Ukraine War Thread

[Thanas]

Ah ok, so now its a "which side is worse" contest?

Nah, just correcting your biased reporting. I mean, clearly you think every bad thing about the western Ukrainian forces needs to be reported in detail, while you just happen to not mention that the east does the same shit.

2. Nazis are worse than people who hate gays. Making Nazis part of your armed forces and enabling them to do violence is even worse. This should not be a controversial opinion, what the hell is wrong with you?

Dude, you really think the Western Ukrainian volunteers are the only ones who employ fascists or people who have fascist ideas? If so, I got a bridge to sell to you.Fuck dude, in this very thread I already linked to the Russian nationalistic bikers being used. You think there is any difference in ideas here?

[Mange]

Hey man, the seperatists on the crimea and in the east are openly talking about defending their country from the gays and the jews of Europe.....

Indeed, and the persecution of pro-Ukrainians and others is ongoing (with several Crimean Tatars having been banned from returning to their homes). What some people (also here on this board) must understand is that Crimea in 2014 isn't the same Crimea that the Russian SSR ceded to the Ukrainian SSR 60 years ago and that Russia affirmed that Crimea is part of Ukraine (as part of the Budapest Memorandum which Russia clearly has breached). I don't think there should be any talk of lifting some of the sanctions against Russia until Crimea is returned to Ukraine or until an agreement is made,

[K. A. Pital]

Truth be told, a lot of fascists are on both sides. And I mean fascists, reactionary right-wingers who subscribe to the ideals of fascism.

You think there is any difference in ideas here?

Bikers aren't fascists. But there are real fascists (both under Kiev and under the self-proclaimed republics) as well.

What some people (also here on this board) must understand is that Crimea in 2014 isn't the same Crimea that the Russian SSR ceded to the Ukrainian SSR 60 years ago and that Russia affirmed that Crimea is part of Ukraine (as part of the Budapest Memorandum which Russia clearly has breached).

Crimea is also heavily pro-Russian, and it would've been a bloody insurgency like the one in the East, if it remained in the Ukraine. Unlike the East, where sympathies are split, but Russian ties are prevalent both in economy and culture, Crimea is economically and culturally hooked to Russia on a whole different level. Even back in 2008 in Crimea you would hardly notice any Ukrainian flags. People ignored the elections alltogther or voted communist, just out of spite, and deep hatred towards all things Ukrainian. It was a region locked in another time, kind of like the frozen conflicts in Georgia or Moldova, where people are forever thinking back to the old days.

Also, if the current government considers the Soviet one illegitimate, a whole lot of agreements (including START treaties) can be scrapped and thrown away. And frankly, it seems that we are rapidly heading that way.

[Vympel]

Nah, just correcting your biased reporting. I mean, clearly you think every bad thing about the western Ukrainian forces needs to be reported in detail, while you just happen to not mention that the east does the same shit.

LOL! My "biased" reporting? Am I obligated to mention every bad thing that is the responsibility of Russia or the rebels so you don't get your knickers in a twist about your chosen side being not as morally upright as you would so obviously like?

Why don't you write an angry fucking email to the Guardian about how their article on the Azov didn't heap oppropbirum on the east for random sundry offences and so they're "biased"?

No wait, that's fucking stupid, and so is your idiotic "bias" complaint.

Dude, you really think the Western Ukrainian volunteers are the only ones who employ fascists or people who have fascist ideas?

I literally just said a few posts ago that odious views were held on both sides:

"Yeah I'm sure there's a wide range of odious opinions on both sides - anti-Semitic and anti-gay opinions are depressingly common throughout the former USSR."

Did you even notice, in the midst of your indignation that people have the unmitigated cheek to report the truth, that truth being that yes, Ukraine is enabling literal Nazis?

Fuck dude, in this very thread I already linked to the Russian nationalistic bikers being used. You think there is any difference in ideas here?

ROFL. Nationalistic Bikers are not a volunteer military unit being sent into combat by anyone, nor are said bikers the same fucking thing as Nazis.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain ... rs-n198961



I can't even believe that someone is trying pretend Nazis and nationalists are the same thing. Well there you go - an article showing Nazis pretending to not be Nazis by labelling themselves mere 'nationalists'.

[Mange]

Truth be told, a lot of fascists are on both sides. And I mean fascists, reactionary right-wingers who subscribe to the ideals of fascism.

