The Situation in the Ukraine. #6

 started Russia's defeat in Ukraine

Oh, God. Putin just can't tell to himself should Russia "conquer" Ukraine and support it with money to get ingratitude in return again (Occupation! Moskals robbed us, without them we will live like France!)

TR1 wrote:
There is no realistic scenario for Crimea being forced away from Russia. None of the Russian trade partners and major oil importers have given two shits in the grand scheme of things. As soon as Ukraine calms down, its business as usual.  

Only that Ukraine won't just simply calm down having lost such vast economic capabilities in the Black Sea. Russia will most likely if not allready have claimed, claim all the reserves in the waters around the peninsula. This is nothing any nation on this planet would simply shake off like it was just some minor loss. Especialy when the situation calms down and everyone realises the extent of what they have actualy lost or are about to loose forever, it will further stoke the discontent about it.

 This is nothing any nation on this planet would simply shake off like it was just some minor loss. Especialy when the situation calms down and everyone realises the extent of what they have actualy lost or are about to forever loose, it will further stoke the discontent about it.

It changes nothing

Asf wrote:

 This is nothing any nation on this planet would simply shake off like it was just some minor loss. Especialy when the situation calms down and everyone realises the extent of what they have actualy lost or are about to forever loose, it will further stoke the discontent about it.

It changes nothing

Physicaly it won't change anything yes. At least not now. But I see how a lot of Ukrainians must be thinking that the most monumental error they've made was to hand over their nukes ....

TheGeorgian wrote:

Asf wrote:

 This is nothing any nation on this planet would simply shake off like it was just some minor loss. Especialy when the situation calms down and everyone realises the extent of what they have actualy lost or are about to forever loose, it will further stoke the discontent about it.

It changes nothing

Physicaly it won't change anything yes. At least not now. But I see how a lot of Ukrainians must be thinking that the most monumental error they've made was to hand over their nukes ....

Any attempt now by Ukraine getting nuclear capability back is automatically genocide against russians and will be anihilated same with NATO scum if they push forward with military in Ukraine.

By the hohols reasoning, if Chechnya and Ingusheta broke away, they would also be allowed nukes.
(Ok I'm not sure if nukes are stationed there, but its that sort of principle...) I mean any Russian federation republic or region.

Legally speaking (and this is the conventional viewpt), Russia was the sole inheritor of all USSR treaty rights and obligations. The Ukraine lost any rights it enjoyed as part of the single Soviet state.

Infact, I would go on as to say that the Ukraine had no rights to a separate existence because:-
1)there was no true consent for the breakaway.
2)its oppression of Russian speakers and its denial of THEIR right to breakaway was a breach of the implied, or actual terms of any USSR dissolution.

Ultimately if there is no consent, the only reasoning left is force. Hint: Putin!

The Eastern and much(most?!) of the Central Ukraine didn't join with Russia. It WAS part of Russia, before the USSR even existed. All the more in favour of a reunion of parts today.

Werewolf wrote:
Any attempt now by Ukraine getting nuclear capability back is automatically genocide against russians and will be anihilated same with NATO scum if they push forward with military in Ukraine.

I doubt they ever had nuclear capabilities themselves besides the reactor. Those weapons were made in Russia but they ended up in Ukrainian hands after the dissolusion of USSR. I highly doubt they can achieve nuclear capabilities unless they have a brigade of scientists/engineers like Chelomey. Maybe chemical warfare but that would be even less approved by any side.

to hand over their nukes

And what could they do if they'd had it? Bomb Moscow?

Actually, they should think about not maidan anymore, not having nukes or waging wars.

“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

C R I M E A anyone?

I wonder if NATO will bomb Scotland if it decides it wants independence.
Bearing in mind Scotland unified with England and Wales WAY before the USA even existed.

Perhaps Serbia can bomb the fuck out of Kosovo, and India out of Pakistan?

The perversion of NATO claims is staggering..

