[Luis Dias]

I'm disagreeing so much with MP Ryan I wouldn't thought possible until now.

No, if a war starts in Ukraine will not be between NATO and Russia. That's a whole level of shebanginess that no one is mildly interested in going for. And by "mildly" I mean it in the most euphemistic way that I can possibly do.

Yes, if a war starts in Ukraine it will be a proxy war between NATO / EU interests and Russian interests. The fact that the people of Ukraine want their own  agency to matter, etc., is just the local excuse to start the fire. This is so blindingly obvious I don't really understand your position here. You apparently both say that this is not a proxy war (it's a war about Ukrainian self-determination) but also that there's a good chance Russians will fire against NATO troops. Those two ideas are not coherent with each other. Russia feels threatened by "Ukrainian self-determination" precisely because it is the first step towards integrating Ukraine into the body of NATO, which in realpolitiks can be translated as "We just got your little Ukraine for us now muwahahahh!"


E.g., Syria's war is between Assad and a giant group of rebels (who have just lost a major battle, which might mean they have pretty much lost the war), but if you look closely you'll see that it is Russia who is backing Assad and it is the US and Saudi Arabia who are supporting the various rebellion factions. Afghanistan war (the 80s one) was a war between Russia and an US armed guerrilla movement. Vietnam placed the US against the vietcongs, which among many things were backed up by China, etc.

All these proxy wars might have a perfect backdrop story about "local determination" and other apparently worthy dignified causes, but what gets them to be so hot and so bloody is precisely because the superpowers use these local shenanigans as means to pressure militarily and economically each other until one of them cracks and quits the local kerfuffle (depending on how much they are willing to invest in the slaughter, how much it is worth).

No, NATO troops will not be shot by the Russians. Most probably not even Ukrainian troops will be shot by the Russians.

[MP-Ryan]

You appear to be disagreeing with an argument which I'm not actually making.

(1) A "war" between Ukraine and Russia wouldn't be a war at all.  Rather, the Russians would crush the Ukrainians in short order.  Hence, the only potential for actual war in this context would be *IF* NATO forces deployed into the Ukraine.  That's not a proxy conflict.

(2) As the Ukraine has a self-determination interest and NATO/EU have an interest in seeing that realized, any fighting between the Ukraine and Russia doesn't actually meet the usual definitions of a proxy war, wherein two states engage in combat through at least one intermediary over their own interests as opposed to those of the intermediary.

In all those other cases which you cited - which I previously talked about - the predominant purpose of the superpower engagement was their own interest in ****ing with the opposition - callous as it sounds, nobody actually cared about Vietnam and Afghanistan (1980s).  They were truly proxy conflicts.  The Iran-Iraq war is probably the most recent poster child of a true proxy war.  Syria is more complicated; the Russian interference is definitely on a proxy basis, but on the rebel side there was a definite self-interest component to the backing states concerning chemical weapons use.  It's more complicated than the term proxy war actually generates.  That is not actually the case here.  NATO/EU were largely staying out of the Ukraine crisis until Russia decided to get involved in shaping events there, and their limited involvement is not to drive the Ukraine into the EU, but rather out of interest of allowing for Ukrainian self-determination without Russia running the show as it is attempting to do.

And, as for shots fired, Russia is currently taking over the Ukrainian bases in Crimea.  No word yet on resistance and casualties.

[Luis Dias]

NATO will never fire against Russians. Any war that will be fought will be between Ukrainian forces eventually armed by NATO or not at all.

The only way the Russians will storm Ukrainian forces is if they don't just invade Crimea right now and just declare war on the whole larger Ukraine. The leadership in Ukraine is severely handicapped right now and if the russians are quick enough then yeah it's going to be *somewhat* easy (still damn bloody). Of course, the problem is that afterwards you'd have a bloody rebellion armed by (again) NATO and the blood on the russian army would easy escalate until it was untenable to hold that region. So that scenario is deeply unlikely.