Indeed. There was a post on the Facebook-page belonging to the Donetsk "governor" Gubarev about an Italian fascist joining the militia: The Local

Crimea is also heavily pro-Russian, and it would've been a bloody insurgency like the one in the East, if it remained in the Ukraine. Unlike the East, where sympathies are split, but Russian ties are prevalent both in economy and culture, Crimea is economically and culturally hooked to Russia on a whole different level. Even back in 2008 in Crimea you would hardly notice any Ukrainian flags. People ignored the elections alltogther or voted communist, just out of spite, and deep hatred towards all things Ukrainian. It was a region locked in another time, kind of like the frozen conflicts in Georgia or Moldova, where people are forever thinking back to the old days.

That is irrelevant. It's unacceptable to break treaties, it's unacceptable to make landgrabs and it's unacceptable to cross into the territory of another country and kidnap their citizens. I had such high hopes for Russia as a prosperous and friendly neighbor (even if that border is much smaller after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the independence of the Baltic states) rather than than an unreliable one. I think it's very sad that Putinism has taken the country down to this level (especially when it comes to freedom of speech and other liberties).

I made an analogy with Sweden and the Åland Islands earlier. Despite a referendum which showed that 95.5 percent of the Åland voters wanted to return to Sweden, the League of Nations decided against it but said that the language and customs of the islands had to be respected. Yes, that's almost a hundred years ago in a very different world, but it's a compromise and any referendum should be held in accordance with international standards, not at the barrel of a gun. That's one of the reasons the Donetsk and Luhansk militias must be disarmed and regular elections held. A similar referendum, held with international monitors, should be held on Crimea and its status should be discussed.

Also, if the current government considers the Soviet one illegitimate, a whole lot of agreements (including START treaties) can be scrapped and thrown away. And frankly, it seems that we are rapidly heading that way.

Then it was also wrong to give Russia, as the successor to the Soviet Union, the permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

[Vympel]

What some people (also here on this board) must understand is that Crimea in 2014 isn't the same Crimea that the Russian SSR ceded to the Ukrainian SSR 60 years ago and that Russia affirmed that Crimea is part of Ukraine (as part of the Budapest Memorandum which Russia clearly has breached).

Its the exact same Crimea, actually. How could it have changed? Borders haven't moved an inch since then.

I don't think there should be any talk of lifting some of the sanctions against Russia until Crimea is returned to Ukraine or until an agreement is made,

That's never going to be a condition - nor should it be. The world is clearly prepared to accept the annexation (witness the anemic sanctions imposed in the aftermath of the annexation) and they should. Firstly because there's no way to reverse it. Sanctions won't do shit, they're just a tool to express disapproval and they will never, ever, change Russia's calculus with regard to Crimea. Second, because keeping useless sanctions in place even if/when all other issues with regard to Russia and Ukraine are resolved will keep international relations tense for no justifiable reason. No country has a compelling national interest in whose flag flies over Crimea except Ukraine and Russia.

[Kane Starkiller]

Crimea isn't coming back to Ukraine. In fact I would be shocked if the area currently held by pro Russian forces is reintegrated into Ukraine in any meaningful way.

Russia got Crimea and a chunk of Eastern Ukraine that they believe they can use the same way as Transdniester to constrain Ukrainian foreign policy.
Ukraine, on the other hand, wasn't "split in half" like in certain predictions and remains generally intact as a country with areas of highest pro Russian sentiment removed.

This seems like a situation in which both sides can say "well it could've been worse".

[Vympel]

EU association agreement implementation delayed by 14 months

The European Union and Ukraine agreed Friday to delay a key part of an "association agreement" that has deeply upset Russia in exchange for Moscow holding off on threatened retaliatory trade measures.

The three-way deal averts a potential confrontation that could have erupted on November 1, when the EU-Ukraine deal was set to take effect. European officials hope the delay also provides a breathing space for the two sides to de-escalate their military standoff in eastern Ukraine.

Under Friday's agreement, the Ukrainian and European parliaments will still ratify the association agreement next week, as planned. And the EU will continue its relaxed trade rules on goods coming from Ukraine, as agreed.

But Ukraine will delay its own lowering of tariffs for European goods until the end of 2015. That move had been of great concern to Russia, which complained that a flood of European goods would flow from Ukraine into Russia.

