Ukraine War Thread

[FaxModem1]

Looks like there is tidying up going on.

BBC

Ukraine far-right leader Muzychko dies 'in police raid'
Oleksandr Muzychko, alias Sashko Bily, file pic Muzychko was wanted by the Ukrainian and Russian authorities
Continue reading the main story
Ukraine crisis

West's guessing game
Will rift damage nuclear summit?
Hewitt: How strong is Europe?
Maps show Ukraine's divisions

A Ukrainian ultra-nationalist leader has been shot dead in what officials describe as a special forces operation.

Oleksandr Muzychko, better known as Sashko Bily, died in a shoot-out with police in a cafe in Rivne in western Ukraine, the interior ministry said.

He was a leader of Right Sector, a far-right group which was prominent in the recent anti-government protests.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's parliament has voted to accept the resignation of Defence Minister Ihor Tenyukh.

Mr Tenyukh had been accused of indecision in the face of Russia's military takeover of Crimea.

The shooting of Muzychko happened just hours after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had held talks with his Ukrainian counterpart Andriy Deshchytsia - their first meeting since Russia's move into Crimea triggered a diplomatic crisis.
Continue reading the main story
Oleksandr Muzychko, alias Sashko Bily
Oleksandr Muzychko, alias Sashko Bily, file pic

Born 1962 in Perm region, Russia
After Ukraine became independent in 1991 he set up nationalist groups in Rivne, western Ukraine
Spent several years in jail after conviction for extortion in 1999
Accused of leading "criminal gang" in Rivne
Russia accused him of atrocities in Chechnya
As a Right Sector leader he participated in Maidan anti-government protests in Kiev

Far right in Ukraine revolution

Ukraine's Deputy Interior Minister Vladimir Yevdokimov said Muzychko died after opening fire at police and Sokol special forces, who had raided a cafe to arrest him and fellow ultra-nationalists. The authorities described Muzychko as a criminal gang leader.

During the raid, Muzychko fired at police as he was trying to flee, wounding one of them. Police then returned fire and captured him and three others in his "criminal gang", Mr Yevdokimov said.

"He was still alive as they were arresting him - but then the paramedics, called to the scene, found that he had died," Mr Yevdokimov said. The three arrested gang members have been taken to Kiev for questioning.

A Right Sector organiser in Rivne has now threatened revenge for the killing of Muzychko, saying he had not been summoned by investigators.

"We will avenge ourselves on [Interior Minister] Arsen Avakov for the death of our brother. The shooting of Sashko Bily is a contract killing ordered by the minister," said Roman Koval of the Right Sector in Rivne region, quoted by the Ukrayinska Pravda website.
Conflicting account

Earlier, a Ukrainian MP, Oles Doniy, gave a different version of events. He said two cars had forced Muzychko's car to stop, and he had then been dragged into one of the other cars. Later his body was found dumped, his hands tied behind his back and two bullet wounds in his heart, Doniy wrote overnight on his Facebook page.

Correspondents say Muzychko acquired notoriety in Ukraine after he was filmed brandishing an AK-47 assault rifle at a town hall session in western Ukraine, and then harassing a local prosecutor. After that, in February, the Ukrainian interior minister condemned his behaviour and promised to investigate.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

What if shots are exchanged and lives lost? Will Putin then simply be reacting to the pace of events on the ground? Or will Moscow actually have helped to orchestrate those events in the first place?”

image of Jonathan Marcus Jonathan Marcus BBC diplomatic correspondent

Russian manoeuvres keep the West guessing

Moscow says the activities of Right Sector and other Ukrainian nationalist groups pose a threat to the large Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin gave that as one of his reasons for intervening in Crimea.

However, some commentators say Russia has deliberately whipped up such fears, and that the influence of Right Sector in Ukrainian politics is exaggerated.

Earlier, Russian authorities issued an arrest warrant for Muzychko, accusing him of atrocities against Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

The Russian indictment says he tortured captive Russian soldiers in the 1990s, when Moscow was trying to crush Chechen separatist guerrillas. Muzychko denied the allegations. Reports say he led a group of Ukrainian nationalists who fought alongside the Chechen rebels.
Crimea withdrawal

In the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday, MPs appointed Gen Mykhaylo Koval as the new defence minister, after approving the resignation of his predecessor, Ihor Tenyukh.

Mr Tenyukh had offered to leave the post following growing criticism of his response to the Russian annexation of Crimea. Many deputies had described that response as indecisive.

Gen Koval has served in the country's Border Service, and was briefly detained by pro-Russian forces during their takeover of Crimea.

The BBC's Mark Lowen reports from the last police base in Crimea controlled by Ukraine

Mr Tenyukh said he had received requests to leave Crimea from about 6,500 soldiers and family members. That means about two-thirds of the 18,800 military personnel and relatives stationed there are staying on the peninsula, the Associated Press news agency reports.

Earlier, a senior Ukrainian armed forces officer, Oleksandr Rozmaznin, was quoted as saying nearly half of the Ukrainian military staff based in Crimea had opted to stay there and some of them were joining the Russian military.

Meanwhile, a toughly-worded statement from the G7 group of industrialised countries, condemned both the Crimean vote to secede and Russia's annexation of Crimea. The G7 called Russia's actions a "clear violation of international law". Russia has now been excluded from what was the G8.

Moscow initially reacted scornfully to the G7 snub, saying "the G8 is an informal club" which "can't purge anyone by definition".

But later President Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said "the Russian side continues to be ready to have such contacts at all levels, including the top level. We are interested in such contacts".

Barack Obama says Vladimir Putin has a choice to make whether to abide by international law or face "disruptive sanctions"

Also on Tuesday, US President Barack Obama addressed the crisis during a joint news conference with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, saying that Russia was "threatening some of its immediate neighbours, not out of strength, but out of weakness".

He expressed concern about the possibility Russia would encroach further on Ukrainian territory and about the large numbers of Russian troops massed on the border.

Mr Obama said he hoped the International Monetary Fund would quickly finalise an aid package for Ukraine, adding that it was important to help Ukraine hold successful elections in May.

[stormthebeaches]

Who says it was rigged? There's no evidence of rigging that I'm aware of. The Kosovo example is demonstrative because it shows that there is precedent for recognition of secession by referendum. Period. The annexation after the secession is irrelevant.

We do not know outright because not enough facts have come out, but there is more than enough things to make it suspicious.

