Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anewaname]

That was an excellent outline of how the Ottoman's would have used the divisions. I'm not going to argue that, but please note that I was saying the Ottoman's "didn't want chaos"... Regional rulers needed to pay taxes upstream and chaos means people are not farming.

I also didn't try to say all the stuff that happened around the world was the white-man's-whatever-the-meme-is. That was Lord Shonus. I'm quite capable of seeing people of any color as coercive, branding/enslaving, and genocidal murderers. People don't just do what "the white man" tells them, they look at the whatever-color guy who has a weapon in one hand and a payout in the other, and they make a choice. That method has worked on most men, poor or wealthy, throughout history.

The events that happened in Iran and Iraq, the multiple government overthrows, the UK/US involvement, etc... documented by the parties that did it. These are examples of people doing things outside of their country that would be illegal within their country. It was the start of an event chain of "assassination, retribution, and just war" activity.

I feel national pride when I see how the people who undertook Desert Storm planned and executed it.

I feel national shame for the previous series of events in Iraq and Iran that were caused by the UK/US involvement to protect British Petroleum oil assets.

part 2
The 1980's... The Cold War, the US banning sale of pipeline equipment to the USSR, the USSR construction of the brotherhood pipeline to the Hungary/Romania/Poland borders, running through the USSR's Ukraine.

The 1990's... the breakup of the USSR, the rise of the pro-capitalist Russian oilgarchs, the construction of the Yamal pipeline through Belarus to Germany's border, the use of newer tech to find more reserves in the ex-USSR's states.

The 2000's... the murders of the pro-democratic Russian oilgarchs, the nationalization of Russian oil, the construction of Nordstream. The suppression of the Ukraine and Belarus economies by their own politicians and businessmen who want to maintain the old USSR hierarchy of "Moscow first".

The 2010's... the return of the western oilgarch exploration to Ukraine to publicly prove the reserves they already knew were there. The Ukraine elections. The invasion of Crimea.

I have it in order....

The ex-USSR hierarchy didn't go away in 1991, and by 2000, it had reasserted itself and put Putin in the public eye. It had murdered off the oilgarchs that didn't submit, it kept exports centralized out of Russia to control the market to Europe, and it suppressed the economics of Belarus and Ukraine to keep them subservient to their center of power in Moscow.

Ukraine was not needed by the ex-USSR group for anything and that is why it was economically suppressed. They did not want the known reserves in Ukraine, found during the 1992 oil exploration phase after the breakup, to be piped to Europe by a Ukraine-based competitor; they had a monopoly on piped gas to Europe and wanted to keep it. That is why they invaded.

When the USSR broke up, western oilgarchs send exploration teams into Belarus/Russia/Ukraine and found deposits using newer tech. They knew about the deposits in Ukraine by 1995, but they couldn't get the political allies/strength to exploit it. The ex-USSR was regaining their control over the old USSR and the west's political allies in Russia and Ukraine were dying. Around 2010, the deposits were proved and it hit the financial market data streams.

I never said Putin wanted Ukraine for the resources, I said he wanted Ukraine to prevent a competitor to his monopoly over EU fuel imports. I went back and forth with Lord Shonus before about this same topic.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

From:Ukraine has tremendous natural resources for meeting domestic oil and gas production needs, with estimates of approximately 900 billion cubic meters of proven reserves of natural gas. In Europe, Ukraine ranks second for gas reserves. Three Ukrainian regions contain hydrocarbons resources: the Dnipro-Donetsk basin, the Carpathian region in western Ukraine, and the Black Sea and Crimea region in the south. The Dnipro-Donetsk basin is a major oil and gas producing region accounting for 90 percent of all current Ukrainian production. The structure of hydrocarbons production in Ukraine is as follows: natural gas 89 percent, oil 7.9 percent, and gas condensate 3.1 percent. The primary source of hydrocarbons in Ukraine is natural gas, though the most lucrative gas reserves are located below 5,000 meters.

It is easier to bring a public to your side by casting your enemies as feeble, deluded, and incompetent, than it is to bring a public to your side by treating your enemy in a way that would be illegal in your own country.

[jipehog]

As a realist I believe that all countries act in their rational self-interest

It is not realism, people are irrational. This means that all governments are irrational to some extent. Governments led by maniacs like Putin ARE NOT rational

Also, if you think that politicians always act only in the interest of their countries... Are you interested in some bridges?

