Ukraine reacts to fears of Russian invasion as troops build up at the border

[Gandalf]

Jesus the Russians are making the CIA look downright competent lately. I can’t believe we were afraid of these guys.

The US has been scared by all sorts of people across its existence. Remember when Bin Laden was treated like some sort of existential threat?

Breaking from Russia Times: Putin has declared the German speaking areas of the Sudetenland… errr i mean Donetsk and Luhansk as separate from Ukraine.

Cue the tanks.

So Russia won't invade Ukraine, for a certain value of Ukraine.

[Col. Crackpot]

Woops, quoted the wrong post. Oh well, it is amusing to see Crackpot and I agree on something, sorta.

I’d imagine we would also agree that the great lesson many of us learned the hard way from 2003 is to be very fucking suspicious when a great power is trying to justify the invasion of someone. Saddam was an asshole. The Azov bridge sounds like they are cut from the same cloth. Neither is justification for an invasion based on lies. I half expect Putin to tell us about Zelensky getting yellow cake from Africa at this point.

Jesus the Russians are making the CIA look downright competent lately. I can’t believe we were afraid of these guys.

So why do you only apply that logic to Russia?

Why won’t you apply it to Russia?

The arguments I’m hearing are a lot of. “Well the Americans did worse with X so..” very intellectually inconsistent with the supposed anti imperialism crowd here.

Or again are you just run of the mill Russia apologists? Lot of hard right wing bedfellows joining that camp these days. That must be fun for you.

[Col. Crackpot]

Jesus the Russians are making the CIA look downright competent lately. I can’t believe we were afraid of these guys.

The US has been scared by all sorts of people across its existence. Remember when Bin Laden was treated like some sort of existential threat?

Breaking from Russia Times: Putin has declared the German speaking areas of the Sudetenland… errr i mean Donetsk and Luhansk as separate from Ukraine.

Cue the tanks.

So Russia won't invade Ukraine, for a certain value of Ukraine.

I mean he basically said Ukraine was a Russian creation. I thought the Long winded fucker was going to claim Finland and Alaska before he finished talking.

Dude has lost it.

[Col. Crackpot]

https://twitter.com/markmackinnon/statu ... 12297?s=21

“Madness that national republics were allowed to leave the Russian Empire”. V Putin

Finland will be filling out that NATO application real quick.

[Formless]

Why won’t you apply it to Russia?

The Russians don't ask me to trust them. The US government does. The Russians cite sources outside their control. We know that their troops are in Belarus because journalists filmed them in Belarus, and the government of Belarus confirmed that's what is going on. They're in their country doing military exercises (and possibly discussing how best to set up those nukes mentioned earlier-- I mean, there is no way they would just announce something like that out of the blue, this is something they have almost certainly been talking about for months if not years).

(and yes, I know Belarus shares a border with Ukraine. Unlike most Americans, I can find these countries on a map)

The US government, when directly asked by journalists, cites themselves as sources. The difference should be obvious: you can't make claims without argument or presenting evidence. At least the Russians are trying, even if you don't trust them. There is a gradient in trustworthiness: uncontested fact -> trusted sources -> untrusted sources -> bullshit -> proven lies. The US, by citing itself as a source, lands in the category of bullshit, whereas Russia, by at least trying to show evidence, lands in the Untrusted category. And I'm sure on some level they know that, but you can crawl out of that category into "trusted" over time. You can't crawl out of the "bullshitter" category without trying. So when the Ukraine's own government says "no, Russia isn't going to invade", directly contradicting the White House, who am I supposed to believe? Neither one cites their sources, though the Ukrainians aren't citing themselves, they're directly saying their sources are secret.