What is likely is that the russians will hold Crimea, hold a "referendum", declare everyone really wants to become Russian, and be done with it. Meanwhile, everyone understands how dangerous the russians are and Ukraine in general makes a deal with NATO and so on to be armed by them, etc. How Putin sees the playing field is something beyond me but what I think is that he's gonna win Crimea but is sacrificing the whole of Ukraine. He probably still thinks he can regain Ukraine by toppling whatever government the Euromaiden can come up with eventually with his confusing propaganda.

[StarSlayer]

I must admit ignorance on the subject of the sociopolitical climate of the former USSR/Pact nations, though I was under the impression Russia didn't have a particularly egalitarian attitude towards her satellites during the USSR.  I would imagine Russia carving off the Crimea from Ukraine, assuming that will be the end result of this episode, isn't going to drive these nations into Putin's huggin' hands. 

[Bobboau]

One thing to remember is Crimea was carved off of Russia 50 years ago as a sort of 'gift' when Ukraine joined the USSR. also this is where possibly the most important port under Russian control currently is, Putin is over stepping all of Ukraine so he can step back and claim 'merely' Crimea, or more specifically Sevastopol.

[Aesaar]

The Crimea was transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR because it makes a lot more sense for it to be administered from Kiev than from Moscow because it's geographically closer to the former.  Back then, the difference was purely administrative.  There was no thought given to what would happen if Ukraine ever became independent.

[JCDNWarrior]

What I don't understand is the threats of sanctions upon Russia. Surely this would backfire and hurt the already weakening European economy? It also seems like China's taking sides with Russia at least rhetorically (I believe) so...

Sanctions overall seem to target (perhaps not on purpose, but effectively) the weak, needing and poor. This makes them rally all the more around their governments/regimes/dictators and thus entrench them even more.

[Dragon]

The sanctions won't hurt Russia the slightest. They're the ones in position to make economic threats, if anything. Sure, they'd be unpleasant, but they'd hurt EU economy much more. Putin knows it, and so does the EU. So why they're threatening Russia like this? I dunno. Either incompetence or the fact that the only other thing they could threaten them with is armed response. And they're not quite ready for that one yet.
So basically, threats of economic sanctions are a formal way for the countries to express their displeasure with Russia's actions.

[Janos]

The sanctions won't hurt Russia the slightest. They're the ones in position to make economic threats, if anything. Sure, they'd be unpleasant, but they'd hurt EU economy much more. Putin knows it, and so does the EU. So why they're threatening Russia like this? I dunno. Either incompetence or the fact that the only other thing they could threaten them with is armed response. And they're not quite ready for that one yet.
So basically, threats of economic sanctions are a formal way for the countries to express their displeasure with Russia's actions.

Russian market is dominated by export of raw materials. It is a not-insignificant, but neither the most important export market. Even nations such as Finland and Estonia generally have only ~10 % of their entire export value coming from Russia. Definitely not insignificant. Definitely not crippling either.

The nations most heavily calling for sanctions against Russia are also nations that have the closest economical ties to it. The economical value is simply not that important in their calculus. People only looking at money are completely unable to comprehend the current political situation in Russia, EU or Ukraine.

What I don't understand is the threats of sanctions upon Russia. Surely this would backfire and hurt the already weakening European economy? It also seems like China's taking sides with Russia at least rhetorically (I believe) so...

Sanctions overall seem to target (perhaps not on purpose, but effectively) the weak, needing and poor. This makes them rally all the more around their governments/regimes/dictators and thus entrench them even more.

There is a silent consensus in EU that economic sanctions should target* the oligarchs and the ability of rich Russians to invest their money in EU. That would hurt them and the Russian goverment a lot, since the Russian rich love to invest their money in for example real estate.

*If they are meant as a pressure tool; actually implementing such policy is very unlikely

[Janos]

n/m

[MP-Ryan]

NATO will never fire against Russians. Any war that will be fought will be between Ukrainian forces eventually armed by NATO or not at all.

The only way the Russians will storm Ukrainian forces is if they don't just invade Crimea right now and just declare war on the whole larger Ukraine. The leadership in Ukraine is severely handicapped right now and if the russians are quick enough then yeah it's going to be *somewhat* easy (still damn bloody). Of course, the problem is that afterwards you'd have a bloody rebellion armed by (again) NATO and the blood on the russian army would easy escalate until it was untenable to hold that region. So that scenario is deeply unlikely.