A. Who gives a shit about a poll in 2001? That was 13 years and two revolutions ago, the last of which saw the preferred government of Crimea get deposed by fascist Russophobes in an unconstitutional manner. And before which, there was no real possibility of Russia making it a reality, which would be a pre-requisite.

To go from less than half of the population to 97% in 13 years is an almost unheard of, which adds to the suspicion that the referendum was less than fair. It is not unbelievable that the people of Crimea would rather Russia that Ukraine, but for the number to jump from less than half to 97%. That is a big hard to believe.

B. There's no evidence that "armed, masked men" intimidated anyone into voting differently, or had any effect on the results at all (how could they? it was a secret ballot).

People in this very thread of have posted links to stories Cossacks and biker gangs patrolling the streets and harassing people. And a secret ballot if not good protection if one feels that the electorial authorities are in league with the thugs in the streets.

C. International observers? They did bring in international observers - the only ones who didn't come were those ordered not to go because the referendum was being treated as illegal by their political masters. You could argue such observers were biased, but its getting to be quite the massive conspiracy.

Wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/osce-observers-t ... VLMjdfODg-

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Internatio ... z2wxbpAeEI

They let OSCE into the rest of Ukraine, but not Crimea. during the referendum. I wonder why?

D. As to media dominance, you're drawing a very long bow if you think that having some Ukrainian tv channels blurting out their own counter-propaganda would've changed the views of the populace, and media dominance has certainly never delegitimised the results of other elections.

Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. We will never know now. Its not so much an issue of media dominance as it as one side using armed force to silence the other side. That is authoritarianism and cannot be allowed in free and fair elections.

E. The "no status quo" complaint is probably the most pointless. Not voting at all is equivalent to a vote for the status quo. If turnout had been less that 50% the status quo would've automatically remained. So you can treat the ~80% turnout as evidence that ~20% of the population was against it. That's a healthy figure and it mostly reflects the makeup of Crimea.

Unless they engage in good old fashioned ballot stuffing.

Sure, if Russia is only obligated to feel aggrieved by the breach of legal agreements. They are not. I corrected the record on the Budapest Memorandum only because the claim it is a "treaty" is false.

You said that the Budapest Memorandum is not a legally binding treaty and therefore Russia has not obligation to follow it. My counter argument is that NATO has even less of an obligation to not expand eastwards. There is not written document of any agreement that NATO will not expand eastward. There is a written document stating that Russia will respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty if Ukraine gives up its nuclear arsenal (third largest in the world at the time).

I didn't say they were "behind" it and I'll thank you not to strawman me to make your argument easier. I said they aided, abetted, and legitimised it. Those are very different things.

So, how were they "aiding and abetting" it? Where they giving guns to the opposition forces? You have a stronger case for "legitimising" but, as mentioned before, I'm not certain that demanding the return of a government full of corrupt oligarch's is a good move.

It was a coup, by any definition. How was it not?

It could also be called an uprising, or a revolution. Personally, I use the term "violent change of government" as that is a more politically neutral term.

You don't need to support it. But it was the elected government and any fair dealings would've had to have taken it into account. The February 21 agreement being followed would've prevented this crisis from exploding. The opposition enacted a coup, the west acted like it didn't exist and just recognised the coup government instead.

True, but demanding the return of a recently overthrown government full of corrupt oligarch's is not a good move. The best choice would be to push for new elections to be held as soon as possible to prevent the new government from becoming a dictatorship (they would have been held in May, before Russia intervened.

How is the situation in Libya and Iraq post bombing/invasion even remotely comparable to Georgia or Ukraine? Are you on crack?

Was calling you out on your hypocrisy regarding using emotive language. You claimed the west "destroyed" Libya and Iraq despite the fact that both countries still exist as coherent nation states. Thanas claimed that Russia destroyed countries despite the fact that they still exist and coherent nation states. Denouncing Thanas for exaggerating and using emotive language when you did the exact same thing is hypocritical.

I didn't say they had the right. Have you even been paying attention to what I've been saying? Of course Russia didn't have the "right" to do either. Big whoop? Its happened. What now?

You strongly implied that either they did or the fact that Ukraine has a "coup-appointed" government makes seizing Ukrainian territory and property less bad when you made this statement:

"Are we supposed to be scandalized that the Russians are weakening the coup-appointed government in Kiev by depriving them of their ships? The Russians would say ... Crimea River."

Don't backpedal now.

Of course not. I thought that was obvious. Maybe they'll give some of the ships back - after all by 2017 or so they'll have six new Pr 11356M frigates and six new Pr 636 SSKs based in the Black Sea, so they may not need the clapped out ships they took from Ukraine. But who knows.

Hopefully Ukraine will get its property back.

That poll was more than 10 years ago at the height of good relations between Crimea and Ukraine. 10 years prior they were on the brink of war. 10 years later they were on the brink of war again after some really dumb moves by Ukraine's new government, which only helped Putin to steer Crimea away.

As mentioned before, going from less than half to 97% in 13 years is suspicious.

Uh... I mean, you are right. But coming from the US, that's so rich. You toppled anyone near you whom you didn't like (Latin America). That is common behaviour for imperialist powers.

Not American. Now piss off with your pathetic ad hominem.

Comparison is very valid. Yugoslavia's civil war was not genocidal. It involved elements of ethnic cleansing from all sides, but that often occurs in civil war when ethnic tensions are present.

Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide

Uh... Did I say it does? I just said fascists shouldn't be. Simple as that.

Just making sure that we are on the same page. Some people in this thread seem to be implying that fascists in the Ukrainian government justifies some sort of preemptive strike. Glad to see that you and I are on the same page here.

[K. A. Pital]

It is not unbelievable that the people of Crimea would rather Russia that Ukraine, but for the number to jump from less than half to 97%. That is a big hard to believe.

Try saying you'll ban the official use of their regional language and see what happens. Wait. That happened already.

Oh really?

Killing eight thousand people during civil war with ethnic cleansings is now genocide? In this case many post-Soviet nations are guilty of genocide. They should be invaded and their leaders dragged in court. Maybe not such a bad idea, but will you be willing to attack Azerbajan, Uzbekistan, etc.

Just making sure that we are on the same page. Some people in this thread seem to be implying that fascists in the Ukrainian government justifies some sort of preemptive strike.

No, it doesn't. That's what I've been trying to say all along. Same as Putin's actions cannot make me sympatize with fascists.

[stormthebeaches]

Try saying you'll ban the official use of their regional language and see what happens. Wait. That happened already.