And even if I don't trust Russian sources, I have Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and, oh yes, those same American sources as proof that the Russians aren't lying when they say they aren't going to invade. Because the number of troops they have moved (even according to the US!) is too small for an invasion force, because as mentioned before, they haven't moved enough troops for an occupation force. Certainly not one large enough to occupy the whole Ukraine. Their nuclear drills as discussed earlier aren't anything out of the ordinary, and I'm sure the US military quietly does the same. So the US isn't even trying to tell a consistent narrative, they're just trusting most citizens won't look too closely at the details of their narrative or lack the knowledge to analyze what is going on for themselves.

And besides that, there is the still unanswered question of why this is our problem. Why is the US Government on the warpath over this. Russia has understandable motives, even if you don't agree with them. The US talks about it as if we should take for granted that its up to us to stop them, making me suspicious of the ulterior motive. Or more to the point, makes the argument that our politicians are stuck in a Cold War mentality quite compelling. They don't want any other Great Powers competing with us, which is Imperialist thinking. Prove me wrong, Crackpot.

Prove. Me. Wrong.

[Col. Crackpot]

I guess all of the independent journalists don’t count.

Also it’s not on me to prove you wrong. It’s on you to prove yourself right.

I hope I am wrong, I really and truly do.. but I’m The New York Times will have pictures of whatever atrocities the Russians will commit in their conquest of Ukraine soon enough. Or if you prefer, I’m sure The Guardian will have them too.

Be well Formless.

[Broomstick]

So when the Ukraine's own government says "no, Russia isn't going to invade", directly contradicting the White House, who am I supposed to believe? Neither one cites their sources, though the Ukrainians aren't citing themselves, they're directly saying their sources are secret.

So... yesterday Putin himself declared that Russia troops were crossing the border into Donetsk and Luhansk which, last I checked, were part of the nation of Ukraine. What was that you were saying about "not invading"? And, I repeat - this is from Putin, a source you trust more than the West.

And even if I don't trust Russian sources, I have Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and, oh yes, those same American sources as proof that the Russians aren't lying when they say they aren't going to invade.

Guess they were wrong, too.

I have concerns about reports that thousands of ethnic Russians from those two regions have been evacuated into Russia. The darker side of my imagination thinks that would excellent prep for something that depopulates those regions of the non-Russians left behind, after which the re-located population can then move back in without opposition. There are historical precedents for doing that in other parts of the world, although the methods were different than what would be used in the 21st Century. I hasten to add that that is my own mind wandering and not based on any factual information I have, but like I said, such things have occurred in the past.

And besides that, there is the still unanswered question of why this is our problem.

That's an entirely appropriate question to ask.

[Col. Crackpot]

By that logic, why is anything our problem?

What happened to silence is violence?

[madd0c0t0r2]

By that logic, why is anything our problem?

What happened to silence is violence?

I believe it lost a lot of credibility due to the degree of collateral damage in previous interventions. Back in highschool I half expected conscription to return as the only way the UK/USA would have the manpower to properly occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. It didn't occur to me they would half ass it and get a few million civilians killed.

So there's that aspect of not wanting to repeat history.


There's the principal of sovereignty consent. I live in a portion of the UK which is slowly ratcheting its way from being a colony to bring it's own country. I thought the Spanish debacle over Catalan was pretty shocking. If the people of Donetsk really want to leave Ukraine and join Russia I don't think Ukraine should keep them in at gun point. I really don't think that's a task they can ask allies to do for them.

From a humane perspective, there's already been a dozen thousand dead and many more lives ruined over this. A ground war with Russia would add some orders of magnitude to those numbers. Will the people of Donetsk be better off for it?

From a geopolitical perspective, I'm not really clear what repercussions it would have. Russia already took Crimea. Putin is seeking a distraction to unify people behind. A swift and bloodless victory is a nice bump short-term, but will need to be repeated frequently, and gets more and more risky as they overextend. A war of rhetoric with Imperial West is a longer term payoff, perhaps with the occasional border incident to keep it hot. Putin knows the west knows this. Im not aware of a major strategic advantage conferred by the region, compared to Crimean ports.