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht announced the delay after meeting with Pavlo Klimkin, Ukraine's foreign minister, and Alexei Ulyukayev, Russia's economic development minister. Mr De Gucht acknowledged that giving Russia a say over what was supposed to be a two-way trade deal between the EU and Ukraine might set a bad precedent.

"The world is made of bad precedents," he added.

Mr De Gucht said that given the volatile tensions between Russia, Ukraine and Europe, a calming step like this makes sense.

"It's a very complicated situation. It's a war situation," Mr De Gucht said. "If this can contribute to calming down the pressure, it's a good thing."

A 14-month delay, he added, "is not the end of the world."

Russian officials had threatened that if the association deal took effect on November 1, they would downgrade Russia's preferential trade relationship with Ukraine. Under Friday's agreement, Russia agreed to keep that trade regime as it is.

EU officials hope that the delay provides time for the three sides to agree on terms that would allow the association agreement to be fully implemented, and that by then the military tensions will subside as well.

A joint statement issued by the three ministers said in part, "This ongoing process needs to be part and parcel of a comprehensive peace process in Ukraine, respecting the right of Ukraine to decide on its destiny as well as its territorial integrity."

Friday's deal requires the approval of the European Parliament and the European Council, made up of the heads of EU nations. Mr De Gucht appeared optimistic that would happen. "This is the most rational approach for the time being," he said.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed the association agreement with the EU in June. Both sides hailed it as a major step in drawing Ukraine closer to Europe, and Mr Poroshenko called it "maybe the most important day for my country after independence day."

The association agreement aims to lower tariffs on much of the trade between EU and Ukraine, in exchange for steps by Ukrainian firms to meet EU rules and standards.

Moscow has strenuously objected to the deal from the outset, saying it would damage both the Ukrainian and Russian economies by forcing companies in those countries to meet EU standards. EU officials insist the deal will be good for all concerned, including Russia.

But Moscow views the association deal as a symbol that Ukraine, with which it has historic and cultural ties, is leaving the Russian sphere of influence and moving closer to Western Europe.

The refusal of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, under pressure from Russia, to sign the EU association agreement last year sparked weeks of street protests and led to Mr Yanukovych's ouster.

[madd0ct0r]

There is an excellent essay from a reporter on thr ground in last week's London Review Of Books. It's long, and an excellent read so I'd really recommend it. Two extracts below to cover a side of it I've not seen in the thread yet.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/keith-gess ... l-them-all

For Mishin and Bik, the signal events of the past year looked very different from the way they looked to my friends in Kiev or Moscow. When liberals in those places had seen young men on Maidan attacking the riot police, they thought, ‘people power’; and when they saw men in Donetsk beating pro-Ukraine protesters, they thought, ‘fascists’. But that wasn’t how it looked from Donetsk. From Donetsk they saw fascists on Maidan and, on the streets of Donetsk, people power. Whether the actual fascists on Maidan made them more or less certain of this, I don’t know, but hearing it gave body to something the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko had said to me in Kiev: ‘It was the liberals’ tolerance of the nationalists on Maidan that led to this. If they had rejected them right away, things might have turned out differently. It might have led to the collapse of Maidan. It might even have meant that Yanukovych remained president. But at least there would have been peace.’

Mishin and Bik were what the sociologists call the ‘losers’ of the post-Soviet transition. In Soviet times Bik had been a coal miner with aspirations to join the KGB. ‘They didn’t take Party bosses’ sons, you know,’ he said (wrongly). ‘They took working people like me.’ And Mishin was a mighty athlete. He recalled playing in a tournament in Leningrad and being promised a trip to the United States. ‘The USA!’ he recalled thinking. And then the whole world collapsed. Industrial regions like Donbass were hardest hit by the changes: it was the region’s industrial output that plummeted furthest in the 1990s; it was industrial plants over which the bloodiest turf wars revolved. And it was in these places that the loss of status was most extreme. Industrial work was championed by the Soviets, both in word and in deed: coal miners in Donbass earned on average two or three times what a software engineer like my father earned in Moscow. (In the early 1980s, Bik had been working as a miner for just a few months when he bought a motorbike. The girls went crazy for it.) When the Soviet Union ended, the entire country experienced what Nietzsche might have recognised as a transvaluation of all values: what had been good was now bad, and what had been bad was now good. Some people liked it and grew rich; other people were left behind. With the victory of protests that were still referred to by some of their supporters as Euromaidan, the people of this industrial region were being asked to endure yet another round of deindustrialisation – of austerity, unemployment and social death. They had balked at this and, what was more, they had an out. Deindustrialisation had gone hand in hand, the first time, with the collapse of the empire. But what if the empire could be restored? Maybe the jobs would come back? If the Russians felt they had ‘lost’ something in Ukraine, many people in Eastern Ukraine felt as if they’d been stranded from their motherland. ‘They call us traitors and separatists,’ Bik said. ‘But I don’t feel like a traitor. I felt like a traitor before, when I had to call myself Ukrainian. I don’t feel like a traitor now.’