Really? A language law that was not passed would cause the number to jump to 97%? I find that a bit hard to believe. Especially considering how the language law was not that extreme. It was merely stating that Russian would no longer be the official language, its not like Russian was going to be banned outright.

Killing eight thousand people during civil war with ethnic cleansings is now genocide? In this case many post-Soviet nations are guilty of genocide. They should be invaded and their leaders dragged in court. Maybe not such a bad idea, but will you be willing to attack Azerbajan, Uzbekistan, etc.

The term "Bosnian genocide" involves far more than just Srebrenica but rather the entire brutal campaign the Serbs waged in Bosnia. There is some controversy to which parts of the campaign were genocide and which parts were "merely" ethnic cleansing but to say that there was no genocide in Yugoslavia is wrong.

No, it doesn't. That's what I've been trying to say all along. Same as Putin's actions cannot make me sympatize with fascists.

Then you and I are in agreement here.

[K. A. Pital]

Really? A language law that was not passed would cause the number to jump to 97%? I find that a bit hard to believe. Especially considering how the language law was not that extreme. It was merely stating that Russian would no longer be the official language, its not like Russian was going to be banned outright.

You are mixing things up: Russian was never official, it was only regional. When removed from public space, Russian-speakers turned to Russian TV. And what did Russian TV say about Ukraine? Nothing good. The last few months were so intense in propaganda that encouraged the Russians in Crimea to rise up that it would be very strange if they didn't. I mean, Russians are generally enormously slow to rebel, I grant that. But after such a massive and concerted push, heh, even a dead man would rise.

There is some controversy to which parts of the campaign were genocide and which parts were "merely" ethnic cleansing but to say that there was no genocide in Yugoslavia is wrong.

I said: in this case ('parts' of a limited-scale conflict were genocide) - most post-Soviet governments involved in civil conflicts commited genocide. Not to mention a clear case of genocide in the 1980s during the occupation of Timor, which was a lot more clear than anything happening in Yugoslavia. But Indonesia is not dragged into courts. Hmm. I seriously doubt UN diplomats could determine whether genocide happened in a clear day, since much worse actions from Indonesia - actions, I may note, which were fully explored by a UN commission and facts of deliberate annihilation became common knowledge - did not get an accusation of genocide, whereas in the Yugoslav wars this term was used and misused several times over. Ethnic cleansings in Central Asia and Karabach then fit the criteria for genocide, if Yugoslav wars are to be used as an example of such.

Regardless, if Yugoslavia and other such conflicts are an example of genocidal wars and this requires separate attention, then isn't Crimea a non-issue? I mean, no one's getting genocided, not even cleansed. Pretty much a bloodless event, is it not? There are places where ethnic cleansing happened before and can happen again, after all, but often these places are simply not interesting to greater powers.

[stormthebeaches]

You are mixing things up: Russian was never official, it was only regional. When removed from public space, Russian-speakers turned to Russian TV. And what did Russian TV say about Ukraine? Nothing good. The last few months were so intense in propaganda that encouraged the Russians in Crimea to rise up that it would be very strange if they didn't. I mean, Russians are generally enormously slow to rebel, I grant that. But after such a massive and concerted push, heh, even a dead man would rise.

But would that really account for 97%? To my knowledge, ethnic Russian's only make up about 60% of the Crimean population. Surely the rest of the population would be able to speak Ukraine and would be able to get news from Ukraine TV sources to counter Russian propaganda, no?

I said: in this case ('parts' of a limited-scale conflict were genocide) - most post-Soviet governments involved in civil conflicts commited genocide. Not to mention a clear case of genocide in the 1980s during the occupation of Timor, which was a lot more clear than anything happening in Yugoslavia. But Indonesia is not dragged into courts. Hmm. I seriously doubt UN diplomats could determine whether genocide happened in a clear day, since much worse actions from Indonesia - actions, I may note, which were fully explored by a UN commission and facts of deliberate annihilation became common knowledge - did not get an accusation of genocide, whereas in the Yugoslav wars this term was used and misused several times over. Ethnic cleansings in Central Asia and Karabach then fit the criteria for genocide, if Yugoslav wars are to be used as an example of such.

Regardless, if Yugoslavia and other such conflicts are an example of genocidal wars and this requires separate attention, then isn't Crimea a non-issue? I mean, no one's getting genocided, not even cleansed. Pretty much a bloodless event, is it not? There are places where ethnic cleansing happened before and can happen again, after all, but often these places are simply not interesting to greater powers.

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. My original argument was a counter argument to the claim that because Kosovo became independent, Crimea should to on the basis that Yugoslavia and broken down into a civil war where genocide had occurred whilst Ukraine had not.

And I'd rather not get into a debate about Indonesia since that would drag us way off topic.

[Vympel]

Absolute nonsense. First and foremost, the Crimea was a land grab by another state which Kosovo wasn't.

Irrelevant to the allegation of special pleading, no matter how many times you insist it is. The Crimeans held a referendum and decided to be part of Russia. Why is this less legitimate than not holding a referendum and simply declaring independence, as certain members of Kosovo's assembly did? Why does the difference in the intent of the declaration matter?

The "referendum" about something that had previously been a non-issue was being held while the territory was under military occupation/control of the very state the referendum was about joining.

So what?

The referendum was hastily arranged, held under dubious circumstances (with outdated voter lists etc.), without proper monitoring and with people being afraid of speaking their mind and being beaten in the streets by thugs.

Anyone can say "dubious" - what actual evidence can you bring to the table that the will of the people of Crimea was not actually represented by this vote? Where is the evidence of this nonsense narrative you're peddling that the people of Crimea's will was subverted by fraud?

And Kosovo was a special case (which was also noted.

The very definition of the special pleading fallacy. There's no actual logical reason to treat it as a special case - as the link I've set out demonstrates. At all. Its just "ok for me but not for thee" bullshit artistry.

True, Serbia 2009 was another country than in 1999, but the population had been subjected to ethnic cleansing, massacres and was otherwise excluded.

And? So? Therefore? Is that meant to be a legal argument?

The country was under the ICJ found that Kosovo's declaration of independence didn't violate international law, but it sure didn't say anything about the legitimacy of the state of Kosovo, so that's not the precedent you claim it is (the ICJ also mentions certain circumstances which are not applicable at all to the Crimean annexation).

In case you missed it, maybe do a control f in my post for where I quoted "pernicious nonsense" and address the points raised therein.

As for "certain circumstances not at all applicable": it is no rebuttal at all to an allegation that you are engaging in special pleading to just go "but its different!"