At the same time, our friends in Ukraine are a bit of a mixed bunch. Getting dragged into expensive support for literal Nazis isn't going to be much better for the wider anti-authoritianism project. Do we have confidence in allies so internally divided?

[Ralin]

I have concerns about reports that thousands of ethnic Russians from those two regions have been evacuated into Russia. The darker side of my imagination thinks that would excellent prep for something that depopulates those regions of the non-Russians left behind, after which the re-located population can then move back in without opposition. There are historical precedents for doing that in other parts of the world, although the methods were different than what would be used in the 21st Century. I hasten to add that that is my own mind wandering and not based on any factual information I have, but like I said, such things have occurred in the past.

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where this would a prelude to a way of ethnically cleansing non-Russians that is more reliable and effective than just skipping ahead to removing the non-Russians instead.

[Tiriol]

And besides that, there is the still unanswered question of why this is our problem.

That's an entirely appropriate question to ask.

Quite frankly that is the only appropriate question to ask. Complaining about Neo-Nazis and US imperialism is just moral cowardice in the face of aggression and only aids Russian fascism and nationalism in its project to re-build its former empire.

[Col. Crackpot]

And besides that, there is the still unanswered question of why this is our problem.

That's an entirely appropriate question to ask.

Quite frankly that is the only appropriate question to ask. Complaining about Neo-Nazis and US imperialism is just moral cowardice in the face of aggression and only aids Russian fascism and nationalism in its project to re-build its former empire.

With Russia and Finland having an… interesting history, I’m curious what is the mood of the average Finn looks like.

[Col. Crackpot]

https://twitter.com/thomasvlinge/status ... 10435?s=21

Kenya not pulling its punches on its opinion of Russian Imperialism.

[Tiriol]

That's an entirely appropriate question to ask.

Quite frankly that is the only appropriate question to ask. Complaining about Neo-Nazis and US imperialism is just moral cowardice in the face of aggression and only aids Russian fascism and nationalism in its project to re-build its former empire.

With Russia and Finland having an… interesting history, I’m curious what is the mood of the average Finn looks like.

Apart from some Far Right (or entirely deluded Far Left) troglodytes, Finland and Finns are extremely angry and worried. My estimation is that support for Finland applying for NATO membership has skyrocketed and even those who don't want to join NATO are opposed to Russian actions and want EU and Finland sanction Russia heavily. We have our own share of useful idiots who love Putin's fascist macho image and defend Russia no matter what (some of Eastern Ukraine's separatist puppet states' officials and known cheerleaders are, sadly, Finns) and those who want to throw Ukraine to the wolves either due to thinking Ukraine deserves it or because they are mindlessly committed to the idea that it would be best in order to maintain peace in Europe.

Our President, Prime Minister and government have all condemned Russia's actions and the Parliament seemed to be pretty unanimous about it as well. Putin has managed to unite Left, Right, and Centre in really hating him and his naked ambition. And some have interpreted our President's statements during press interview today that Finland is actually in negotiations about NATO membership (he specifically said that there's discussion about it; I think he meant that the government are talking about it, not that Finland has contacted NATO yet, since any such contact would require parliamentary blessing).

[Tribble]

So, it turns out Russia wasn't bluffing and they are, in fact, ordering troops into Ukraine. Well, the Russian rebel held parts of it anyways:

Ukraine crisis: Russia orders troops into rebel-held regions

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered troops into two rebel-held regions in eastern Ukraine, after recognising them as independent states.

Russia said the troops have not yet been deployed but will be "peacekeeping" in the regions, which it has backed since 2014.

The US said calling them peacekeepers was "nonsense", and accused Russia of creating a pretext for war.

Several countries have announced sanctions in response.

Ukraine's president said his country was "not afraid of anything or anyone".

In a late-night televised address to the nation, President Volodymyr Zelensky called for "clear and effective actions of support" from Ukraine's international allies.

"It is very important to see now who our real friend and partner is, and who will continue to scare the Russian Federation with words only," he added.