Decisions making is always limited by what we know and our frameworks to interpret it. Trying to understand what motivates different actors is vital part of international affairs, that not to say you agree with their perspective only that you improve your chance of good outcomes, which are separate and distinct from decisions. Take USA in Iraq for example, most will agree that the outcome was poor, USA failed to achieve its objective and undermined its interests, however, hindsight aside I am not sure that the initial decision was irrational.

As I outlined before, I don't think that Putin was irrational in the lead to the war. Most actors are very rational, however, it is also politically convenient to paint the opponent as such, particularly at times of war when we tend to simplify thing into good or bad for us

[Red Diamond]

Russia likely has at least 10X more untapped resources of the same type as are found in Ukraine.  The idea that Putin invaded Ukraine for said resources is not credible given the economic costs and risks outweigh the value of said resources. 

Also you have to remember that Russia *had* Ukraine and then sat by as their ally (Yanukavich) was overthrown, choosing instead to take advantage of the chaos steal Crimea and smuggle weapons over the border to support Donbass rebels.  They did this because they ultimately have insane priorities, they hate the whole idea of an independant Ukraine and the Russian leader seeks the 'glory' of *fully* subjagating it, or as much of it as possible, but didn't succeed at that much.

They traded Ukraine for Crimea basically.  Then they came to their senses and realised they actually needed Ukraine afterall, but it was too late at that point. 

[nenjin]

Short term thinking.

[jipehog]

Russia likely has at least 10X more untapped resources of the same type as are found in Ukraine.  The idea that Putin invaded Ukraine for said resources is not credible given the economic costs and risks outweigh the value of said resources.

It is not about the quantity but about maintaining monopoly both for economic and political purposes e.g. Central Asian countries are prisoners of geography, like most former soviets republics they were heavily dependent on Russia, but unable to diversify despite having a lot of natural resources because their main export line is through Russia and anytime they push initiatives to become more independent their cashflow becomes unreliable.. There is also a theory that Russia invaded Georgia because it thought to establish alternative oil and gas line from Asia to Europe bypassing Russia (and Turkey).

That said, while economic consideration can not be neglected, it would be naive to think it is the only factor or necessarily the most important factor in any situation. I agree that economy was not the main factor in Ukraine.

[Devastator]

Russia likely has at least 10X more untapped resources of the same type as are found in Ukraine.  The idea that Putin invaded Ukraine for said resources is not credible given the economic costs and risks outweigh the value of said resources. 

Also you have to remember that Russia *had* Ukraine and then sat by as their ally (Yanukavich) was overthrown, choosing instead to take advantage of the chaos steal Crimea and smuggle weapons over the border to support Donbass rebels.  They did this because they ultimately have insane priorities, they hate the whole idea of an independant Ukraine and the Russian leader seeks the 'glory' of *fully* subjagating it, or as much of it as possible, but didn't succeed at that much.

They traded Ukraine for Crimea basically.  Then they came to their senses and realised they actually needed Ukraine afterall, but it was too late at that point.

Nah, they did a serious invasion in 2014, along with actual military troops.  A lot of their dead soldiers in this war are getting referred to medals they earned during the initial invasion in 2014, when dressed as 'seperatists'.  Wasn't border smuggling, was a full-on invasion, including a big battle inside Donetsk city itself.

It was escalating into a full-scale war, and required several rounds of Russian reinforcements, before they decided to back down and save it for later, sticking with their initial seizures.  I guess they didn't like their odds then, for whatever reason.  There was no sitting by.

[anewaname]

For perspective on what Ukraine was like after the USSR broke up, this is a report released by the U.S. Department of State in 1997 on Ukraine
Ukraine Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996
Within two pages, it mentions many political/business murders and the heavy presence of organized crime.

[bloop_bleep]

For perspective on what Ukraine was like after the USSR broke up, this is a report released by the U.S. Department of State in 1997 on Ukraine
Ukraine Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996
Within two pages, it mentions many political/business murders and the heavy presence of organized crime.

Yes. There are reasons for the various revolutions since. A leaked tape contained President Kuchma essentially admitting to murdering a journalist causing the "Ukraine without Kuchma" movement which led to the 2004 Orange Revolution which was succeeded by 2014 Euromaidan.

