Crimea and ex-Ukrainian/Black Sea regions integration into RF

Crimea is a deadweight without the rest of Eastern Ukraine; both strategically and economically. The access route to the peninsula will be cut except via a new Kerch bridge, and the region's economy (hardly great - it makes its bucks off tourism) will be completely reliant on Russia; moreover it won't be recognized by anyone else.
BSF's position will now be more compromised not less; before we had a neutralish Ukraine with the BSF in Sevastopol. Now we're in danger of having that same fleet in the same place but surrounded by NATO forces right next door in Odessa, Mariupol, Nikolayev, etc... or at the very least a hostile Ukraine that will cause problems and invite the US the first chance it gets.

Admittedly the situation wasn't about to lend itself to the best outcome, and the putchshists shouldn't be recognized in any case; but with the occupation of Crimea a high-stakes gamble has begun and if the rest of Eastern Ukraine stays passive as usual (Crimea was always rather more active) then we're in serious trouble. Combined with the increased West-East tensions and inevitable NATO focus on its Eastern border.

The Crimea has to be integrated into either a federalised, de-centralised, neutral or Russia-friendly Ukraine; or become part of a new South-East Ukrainian republic; comprised of the Nikolayev, Odessa, Kherson, Zaporozhia and Donetsk regions at the least - to secure the entire Black Sea coast and to secure access to Pridnestrovie.

Those are the only possible positive outcomes. A Malorussian republic would be good, if a federal state can't be agreed upon. But looking at the current state of things - a dim prospect so far; most of these regions right now are fairly passive and subordinate to Kiev.

runaway wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Crimea is a deadweight without the rest of Eastern Ukraine; both strategically and economically. The access route to the peninsula will be cut except via a new Kerch bridge, and the region's economy (hardly great - it makes its bucks off tourism) will be completely reliant on Russia; moreover it won't be recognized by anyone else.

Crimea is actually a region that wont be totally reliant for russia. It has shipbuilding and fishing industries, and of course tourism.

It's quite economically underdeveloped; compared to the Ukraine on average. It's a receiver of federal funds, not a donor of them. If you're looking for shipbuilding - then you can look at Nikolayev, Kherson maybe. The majority of industry in Eastern Ukraine is located in places like Dneprpetrovsk, Donbass, Kharkov, etc... not the Crimea.

Biggest trouble though, is that it would literally be cut off from mainland Ukraine. I'd imagine that this is with who most of its trade is with, not to mention tourism. Tourism can be made up for by Russia, but the trade will be harder to replace.
Remember that the Crimea has been part of the Ukraine's rusting industries and fail economy for the past 23 years. Who in Russia will be interested in the Crimea's exports?
Heck, Russian tourists might not even be interested in what the Crimea has to offer; I mean what kind of tourist infrastructure is there anyhow, compared to places like Egypt, Turkey, Mallorca, Cyprus, even Krasnodar Krai, etc... that the Russian tourist has been spoiled with over the last decade?
If the Crimea today is still like when I visited there back in 2001; then it may be a beautiful country alright, but the facilities just won't cut it.

BSF's position will now be more compromised not less; before we had a neutralish Ukraine with the BSF in Sevastopol. Now we're in danger of having that same fleet in the same place but surrounded by NATO forces right next door in Odessa, Mariupol, Nikolayev, etc... or at the very least a hostile Ukraine that will cause problems and invite the US the first chance it gets.

The situation was grave, nationalsts and nazis are in power in Ukraine and was to kick out both BSF as well as russian culture from Crimea. Nato forces are already on the south and west coast of black sea, to keep Crimea as main naval base for BSF is very very important.

Hah! All the new authorities said (not that we should recognize them), is that Russia should respect the Ukraine's "European choice", but that they are ready to do business with us, and develop ties. No threats or anything there against the BSF or anything else.
Nazis haven't disappeared, they haven't demobilized, disarmed, etc... they are there patrolling around and waiting on the sidelines for their time to come, just like the Bolsheviks after the February revolution.
But... for now at least in the new parliament they've been mostly sidelined; their leader secured a 2nd line post.
While Svoboda's initiatives looked more like trolling and populism than any real attempt at threatening Russia.

Basically what I'm saying is that there was no real threat to the BSF. No-one is offering the Ukraine NATO or EU membership anyway, and especially not after what has just transpired.