Fears over an invasion have been rising in recent months, as Russia has massed some 150,000 troops along Ukraine's borders, according to US estimates.

At an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield dismissed Russia's claims that troops would be taking on a "peacekeeping" role, saying: "We know what they really are."

Recognising Luhansk and Donetsk as independent was part of Russia's bid to create a reason to invade Ukraine, she said.

Russia has been backing a bloody armed rebellion in eastern Ukraine for the past eight years. Some 14,000 people - including many civilians - have died in fighting since then.

In recent years, Russian passports have been given out to large numbers of people in Donetsk and Luhansk.

The rebel-held areas have been evacuating women, children and the elderly to Russia since late last week.

In an hour-long address on Monday, Mr Putin said Ukraine was an integral part of his country's history, and described eastern Ukraine as "ancient Russian lands".

Russia's UN Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya argued for the need to defend the rebel-held areas in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region from what he called Ukrainian aggression. "Allowing a new bloodbath in the Donbas is something we do not intend to do," he said.

But Mr Zelensky said Moscow's recognition of the rebel-held regions represented a threat to the security of Ukraine and other European nations.

"If we have a full-scale escalation... our neighbours would be put at risk," he said.

'A barrage of sanctions'
Western powers have rallied behind Ukraine, promising tough sanctions against Russia if it invades - though it is not yet clear how effective this move could be.

The US swiftly condemned Mr Putin's move, and President Joe Biden signed an executive order that prohibits new investment, trade and financing by Americans in the breakaway regions. The White House said the measures were separate to wider Western sanctions which are ready to go "should Russia further invade Ukraine".

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Russia had violated Ukrainian sovereignty and "completely torn up" international law. He said Mr Putin appeared "bent on a full-scale invasion", and promised a "barrage of sanctions".

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said he was halting the process of certifying the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline because of Russia's actions. The gas pipeline between Russia and Germany was completed last September but is not yet operating. Running under the Baltic Sea, it would double Moscow's gas exports to Germany and circumvent Ukraine, which relies on existing pipelines for income.

The European Union pledged to "react with unity, firmness and with determination in solidarity with Ukraine".

Both Mr Scholz and France's President Emmanuel Macron spoke with the Russian leader ahead of his announcement.

This speech was Putin the angry, impatient and directly threatening. It felt like Russia's president was getting 20-odd years of hurt off his chest and hitting back.

"You didn't want us to be friends," was how he put it to the West, "but you didn't have to make an enemy of us."

There was a lot we've heard before, repackaged for this moment when he knows he has maximum attention.

He's clearly ceding no ground on his key security demands: Nato expansion must be rolled back, and Ukrainian membership is a red line. He complained that Russia's concerns had been ignored as irrelevant for years and accused the West of trying to "contain" Russia as a resurgent global force.

Mr Putin's focus on Ukraine felt obsessive, like a man who thinks about little else. At times it sounded like a bid to run for president there, it was so detailed.

And, of course, there was his re-writing of Ukrainian history, to claim it has never really been a state. In today's context, that had deeply ominous overtones.

Groundwork for the controversial decision was laid earlier on Monday, when Mr Putin convened Russia's security council to discuss recognising the self-declared republics as independent.

Mr Putin's top officials were called to a podium to deliver their views, each speaking in favour of the move. Monday's televised meeting was not entirely smooth, however.

Two officials appeared to reference a possibility to "incorporate" the regions into Russia. On both occasions, Mr Putin corrected them.

"We are not talking about that," Mr Putin said, shaking his head in response to one official's use of the phrase. "We are talking about whether to recognise their independence or not."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60468237

So, assuming this is true and Russia does in fact send in "peacekeeping" troops into Eastern Ukraine, who here thinks we should be declaring war on Russia over this? Who here thinks that if we did we can realistically stop them?