...

The people from the west wanted to be rid of the people from the east. Not so much in the name of Ukrainian nationalism as in the name of progress. For two decades the centre and especially the west of the country had been pursuing Europeanisation. There was certainly a socioeconomic difference in Donbass between the supporters of a unified Ukraine and the supporters of the DNR. The night after I visited Mishin in Makeevka, Enrique Menendez invited me to meet a small group of young, pro-Ukraine professionals who had remained in the city, doing humanitarian work. After delivering food to a dormitory housing more than a thousand refugees from the region, we drove to Havana Banana, a favourite haunt of mid-level rebel commanders, who ate, drank mineral water, and met up with prostitutes there. We drove in a new Fiat which Marina, at the wheel, had trouble handling. ‘This is my friend’s car,’ she said. ‘I’m borrowing it because she’s in Kiev. My real car is a BMW.’ We ate sushi and drank beer. At one point a yellow Porsche pulled up and some rebels hopped out. ‘Ah,’ Marina said. ‘They got it.’ She’d noticed the car around town, with its original owner, and wondered how long before ownership changed. The bill came and, given the low prices in Ukraine, was larger than I’d anticipated. ‘Who ordered $20 worth of sushi?’ I asked. ‘I did!’ Enrique said. Then we all went home, to avoid being out after curfew.

I mention all this to stress the difference between those who supported the DNR in Donetsk and those who didn’t. But among the young professionals I also met a journalist from Lviv. She wasn’t just dressed better than anyone in Donetsk, she was dressed differently, as if on a civilisational level. She looked like she was from France.

And so imagine if for two decades you have been trying to pull your country, bit by bit, into Europe. Imagine that it’s been a bumpy road – everything you accomplish seems to get sabotaged by the political forces from the east. Imagine that finally the contradictions within your country have come to a breaking point. Imagine that all the people who opposed your politics for twenty years – all the most backward, poorest, least successful people in the country – got together in one place, declared an independent republic, and took up arms? What would you do? You could let them go. But then you’d lose all that land and its industrial capacity and also what kind of country just lets chunks of itself fall off? Perhaps you could think of it as an opportunity. Something similar happened when the old Stalinists and nationalists took over the Supreme Soviet in Moscow in 1993. All the enemies of progress in one place, all the losers and has-beens: wouldn’t it be better just to solve the problem once and for all? Wouldn’t it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the shit out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place – why not kill them all?

[Vympel]

That really is a fantastic article. Read it a few days ago. Actually refers to both sides by reference to real people, as opposed to manichean nonsense about how everyone in the East unhappy with the events of this year is just a puppet of Putin and everyone in the west is just some Banderite.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed. There was a post on the Facebook-page belonging to the Donetsk "governor" Gubarev about an Italian fascist joining the militia: The Local

Pretty much - but that's not the only one. Some Hungarian fascists also fight for the DNR (because, of course, they want a part of Ukraine too when it is divided). It doesn't excuse any of the SS-praising Nazi assholes on the other side. Just shows that nationalists and even fascists are everywhere, much like in the Yugoslav wars.

That is irrelevant.

It is relevant to Russia, which is brimming with anger at the 'defeatist' government and may yet produce a form of revanchism much more dangerous than Putinism could ever be.

I had such high hopes for Russia as a prosperous and friendly neighbor (even if that border is much smaller after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the independence of the Baltic states) rather than than an unreliable one.

Why would that be? Post-Soviet republics in general are very poor, corrupt shitholes, which their own population flees at the first possible istance.

I think it's very sad that Putinism has taken the country down to this level (especially when it comes to freedom of speech and other liberties).