Now this isn't to say that we should have accepted the putshchists, or let them have the Crimea. Just that it's perfectly possible to refuse to recognize them and do as we please, even without introducing any forces in theater.
I mean, what were they going to do? The Ukrainian army had been neutral all throughout the crisis. Why would it have suddenly started listening to the putschists if they ordered it to storm Crimea?
And anything else would have ended in failure; half the Berkut units in the entire country ended up in the Crimea, and set up their own checkpoints there, defenses; complete with their own arsenals of machine guns, grenade launchers, etc...
That's not to mention the large number of volunteers and the Sevastopol militia, who could have be trained and armed if need be.
Access to the Crimea is very easy to control.

And of course if the new government DID use the military, then THAT'S when Russia should have introduced it's own forces, and rapdily mobilised its marines who are already stationed there and could respond very quickly if needed.

The Crimea has to be integrated into either a federalised, de-centralised, neutral or Russia-friendly Ukraine; or become part of a new South-East Ukrainian republic; comprised of the Nikolayev, Odessa, Kherson, Zaporozhia and Donetsk regions at the least - to secure the entire Black Sea coast and to secure access to Pridnestrovie.
Those are the only possible positive outcomes. A Malorussian republic would be good, if a federal state can't be agreed upon. But looking at the current state of things - a dim prospect so far; most of these regions right now are fairly passive and subordinate to Kiev.

In fact  Nikolayev, Odessa, Kherson, Zaporozhia and Donetsk have expressed their will to join Crimean region and vote for independence and assosiation with russia. Either way, Crimea is back under russian rule and will stay that way. Not a deadweight but a strong region with huge strategic value and a prosperus future with russia.

They're all suckering out, the authorities in Kiev are tightening their grip and they have a good amount of people from exactly such regions as Odessa, Kherson & Zaporozhia on their side. Pro-Russians in these regions aren't doing anything. I really don't think the Russian operation to seize the Crimea helped matters. In fact I think it weakened the resistance in these regions against the center; because now the conflict has shifted to one between Russia and the Ukraine; people are afraid of getting accused of seperatism while many who were neutral before are now pissed off at Russia.
Since the Russian military started disarming the Ukrainian military; a lot of them have now openly taken the side of the putschists too.

The situation therefore, if it doesn't get result as part of a Russia-West agreement, could be quite dire; the BSF will be surrounded by angry hohols from Odessa to Melitopol. They won't be able to do anything themselves of course, but in time they could invite in somebody who could.

Other than the Crimea the only other region with a chance of splitting is the Donetsk region. At the very least they are capable of mobilising considerably larger crowds than the Maidanites are there, and have stormed their regional administration time and time again; basically every day. They are there at night time too. Albeit their own appointed people's governor is a very uncharismatic chap IMO, and Kiev is sure to send police reinforcements there. Time will tell.

All the others are more or less passive, their pro-Russian meetings at most draw up a few thousand people, and pro-Maidan demonstrators draw up a not much smaller amount.

In Kharkov the largest gathering so far has been a pro-Maidan one 2 weeks ago; about 25,000-30,000 people albiet with many arrivals from other regions. That got the locals pretty fired up. Since then the regional adminstration has been stormed a few times, cleared out of Maidanites holed up in there (who were beaten, publically humiliated), Russian flags raised, pro-Russian rallies of over 10,000 people, constant duty and watch at the Lenin monument day and night, etc... but it's all gone quiet now.
Pro-Russians set up a tent-city around the Lenin monument, but it was demolished yesterday night. Their own mayor and governor betrayed them; publicly agreeing with them but at the same time slyly following the orders of the new government in Kiev. The leader of the organisation 'Oplot' who ambushed pro-Maidan protestors there 2 weeks back and besieged them in the regional administration is now wanted for questioning by the police.
And the Kiev government has appointed a new governor and soon a new mayor of Kharkov; allied oligarchs who backed the new regime. The current mayor has only promised to keep the Lenin standing, as long as he is mayor.
Yesterday a bunch of people turned up to protest the new governor, but there were no more than a few hundred of them. They were pushed back by multiple lines of police, many of whom arrived from other regions.
I think the city is more pro-Russian than not but if they are all this passive than it doesn't really matter.