[Tribble]

So, it turns out Russia wasn't bluffing and they are, in fact, ordering troops into Ukraine. Go figure. Well, the Russian rebel held parts of it anyways:

Ukraine crisis: Russia orders troops into rebel-held regions

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered troops into two rebel-held regions in eastern Ukraine, after recognising them as independent states.

Russia said the troops have not yet been deployed but will be "peacekeeping" in the regions, which it has backed since 2014.

The US said calling them peacekeepers was "nonsense", and accused Russia of creating a pretext for war.

Several countries have announced sanctions in response.

Ukraine's president said his country was "not afraid of anything or anyone".

In a late-night televised address to the nation, President Volodymyr Zelensky called for "clear and effective actions of support" from Ukraine's international allies.

"It is very important to see now who our real friend and partner is, and who will continue to scare the Russian Federation with words only," he added.

Fears over an invasion have been rising in recent months, as Russia has massed some 150,000 troops along Ukraine's borders, according to US estimates.

At an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield dismissed Russia's claims that troops would be taking on a "peacekeeping" role, saying: "We know what they really are."

Recognising Luhansk and Donetsk as independent was part of Russia's bid to create a reason to invade Ukraine, she said.

Russia has been backing a bloody armed rebellion in eastern Ukraine for the past eight years. Some 14,000 people - including many civilians - have died in fighting since then.

In recent years, Russian passports have been given out to large numbers of people in Donetsk and Luhansk.

The rebel-held areas have been evacuating women, children and the elderly to Russia since late last week.

In an hour-long address on Monday, Mr Putin said Ukraine was an integral part of his country's history, and described eastern Ukraine as "ancient Russian lands".

Russia's UN Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya argued for the need to defend the rebel-held areas in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region from what he called Ukrainian aggression. "Allowing a new bloodbath in the Donbas is something we do not intend to do," he said.

But Mr Zelensky said Moscow's recognition of the rebel-held regions represented a threat to the security of Ukraine and other European nations.

"If we have a full-scale escalation... our neighbours would be put at risk," he said.

'A barrage of sanctions'
Western powers have rallied behind Ukraine, promising tough sanctions against Russia if it invades - though it is not yet clear how effective this move could be.

The US swiftly condemned Mr Putin's move, and President Joe Biden signed an executive order that prohibits new investment, trade and financing by Americans in the breakaway regions. The White House said the measures were separate to wider Western sanctions which are ready to go "should Russia further invade Ukraine".

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Russia had violated Ukrainian sovereignty and "completely torn up" international law. He said Mr Putin appeared "bent on a full-scale invasion", and promised a "barrage of sanctions".

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said he was halting the process of certifying the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline because of Russia's actions. The gas pipeline between Russia and Germany was completed last September but is not yet operating. Running under the Baltic Sea, it would double Moscow's gas exports to Germany and circumvent Ukraine, which relies on existing pipelines for income.

The European Union pledged to "react with unity, firmness and with determination in solidarity with Ukraine".

Both Mr Scholz and France's President Emmanuel Macron spoke with the Russian leader ahead of his announcement.

This speech was Putin the angry, impatient and directly threatening. It felt like Russia's president was getting 20-odd years of hurt off his chest and hitting back.

"You didn't want us to be friends," was how he put it to the West, "but you didn't have to make an enemy of us."

There was a lot we've heard before, repackaged for this moment when he knows he has maximum attention.

He's clearly ceding no ground on his key security demands: Nato expansion must be rolled back, and Ukrainian membership is a red line. He complained that Russia's concerns had been ignored as irrelevant for years and accused the West of trying to "contain" Russia as a resurgent global force.

Mr Putin's focus on Ukraine felt obsessive, like a man who thinks about little else. At times it sounded like a bid to run for president there, it was so detailed.

And, of course, there was his re-writing of Ukrainian history, to claim it has never really been a state. In today's context, that had deeply ominous overtones.

Groundwork for the controversial decision was laid earlier on Monday, when Mr Putin convened Russia's security council to discuss recognising the self-declared republics as independent.

