 

[BLADE]

​

The Ukraine has never, ever, EVER been remotely important enough to Western considerations to justify military intervention. Any such intervention would likely result in a nuclear exchange (the Soviet nomenklatura and people like the RAND Corporation came to the same conclusion back during the cold war.) And frankly, we'll make this a Cold War only if we're stupid. The Ukraine is a shitty and unimportant country (see: the Soviet Sphere.)

In a perfect world would I support unlimited rights of democratic self-determination? Sure. In the perfect world, I'm living in a Bohemian Sex Castle with my wife and Lucy Liu

But no one gives a shit. And even when people legitimately give a shit, the old structures pretty much make the Great Powers (particularly those on the Security Council) largely immune to sanctions and backlash. I mean, remember how the rest of the civilized world cut off America's molydebnum and Doritos™ Muchos Loco Nacho Cheese supply because we too invaded a country on jumped-up pretext? Oh wait.

Might, as we know it, makes right, and we have way more interests in common with the Russians --particularly as regards security and stability in Central Asia-- then we do in whether the very academic question of Kievan Rus (the historic cradle of Ukraine) is brought to heel under the Russian boot because their leaders are corrupt and/or stupid.

And that's the worst-case scenario. Annexing all of the Ukraine would be a huge fiscal drain. The Russians want their will taken seriously in that country, as well as control over Crimea. They've basically achieved this, and there's very little we can do (short of whinging) to change the calculus on the ground.

Christ it pisses me off when we have these idiotic tangents about how the wars of the FUTYOOR with the Russkies would somehow involve the Chinese (who by the way now have the world's third largest arms consortium) because something something WOLVERINES.

Grow up, people. Life isn't a Tom Clancy novel. We'll still be dealing (and on some issues cozy) with the Russians. The Ukrainians will probably have to eat a bunch of shit sandwiches, and the Europeans for all their talk about human rights are way too dependent on Russian gas to do jack shit.

 

[Livgardist]

Pipe down, Prospero. The Russophobics are talking.

 

[BLADE]

Oh you mean circlejerking about shit that ain't gonna happen? Why not discuss the material geopolitical impact of Transformers in a post 9-11 World? After all, the Autobots seem to work with the American government, and given their capability, they'd shift the balance of power even more decisively towards the West, wouldn't they. Or do you think Putin would ally with the Decepticons? Surely he and Megatron would have some killer photo-ops together (shirtless and straddling an endangered Siberian Tiger, natch.)

I reiterate. Most of you (except for Blaxican, because he's my favorite and can do no wrong) are doing a disservice to the seriousness of this topic by your incredible ignorance and your eau d'brotosterone.

Seriously? How the **** do we even get on the incredibly insane notion of going to war with Russia. As in has-over-five-thousand-nuclear-warheads-Russia? Look, it's fine if you want to make threads about a hypothetical war with Russia. Knock yourselves out. But actually abiding by some standards of rigor for this thread would presume at least an attempt to speak with some knowledge on the Ukraine.

The closest we've had to that was when someone --I believe it was Vulpes-- suggested a partition. And that might be what de facto happens, if the Russians play it smart and just take Crimea and the Donetsk Corridor.

 

[jpchewy01]

This is purely etymological but could you please stop referring to it as "The" Ukraine? It's just Ukraine.

 

[Blaxican]

I think its fun to talk about hypothetical bullshit. Why not?

But I don't want to give our friend Prospero a massive heartattack, so lets change the subject.

I heard Justin Bieber may have done something dumb between now and last time he did something dumb. What's your opinion on that, Prospero?

 

[BLADE]

I'd disagree. The usage of the Ukraine refers to it as more of a region rather than a defined and cohesive nation-state (which by definition it is not at this point.) It's a political choice to refer it to it as Ukraine --a Nationalist one-- and I am neither Pro-Ukrainian nor Pro-Russian in this particular conflict.

@Bieber: I think it likely that he will learn from this dumb thing that he did until he does the next dumb thing he'll do. But with more coke.

 

[Blaxican]

*sagenod*

I think Justin Bieber will take over Ukraine and start a war with Russia.

 

[BLADE]

Russian Bieber imports most of his lyrics though.

 

[jpchewy01]

I'd disagree. The usage of the Ukraine refers to it as more of a region rather than a defined and cohesive nation-state (which by definition it is not at this point.) It's a political choice to refer it to it as Ukraine --a Nationalist one-- and I am neither Pro-Ukrainian nor Pro-Russian in this particular conflict.

What would Pro-Russian Prospero say that's different from what neutral Prospero is saying? Corrupt as Tymoshenko may be, the Ukrainians have a right to self-determination, just as the Chechnyans do. While I don't think we (the West) should get involved--it's a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, after all--I do stand in solidarity with their rights.

 

[BLADE]

Pro-Russian Prospero would point out that Russia has as much of a nationalistic claim to the entire Ukraine --never mind just Crimea-- as any fictitious concept of a nation of Ukraine --a subset of Slavs with only a marginally different dialect than Russians (see morphemes, etc.)-- given both Russia's historical mission, as well as the history of the region (Kievan Rus, again, was not independent for very long and has long since been part of the Russian Empire.) The principle of Uti possidetis therefore applies, as proleptic as it might be because the very concept of Nationalism itself is barbaric and tribal. Yes we dress it up in the fine linens and silks of self-determination, but it's more or less about tribal purity and hegemonic cultural nonsense. In this case, the competing rights are nullified and only military force can necessarily decide what the proper claim to honor here is. Or more or less what is playing out in real life.

