[Scotty]

It requires significantly more than one irrational actor - and Putin has shown himself to be realpolitik and pragmatism motivated in the extreme.  He's hardly irrational, his goals merely extend orthogonally to the rest of Europe's.

[Mebber]

While i don't think this whole mess will result in more of a short-lived local military conflict at the most, we shouldn't be too sure about it. Point is, if history taught us anything about war then its that things can spiral out of control and escalate quite quickly even if nobody actually intended it.

I don't think this situation will actually escalate that way, but i do wonder where it's leading to in the future, or if this is any indicator for the things to come. The underlying animosity and rivalry between the currently only remaining superpower US plus allies and states like Russia and China isn't a very auspicious situation.

[Rhys]

Even if Russia were to back down right now, their international image has been tarnished to the point where its economy will suffer for many years, as many countries will be more reluctant to trade with them.

[Dragon]

It requires significantly more than one irrational actor - and Putin has shown himself to be realpolitik and pragmatism motivated in the extreme.  He's hardly irrational, his goals merely extend orthogonally to the rest of Europe's.

Yeah, it requires more than one irrational actor, but remember what they said about WWII. The world does not work like in the 30s, but it doesn't a war won't happen - this only means we won't see it coming. It could very well happen with everyone thinking they're acting rationally and relentlessly pursuing their own interests. Remember, acting rationally =/= cooperating rationally. Russia won't back down, Putin won't back down. Too much is at stake there, and Putin was always a ruthless, calculating politician. If he loses in Ukraine, he'll face massive backlash for no real gain. Since he's already gotten the former part, he needs to make it pay off. Not to mention Black Sea Fleet is at stake here. With gas deposits being found in Poland, he knows that his usual strategy of raising gas prices might fall flat one day, so he's got a lot to lose, and he knows it.

The E said WWIII is unlikely, but he is German, which means he is firmly on the "west" side of the divide. Part of the reason Poland has such a history is that it's both "east" and "west" at once (though Ukraine seems to be sharing this unfortunate fate now). Not to mention he doesn't live in the middle of a bloody flashpoint, and even if NATO was ready to give up on Poland (not unlikely, given how we're usually treated...), Germany is a different story. No, a second WWII is unlikely, which is pretty much what he really said. A WWIII will be a whole different story, only resembling WWII in that it'd be completely unlike anything that has occurred before. Let's face it, we like to think we're more "civilized" than 80 years ago, but it's just that the world is different. We're no better than people back then, and just as susceptible to mistakes. There's no denying that there will be a war. The only question is the "world" part.

However, I don't expect a nuclear apocalypse. They'll do without the nukes, only with looming threat of them being used. It's not even new, in WWII there were no gas attacks for precisely the same reason, and there wasn't a single nuke dropped in many wars since then. Even in a large-scale conflict, nukes probably won't be used.

[Luis Dias]

History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme.

Having said that, I think we are not seeing the coming of a black swan here. A global conflict is just not going to happen in direct terms. Whatever it will be it will be just like any other post WWII proxy war: two sides being armed by either the US or the russians duking it out until every village is burned to the ground.

[Scourge of Ages]

Whatever it will be it will be just like any other post WWII proxy war: two sides being armed by either the US or the russians duking it out until every village is burned to the ground.

This I'm afraid is the absolute worst, and most likely scenario.

[Familiar]

O'k now I see...
Russia as always a bad guy for a lot of people. Bombers over Netherland, sure...
And China as well...
As always, there has to be a bad guy to blame.
And who is a good guy, then? US or EU? US who INVADED a ****ing lot of countries that not even close to USA borders...
And why those damned pro-terrorist countries always have oil (or gas) ? Just coincidence
O'k then.

You know, politics are politics. Politician don't give a damn about real people, they always have much more important concerns.
A little external crysis always better then big internal, do you agree? That's why US, EU, Russia ARE interested in situation.
The good thing is - nobody want a REAL  GLOBAL war.

But I know for sure, that russians on Ukraine territory are really in need of protection.
Friend of mine have brother and father in Ukraine now. In Lvov. From what they say, it is very dangerous time to be a russian there.
You cannot even leave LVOV freely. So for their own safety they are more Ukrainian now then usual

Damned, hate politics and politicians. Will we (or our children or children of our children) ever see planet Earth united over 1 government. Or it is impossible without some Shivan invasion?

[Hellzed]

@Familiar :
You have to understand that many people criticising Russian policy here are also strong critics of their own governments policies. Just read ! Look at what people on this forum say about the NSA scandal, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, "war on terror", "war on drugs"...

I can't speak for other people, but I have the feeling that in the last few years, the Russian government used every means at its disposal (mostly "not so independent" media like Russia Today or Izvestia) to create a climate where being against its policy was considered being against Russia.

[Herra Tohtori]

Russia as always a bad guy for a lot of people. Bombers over Netherland, sure...
And China as well...

That's because a lot of the time they behave like bad guys. It's not even the Russians or Chinese per se, but rather the values that guide their leadership, and the decisions and actions they make.

It just seems hypocritical to me that Russia vetoed military intervention in Syria - where regular citizens were dying in scores by government bombings on market squares - and is now doing exactly that in a neighbouring country without any worry about UNSC approval, simply because of a perceived threat to what Russia considers "Russians" - and who knows how many of the ethnic Russians in Crimea or rest of Ukraine actually have Russian citizenship.