You have to explain why does the differences matter to the principle being discussed.

The only relevant question in the case of Crimea and Kosovo is this, and this alone:

Is it permissible for the population of a region to secede from the host country if they express the will to do so? Yes or no?

If Albanian troops had marched into Kosovo and a referendum had been held with the result that Kosovo would join Albania (or the parliament had voted in favor for such a move) and it had been declared legal, then the two cases had been comparable.

Refer above.

For a country that stopped U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for unimpeded humanitarian access in Syria because that would "violate Syria's territorial integrity", it sure doesn't mind violating the borders of a neighboring country whose borders Russia has agreed to and pledged itself to defend (but again, the Hitlerite talk of "protecting" Russians and the Hitlerite attitude to treaties and agreements, one can't see Russia as a reliable neighbor or partner).

Oh my god, Russia is hypocritical and defending its own interests? STOP THE PRESSES.

Tell me, do you consider the US a "reliable neighbor and partner" given all its massive hypocrisy over the years, or does this sanctimony of yours only apply to Russia? If the answer to that question is no (if you are to have any objectivity at all, it must be) then do you think its constructive to treat the US as a pariah from this point forward? Because its not.

Your attitude to the events in Crimea and what you've written about Kosovo (one-sided indeed ) puts you on the same level than any "jingoist" in my book.

The fact that you seriously just rolled your eyes at a statement of fact like "one-sided" tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. Let me know when they finally find the bodies of the 100,000 ethnic Albanians that NATO said the Serbs killed to justify their bombing campaign. Oh wait, they never existed.

Shockingly, Western propaganda to rally the populace into wars didn't start in 2003. They didn't even start in 1999.

[Vympel]

We do not know outright because not enough facts have come out, but there is more than enough things to make it suspicious.

Suspicion isn't indicative of anything. The preponderance of evidence tends towards the referendum legitimately reflecting the will of the majority in Crimea.

To go from less than half of the population to 97% in 13 years is an almost unheard of, which adds to the suspicion that the referendum was less than fair. It is not unbelievable that the people of Crimea would rather Russia that Ukraine, but for the number to jump from less than half to 97%. That is a big hard to believe.

As I just said - and Stas elaborated on - it really isn't when you consider the change in circumstances over time.

People in this very thread of have posted links to stories Cossacks and biker gangs patrolling the streets and harassing people. And a secret ballot if not good protection if one feels that the electorial authorities are in league with the thugs in the streets.

Do you know what "secret ballot" means? Their name ain't on the ballot. What, are you suggesting the election officials at the polling booth are scrutinizing them as they put their vote into the box, then running outside and pointing to the person on the street so the nearest cossack can whip them if they vote wrong?

Wrong.

They let OSCE into the rest of Ukraine, but not Crimea. during the referendum. I wonder why?

No, you're wrong. Did you even read what I wrote to Thanas? An OSCE military observer is not the same thing as an OSCE election observer. The former were refused entry. The latter were invited by Crimean authorities and refused to come.

Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. We will never know now. Its not so much an issue of media dominance as it as one side using armed force to silence the other side. That is authoritarianism and cannot be allowed in free and fair elections.

I refer you to my first comment in the post.

Unless they engage in good old fashioned ballot stuffing.

An allegation for which there is no evidence at all AFAIK.

You said that the Budapest Memorandum is not a legally binding treaty and therefore Russia has not obligation to follow it.

I corrected the record and said it wasn't a treaty. I said nothing more than that. It is true that Russia isn't legally obligated to follow it, however, now that you mention it. But so what? They still broke their agreement.

My counter argument is that NATO has even less of an obligation to not expand eastwards. There is not written document of any agreement that NATO will not expand eastward. There is a written document stating that Russia will respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty if Ukraine gives up its nuclear arsenal (third largest in the world at the time).

How is this a counter argument? Counter argument to what, exactly?

Your issue - and really its the issue of everyone who's gone hysterical about this Crimean annexation - is a refusal to proceed from the basis of how the world is as opposed to how you think it should be. What I've done in this thread is explain Russian behavior in context of its interests and past events, and proceed from that explanation to indicate why I think the reaction at Russia's actions is a: hysterical, b:hypocritical, and c: going to make things worse between Russia and the West for no good reason.

So, how were they "aiding and abetting" it? Where they giving guns to the opposition forces? You have a stronger case for "legitimising" but, as mentioned before, I'm not certain that demanding the return of a government full of corrupt oligarch's is a good move.

They fully admitted funnelling $5 billion into Ukraine to "promote democracy". That's an obscene amount of money, and all the evidence any reasonable person really needs. The phonecall between Victoria Nuland and her lackey where they pick out the structure of the new Ukrainian government and reference the discussions they've had with the opposition, is also iron-clad evidence of their collusion with the opposition.

And the west didnt' need to "demand the return of a government full of corrupt oligarchs". That's just a false dilemma. They didn't need to do anything.

It could also be called an uprising, or a revolution. Personally, I use the term "violent change of government" as that is a more politically neutral term.

Its a lot less pithy.

True, but demanding the return of a recently overthrown government full of corrupt oligarch's is not a good move. The best choice would be to push for new elections to be held as soon as possible to prevent the new government from becoming a dictatorship (they would have been held in May, before Russia intervened.

You do know that the new government has its own corrupt oligarchs?

Was calling you out on your hypocrisy regarding using emotive language. You claimed the west "destroyed" Libya and Iraq despite the fact that both countries still exist as coherent nation states. Thanas claimed that Russia destroyed countries despite the fact that they still exist and coherent nation states. Denouncing Thanas for exaggerating and using emotive language when you did the exact same thing is hypocritical.

I know exactly what you were doing, and I were saying you'd have to be on crack to believe that. I repeat my question - on what possible planet could the condition of Libya and Iraq, post bombing/ invasion respectively, be considered even remotely equivalent to that of Georgia and Ukraine?

What you call "emotive" language is nothing but a statement of fact - Libya and Iraq are completely fucked - husks riven with killings, bombings, and general ethnic strife on a daily basis, with barely functioning central governments at best. The Russo-Georgian War resulted in no significant changes to the status quo which existed prior to Georgia's idiotic attack on South Ossetia, and it has continued on much the same as it has before, with no regime change and with no Libya/Iraq after effects. Not to mention the level of casualties was extremely minor on both sides.

Crimea is even more innocuous - its occupation and acession to the RuFed has had no appreciable effect on the viability of the Ukrainian state or the quality of life of Ukraine's citizenry, and was almost completely bloodless. The assertion that Ukraine can be considered "destroyed" because of this is just the height of exaggeration.