Asf wrote:

to hand over their nukes

And what could they do if they'd had it? Bomb Moscow?

superfluous question. Of course Moscow would have thought twice about taking Crimea, like US is thinking 1000 times about attacking North Korea. Being able to deflect such attacks doesn't mean you are willing to take the risk, plus the short ranges give you a very ristricted time table. Especialy against MIRVs ....

like US is thinking 1000 times about attacking North Korea

There is no oil in North Korea

Look, Ukraine had guns, and men, and tanks in Crimea, but didn't use it. It's not enough to have a weapon to protect yourself. And it's not enough to have an a-bomb to be a "nuclear state".

If Ukraine had an a-bomb, there were foreign soldiers on it's territory already. Commandos on nuclear silos, both NATO and russian peacekeepers preventing nuclear weapons to be stolen or used and silently dividing country between themselves.

Asf wrote:There is no oil in North Korea

No. But oil wasn't a reason in most or like 95% of the wars involving US. Vietnam, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo etc to name a few.

Look, Ukraine had guns, and men, and tanks in Crimea, but didn't use it. It's not enough to have a weapon to protect yourself.

Of course it is not. I found it superflous to mention that as well. Russians knew perfectly well what they were going up against and that they didn't have to expect any military response at all.

And it's not enough to have an a-bomb to be a "nuclear state".

"an a-bomb" ..... what are you talking about ? Ukraine had an entire arsenal of mid range mobile ICBM's  alone and a lot of them were MIRVs. Soviets deployed a huge portion of their nuclear arsenal in Ukraine when it was part of the USSR and most of it remained there after the dissolution.

I'll be honest though. I'm rather glad those nukes found their way back. I can imagine that some of them would have ended up being smuggled somewhere else for a good price.

 Soviets deployed

Soviets deployed 700 000 men army in Ukraine. So what? They barely can have 30 000 - 40 000 troops now

If we talk about modern Ukraine as it is but with... ok, over 9000 strategic nuclear misslies, I see even less reasons for Russia not to invade. This missiles would be guarded poorly and offices woulnd't have any morale to use them. That's all. On the other side a warhead or two could disappear in all that chaos, so a military operation to secure them becomes necessary.

I say it again - if you have an a-bomb (or shitload of a-bombs, which are probably out-of-service or inactive), it dosen't make you a "nuclear state".

But oil wasn't a reason in most or like 95% of the wars involving US. Vietnam, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo etc to name a few. 

So we've got an expert on USA politics? What is the reason for the USA to invade then? An absence of democracy? I see no reason for the USA to invade North Korea by now.

The reason for Afghan and Iraq wars was not oil in the first place, but politics of an "organised chaos" to prevent Eurasia's development by creating many local hotspots.

North Korea on the other hand is very militarised, united by heavy propaganda and is supported by China - a hard nut to crack even without an a-bomb.

Asf wrote:
probably out-of-service or inactive

It's redicilous to assume that.

Asf wrote:
So we've got an expert on USA politics?

I prefer doing some research rather than blindly accept mainstream BS.

The US also doesn't see any reason to invade North Korea by now ....

The reason for Afghan and Iraq wars was not oil in the first place, but politics of an "organised chaos" to prevent Eurasia's development by creating many local hotspots

Is that so ? hm, seems quite familiar.

PS: sorry I've edit my last post

http://pravdanews.info/mvf-priostanovil-vydachu-ukraine-vtorogo-transha-kredita.html

IMF didn't give the second tranche of 3 billion $ to Ukraine, but will additionally check situation in Ukraine. Kiev is in panic, because of they don't get this tranche, they will not be able to finance their military operation in the east.

http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/3389620-strelkov-naznachen-hlavnokomanduuischym-dnr

Good news for Novorussia and bad news for Kiev at the same time. Strelkov was appointed to the post of commander and chief of Donetsk armed forces and will form a new unite command structure for all Donetsk units to coordinate their operations and that they will not fight on their own without coordination with other units. Considering, that Strelkov is good military leader and that Kiev appointed new commander for their operation without any military experiences and education.

TR1 wrote:You think sanctions will be good for the average Russian?

Hint, no, they will not.

Exactly. Even though the Ukrainian economy is projected to go into recession by 7 percent, the Russian economy is projected to
achieve no growth this year at all (0%).