I also think it is very sad, but truth be told, Putin was a perfect partner and when he pretty much disposed of any credible opposition in Russia (that opposition was too left-wing for the West's taste anyway, people like me were 'cannon fodder' and never to be allowed to wield any power), at the same time showing willingness not only to trade at Western terms but also enter the WTO and provide the EU with much-needed gas to make cleaner energy generation possible, most people just ignored it.

A similar referendum, held with international monitors, should be held on Crimea and its status should be discussed.

As you know I agree and I thought that UN forces in the East of Ukraine (from neutral countries, if possible) could be a solution. But it is one that neither will accept.

Then it was also wrong to give Russia, as the successor to the Soviet Union, the permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

It is possible to remove Russia from the council, very much like Taiwan was removed in favor of China proper. Personally I have argued many times on this board that the UNSC should be abolished as its only purpose is to lend credibility or legitimacy to imperialistic interventions in the matters of other states, be it Ukraine, Libya or Iraq.

[Vympel]

It is possible to remove Russia from the council, very much like Taiwan was removed in favor of China proper. Personally I have argued many times on this board that the UNSC should be abolished as its only purpose is to lend credibility or legitimacy to imperialistic interventions in the matters of other states, be it Ukraine, Libya or Iraq.

Something like the ROC/PRC situation could only occur if there was another contender for Russia's seat that could actually claim to be Russia, but none exists. The PRC was able to take up ROC's seat because it was voted as a legitimate successor state to an original member.

[mr friendly guy]

It is possible to remove Russia from the council, very much like Taiwan was removed in favor of China proper. Personally I have argued many times on this board that the UNSC should be abolished as its only purpose is to lend credibility or legitimacy to imperialistic interventions in the matters of other states, be it Ukraine, Libya or Iraq.

That would be difficult if you're going to try the same way China did to remove Taiwan. You would have to first make an argument that Russia is not the successor state of the USSR (that is some other former Soviet republic is) or that there is no successor state, which is ridiculous on the surface. Then you have to convince sufficient UN members of this claim.

[K. A. Pital]

It is possible to remove Russia from the council, very much like Taiwan was removed in favor of China proper. Personally I have argued many times on this board that the UNSC should be abolished as its only purpose is to lend credibility or legitimacy to imperialistic interventions in the matters of other states, be it Ukraine, Libya or Iraq.

Something like the ROC/PRC situation could only occur if there was another contender for Russia's seat that could actually claim to be Russia, but none exists. The PRC was able to take up ROC's seat because it was voted as a legitimate successor state to an original member.

Any large enough former Soviet republic can claim to be successor to the USSR, like... Ukraine. They could have used it to their benefit, but who am I kidding.

[Irbis]

I made an analogy with Sweden and the Åland Islands earlier. Despite a referendum which showed that 95.5 percent of the Åland voters wanted to return to Sweden, the League of Nations decided against it but said that the language and customs of the islands had to be respected. Yes, that's almost a hundred years ago in a very different world, but it's a compromise and any referendum should be held in accordance with international standards, not at the barrel of a gun.

*sigh* Wrong on so many levels for everyone knowing the region and interactions there. In short:

A) This wasn't contest between islands being Swedish and Finnish, it was between belonging to Sweden and being given very wide autonomy in Finland, including demilitarization, being exempt from most obligations to the state, and full language and cultural rights.

Do you seriously compare that to south-east Ukraine that was denied any rights and ukrainised by all measures short of actual force? And when they finally gained some bit of recognition when Yanukovych made Russian official language in small part of the country, the issue was one of triggers of Maidan and illegal coup?

I am strangely sure if eastern half of Ukraine had such deal since 90s there would be no local support for any uprising today whatsoever.

B) Why cherrypick diplomatic solution that ended in crisis and a lot of protests? Just because it supports your position? How about picking one that made everyone happy?

Say, Denmark-German border delimitation of 1919, performed by neutral commission on ethnic and geographical basis. The one that despite being slightly biased to Danish side was labelled as so fair that even aggressive Nazi regime that protested almost all Versailles borders didn't raise fuss against that one?

If identical delimitation was made in any point of last 25 years, except maybe during worst Yeltsin years, about 40% of Ukraine would go to Russ-- Oh, wait, this clearly makes it illegal, land grab, and wrong to use, eh?