You strongly implied that either they did or the fact that Ukraine has a "coup-appointed" government makes seizing Ukrainian territory and property less bad when you made this statement:

"Are we supposed to be scandalized that the Russians are weakening the coup-appointed government in Kiev by depriving them of their ships? The Russians would say ... Crimea River."

Don't backpedal now.

Who said I backpedalled? I stand by that statement completely - its an entirely unsurprising development given the circumstances. Refer above to my comments on how things are as opposed to how they should be.

[K. A. Pital]

But would that really account for 97%? To my knowledge, ethnic Russian's only make up about 60% of the Crimean population. Surely the rest of the population would be able to speak Ukraine and would be able to get news from Ukraine TV sources to counter Russian propaganda, no?

97% of Crimea's population use Russian as primary language. That means in the family, in school, at work - everywhere. Why would a person whose primary language is Russian in a place almost 100% speaking Russian care to watch Ukrainian TV?

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. My original argument was a counter argument to the claim that because Kosovo became independent, Crimea should to on the basis that Yugoslavia and broken down into a civil war where genocide had occurred whilst Ukraine had not. And I'd rather not get into a debate about Indonesia since that would drag us way off topic.

I'm not willing to go way off-topic, too. I think that out of the two cases, where in one case the suffering is limited to a minimum and in fact a substantial rise in living standards is expected with the well-known (if not well-estimated) consent of the population, and another case where ethnic cleansing on both sides is a pervasive problem, a problem which was not decisively solved by UN forces in former Yugoslavia, and suffering is almost maximal, the case with a bloodless annexation is the less questionable one. It may be more questionable from a legal point of view, but obviously way better from a moral point of view.

[Thanas]

Suspicion isn't indicative of anything. The preponderance of evidence tends towards the referendum legitimately reflecting the will of the majority in Crimea.

This is again nothing but propaganda you are spouting here. The election was conducted under foreign occupation. Russian soldiers were present on the streets. There was no neutral media reporting except Kremlin propaganda. Nothing you say will ever change those facts. Only a liar or a blind supporter of Putin would consider a vote under these conditions as fair and democratic. I hope you are neither.

You can go preponderance of evidence all you want but this is not a civil ligitation. It would be like saying "the preponderance of evidence showed that people supported Hitler in 1936" and you would be correct, but it does not make that election result any more democratic.

Your issue - and really its the issue of everyone who's gone hysterical about this Crimean annexation - is a refusal to proceed from the basis of how the world is as opposed to how you think it should be. What I've done in this thread is explain Russian behavior in context of its interests and past events, and proceed from that explanation to indicate why I think the reaction at Russia's actions is a: hysterical, b:hypocritical, and c: going to make things worse between Russia and the West for no good reason.

And this is not the fault of the west. They did not invade Ukraine, Russia did. They did not seize Government assets without provocation, Russia did. They did not stop media reporting, Russia did. They were not the ones incapable of waiting for the free and democratic election to happen, Russia was.

Don't try to shift blame here.

You do know that the new government has its own corrupt oligarchs?

Yes and the head of the crimean mob is a mobster who had several hitmen coming for him in the past.

Crimea is even more innocuous - its occupation and acession to the RuFed has had no appreciable effect on the viability of the Ukrainian state or the quality of life of Ukraine's citizenry, and was almost completely bloodless. The assertion that Ukraine can be considered "destroyed" because of this is just the height of exaggeration.

So wait, you claim that Russia does not attempt to destabilize Ukraine as much as possible? That Russia is not attempting to weaken the Ukraine military by illegally stealing their ships? That Russia is not trying to economically ruin the Ukraine with gas warfare?

Who said I backpedalled? I stand by that statement completely - its an entirely unsurprising development given the circumstances. Refer above to my comments on how things are as opposed to how they should be.

There is nothing that legitimizes stealing ships. Nothing. Unless you think it is okay because the Russians can do it, in which case I fail to see what your problem with Libya was. Or is it only bad when the west decides to do stuff because they can?

Maybe it is time to actively engage in politics designed to weaken Russia. I mean, they can't be trusted, so maybe the USA were right all along in containing them and in championing an antagonistic policy. If Russia thinks it will prevail in the long run with acting like this, well, they failed gloriously before.

All they have done now is drive the EU to closer cooperation with the USA. Soon the USA will be supplying more and more gas to Europe. And Ukraine will probably join the EU and Nato, something nations like Germany would not have agreed to until Putin decided to act like a giant drunken bear.

You got high ranking German politicians who dined with Putin before now referring to him as the guy who annexed Sudetenland. You got people calling for an end of supplying Russia with the chemicals it needs to refine crude oil. You got people saying that the US should step in with supplying gas and oil instead of Russia (a real possibility now that the US is producing so much). Already close to 7 billion in investments in Russia are at risk. There are people out there that say that sacrificing 300k German jobs in return for collapsing Russias economy is considered a viable option (made much more feasible by the fact that Germany's gas demands for the year are almost already met as the gas storages are filled due to the mild winter).

Nothing good for Russia can come out of this.

[K. A. Pital]

It would be like saying "the preponderance of evidence showed that people supported Hitler in 1936" and you would be correct, but it does not make that election result any more democratic.

Of course it doesn't. But when people are dirt poor, sometimes they lose the track of democracy and start electing fascists or voting for the annexation of their territory by a richer and more powerful neighbor. Without really upholding all the democratic norms to the letter.

They were not the ones incapable of waiting for the free and democratic election to happen, Russia was.

The West wasn't incapable of waiting for elections, but Ukraine's rebels were. The government was deposed by force well before May elections and half of the provisional positions were filled by open fascists while deputees were beaten right in front of the Parliament building.

Yes and the head of the crimean mob is a mobster who had several hitmen coming for him in the past.

So all of Crimea is just a "mob"? That's low. What about the thousands of revolutionaries that blocked Kiev? I can also call them a fascist mob, and hey, wouldn't that be true.

Nothing good for Russia can come out of this.

Stopping Russia's dependence on the West for oil and gas exports and stopping Russia's economy being reliant only on exports of raw resources may actually be beneficial in the long run. The extreme blockade of post-revolutionary Russia by the West forced it to rapidly industrialize with whatever means were present. The blockade of Russia by the EU, US and NATO will complete the creation of the Beijing-Moscow alliance, since China would very much like a partner like Russia basically forced into its arms, and a partner with a sizeable nuclear arsenal to boot.