Equally troubling, Russia seems to claim that Viktor Yanukovich asked for troops as the elected president of Ukraine. Well, he used to be that, but the parliament fired him. Apparently they think a parliament cannot suspend the president from his duties and appoint a replacement as acting head of state.

Granted, the situation with Ukraine's leadership is most irregular and considering how many of these "revolutions" tend to end up in more and more despotic leadership, I'm not entirely comfortable with the events that lead to Yanukovich's deposing.

Problem is that the Russians are not acknowledging that Yanukovich has no real legitimacy in Ukraine any more. Stubbornly treating him as the "real president" and refusing to negotiate with the standing government that has taken charge of the situation, and at least people are not dying by sniper bullets right now so I'd say that's an improvement on that sector.


As to the actual situation on the ground - the situation is so muddled with disinformation that I don't even want to try to evaluate how legitimate Russia's claim of Russian citizens being in danger is. Clearly, the opposite also holds true, it's probably not "safe" to show allegiance to Ukraine if you're in Crimea.



Also, one thing I'd like to point out is that if you look at reactions of world's countries as being anti-russian, for the most part I think that would be an interpretation completely ignorant of reality. For example, Finland's position in international politics has very consistently followed the policy of late president Urho Kekkonen, who put it in words most succinctly:

"Finland, in questions of war and peace, is not neutral but it is on the side of peace against war."

What that means is that our position is usually against any action that escalates any given crisis towards open warfare. Russia's recent actions in Crimea certainly qualify, but on the same breath I would say Ukraine's leadership in Kiev is not making things any better by mobilizing the reservist army.


I don't think anyone has any question that the Russian troops will only leave Crimea of their own volition after being ordered so from the Kremlin, and engaging in open conflict to attempt to push them away from Ukraine would most likely cause a larger land invasion from the north-east.

[Janos]

Even if Russia were to back down right now, their international image has been tarnished to the point where its economy will suffer for many years, as many countries will be more reluctant to trade with them.

One of the reasons EU is so unwilling and reluctant to consider economic sanctions is the Russian market. Russia is pretty significant export territory. Lots of news have focused on the economical effects potential sanctions would have - not on Russia, but on eastern EU export companies.

Their economy, as a whole, can take this kind of shock pretty easily, since the rich russians can always go abroad to buy some more real estate from downtown London.

And they also support a non-insignificant amount of LNG consumed in Europe, so economic warfare would have impact on intraeuropean energy markets. The Russian companies do not, however, dominate European market, but they are very prevalent.

[An4ximandros]

This was all predicted at least back by 2008-2009 http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/ukraine-and-little-cold-war

[Luis Dias]

Yeah I heard Sarah Palin made this prediction and everyone laughed at her.

(ducks)

[karajorma]

Even a broken idiot is right twice a day.

That is how the saying goes, right?

[Dragon]

TBH, some had suspected that it'll go that way since before the war in Georgia. Everyone hoped it won't happen, but given the situation in recent years, this was not entirely surprising.
BTW, I just read that Putin was nominated for Noble Peace Prize. It's either a joke, a lie, or a sign that someone doesn't take the Nobel Committee seriously. He doesn't even rate an IgNobel, since those are given for things that are funny, yet beneficial is one way or another. I'd like to get my hands on the one who thought it was a good idea...

[Familiar]

TBH, some had suspected that it'll go that way since before the war in Georgia. Everyone hoped it won't happen, but given the situation in recent years, this was not entirely surprising.
BTW, I just read that Putin was nominated for Noble Peace Prize. It's either a joke, a lie, or a sign that someone doesn't take the Nobel Committee seriously. He doesn't even rate an IgNobel, since those are given for things that are funny, yet beneficial is one way or another. I'd like to get my hands on the one who thought it was a good idea...

What about Obama'S Nobel prize for peace , lol?

"perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars"

How can you take nobel committee seriously after that?

[General Battuta]

Yeah, Obama's barely better than Putin on the foreign policy front, and hardly deserving of the prize.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah, Obama's barely better than Putin on the foreign policy front

lolwot

Please people, don't make me defend 'Murica. I hate it when people force me to defend a nation with such a ghastly history of meddling through other nation's issues, but to equate Obama with Putin is blowing my mind right now.

[General Battuta]

I'd be interested to hear your case! You might be right.

[StarSlayer]

It would need to be a pretty stellar case.  The only difference I can see is prowess in martial arts.

[Flak]

If you ask me, who is in the place where we don't like one side more than the other, it looks like this. The original Ukrainian government was quite corrupt, so it only a matter of time before they got kicked out of their offices. That doesn't mean the previous west-inclined governments is any better however.

What we see, the original government was very friendly with Russians, and so they can easily get their supports, while the new government is again west inclined. You guys who live in the west probably immediately see the Russians are the villains here, while actually, you are both right and wrong at the same time. The Russians are 'evil' and want the government that supported them no matter if they are somewhat corrupt? Maybe right. However, the EU and Americans see this as an opportunity to seize control of the Ukraine government for their own agenda, whatever that is. So in this matter, they are no more heroic or villainous than the Russians are.