So further sanctions would definitely hurt a lot more. It's regrettable that there are several on there who are not rational, but that's
the hard reality.

We can talk about oligarks, but total growth for Russia is projected at 0% for this year. The best Russia can hope for is 1% growth,
and the "best recession" Ukraine can hope for is 5%. These are projections as they stand right now.

Furthermore, lets be real. Russia is still too weak militarily to attack and take the whole "Novorossija" area. Putin knows this.

Russia har several military bases around i post-Soviet space and binding forces in Eastern Ukraine puts other areas at risk - such as:
Tiraspol, Gagauz, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea and NK Republic.

Taking Kiev is even less realistic as Kiev was never a Yanukovich/pro-Russia strong base of support.

"West Team" was always winning Kiev earlier if we look back at 2004/2005 and 2010 elections. The same happened this time too.

So even if Russia invaded, which it cannot do anyway, there is no chance for Russian Forces to take whole of Kiev and force Mr IMF out
of the office anyway. In this scenario, most likely NATO troops would have entered area between Lviv and Kiev also, the same way as
it was done in Kosovo in 1999, which had a tense stand-off for a while.

T055 wrote:

TR1 wrote:You think sanctions will be good for the average Russian?

Hint, no, they will not.

Exactly. Even though the Ukrainian economy is projected to go into recession by 7 percent, the Russian economy is projected to
achieve no growth this year at all (0%).

So further sanctions would definitely hurt a lot more. It's regrettable that there are several on there who are not rational, but that's
the hard reality.

We can talk about oligarks, but total growth for Russia is projected at 0% for this year. The best Russia can hope for is 1% growth,
and the "best recession" Ukraine can hope for is 5%. These are projections as they stand right now.

Furthermore, lets be real. Russia is still too weak militarily to attack and take the whole "Novorossija" area. Putin knows this.

Russia har several military bases around i post-Soviet space and binding forces in Eastern Ukraine puts other areas at risk - such as:
Tiraspol, Gagauz, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea and NK Republic.

Taking Kiev is even less realistic as Kiev was never a Yanukovich/pro-Russia strong base of support.

"West Team" was always winning Kiev earlier if we look back at 2004/2005 and 2010 elections. The same happened this time too.

So even if Russia invaded, which it cannot do anyway, there is no chance for Russian Forces to take whole of Kiev and force Mr IMF out
of the office anyway. In this scenario, most likely NATO troops would have entered area between Lviv and Kiev also, the same way as
it was done in Kosovo in 1999, which had a tense stand-off for a while.

Projected is never in line with reality. Russias growth could be negative but so far, its in the positive. But one thing is for ceetain, even if a small recession of 5%, It will be better for Russia long term. As been noted,l before, China is moving to a domestic demand for growth as foreign sales are down. Russia is planning the same thing. Besides money obtained from taxation of oil and gas, the next biggest factor that is right now helping the decline of Russian economic growth but helped Iran is the domestic consumption. Problem is, people are witholding spending in Russia of economic fear, but these fears then end up causing a problem because they dont end up spending.  Consumer consumption is a massive part of pretty much everyones economy unless you are of a country with mostly poor people. What drive Canadas economy if not sale of oil and gas, is the service sector which helps consumers.  If sanctions hit, then Russians have to rely on domestic development in order to sell to their own people.

Many people here say that Russia relies on sales to Europe, then goes to say thay all is sold is oil and gas. Well, let me tell you, Russia then does not have much to lose, because Italy along with Austria and Hungary are not interested in sanctions and want the oil and gas. Yet Russian GDP didnt go up even with Chinese oil and gas deal, so it could also mean that oil and gas does not play a massive part in tge economy like some claim it does.

Unless one can explain to me how it will hurt average consumer. If you think not being able to buy a mercedes or bmw is hurting average consumer, then I think you need a good taste of reality. Most to all technilogical sales are from China. Germany is heavy industrial equipment and Fashion. Russia then builds their own cars as well as pruchasing tech from china wont stop.