[Thanas]

Of course it doesn't. But when people are dirt poor, sometimes they lose the track of democracy and start electing fascists or voting for the annexation of their territory by a richer and more powerful neighbor. Without really upholding all the democratic norms to the letter.

The Crimea was way better off than the rest of Ukraine (with the east being the exception) iirc. I don't think that legitimizes it in any way.

So all of Crimea is just a "mob"? That's low. What about the thousands of revolutionaries that blocked Kiev? I can also call them a fascist mob, and hey, wouldn't that be true.

It is very hard to have independent verification of who actually did what in the Crimea and how much of it was orchestrated by Russia.

Stopping Russia's dependence on the West for oil and gas exports and stopping Russia's economy being reliant only on exports of raw resources may actually be beneficial in the long run. The extreme blockade of post-revolutionary Russia by the West forced it to rapidly industrialize with whatever means were present. The blockade of Russia by the EU, US and NATO will complete the creation of the Beijing-Moscow alliance, since China would very much like a partner like Russia basically forced into its arms, and a partner with a sizeable nuclear arsenal to boot.

It might be. Or Russia might collapse even more and more regions will break off. Or Putin will get booted out by his oligarchic friends before that happens (if their assets are in danger of being lost). I really doubt China can make up for the loss of Western imports/investors (especially in high tech and chemical products) without a few years of preparation, nor do I think Russia is very keen on becoming a chinese lapdog. I think Russia collapsing in the short run is a bit more realistic.

But I don't think it will come to full out economic warfare, provided Putin gives an inch.

[K. A. Pital]

The Crimea was way better off than the rest of Ukraine (with the east being the exception) iirc. I don't think that legitimizes it in any way.

Crimea wasn't 'way better than the rest of Ukraine', it was slightly better. But the wages and pensions were still much, much lower than in Russia. By much I mean several times lower. That was true even during the 'good times', and the more years passed the more striking the divide between Russia and Ukraine became. When visiting the place in the 1990s, I almost couldn't tell the difference. In the 2000s the difference was striking, scary and awful to behold. Like I said, a person from below the poverty line in Russia like myself was an okay-earner in Crimea.

It is very hard to have independent verification of who actually did what in the Crimea and how much of it was orchestrated by Russia.

Of course it is hard. But 'mob'? Even soldiers of a hostile nation do not deserve to be called a mob.

It might be. Or Russia might collapse even more and more regions will break off. Or Putin will get booted out by his oligarchic friends before that happens (if their assets are in danger of being lost). I really doubt China can make up for the loss of Western imports/investors (especially in high tech and chemical products) without a few years of preparation, nor do I think Russia is very keen on becoming a chinese lapdog. I think Russia collapsing in the short run is a bit more realistic. But I don't think it will come to full out economic warfare, provided Putin gives an inch.

Either way is good - if Russia breaks apart, the East will form a solid Chinese satellite with lots of nukes and modern weaponry. Putin booted by the oligarchs is a very unwelcome development from the standpoint of democracy if the resulting regime becomes stronger and harder to overthrow, not weaker. Putin is sliding towards Pinochetian governing, but direct rule by the oligarchs will simply speed up this process. Oligarchs are the enemy of democracy, human rights, labour rights et cetera. It is hard to find a person more vile than a post-Soviet oligarch in the whole world.

China can and will make up for the loss of Wester imports; it can also provide a circumventing channel to get these goods for a price, not to mention it already copied most of the necessary technologies or is in the process of acquiring them, like Korea and Japan did before.

Russia is not keen on becoming a Chinese satellite, but being a partner isn't ruled out. There was a time when China was Russia's small partner, now the times have changed. Russia cannot feasibly support an economy larger than the Chinese one. Also China won't be happy to see nuclear chaos on its borders, so I believe it will support whoever has the guts to hold Russia as a single state, even if that person would be Putin.

And Putin will not 'give an inch' - what do you mean by that? He just got his support rating shooting through the roof. For all that I know, if the man said he's renaming Russia into the RSFSR tomorrow there'd be cheers in the streets. I told you before, people did not take the 1990s and capitalism as anything good, and revanchism coupled with a desire to get rid of the oligarchs is very strong. Now Putin has an even greater freedom of action, since the populace is very likely to support total destruction of the oligarchy at the smallest sign of disloyalty. Every oligarch can be now annihilated like Khodorkovsky with only positive consequences for Putin's public support.

[mr friendly guy]

You got high ranking German politicians who dined with Putin before now referring to him as the guy who annexed Sudetenland. You got people calling for an end of supplying Russia with the chemicals it needs to refine crude oil. You got people saying that the US should step in with supplying gas and oil instead of Russia (a real possibility now that the US is producing so much). Already close to 7 billion in investments in Russia are at risk. There are people out there that say that sacrificing 300k German jobs in return for collapsing Russias economy is considered a viable option (made much more feasible by the fact that Germany's gas demands for the year are almost already met as the gas storages are filled due to the mild winter).

Nothing good for Russia can come out of this.

This article might interest you.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... s/6864355/

Though the United States has seen an increase in natural gas production due in part to exploitation of shale gas through hydraulic fracturing techniques, it does not have the facilities to rapidly increase exports.

An import terminal in the United States is being retrofitted to handle exports and may be ready in 2015, but it can take at least five years to get through the approval and construction to complete a new liquefied natural gas terminal in the United States.

"Lifting gas export restrictions might not have a direct impact on the Ukraine crisis in he near term, but it would send an important signal to Russia and the rest of the world," Gardiner. "It would show any leader from any country that derives power from controlling energy interests that such strategies will no longer be effective."

1. Going from that its going to take perhaps up to 2019 before alternative supplies can be reached, so at least 5 years.

2. Thus we are relying on the negative Russian sentiment to continue up to that point. I mean do we see that much negative Russian sentiment in the West lingering from the Russian Georgian war, which coincidentally was also 5 years ago.

3. This also gives Russia time to find alternative buyers. Heck diversification is a good financial strategy even if there wasn't this geopolitical spat going on. I think the obvious candidate for buying Russian gas is China. Although they better make a good sales pitch, because China is buying gas via the central Asian states.

[K. A. Pital]

Although they better make a good sales pitch, because China is buying gas via the central Asian states.