C) You know that Åland Islands were part of Finland since at least 1284? Not since 1955? If you think maps drawn by drunk Communist leaders are so holy and immutable, how about picketing German embassy to make East Germany independent again, if listening to population of Crimea was so wrong? After all, Austria despite being mirror Bavaria was recognized as not-Germany, why not DDR too?

I agree that the crisis should have been solved diplomatically, but when one side declares half of its citizens to be second grade right-less illegals and it will never budge even one millimetre from this position, maybe, just maybe they bear a lot of fault for diplomacy failing, too.

Any large enough former Soviet republic can claim to be successor to the USSR, like... Ukraine. They could have used it to their benefit, but who am I kidding.

That would be funny to see, but no, Ukraine already claimed to be successor of Ukrainian SSR. That got them a lot of perks, including UN seat, other ex-Soviet states had to work for so they already benefited.

Hey man, the seperatists on the crimea and in the east are openly talking about defending their country from the gays and the jews of Europe.....

*sigh* There is "slight" difference between religion based hatred and being neonazi, unless you postulate he is neonazi too:

"Gays contradict nature, commit mortal sin, and will burn in hell" - that was said by main military chaplain of Bundeswehr, a high ranking official, not just a random person that was in right place in right time. I bet if he was Russian he would be already paraded all over western press, eh?

I said on this board hundreds of times any religiously based inequalities are unjust and should go die in fire, sadly, it looks like sentiments like mine are still minority and if something is criminalized and threatened with prison, it's offending "religious feelings". No, not in Russia, all over EU. Until that changes and religious based hate speech is made criminal offence like it should be, instead of tolerated and hush-hushed on highest levels, sorry, pointing accusing finger on one state is pure hypocrisy.

Biased reporting? How about calling people bedecked in SS and neonazi insignia from combat boots to shaven head in Kiev "just misunderstood peaceful Maidan activists"? Not that they can't be found on both sides, I already said the conflict drawn a lot of random, often despicable people there, but so far, press on both sides mirrors each other claiming neonazis are only on the other one.

[Mange]

I made an analogy with Sweden and the Åland Islands earlier. Despite a referendum which showed that 95.5 percent of the Åland voters wanted to return to Sweden, the League of Nations decided against it but said that the language and customs of the islands had to be respected. Yes, that's almost a hundred years ago in a very different world, but it's a compromise and any referendum should be held in accordance with international standards, not at the barrel of a gun.

*sigh* Wrong on so many levels for everyone knowing the region and interactions there. In short:

Oh yes you are! Perhaps history isn't your strong suit?

A) This wasn't contest between islands being Swedish and Finnish, it was between belonging to Sweden and being given very wide autonomy in Finland, including demilitarization, being exempt from most obligations to the state, and full language and cultural rights.

Oh yes it was! What you're referring to is the provisions that led to the settlement! Sweden even sent an expeditionary force to the islands, but in the end deferred the issue to the League of Nations.

B) Why cherrypick diplomatic solution that ended in crisis and a lot of protests? Just because it supports your position? How about picking one that made everyone happy?

Uh, no: Because A) I'm Swedish and it's an analogy that it's close and B) It shows that civilized countries can come to an agreement without the shenanigans Russia has with invading, intimidating and trying to control the fate of countries which was part of its empire.

C) You know that Åland Islands were part of Finland since at least 1284?

Uh, no. The Åland Islands were part of Sweden and was in fact considered to be a part of Sweden (Södermanland) proper rather than Finland. What actually happened in 1284 was that the Åland Islands, along with the area known as Egentliga Finland (Finland proper) became a Swedish duchy. You do know that Finland was an integral part of Sweden (just as much part of Sweden as our counties are today) until it was lost to Russia in 1809? (With almost half of Sweden ceded to Russia.)

I agree that the crisis should have been solved diplomatically, but when one side declares half of its citizens to be second grade right-less illegals and it will never budge even one millimetre from this position, maybe, just maybe they bear a lot of fault for diplomacy failing, too.

While I agree that Ukraine has failed to integrate the Russian population, the proposed legislation comes a long way to rectify that. The rest just sounds as if it's been lifted from Russian media.