What is likely is that the russians will hold Crimea, hold a "referendum", declare everyone really wants to become Russian, and be done with it. Meanwhile, everyone understands how dangerous the russians are and Ukraine in general makes a deal with NATO and so on to be armed by them, etc. How Putin sees the playing field is something beyond me but what I think is that he's gonna win Crimea but is sacrificing the whole of Ukraine. He probably still thinks he can regain Ukraine by toppling whatever government the Euromaiden can come up with eventually with his confusing propaganda.

There are days when you drive me near insanity, Luis What I was saying earlier is that this situation quite readily has the potential to become a spark, and then I was explaining how.  What I haven't commented on is what's likely to happen.

So, the Russians have now stormed at least one Ukrainian base in Crimea (http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-18-moscow-and-washington-are-far-apart-on-crimea/#1909).  No confirmation of shots fired, but Russian forces have taken at least part of the base.  Also confirmed reports that Internet access in Crimea is shut down and media services have been switched over to Russian sourcing.

It appears that the Russians are indeed brazen enough to think they'll be able to manage a peaceful but armed takeover of Crimea, and I can't help bt think that sanctions are going to happen.  And for hose curious about the efficacy of sanctions, Russia is apparently a net importer of finished, technological, and sustenance goods despite their natural resource exports.  Sanctions would be targeted to hurt, and could be quite effective so long as the West is willing to absorb the hit to Western interests if Russia follows through and does nationalize companies from nations imposing sanctions.

Its becoming rapidly apparent that Putin is still thinking in Cold War terms.  He's clearly not thinking through the long-term consequences here.  He may get Crimea in the end, but Russia is going to pay for it for a long time to come.

[karajorma]

It also seems like China's taking sides with Russia at least rhetorically (I believe) so...

Are you sure of that?

[Luis Dias]

There are days when you drive me near insanity, Luis What I was saying earlier is that this situation quite readily has the potential to become a spark, and then I was explaining how.  What I haven't commented on is what's likely to happen.

Our brains work differently on how to think about possibilities and scenarios, that's probably just it, never wanted to drive you insane!

Its becoming rapidly apparent that Putin is still thinking in Cold War terms.  He's clearly not thinking through the long-term consequences here.  He may get Crimea in the end, but Russia is going to pay for it for a long time to come.

Yeah that was my assessment too, and I still more or less abide to it. One of the things I like to do is to assert what I think is the most probable scenario, the thing I really believe is gonna happen so I can then assess how wrong I was later on (or not!).

For instance, what I changed since then is my mind over the easeness or willingness of russian forces to shoot against ukrainians. I was not aware how these two forces are basically "brothers in arms" until very recently and that's how they really see themselves. So I see here two forces in motion, one where this "brothers in arms" can (and one can argue it has so far) influence the troops in the ground in such a manner that no shot will ever be fired, and another one where the polarization and the "out-group" dynamics will eventually work to differentiate the "Ukrainians" from "Russians" sufficiently so that the worst thing might occur.

I still think the worst possible scenario (from the Russian pov) is just one of Russia taking over Crimea and then in a year, two perhaps, get some "controversy" happening in eastern Ukraine and invade it under humanitarian pretenses. The west is not taking this lightly (and the media is pressuring the west into not doing so!), and sanctions are probably hurting Putin where it hurts the most: in his oligarch friends' wallets. I kinda see the endgame between how far is Putin willing to go (in losing his de facto support) and how far is the west willing to go (in sacrificing part of its wealth in order to put Russia into their place).

Liberal democracies were always tested and joked on the frailties and insecurities of their leaderships by the conservative thought since forever. I remember Hitler laughing at the prospect of the United States ever winning a war against Soviet Union and the argument was the same. Dictators are brutal, direct, no-joke, bear-riding badasses, changing the Real and letting everyone else "theorizing" over it (Karl Rove style), with no in-house deterrents whatsoever; Democrat presidents are always "pussies", bike-rider nerds, insecure and hesitant observers of what dictators dictate. The curious paradox in history is that these badasses tend to lose against the predetermined "losers". But quoting Keynes, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, so it's still a coin toss here.