China needs Russian gas and oil, since the completion of its industrialization, even under the cleanest possible scenarios, would result in a massive increase in gas consumption. In fact gas is needed to make China cleaner. It was China who pressured Russia on building a pipe through Siberia to sell gas and oil; vested interests of some countries (Japan) and some regional governors in Siberia who think with a pipe their corruption money from border customs will slip away so far precluded the construction of this critical piece of infrastructure. But after the recent events Putin's government seems to have decided in favor of China finally. And India. That's a change of vector. Odessa oil pipe is going to gradually lose the traffic and the Pacific and Asia will get a lot more attention from now on.

I always thought that Russia doesn't really belong to Europe, Europe has no use for Russia other than a resource colony and can offer no help; and neither would Europe even want Russia to join it. Now it is clear that the split is becoming irrepairable.

EDIT: Oh BTW - Russia said it will deny US START-III inspectors entry to nuclear objects. What did I tell you about walking out of START, Kane? If necessary, Russia will simply walk out. It is not as if it has much to lose from doing that. The US lost nothing by walking out of the ABM treaty.

[Thanas]

This article might interest you.*snip*

Yes, but the conclusions you are drawing from it are wrong. See thisarticle

Energy market analysts at the French bank Société Générale said in a briefing note last month that European gas demand in 2013 was at its lowest level since 1999. In the UK, gas consumption is currently approaching a 12-year low.

Partly as a result of weaker demand, but also because since the first "gas war" of 2006, many European countries have made huge efforts to increase their gas storage capacity and stocks are high. Some countries, such as Bulgaria, Slovakia and Moldova, which lack large storage capacity and depend heavily on gas supplies via Ukraine, would certainly suffer from any disruption in supplies. But Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE), which represents the gas infrastucture industry, estimated that in late February European gas storage was 10 percentage points higher than this time last year and about half full; the National Grid puts Britain's stocks at about 25 percentage points above the average for the time of year.[...]

Europe is increasingly installing specialist terminals that will allow gas to be imported from countries such as Qatar in the form of liquefied natural gas – while Norway's Statoil sold more gas to European countries in 2012 than Gazprom did. "Since the Russian supply cuts of 2006 and 2009, the tables have totally turned," Anders åslund, an energy advisor to both the Russian and Ukrainian governments, told the Washington Post.

While there is rising European demand, it is not as if Europe is totally dependent on Russia, which is not even the primary supplier apparently.

Of course it is hard. But 'mob'? Even soldiers of a hostile nation do not deserve to be called a mob.

Does this also apply to the protesters in the west?

Either way is good - if Russia breaks apart, the East will form a solid Chinese satellite with lots of nukes and modern weaponry. Putin booted by the oligarchs is a very unwelcome development from the standpoint of democracy if the resulting regime becomes stronger and harder to overthrow, not weaker. Putin is sliding towards Pinochetian governing, but direct rule by the oligarchs will simply speed up this process. Oligarchs are the enemy of democracy, human rights, labour rights et cetera. It is hard to find a person more vile than a post-Soviet oligarch in the whole world.

I can think of a lot of people more vile than oligarchs. Dictators, religious fanatics or mobsters. Oligarchs are on the whole unscrupolous businessmen in the mold of robber barons, but businessmen nonetheless.

China can and will make up for the loss of Wester imports; it can also provide a circumventing channel to get these goods for a price, not to mention it already copied most of the necessary technologies or is in the process of acquiring them, like Korea and Japan did before.

Doubtful. I'd have to see evidence for that to belive it.

And Putin will not 'give an inch' - what do you mean by that? He just got his support rating shooting through the roof. For all that I know, if the man said he's renaming Russia into the RSFSR tomorrow there'd be cheers in the streets. I told you before, people did not take the 1990s and capitalism as anything good, and revanchism coupled with a desire to get rid of the oligarchs is very strong. Now Putin has an even greater freedom of action, since the populace is very likely to support total destruction of the oligarchy at the smallest sign of disloyalty. Every oligarch can be now annihilated like Khodorkovsky with only positive consequences for Putin's public support.

He has to make some concession and commitment to keep the rest of the ukraine intact and not destabilise it any further. Otherwise there will be more pressure. Maybe next bank assets of the oligarchy will be frozen.

I always thought that Russia doesn't really belong to Europe, Europe has no use for Russia other than a resource colony and can offer no help; and neither would Europe even want Russia to join it. Now it is clear that the split is becoming irrepairable.

You are mistaken. I think a vast majority of Europeans thinks of Russians as Europeans. They are probably closer to Europe in the minds of most than EU candidates like Turkey. I would love to have Russia in the EU due to the shared history and traditions.

And your view of Russia as a resource colony is pessimistic. Other nations had bad economies and managed to join eventually. It takes time and effort, but it is not as if Russia is destined to be the hellhole of the north.

[K. A. Pital]

Does this also apply to the protesters in the west?

Yes. I called them rebels. Hell, I even grant fascists and nazis, whom I hate with a passion, the term 'rebel', which is fairly positive. If you wish to call people that I know personally a 'mob', then well, I better start calling the fascists from Svoboda and Right Sector a mob all the time. Which would lower the estimated legitimacy of current Ukranian government from rebel rule to mob rule.

I can think of a lot of people more vile than oligarchs. Dictators, religious fanatics or mobsters. Oligarchs are on the whole unscrupolous businessmen in the mold of robber barons, but businessmen nonetheless.

Religious fanatics are worse, I'll grant that. Thankfully the Taliban cannot form in a secular nation unless heavily sponsored by... some oligarchs. Oligarchs are the root cause. They sponsor all Talibans, all dictatorships and all mobsters of the world. Russian oligarchs have sponsored autocracy all over the post-Soviet space, Saudi and Russian oligarchs have sponsored religious fanaticism in Afghanistan, Middle East, Central Asia and Russia itself, and of course all of them have some involvement in criminal affairs. Not a single one is clean. I'm not even sure a line between oligarch and a mobster can be drawn.

Doubtful. I'd have to see evidence for that to belive it.

What does Russia buy from the West? Machinery and equipment. If you think that China cannot replace the West here, the burden of proof is actually on you. Principal crimtical imports from Germany include, for example, advanced trains like ICE. China is producing it's own high speed trains now. China also supplies heavy-duty locomotives to most Central Asian nations, which have an infrastructure similar to the Russian one. China's production of CNC machine tools is so huge that it can supply all of Russian industry with it without flinching. There's also South Korea, which is a country of preference for many Russian enterprises to buy CNC machine tools and which is not taking part in the sanctions. EU's key exports to Russia are machine tools and transport. Some problems with the chemical industry can be expected, since a lot of it was imported from Europe, but China and Korea have a very advanced chemical industry and would be very glad to supply Russian industries with necessary polymers.