[Vympel]

Heh, this is funny:

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/308359.html

Back in early September (IIRC) the Ukrainians managed to capture what was quite obviously a Russian T-72B3 (distinct from the knocked out ones I posted about earlier, this one is clearly quite operational / capable of being reiapired easily, though damaged), and photos of said tank naturally spread around twitter and other social media. Somehow the Donetsk rebels have captured it back (abandoned during Ukrainian rereat?) - and the Donetsk rebels are apparently not too familiar (or just lying) with the particulars of Russian hardware, because in the video linked they contend its a Ukrainian T-72 that has been upgraded with Western assistance.

Now, it has been upgraded with French assistance in one sense - i.e. the Sosna-U gunner's sight on the T-72B3 incorporates a Catherine-XP thermal imager, courtesy of Thales (hence the Thales logo next to the gunner's sight) - which Russia assembles domestically under licence. But that's been in the case with Russia's most modern tanks for some years - the same thermal imager is used in the ESSA sight of Russia's T-90A tanks (and various T-90S variant tanks for export - i.e. India, Algeria, etc).

[Vympel]

How Putin got his way in Ukraine

In summary - EU refuses to accept Russia's old-school "this is my backyard" stance, Russia violently objects, EU accepts Russia's old-school "this is my backyard" stance.

By agreeing to delay the full implementation of a trade deal with Ukraine, the European Union effectively accepted Moscow’s dominance

After all the lives and territory Ukraine has lost this year, it’s easy to lose sight of the way its conflict with Russia began last winter, when Moscow tried to elbow its way into Ukraine’s economic pact with Europe. In response, thousands of ordinary Ukrainians went onto the streets to tell Russia to mind its own business, and the upheavals that followed—from the violent revolution in Kiev to the Russian annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine—have all stemmed from that confrontation. But they might all have been avoided if the European Union (E.U.) had involved Russia in the process from the outset. On Friday, it finally did.

During closed-door talks in Brussels, the trade representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the E.U. quietly agreed to delay the full implementation of the trade deal that started this mess in the first place. Russia got a place at the table in deciding Ukraine’s economic future, and the E.U. in essence accepted Moscow’s pride of place in shaping its neighbor’s affairs. Later that night, the E.U.’s most senior official, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, had a difficult time defending this decision during a summit in Kiev.

The summit’s host, Ukrainian billionaire Viktor Pinchuk, pointed out how nice it would have been to make this concession to Russia before, not after, thousands of Ukrainians had been killed. “Now we are in a difficult and dangerous situation,” Pinchuk reminded Barroso. “So did we have a chance to prevent what happened with a different political strategy of the European Union or the West?” After an attempt to dodge the question—“I am not here as a commentator,” Barroso said— the visiting European official admitted that the force of Russia’s actions this year had obliged Europe to start thinking in terms of pragmatism rather than principles.

“In terms of principles, I think it’s right that the European Union respects the free will of our partners, and it does not accept a Europe divided on spheres of influence,” Barroso said. “But now, to solve the current situation it’s better to focus on what we can do now.”

This focus resulted in the Brussels compromise. Under its terms, the free trade deal between the E.U. and Ukraine will still be ratified on schedule this week, but at the insistence of Moscow, its provisions will not be fully implemented until the start of 2016. For about 15 months, Ukraine will be able to ship its goods to the E.U. without paying export tariffs, but Europeans will not be able to enjoy the same free access to the Ukrainian market. That is what Russia has long demanded.

Recently, at the end of August, when the leaders of Russia and Ukraine met for the first time in nearly three months to discuss the war raging along their border, Vladimir Putin used his time at the microphone to rant about Ukraine’s trade deal with Europe. The Russian President insisted that it would cost Russia around $3 billion if Ukraine went ahead with the agreement, which he said would disrupt the customs rules and sanitary inspections that Russia conducts at its border.

“Nobody ever talked to us about these problems,” Putin fumed. “We were simply told that it’s none of our business.” What seemed to upset him the most was the possibility that, once the trade deal takes effect, European goods would be smuggled into Russia through Ukraine without paying the right taxes. To illustrate the point, Putin even brought a picture of some Polish food mislabeled to look like it came from neighboring Belarus. “It’s written right here that the country of origin is Belarus. But peel off the sticker, and it’s Polish!” he said, waving the photo in the air. “With Ukraine this will happen ten times more. We’ll be inundated, you understand? Inundated!”