[Dragon]

Liberal democracies were always tested and joked on the frailties and insecurities of their leaderships by the conservative thought since forever. I remember Hitler laughing at the prospect of the United States ever winning a war against Soviet Union and the argument was the same. Dictators are brutal, direct, no-joke, bear-riding badasses, changing the Real and letting everyone else "theorizing" over it (Karl Rove style), with no in-house deterrents whatsoever; Democrat presidents are always "pussies", bike-rider nerds, insecure and hesitant observers of what dictators dictate. The curious paradox in history is that these badasses tend to lose against the predetermined "losers". But quoting Keynes, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, so it's still a coin toss here.

The reasons those "badasses" lost was because they were, in most cases, self-absorbed idiots. A reasonable, strong dictator can lead a country to it's golden age. As an example, Tito of Yugoslavia is still quite fondly remembered, in spite of being a communist. Gierek, from Poland, rebuilt the country after it was nearly flattened during WWII, and is widely considered much better than any democratic government we've had. Especially given that our democratic governments managed to sell off (bordering on giving away), steal and squander everything he built. Heck, even Lenin wasn't that bad by dictatorial standards, he actually did emphasize with the people.

In fact, the problem with dictators is twofold. 1. There are more power-hungry nutcases in the world than good administrators. 2. Even if you get one of the good ones, he will die someday. Neither dictator I mentioned has had a worthy successor. Monarchy mitigated that problem somewhat, with future rulers being raised by the old ones, but even this didn't produce a 100% success rate. After Lenin came Stalin (a model of an evil, petty dictator), after Gierek (with some very unremarkable people between) came Gomulka, whose inept rule led to massive protests and, eventually, fall of communism in Poland (introducing the crappy democratic government I'm always complaining about). Tito's death led to Yugoslavia violently falling apart. With a dictature, your country is only as good as the dictator.

Now, Putin is a bit of a mixed bag. On one hand, he did some pretty atrocious things and blatantly violated human rights. On the other hand, he clearly does know what he's doing, and seems to care about Russia's interest as a country (not surprising, rich country means rich oligarchs, which means more money for him...). He did manage to keep Russia in play and quite powerful. As such, I think he's one of those reasonable (if not good) dictators. Which means he's very dangerous, and very hard to stop.

[The E]

The reasons those "badasses" lost was because they were, in most cases, self-absorbed idiots. A reasonable, strong dictator can lead a country to it's golden age. As an example, Tito of Yugoslavia is still quite fondly remembered, in spite of being a communist. Gierek, from Poland, rebuilt the country after it was nearly flattened during WWII, and is widely considered much better than any democratic government we've had. Especially given that our democratic governments managed to sell off (bordering on giving away), steal and squander everything he built. Heck, even Lenin wasn't that bad by dictatorial standards, he actually did emphasize with the people.

Yeah, sure, Lenin wasn't that bad. Might have something to do with him only being in power for two years.

Dictatorships, as the roman republic found out, are a good solution to unify power in cases where quick, decisive action are necessary. For day-to-day operations of a country in peacetime, they're beyond useless.

In fact, the problem with dictators is twofold. 1. There are more power-hungry nutcases in the world than good administrators. 2. Even if you get one of the good ones, he will die someday. Neither dictator I mentioned has had a worthy successor. Monarchy mitigated that problem somewhat, with future rulers being raised by the old ones, but even this didn't produce a 100% success rate.

What is it with you and Monarchy? Monarchy is one of the most unstable forms of government, historically speaking. The one thing democratic and republican governments can do better than any other form of government is facilitate a regime change without prolonged civil wars, something you will be hard-pressed to find in autocratic forms of government.

EDIT: Have you heard of the neoreactionary movement?

After Lenin came Stalin (a model of an evil, petty dictator), after Gierek (with some very unremarkable people between) came Gomulka, whose inept rule led to massive protests and, eventually, fall of communism in Poland (introducing the crappy democratic government I'm always complaining about). Tito's death led to Yugoslavia violently falling apart. With a dictature, your country is only as good as the dictator.