[jipehog]

It was escalating into a full-scale war, and required several rounds of Russian reinforcements, before they decided to back down and save it for later, sticking with their initial seizures.  I guess they didn't like their odds then, for whatever reason.  There was no sitting by.

True, Russia was involved from the start and eventually used its conventional military force. However, Russia had no plan to conquer Ukraine in 2014 (even in 2022 their goal was quick regime change) And they didn't back down from anything, they successfully achieved their goal securing Crimea, legitimizing their proxies/intervention and re-creating* political leverage over Ukraine, and distracting the international community with donbas and then syria effectivly turning this into yet another cold conflict they can slowly creep on at their leisure.

* The peace process was essentially a trojan horse, with goal of federalizing Ukraine giving Russia's proxies veto power on important decision, in the hope of restoring the leverage it has lost after the Crimean take over dissolved their popular support in the regions. Btw There is a theory that Russia has overreacted to the Revolution of Dignity, that if they did nothing, then the haphazard goverment of former opposition forces would have collapsed within a year and pro-Russia forces would be back in strength, but seemingly Putin was unwilling to take the chance involved and thought to secure Crimea which was a strategic goal for him one they were working on for long time.

[Red Diamond]

It is not about the quantity but about maintaining monopoly both for economic and political purposes e.g. Central Asian countries are prisoners of geography, like most former soviets republics they were heavily dependent on Russia, but unable to diversify despite having a lot of natural resources because their main export line is through Russia and anytime they push initiatives to become more independent their cashflow becomes unreliable.. There is also a theory that Russia invaded Georgia because it thought to establish alternative oil and gas line from Asia to Europe bypassing Russia (and Turkey).

That said, while economic consideration can not be neglected, it would be naive to think it is the only factor or necessarily the most important factor in any situation. I agree that economy was not the main factor in Ukraine.

A monopoly only makes sense within the context of a given market.  If you are the market, which Russia is, it doesn't matter if the resources are extracted in Ukraine or in Russia, while if Ukraine leaves your market (by becoming EU), your monopoly is only strengthened by the fact that a rival supplier has left. 

Russia did not invade Georgia, it chose *not* to do that.  The Georgians decided to reconquer South Ossetia, which is only part of Georgia in the legally fictional sense and the Russians defended South Ossetia.  They acted correctly (and honourably) in coming to the defense of their ally, which is miles away from the Ukraine situation where they betrayed their ally to their enemies so they could steal from their ally. 

Nah, they did a serious invasion in 2014, along with actual military troops.  A lot of their dead soldiers in this war are getting referred to medals they earned during the initial invasion in 2014, when dressed as 'seperatists'.  Wasn't border smuggling, was a full-on invasion, including a big battle inside Donetsk city itself.

It was escalating into a full-scale war, and required several rounds of Russian reinforcements, before they decided to back down and save it for later, sticking with their initial seizures.  I guess they didn't like their odds then, for whatever reason.  There was no sitting by.

Ukraine does not control Donbass at this point.  The government of Ukraine has been overthrown and the Donbass has not accepted the rule of the new government.  Since Ukrainian rule over the Donbass is fictional, so is any invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces.  Russian forces never entered any territory actually controlled by the (new) Ukrainian government, so the idea that there was a Russian invasion of Ukraine is wrong.   

What the Russians did is move some mixture of weapons and volunteer troops to support the regime that rules in Donbass.  That regime is *not* being invaded by Russians, it is being invaded by Ukrainians from a rebel government whose authority they never recognised.  Same thing happened in Crimea, but there they managed to become Russian quicker than the Ukrainians could organise an invasion so fighting was avoided. 

The presence of said volunteer troops was never a secret and still is not a secret, except in Western propoganda about 'little green men'.  What is not known is the exact contribution of said troops vs weapons, but what is clear enough is that without Russian aid the Donbass regimes would have been swiftly crushed by the Ukrainian army.  The Russians did not invade Donbass, they saved the Donbass from being conquered by Ukraine and not at all that successfully.  Legally speaking what matters is the command structure a soldier is part of, not his birthplace so it is actually irrelavant if 100% of the Donbass fighting forces were born in Russia. 