In the context of the fighting in eastern Ukraine, which had at that point killed more than 2,000 people, this may have seemed like a petty complaint for Putin to raise during that desperate round of peace talks. But from the start of the conflict this grudge has been at the core of his thinking. Russia, as the dominant power in Eastern Europe, refuses to be left out of Ukraine’s relationship with the West. As Putin said in March when he annexed Crimea, he does not want the West to “make itself at home in our backyard or in our historical territory.”

Most of the tension arose from Europe’s refusal to recognize notions like “historical territory” and geopolitical “backyards,” at least until last week. During the summit in Kiev on Friday, Barroso admitted that Russia had long been demanding a say in the trade talks between the E.U. and Ukraine. He insisted that Moscow had always been refused. “Russia has to recognize the right of Ukraine to negotiate the agreements they want. That is the point.” By allowing Russia a seat at the table in those negotiations, he said, the E.U. would have accepted “the theory of spheres of influence or a kind of limited sovereignty of a country as independent as Ukraine.”

This is roughly what the E.U. accepted with its three-sided deal on Friday, or at least that’s how it looked to many in Ukraine. The day after the Brussels compromise, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danilo Lubkivsky tendered his resignation, saying that to delay the implementation of the trade pact with Europe “sends the wrong signal to everyone, to the aggressor, to our allies, and most importantly, to Ukrainian citizens.” He added: “You cannot delay a choice. Otherwise it’s no choice at all.”

To be sure, the choice to ally with Europe was not unanimous in Ukraine. The eastern and southern provinces would have been happy to remain in Russia’s economic orbit. But the Ukrainians who revolted demanded that their leaders move ahead with E.U. integration on all fronts and without delay, and the former government’s attempt to stall this integration is what resulted in its violent overthrow in February.

Before that, Russia had tried for years to coax and pressure Ukraine to abandon or at least delay its pact with Europe. Igor Yurgens, a former Kremlin adviser who has been directly involved in those efforts since 2008, admitted as much on Friday after the Brussels compromise was made public. “What happened today is exactly what Russia wanted to do before the crisis,” Yurgens told Barroso at the summit in Kiev. “If we did it before the crisis, probably there would be no crisis.” Yurgens added: “I’m sorry.”

That apology would be of little consolation to the families of the Ukrainians killed in this year’s conflict. As Ukraine’s leaders were eager to stress over the weekend, the Brussels compromise with Russia will at least help prevent any more bloodshed. But it will not reverse the events of the last nine months. Ukrainians will just be left to ponder the same question Pinchuk asked of Barroso. If Europe and Ukraine were going to make such concessions to Russia anyway, why didn’t they make them before Putin used force to get what he wanted? It might have saved the Ukrainian people a whole lot of heartache.

I suppose that's one interpretation. Its a bit selective but its impossible to argue with the "and you should've done that in the fucking first place" unless you're in liberal idealist foreign policy fairy tale land. Or alternately, neoconservative douchecock land.

[Thanas]

The association agreement will still go forward, just in 2015 now. So...at best, little more than a year, whereas Russia did not want this agreement to go through at all. Hard to view that as a victory, it merely delays it. (Unless Russia manages to secure enough influence to delay it indefinitely, of course).

[K. A. Pital]

2016, no?

[Mange]

2016, no?

That's correct! (January 1, 2016.)

[K. A. Pital]

More than a year... A lot of time to play the game of thrones...

[Vympel]

The association agreement will still go forward, just in 2015 now. So...at best, little more than a year, whereas Russia did not want this agreement to go through at all. Hard to view that as a victory, it merely delays it. (Unless Russia manages to secure enough influence to delay it indefinitely, of course).

IIRC the timeline of the whole thing was that Russia initially wanted to play a part in the AA negotiation and the EU said no. Russia then upped the ante and offered the substantial bailout / bribe to Yanukovych, which induced him to abandon the AA. So its likely that the original intent of their playing their part in the AA negotiation was trying to kill it (or at least weaken it enough for it to suit them) without having to pay through the nose to do it. Of course, they ended up paying another way given the sanctions / tensions etc.

[Mange]

More than a year... A lot of time to play the game of thrones...

Well, there's always that possibility, but the Kremlin has now declared it's not happy with that concession (and it's a deal that has been ratified by both parties): Reuters via Yahoo! News

[Vympel]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29290246

The rebels and Kiev have signed a deal solidifying / progressing the peacefire too. 30km buffer-zone, no military overflights, withdrawal of foreign mercenaries.