Mr Putin's top officials were called to a podium to deliver their views, each speaking in favour of the move. Monday's televised meeting was not entirely smooth, however.

Two officials appeared to reference a possibility to "incorporate" the regions into Russia. On both occasions, Mr Putin corrected them.

"We are not talking about that," Mr Putin said, shaking his head in response to one official's use of the phrase. "We are talking about whether to recognise their independence or not."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60468237

So, assuming this is true and Russia does in fact send in "peacekeeping" troops into Eastern Ukraine, who here thinks we should be declaring war on Russia over this? Who here thinks that if we did we can realistically stop them?

[Col. Crackpot]

Tribble

Jesus god no. We do not declare war on a nuclear power even when they launch a war of conquest on a country we don’t have a military alliance with. That’s a fucking death wish.

We call out their bullshit, embarrass them for their crimes, sanction the fuck out of them and shore up the defenses of our Allies in the region.

no declaration of war, unless they attack NATO. No REFORGER 22 unless they build up offensive forces on the border of NATO Allies.

[Crazedwraith]

So, it turns out Russia wasn't bluffing and they are, in fact, ordering troops into Ukraine. Go figure. Well, the Russian rebel held parts of it anyways:

So, assuming this is true and Russia does in fact send in "peacekeeping" troops into Eastern Ukraine, who here thinks we should be declaring war on Russia over this? Who here thinks that if we did we can realistically stop them?

Wait, are you still clinging to your idea of this? You think Russia wouldn't be doing this if all their demands had been met and people swore not to help Ukraine?

Russia invades somewhere and you're like 'oh this is all the US fault making them invade another country'?

No-one's talking about war, we'll be hanging out Ukraine to dry as usual with some perfunctory sanctions.

eta: Though I do wonder what the russian reaction would be if nato/un peacekeepers flooded into the rest of Ukraine.

[KraytKing]

War would be a great way for the entire world economy to collectively shoot itself in the face. Like Russia just did.

I think it should be expected for America and everyone else who hates Russia to illicitly, or openly I guess, send a bunch of fancy tank-killers to Ukraine. No sense in wasting an opportunity to fuck up the Russian military and economy even more.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Am I alone in thinking that these so-called sanctions (the strongest of which they aren't even using yet) aren't going to do shit to Russia?

[Tribble]

So, it turns out Russia wasn't bluffing and they are, in fact, ordering troops into Ukraine. Go figure. Well, the Russian rebel held parts of it anyways:

So, assuming this is true and Russia does in fact send in "peacekeeping" troops into Eastern Ukraine, who here thinks we should be declaring war on Russia over this? Who here thinks that if we did we can realistically stop them?

Wait, are you still clinging to your idea of this? You think Russia wouldn't be doing this if all their demands had been met and people swore not to help Ukraine?

Russia invades somewhere and you're like 'oh this is all the US fault making them invade another country'?

No-one's talking about war, we'll be hanging out Ukraine to dry as usual with some perfunctory sanctions.

eta: Though I do wonder what the russian reaction would be if nato/un peacekeepers flooded into the rest of Ukraine.

Absolutely. Russia made it clear they won’t allow Ukraine join NATO, that will invade first. We already knew that we realistically can’t support Ukraine if they do invade, barring WMD use.

Some people said they were bluffing. Surprise! Looks like they weren’t. Looks like they are going to invade before Ukraine gets a chance to join.

And it looks like NATO will use that technicality to state that since Ukraine isn’t a member yet, Russia is technically not attacking a NATO member.

Again, if you are not prepared to go to war over someone trying joining your military alliance…. then don’t dangle false hope by letting them apply.

IMO this makes NATO look even weaker than if they had just said right off the bat “not interested.”

Am I alone in thinking that these so-called sanctions (the strongest of which they aren't even using yet) aren't going to do shit to Russia?