The mystery I find strange is why they did not simply ship their ally the old leader of Ukraine (Yanukavitch) into Donbass or Crimea and have him create a loyalist government there, sparking a civil war within Ukraine in which the Russians could decisively intervene on the side of their ally.  The reason for this is Crimea, if they *had* done it swiftly it enough to create a civil war then it would have become impossible to annex Crimea later on because Crimea would have ended up remaining as a minion of Yanukavitch rather than Putin. 

This is why I say they traded Ukraine for Crimea. 

[bloop_bleep]

The new government was not a "rebel government." There was no armed uprising, except by Russian-integrationists (to call them separatists is to deny their ultimate goal) propped up by the Russian regime. Yanukovich signed an agreement and then fled because his support was collapsing after he killed protestors. The parliament voted to remove the President in absentia.

[Starver]

Russia did not invade Georgia, it chose *not* to do that.  The Georgians decided to reconquer South Ossetia, which is only part of Georgia in the legally fictional sense and the Russians defended South Ossetia.

The Soviet Union created the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast in, 1922, explicitly as a part of Soviet Georgia.  (Which was a fluid but extant entity, back in the days when countries were so easily fluid, except for the time it was a member of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic/Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic - alongside Armenia+Azerbaijan.)

When the USSR dissolved, it was logical that post-Soviet Georgia retain Soviet Georgian territory (even more so than Ukraine retain Crimea, which in turn still had more reason to be entirely independent than the current effective-exclave of Russia in a move chosen just because of too much preference for a selective fragment of history). Ossetians decided unilaterally to gain independance, which is a tricky proposition (ask Catalonia, Eritrea, Scotland, etc, for various modern experiences related to this), and then ended up effectively a Russian outpost. Not sure that was the intention by the (true) Ossetian patriots, but maybe they prefer to be unofficial vassal and military stomping ground to the huge nation instead of a continuingly autonimous region of the very much smaller one (revoked only in response to the local rejection of being 'merely' autonimous). I don't know what the true mix of current opinion is, and I'm not sure Mother Russia is keen to publicise any incompatible nuances.

They acted correctly (and honourably) in coming to the defense of their ally, which is miles away from the Ukraine situation where they betrayed their ally to their enemies so they could steal from their ally.

(...I can't parse this. The first "They" is Russia, but I'm not sure the rest of the "they"s and "their"s are also Russia. Or who else 'they' might be. Which grossly changes which alliances were kept/broken in your statement. I have a feeling what you tend towards, based on the rest, but it's such a bad summary that I'm not sure at all.)

Ukraine does not control Donbass at this point.

Russia (and/or the 'independant' nations established with support by Moscow) does not control Donbass, at this point or at any point since 2014, or indeed long before. If you insist upon this definition defining who may or may not presume to control it. The leadership of Ukraine may have changed, as leaderships do, but the continuity of Ukraine (gross Russian or Russia-'sponsored' interventions aside) has every right to consider Donetsk and Luhansk still Ukrainean[1]. Armed separatism is no substitute for a more declararitive political separation (which, as indicated above, has seen its own problems) and delegitimises the move when quite obviously sponsored by the adjacent big bully of the region.

[...] so the idea that there was a Russian invasion of Ukraine is wrong.

As I think you're wrong/mistaken in much that leads up to this, I'm not sure I can support this and the rest. At best, Russia did not 'invade' until 'invited', but given the prior Russian footfall (upon land which overwhelmingly still cannot be considered legitimately non-Ukrainean, by standards of international law and convention) then even this "friendly vampire" reasoning is dodgy.

Talks of command-structure (regardless of the blood-nation of the soldiers) are interesting, given that if you follow the separatist military structures ever-upwards, you'll most definitely find your most comprehensive organogram filled with quite a few of the little boxes in the top part firmly based in Moscow, especially the one at the very top. Possibly the 'leaderships' of D/L actually feature in the middle, but I'm sure they're absent in some branches. And possibly even most, at certain stages of the process.


But this is not an issue that can be easily simplified, without ambiguity and with universal agreement. Competing perspectives will abound. And do.


[1] Not the Rostov fragment of historically-considered Donbas, though, as that has been part of Russia (republic of, soviet republic of, etc)

[jipehog]

@bloop_bleep, It is just part of the Russian justification narrative, much like the nazi stuff it is fake.