In Odessa the largest gathering so far has been the pro-Russian one on 23rd of February. But of the ones lately, the largest was a protest against the Russian intervention in the Crimea; one report says 15,000 people although I have no idea how accurate it is. Earlier on their administration was also stormed by pro-Russians, flag raised, etc... but it's all gone quiet again. The general feeling is that at least a large number of people view the pro-Russians as the same sort of hooligans as the Maidanites. Or at the very least, they are neutral, and are not willing to go into the streets, or support the Crimea. About 2 days ago a large group of Maidanites arrived overnight, mostly from out of town, together with their own security; shields clubs and so on. They staged a large gathering there, and no-one did anything.
Odessa has more proponents of the Ukrainian national idea, and the Maidan movement than one might think - they aren't a majority but there are a number of such people there.
This despite the fact that a couple of weeks back a huge bunch of armed Odessans went out to kick the hell out of a small gathering of Maidanites. Now no-one's doing anything, and people are just following the new government.
Also, the main pro-Russian activist got beaten up yesterday. He's not cut out for the role I think.
The Ukrainian military moved some BMPs into the city. A paltry gathering of mostly 40+ year olds attempted to block the road and stop them, but they were just moved aside by the police; they didn't even have time to put up barricades from the tires they brought with them.
Now the Ukrainian fleet has rebassed to Odessa.
That report earlier about the Ukrainian ship on anti-piracy duty switching allegiances to the Crimea turned out to be false too; it docked in Odessa just yesterday, flying the Ukrainian flag

In Dneprepetrovsk the largest gathering has been a pro-Maidan one a few days ago. 20,000 people turned up and sang the Ukrainian anthem. Enough said really. On 1st of March their regional administration was stormed and a Russian flag was raised, but by a smaller crowd.
After the Kiev authorities took power, Maidanites toppled the Lenin statue there. Then, in an attempt to kiss some ass, the city administration changed the name of Lenin sq. to Heroes of Maidan sq. When the pro-Russian crowd gathered on the 1st of March, they knocked that sign right down. Now though, it will probably just be put back up again. Pro-Russians have achieved nothing there, and the Russian invasion has probably mobilised more people against Russia there, than those who aren't.

In Kherson both sides had rival rallies side by side a few days back. Both were laughably small, but the pro-Russian one was smaller.
I think they had the Russian flag raised too on the 1st of March, although I may be wrong. Doesn't matter now.

Lugansk has also been mostly inactive; other than the Russian flag raised there a week ago.
Albeit that might be changing now, as influence from the Donetsk region takes hold. As of yet, they haven't proved that they are able to mobilise enough people to do anything.

Zaporozhie has perhaps been the most passive of all. Didn't even hear of a Russian flag being raised. Probably split 50/50 between pro and anti Maidan, and of the anti-Maidanites - no-one there is really doing anything.

Firebird wrote:But I wonder if there are other factors at work. The Western ones might be unemployed on a payroll.
The pro Russians might be at work most of the time. Clearly the Western movement had been developed with outside money for a long time. And the Pty of the Regions/Russian leaners may have been surprised by the whole thing.

In other words, how accurate are the crowd sizes as an indicator of support/or disinterest?

"Do you want to break away?" isn't a simple question. I mean many Ukrainans might choose a Russia leaning unified country, and then a breakaway, but never a Western/Nazi Ukraine.

Once the East separates, where is the border drawn. That means Russian speakers/Russia leaners isolated in a Nationalist/Nazi state. And how many Maiden-nuts truly wanted an EU-Nazi-Nationalist type coup govt? I think many were protesting about the state of their lives and overall political system rather than have US backed loons in power.

I suppose, there has to be a day of reckoning and decision. Maybe that will happen in the East over the next week or 2?

That's true, all those reasons, but what does it change? One way or the other the Western bums with nothing to lose are politically active while the hard-working Easterners are too busy, too afraid of losing their jobs, too loosely organised to defend their interests, etc...
Oh there seem to be all kinds of excuses going around; "anything but war", "what Nazis? Haven't seen them", "us Russian-speakers are doing fine in the Ukraine, no-one's oppressing us", "Putin's occupying us", "Ukraine is one and united", "Yanukovich was a corrupt SOB", etc...
Although in many regions there is clear pro-Russian sympathy; but still people are nowhere near as active as they should be to effect a change. I mean a protest of 15,000 in a city like Kharkov, with nearly 1.5 million population? Pathetic; Sevastopol mobilised 1.5x as much, despite having only a quarter of the population of Kharkov. And accordingly, they are the ones who achieved results. In Kharkov all they've managed is for the Kiev authorities to send an oligarch loyal to take over as governor for the Kharkov region.

Maybe it will change in month or two once the economy really does go into a tailspin. It's quite possible. But it's just as likely that the new government will cement their authority by that time, and they will use repression, propaganda, etc... to achieve their goal