Agreed. Europe depends on Russia for much of its gas, for one thing. How many Europeans are willing to go without gas over Ukraine? Doubt sanctions would amount to too much in the end.

And Between sanctions vs Ukraine joining NATO, Russia has chosen sanctions. Which should surprise no one.

[Tribble]

Or let me put it this way: If Natos intentions were to protect Ukraine, they should have simply stated that any Russian incursion will be considered a declaration of war against NATO, whether they are in formal alliance or not. And follow through and declare war on Russia if Russia went ahead.

If they were never serious about defending Ukraine, then they should have just stated they weren’t interested. And since I believe Russia isn’t bluffing and NATO isn’t serious enough about defending Ukraine to be willing to go to war, I believe this choice would have been the right one. At least it’s honest!

What they shouldn’t do IMO is what it looks like they are doing, which is half-ass it by letting Ukraine apply to see if Russia is bluffing, and if Russia isn’t bluffing and invades back down.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Why are Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk regions so important to Putin?

Vladimir Putin has recognised the independence of Moscow-backed rebel regions in eastern Ukraine, a move that has further fueled tensions with the West amid fears of a Russian invasion.

The Russian president’s move follows days of heightened tensions in Ukraine’s eastern industrial heartland, where forces are locked in a nearly eight-year conflict with Russia-backed separatists that has left more than 14,000 people dead.

Why do Donetsk and Luhansk see themselves as separatist areas?

When Ukraine’s Moscow-friendly president was driven from office by mass protests in February 2014, Russia responded by annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.

It then threw its weight behind an insurgency in the mostly Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine region known as Donbas.

In April 2014, Russia-backed rebels seized government buildings in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, proclaimed the creation of “people’s republics” and battled Ukrainian troops and volunteer battalions.

The following month, the separatist regions held a popular vote to declare independence and make a bid to become part of Russia. Moscow hasn’t accepted the motion, just used the regions as a tool to keep Ukraine in its orbit and prevent it from joining Nato.

Ukraine and the West accused Russia of backing the rebels with troops and weapons. Moscow denied that, saying any Russians who fought there were volunteers.

Amid ferocious battles involving tanks, heavy artillery and warplanes, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 people aboard.

An international probe concluded that the passenger jet was downed by a Russia-supplied missile from the rebel-controlled territory in Ukraine. Moscow still denies any involvement.

Why was a peace deal needed in 2015?

After a massive defeat of Ukrainian troops in August 2014, envoys from Kyiv, the rebels and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) signed a truce in the Belarusian capital of Minsk in September 2014.

The document envisaged an OSCE-observed ceasefire, a pullback of all foreign fighters, an exchange of prisoners and hostages, an amnesty for the rebels and a promise that separatist regions could have a degree of self-rule.

Russia recognises breakaway Ukrainian regions - why is the West worried?
The deal quickly collapsed and large-scale fighting resumed, leading to another major defeat for Ukrainian forces at Debaltseve in January-February of 2015.

France and Germany brokered another peace agreement, which was signed in Minsk in February 2015 by representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the rebels.

It envisaged a new ceasefire, a pullback of heavy weapons and a series of moves toward a political settlement.

A declaration backing the deal was signed by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany.

What was the problem with the peace deal?

The 2015 peace deal was a major diplomatic coup for the Kremlin, obliging Ukraine to grant special status to the separatist regions, allowing them to create their own police force and have a say in appointing local prosecutors and judges.

It also envisaged that Ukraine could only regain control over the roughly 125-mile border with Russia in rebel regions after they get self-rule and hold OSCE-monitored local elections - balloting that would almost certainly keep pro-Moscow rebels in power there.

Many Ukrainians see it as a betrayal of national interests and its implementation has stalled.

The Minsk document helped end full-scale fighting, but the situation has remained tense and regular skirmishes have continued.

With the Minsk deal stalled, Moscow’s hope to use rebel regions to directly influence Ukraine’s politics has failed but the frozen conflict has drained Kyiv’s resources and effectively stymied its goal of joining Nato - which is enshrined in the Ukrainian constitution.