And that's the point: A democratic government is more likely to even out extremist factions. Dictatorship, whether declared outright or dressed up pretty, will always be susceptible to bouts of extremism. The best you can hope for in any dictatorship is a messy civil war once the dictator abdicates. Note how, for democracies, this is the worst outcome possible.

Now, Putin is a bit of a mixed bag. On one hand, he did some pretty atrocious things and blatantly violated human rights. On the other hand, he clearly does know what he's doing, and seems to care about Russia's interest as a country (not surprising, rich country means rich oligarchs, which means more money for him...). He did manage to keep Russia in play and quite powerful. As such, I think he's one of those reasonable (if not good) dictators. Which means he's very dangerous, and very hard to stop.

What is good for the country, or its ruling class, is not automatically good for the people in it.

[MP-Ryan]

So, Russia is now sabre-rattling in the direction of eastern Ukraine:

“We are outraged in Russia at the lawlessness which now reigns in the eastern regions of Ukraine as a result of actions by fighters from the so-called Right Sector with the total collusion of the new authorities, as they call themselves. It has reached the point that on 8 March in Kharkiv, well-equipped people in masks with firearms opened fire on peaceful demonstrators,” said the Foreign Ministry.

http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-22-kiev-established-a-new-national-guard/

[Luis Dias]

Dragon, I really disagree with you.

Lenin? Yeah, he liked to be pictured with kids and cats, all the while he decreed the assassination of thousands. Lenin is regarded "fondly" by those who just remember Stalin all too well. Tito? The guy who was kept happy by his finance ministers not letting the burdgeoning debt and overall bubble of their economy implode before he died, just making everything worse when it did and eventually opening up the country for the bloody revolutions that followed? That guy? The fact that dictators do not usually have worthy "follow ups" is probably because they weren't good leaders from the beggining.

A good leader doesn't only look out for the country, but creates the means by which it won't fall down when he decides to leave office, etc. And such a system is probably called "democracy". A good democracy not only by name but by process. This idea that what a country sometimes needs is a "Good Dictator" is a very old conservative myth that is so useful for people like Putin and Assad. We should wreck it to bits.

To then call Putin a "reasonable (if not good) dictator" is, I think, something you don't really want to do. The guy who assassinated reporters who dared speak against him and his cronies? The guy who put his friends into the Oligarchy and let everyone else rot? (Are you even aware of the bleeding nature of the young scholars in that country?) The guy who turns the word "elections" to a running joke in the country, and when someone almost makes history in becoming no 2 with good numbers in an election in the city of Moscow despite all the PR and the media machinery put against him, he's thrown into jail for absolutely ridiculous reasons? The man who is the sole responsible right now for the butchery of Syria, the man who did what he did in Chechnya and Georgia? That man is not a good dictator, not a good ruler at all. Despite oil prices surging msasively in the last 15 years, he has utterly failed to accomplish every single economic objective he had set out to do.

Really, Putin is a massive failure, but I do know why conservatives seem to like him. He's a "man's man", a bear riding badass and he is not afraid of bullying homossexuals in his land (the tough guy!). He's also embarrassing Obama and who's the conservative who doesn't like that?

[Flipside]

It's all Geopolitics anyway, poor Ukranians are caught in a power-struggle between the EU/America and Russia.

The problem, I think, is that both sides are a little too keen to make the decision for them. Russia still sees the Ukraine as part of its own ''realm", and are nervous about having a Western influenced power on their doorstep, the West see the Ukraine as a possible future addition to the Consumerist 'Bloc' of Europe, but have a nasty habit of not leaving well enough alone and letting things sort themselves out.

The problem is Putin went full CCCP, I don't quite know what was going through his head at the time considering he has kind of crippled one of his strongest political arguments against the West, which was that it kept occupying sovereign countries, and I don't think either side actually gives a damn what the Ukraine wants in this case, the country is the ball not the goal.

[StarSlayer]

Considering they went full CCCP to kill Litvinenko I'm no longer surprised when they go full Cold War glory days mode.  I mean seriously, how did that planning meeting go? 

It would please me greatly is Litvinenko was assassinated.