Interestingly, in 2014 two month before the Euromaidan protest even broke out, when Ukraine choose to pursue an association agreement with the EU, Putin's aid Glazyev warned Ukraine that it would be a huge mistake, warning about further economic sanctions and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. Which is exactly what spontaneously happened when the "pro-Russian" Yanukovich abdicated.

From Russian perspective, Ukraine is vital country, the largest among what it consider its sphere of influence. They have expanded a lot of effort to try to sway Ukraine to close integrate within the Russian-led Customs Union, utilizing various means of coercion, with Putin intervening personally. It is also argued that Putin was extremely unhappy about the color revolution and the message they send, that a corrupt government like his can be successfully toppled by the people.  Also Crimea is of vital strategic value, and Ukraine's only leverage over Russia.

Anyway, when Putin didn't get his way, he choose to use force to get it. Same thing happened in 1990s and in 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict

But this is not an issue that can be easily simplified, without ambiguity and with universal agreement. Competing perspectives will abound. And do.

True, though some time it is useful to simplify. I do find the map of Russian conflicts interesting, it seem that every former soviet republic within Russia sphere of influence is either cooperating with Russia or have a never ending frozen conflict within its borders giving Russia enclave to stations its "peace keeping" forces there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Soviet_conflicts#/media/File:Geopolitics_South_Russia2.png

They all seem to align with specific strategic goals as well, if it was the USA i'd wonder if they all struck oil

[Strongpoint]

[1] Not the Rostov fragment of historically-considered Donbas, though, as that has been part of Russia

Donbas is literally Donets coal Basin. The term didn't even exist until mid 19th century. It is simply not a region with unique history or home for (sub)ethnic group.

[Starver]

[1] Not the Rostov fragment of historically-considered Donbas, though, as that has been part of Russia

Donbas is literally Donets coal Basin. The term didn't even exist until mid 19th century. It is simply not a region with unique history or home for (sub)ethnic group.

Coal recognising no human boundaries, I suppose I was conflating some original geological information that I had in my head. (Must have been an old mining-related book, which I may have last read in the '80s[1]. I had to do a lot of searching to find anything as definite as that one.) It doesn't map well with the two 'Independant Republics' or any stage of Russian military holdings, so it's an awful short-cut term. But when has that ever stopped anyone.

And I'd no intention to relate to ethnicities. Too much messing about with their relative dispositions by Tsars and Soviet Leaders alike... Back as far as the 19thC is about as far as I'd be tempted to go, anyway, as countries and territories only starting to have modern expectations of constancy once things started settling down (WW1, WW2, dissolution of the Soviets and all those post-USSR incidents aside) after Napoleon...

Not the point, though, probably. I was mostly responding to the claim that the 'illegitmate' Ukrainean government had no control over Donbas, so it shouldn't be fighting to (re)control it. My reply being that "The (Ukrainean) Donbas" isn't/wasn't controlled by the current incarnation of Russia/its subsidiaries. Donbas has never been fully controlled by Russia/Russia-allied forces, Donetsk has not been, Kherson and the rest have not been. Only Luhansk has been (briefly, and no longer) entirely under actual Russian control (mid-war, and by the same push and pull of war the current situation is that it is not, and probably will be a point of determination by .ue to at the very least hold that re-incursive line). So any strange argument that current and 'continually historic' posession entirely dictates what ought to be considered a valid possession is flawed. On top of the other flaws in that post.



PS., unrelated, but I just remembered that I was going to mention this, in passing... I was driving yesterday (here in the UK) and found myself behind a car with UE-maked (and appropriately tiny-flagged) number-plate! Some of your fellow countrypeople, currently settled over here. No idea of the timescale of their arrival, or intent, of course. I hope they're thriving, but also hope they get their own choice over where their future driving pleasures take them, all else being equal.

(I don't know if it's useful to mention that the driving was as good as I'd expect, if not better than most. We were temporarily crawling in the same lane before we had different onward destinations beyond the junction that was causing the crawling-queue, so I have no idea if they even shared my general respect for speed-limits. But good lane-centrality and indicator use! More than many manage!)


[1] Memorable because of the River Don, in that region. Having personally lived quite near two (and nearly a third) of the handful of River Dons that exist in the UK. Amazing what sticks in your head.