Moscow also has worked to secure its hold on the rebel regions by handing out more than 720,000 Russian passports to roughly one-fifth of their population of about 3.6 million.

It has provided economic and financial assistance to the separatist territories, but the aid has been insufficient to alleviate the massive damage from fighting and shore up the economy. The Donbas region accounted for about 16% of Ukraine’s GDP before the conflict.

By recognising the two areas as independent, Russia has violated the agreement, which specifically outlawed it.

What was done to try and keep peace in Ukraine?

Amid soaring tensions over the Russian troop concentration near Ukraine, France and Germany embarked on renewed efforts to encourage compliance with the 2015 deal, in hopes that it could help defuse the current standoff.

Facing calls from Berlin and Paris for its implementation, Ukrainian officials have strengthened their criticism of the Minsk deal and warned that it could lead to the country’s demise.

Two rounds of talks in Paris and Berlin between presidential envoys from Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany have yielded no progress.

The lower house of the Russian parliament, meanwhile, urged Putin last week to recognise the independence of Ukraine’s rebel regions.

Why are Western leaders concerned that Putin recognises the rebel-held territories?

President Putin’s recognition of the rebel-held territories’ independence effectively shatters the Minsk peace agreements and will further fuel tensions with the West.

He said that Moscow would sign friendship treaties with the rebel territories, a move that could pave the way for Russia to openly support them with troops and weapons.

The move follows several days of shelling that erupted along the line of contact in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Ukraine and the West accused Moscow of fomenting the tensions to create a pretext for an invasion.

Russia, in turn, accused Ukraine of trying to reclaim the rebel-held territories by force, a claim that Kyiv strongly rejected.

On Friday, separatist leaders released video statements announcing the evacuation of civilians in the face of what they described as a Ukrainian “aggression.”

The data embedded in the video indicated that their statements had been pre-recorded two days earlier when the situation was still relatively calm, suggesting a deliberate plan to try to sever the regions from Ukraine.

The rebel chiefs put out new video statements on Monday urging Mr Putin to recognise their regions’ independence and the Russian leader responded quickly by convening a carefully orchestrated meeting of his Security Council and then signing the recognition decrees in a televised ceremony.

So much for claims that Russia wasn't going to invade. What are the chances that now the rest of Ukraine will ask NATO for help, and be told 'no'?

[KraytKing]

Or let me put it this way: If Natos intentions were to protect Ukraine, they should have simply stated that any Russian incursion will be considered a declaration of war against NATO, whether they are in formal alliance or not. And follow through and declare war on Russia if Russia went ahead.

But why in the fuck would they intend to protect Ukraine?

That's Russia's playground. Making it NATO would be antagonistic in the game of empires. In the real world, obviously, a defensive alliance like that is the opposite of antagonism, but that isn't the world of the CIA and the Pentagon.

NATO and Russia won't ever go to war or realistically threaten each other with war unless the world has ended or is about to. Not gonna happen over fuckin Ukraine.

[Crazedwraith]

Interestingly apparently Ukraine wasn't much interested in joining NATO until Russia started annexing bits of it. (They planned to join but stopped in 2010, the next two governments want to remain neutral until Crimea happened.)

I won't pretend you don't have a point Tribble in a realpolitik way. But there's also a huge danger as I see it if you let Russia make demands via threats of invasion and then obey well next time they want something they can repeat the process since you've just proven you'll cave to demands.

Pre-emptively hanging them out to dry sounds only marginally better than doing so in the crunch. Plus invading other countries is rather internationally frowned upon regardless of NATO status.

People keep saying 'oh america is not world police' and I find I only partially agree? The UN should be world police. My moral objects to say the iraq war are based on lack of UN approval and the fact the pretence was blatantly false. But if it was UN approved and Saddam really did have WMD? That would have been different. Obviously UN approval is hard to get if Russia has a veto though.