Yes sir we can setup up a car accident or a failed muggi...

No, I want him assassinated in a flagrantly obvious method that only Russia and a couple of others could pull off.  Not only that, but it must leave a radioactive isotope trail all the way back to FSB headquarters. 

Ummm...

[Dragon]

Lenin? Yeah, he liked to be pictured with kids and cats, all the while he decreed the assassination of thousands. Lenin is regarded "fondly" by those who just remember Stalin all too well. Tito? The guy who was kept happy by his finance ministers not letting the burdgeoning debt and overall bubble of their economy implode before he died, just making everything worse when it did and eventually opening up the country for the bloody revolutions that followed? That guy? The fact that dictators do not usually have worthy "follow ups" is probably because they weren't good leaders from the beggining.

Good dictators don't have worthy follow ups simply because the chance of hitting the jackpot twice in a row is very slim. It's rare to have even one. Also, due to the nature of a dictatorial regime (which frequently masquerades as a democracy), it's very hard to designate a successor and ensure that he actually takes power. Lenin, for example, certainly didn't want Stalin to succeed him, but it kind of "ended up that way" (or rather, Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents and took power for himself, which others didn't see coming). A hereditary system does mitigate that problem, but also limits successors to ruler's own kids, who don't always take after their father.

A good leader doesn't only look out for the country, but creates the means by which it won't fall down when he decides to leave office, etc. And such a system is probably called "democracy". A good democracy not only by name but by process. This idea that what a country sometimes needs is a "Good Dictator" is a very old conservative myth that is so useful for people like Putin and Assad. We should wreck it to bits.

Well, democracy is a system which is incredibly easy to keep relatively stable, but also very vulnerable to crises and prone to giving power to people only good at flapping their gob. Also, it runs the risk of becoming "tyranny of the majority" if the populace is backwards enough. And the sad truth is, stupid people outnumber smart people. An advanced country like Switzerland can run well with it, but it takes a high level of education across the populace. Otherwise you get a situation like in Poland, where politics consists of throwing invectives at each other and trying to blame everything on the opponents, while distracting people with sensationalist news (remember that plane crash which killed a good part of Polish government? Yeah, they're still debating if it was deliberately arranged...). It's probably different in civilized countries, but from my experience, common people are too dumb and too easily manipulated to be allowed to run a country. You just end up with government good at manipulation and not good at any real ruling. And if it's really bad, you end up with things like Sharia law and anti-gay edicts actually enjoying popular support and getting implemented, with the people hurt by them having nothing to say because they're a minority. If the majority is backwards enough to be composed of bigots, then you not only soon get bigoted laws, they're very hard to repeal without changing the general populaces' views first (no small task in most cases).

To then call Putin a "reasonable (if not good) dictator" is, I think, something you don't really want to do. The guy who assassinated reporters who dared speak against him and his cronies? The guy who put his friends into the Oligarchy and let everyone else rot? (Are you even aware of the bleeding nature of the young scholars in that country?) The guy who turns the word "elections" to a running joke in the country, and when someone almost makes history in becoming no 2 with good numbers in an election in the city of Moscow despite all the PR and the media machinery put against him, he's thrown into jail for absolutely ridiculous reasons? The man who is the sole responsible right now for the butchery of Syria, the man who did what he did in Chechnya and Georgia? That man is not a good dictator, not a good ruler at all. Despite oil prices surging msasively in the last 15 years, he has utterly failed to accomplish every single economic objective he had set out to do.

I said he is not a good dictator. I said that he was "reasonable", in that he was not crazy or deluded, like Hitler or Stalin (and indeed, a great deal of others) were. He is a horrible person, but note that everything you mentioned does not, in fact, hurt him. He is absolutely ruthless and rules with an iron fist, letting his oligarchs be the real power in Russia, but still, he made clear that Russia is a force to be reckoned with.   In fact, that's the real problem with him. A crazy bigot like Stalin killed off a lot of intelligent people and generally wrecked the country, but Putin actually strengthened Russia a lot. He's very dangerous, because he is both a horrible person and a skilled ruler. And he's clearly not a failure, if he was, he wouldn't be at Europe's doorstep.