Agriculture? Well, since Russia has no subsidies in place for agriculture, they can do it later. Even without it, Russia is growing exporter in it. Biggest sales of Russian equipment isnt even to EU or US. Mostly third world countries or CIS. Sanctions from EU wont stop that sales. China is growing interest in Russian products.

So once again, what does Russia sell and buy from EU that is so vital?

I think many people here look at the tree and don't see the forest. Russia is in war with NATO, not with Ukraine. Putin will not send army in Ukraine, not because he fear sanctions, which will be far more harmful for EU itself than for Russia or because he fear Ukrainian clowns. This is about the strategy, which Russia and China play together with BRICS and that is why this Brazil meeting this month is so important. It's about coordinated attack on US Dollar and US economy. It's a process, which take time, but will be very effective. BRICS bank and a basket of reserve currencies will break monopole of US dollar and of western financial centers. Businesses will go through BRICS bank, credits will be in BRICS currencies and payments will be in BRICS currencies. That mean no profit with currencies changes with USD, no provisions for western financial centers for money transactions and with breaking of USD monopole, US will no more print Dollars if they don't want hyperinflation. Without printing Dollars US will have to borrow money from foreigners, so they will have high interest rates and without money in budget, US will not be able to pay so much money for their military neither for revolutions around the World. When US will not be able to pay their obligation, US will go bankrupt and that mean recession and big depression of US economy. China will very soon become the largest economy in the World and soon also the strongest military power. With the break of the US economy, Kiev clowns will not last long, considering that Ukraine will be broke very soon. That is why Russia ans China must not get to soon in war, because US want to save its skin with pushing war on Russia and China before US economy fall. That is why US have so much fear and hate for Russia and China, because they are capable to crash US. Remember, when US economy fall, EU economy will fall too.

medo wrote:I think many people here look at the tree and don't see the forest. Russia is in war with NATO, not with Ukraine. Putin will not send army in Ukraine, not because he fear sanctions, which will be far more harmful for EU itself than for Russia or because he fear Ukrainian clowns. .

But the most important question is: People in Lugansk and Donetsk are being murdered and terrorized by Washington's puppets in Kiev. Who will help them?

Who says the sanctions are irrelevant to the Russian elite's calculations? The oligarchs are absolutely concerned about their corporate shares!

Starlight wrote:

medo wrote:I think many people here look at the tree and don't see the forest. Russia is in war with NATO, not with Ukraine. Putin will not send army in Ukraine, not because he fear sanctions, which will be far more harmful for EU itself than for Russia or because he fear Ukrainian clowns. .

But the most important question is: People in Lugansk and Donetsk are being murdered and terrorized by Washington's puppets in Kiev. Who will help them?

Who says the sanctions are irrelevant to the Russian elite's calculations? The oligarchs are absolutely concerned about their corporate shares!

In that case western elites should be even more concerned as those sanctions will strike them more than Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU30wrLrX-Y

Strelkov say in this interview the same as I say here for some time. Donetsk could easily mobilize 80.000 soldiers, what will be more than enough to liberate all Novorussian territory from Ukrainian army. Russia doesn't need to send army there. They have to send enough money, humanitarian help, weapons with ammo and military equipment. They decide to create regular army on contract base, so the soldiers could feed their families with their payments. This is the right direction.

T055 wrote:
Furthermore, lets be real. Russia is still too weak militarily to attack and take the whole "Novorossija" area. Putin knows this.

No, actually it has the capability to do is easily, if you want to be "real". But it should not.

TR1 wrote:

T055 wrote:
Furthermore, lets be real. Russia is still too weak militarily to attack and take the whole "Novorossija" area. Putin knows this.

No, actually it has the capability to do is easily, if you want to be "real". But it should not.

Exactly. And as sad as this sounds, would make a good test run of Russias latest digital comm systems and link system to otger combat units. Heck, the amount of T-90s and Sukhois in western Russia, would roll over Ukraine pretty easily. Problem would be insurgent style combat that would lead afterwards.

I will admit if Russia got involved militarily, they would create more enemies than friends, and possibly many Russians will die needlessly. But sitting around and doing nothing is far from a good tactic. Atleast arming and funding the rebels is much better.