Pro-Ukrainian Prospero might counter that Nationalism itself has often been a mutable force. It has been republican, fascist, peaceful, secular, theocratic, etc. and that furthermore the injustices the Ukraine suffered (and its various component oblasti) during the Soviet Years constitute a priori a Hobbesian contract revokal, in which any prior Russian claim is invalidated --furthermore an invalidated claim which Russia previously agreed to. This would rely on more modern concepts like international law and proportionality claims, but the basis of Nationalism and the rather barbaric and unnatural tendency to taxonomize humanity into neat little ethnogroups is still paramount.

As you can tell I find neither of these arguments convincing. What I have laid out however, is that from a rather dispassionate point of view, the Ukraine is divided. Russia has the initiative (even in the D&D sense), the military power, the leverage, etc. and a clearer strategic calculus than the Ukraine, which is to maintain its warm water ports in the Black Sea. That's reality. Nothing we can do (and yes solidarity is fine) is going to change that, unless the Ukrainians are much cleverer than they have historically been, and the Russians more forbearing.

Hope does not spring eternal in the Kremlin.

 

[Ben]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/ukraine-crisis-russian-troops-crimea-john-kerry-kiev

Don't know if this has been brought up yet, but looks like Russia has fired warning shots.

Some guy in my office is convinced America is going to 'keep prodding' (his words) and things are going to go off. I disagree.

 

[Livgardist]

Some Stratfor take on it.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/ukra...0140304&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore

 

[Ben]

Mo' links:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/04/ukraine-russia-crisis/6002817/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...3d1922-a174-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

 

[BLADE]

Some Stratfor take on it.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/ukra...0140304&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore

Pro-tip: if you want the establishment take on intelligence, try Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, or The Statesman. The main problem with Stratfor is its penchant for insider trading/fraud as well as its uneven competence. Their articles in Hebrew (which I can read) are basically run through Google Translate, and their take on granular Middle East and European issues (to say nothing of their weird Mono-Confucian take on the Far East) is pretty lacking. With that being said, they do occasionally post good articles. But my legitimate advice? Grain of salt. Their writing is very uneven.

Which brings me to this one. It makes a lot of presumptions like that Russia (always a prisonhouse of nationalities) is going to break up anytime soon (barring unforeseen events of course), and that the Russians are going to necessarily come in conflict over all of the former Sovietsphere. Not all of these are necessarily inaccurate, but they do lack some edifying context.

Putin is an unreconstructed Tsarist, but he's not stupid, nor will his successors be. Russia does not and cannot have its entire former sphere back. But it will use leverage at the margins to get things it needs, like access to Crimea, localized supremacy/an accord with Turkey in the Caucuses, access to sundry resources in Central Asia, and respite from China in the East.

The Russians have already historically tried buffer zones, but their demographics are disastrous (shrinking and aging population, horrible life expectancy, ethnic diversity that makes for irredentist nationalism) and they won't be able to impose a political settlement on their former satellites (except perhaps a few which are naturally bound to Russia, like Belarus and Ukraine) and as climate change chokes off the Chinese in the East, they'll face a tremendous challenge as China looks for the newly fertile or at least livable lands in Trans-Siberia and past the Urals.

Frankly, it's in both Europe and Russia's best interests to come to some sort of reconciliation. I always thought it was a missed opportunity in the 90s when we did not integrate Russia into the EU and NATO. Given their experience with "westernization" and the chaos and suffering that followed, it's hard to totally blame the Russians for their suspicions vis-a-vis the West. At the same time, the former satellites also have good reason to be wary as does Europe as a whole.

I'm not sure we're in for Cold War Deux, particularly because that requires the sort of strategic commitment and attention which is fairly untenable in today's world. But we're probably in for some frustrating stalemate. It should be noted, however, that the status quo still more or less favors the West. The Russian sphere is shrunken, their economic options are about resource extraction --which as anyone from Ricardo to Cimoli to Stiglitz can tell you is not in the best interests of overall technical development--, and climate change will put more pressures on the Russians than it will on the US (and to a lesser extent the wealthier parts of Europe.)

As a neutral party who hopes for a settlement, in my ideal world we'd eventually reconcile Eastern Europe and Russia and integrate them into a transcontinental alliance and economic arrangement. We'll see. So much can happen, both externally and internally (Putin is not eternal, and God only knows who'll succeed him) as regards the salient factors that at times it's not very useful to speculate (particularly when, as regards stuff like climate change you'll just depress yourself.)

 

[Intratec]

http://imgur.com/gallery/Vhgb4ay

Hate me all you want. But that's how it feels for me when I read the stuff concerning Crimea, Putin and Obama.

 

[jpchewy01]

We do them a disservice by trying to turn this situation into a shitty (granted they're all shitty) Tom Clancy novel.

What are you talking about Pros? Obviously we're all living in Tom Clancy's Ghost Team Prospero: Rainbow Cell Shadow Agent Splinter Ops, A Jack Ryan Adventure! It's the exciting new novel where Communists devise a scheme to steal plans that need to be explained in layman terms for ransom under the watchful eye of corrupt US diplomats. The plot twists when the Communists hijack a shipment of nuclear warheads even after their demands are met, unless a rookie CIA agent eager to prove his worth can overcome his brooding self-doubt and stop the Communists once and for all. The movie ends with a mildly comical and/or ironic scene in which the Communists blow up or go to prison. Another satisfying tale of political intrigue and personal redemption closes, and we all walk away from this book a little wiser.