Next, the US. They sell machinery (China+SK would cover that), vehicles (Japan+SK can cover that and they'd be very glad for the opportunity), and aircraft - an area where Russia has a domestic program in dire need of financing, but it is perfectly capable of producing its own aircraft as evidenced by the USSR's post-war history. Electronic equipment - no need to say China and SK can fill any needs imaginable, and in fact Russian government just decided in favor of Samsung vs. Apple to maintain security of communications.

All in all, such actions will benefit China and South Korea and partly Japan. It will also benefit Russia in the long run - force Russia to invest in making its own aircraft sooner than expected before.

He has to make some concession and commitment to keep the rest of the ukraine intact and not destabilise it any further. Otherwise there will be more pressure. Maybe next bank assets of the oligarchy will be frozen.

But he already said that Crimea is Russian, and the rest is Ukrainian. He didn't do anything when SBU arrested some pro-Russian protesters in the East. So I guess that's settled. But he won't go back from Crimea.

You are mistaken. I think a vast majority of Europeans thinks of Russians as Europeans. They are probably closer to Europe in the minds of most than EU candidates like Turkey. I would love to have Russia in the EU due to the shared history and traditions.

You would most certainly not. Some small periphery countries' financial problems almost made the union fall apart (which may still happen). Having a huge nation such as Russia inside the EU would instantly create an enormous problem for the EU itself. Financing the restoration of Russian Far East is hardly on the agenda when the EU doesn't even have the money to keep social democracy of the 1970s running without cutting the welfare state down in more than a few places.

And your view of Russia as a resource colony is pessimistic. Other nations had bad economies and managed to join eventually. It takes time and effort, but it is not as if Russia is destined to be the hellhole of the north.

My view is not pessimistic, it's realistic. I've been living there a lot more than some rosy-glasses people who spout bullshit about Russian economic revival and the like. Other nations had tiny populations, had bad economies, required massive infusions of EU cash primarily from Western European nations, danced on brink of bankrupcy (see Hungary) and still have bad economies. One third of Latvia's population works as gastarbeiters in the EU center, only those too old or too entrenched won't leave the place. Life standards of Europeriphery are horrendous, not really much better than Russia. Bosnia, Bulgaria, etc. look just awful. People from these places come to work in the EU center for enormously small wages, often illegally, these migrants are treated like slaves. So these nations still have bad economies and will have them for years to come, with some rare exceptions of well-integrated industrial spots like former Czechoslovakia territory.

If my view is sad, why has the EU thrived on importing nothing but crude oil and gas from Russia and exporting nothing but advanced machinery to Russia? This is a textbook example of colonial relations.

Europe will never tolerate such a big country with diversified industries right next to itself, and it has only benefitted from the primitivization of Russian and Central Asian economies.

[Thanas]

Does this also apply to the protesters in the west?

Yes. I called them rebels. Hell, I even grant fascists and nazis, whom I hate with a passion, the term 'rebel', which is fairly positive. If you wish to call people that I know personally a 'mob', then well, I better start calling the fascists from Svoboda and Right Sector a mob all the time. Which would lower the estimated legitimacy of current Ukranian government from rebel rule to mob rule.

Fair enough.

Religious fanatics are worse, I'll grant that. Thankfully the Taliban cannot form in a secular nation unless heavily sponsored by... some oligarchs. Oligarchs are the root cause. They sponsor all Talibans, all dictatorships and all mobsters of the world. Russian oligarchs have sponsored autocracy all over the post-Soviet space, Saudi and Russian oligarchs have sponsored religious fanaticism in Afghanistan, Middle East, Central Asia and Russia itself, and of course all of them have some involvement in criminal affairs. Not a single one is clean. I'm not even sure a line between oligarch and a mobster can be drawn.

Well, your experiences are a lot more profound than mine so I'll drop it, however I am not sure the oligarchs are one evil mass. Surely there are varying degrees of evil and corruption here. When does one go from millionaire to oligarch?

What does Russia buy from the West? Machinery and equipment. If you think that China cannot replace the West here, the burden of proof is actually on you. Principal crimtical imports from Germany include, for example, advanced trains like ICE. China is producing it's own high speed trains now. China also supplies heavy-duty locomotives to most Central Asian nations, which have an infrastructure similar to the Russian one. China's production of CNC machine tools is so huge that it can supply all of Russian industry with it without flinching. There's also South Korea, which is a country of preference for many Russian enterprises to buy CNC machine tools and which is not taking part in the sanctions. EU's key exports to Russia are machine tools and transport. Some problems with the chemical industry can be expected, since a lot of it was imported from Europe, but China and Korea have a very advanced chemical industry and would be very glad to supply Russian industries with necessary polymers.

Do they have the capacity? Because there are some machine tools you cannot just replace nor can China make them (otherwise they would not import them from Germany) and the same goes for chemical industries. Specialized, high tech stuff just cannot be replaced, not by any nation. I think Stuart did some analysis in the past regarding the importance of machine tools to an industrialized nation and what would happen were Germany nuked right now....have to find it.

But he already said that Crimea is Russian, and the rest is Ukrainian. He didn't do anything when SBU arrested some pro-Russian protesters in the East. So I guess that's settled. But he won't go back from Crimea.

There were reports of Russian minorities being whipped up by agitators and the ship seizures came after that (as did the gas prizes) so I think he is not done yet.

You would most certainly not. Some small periphery countries' financial problems almost made the union fall apart (which may still happen). Having a huge nation such as Russia inside the EU would instantly create an enormous problem for the EU itself. Financing the restoration of Russian Far East is hardly on the agenda when the EU doesn't even have the money to keep social democracy of the 1970s running without cutting the welfare state down in more than a few places.

That is due more to not willing to burden European taxpayers, not due to a lack of capacity or capability. Germany could have taken on the entirety of the debt of Greece but did not. Besides, we financed (and still financed) Eastern Europe and East Germany.

And I wasn't talking about Russia joining today, more like in half a century. Before I die I would like to see Russia join the EU as that would put an end to the threat of mass warfare on the continent. In my mind Russia is more European than Asian, we share a lot of roots and IMO Russia is a natural part of Europe ever since the Rus.

My view is not pessimistic, it's realistic. I've been living there a lot more than some rosy-glasses people who spout bullshit about Russian economic revival and the like. Other nations had tiny populations, had bad economies, required massive infusions of EU cash primarily from Western European nations, danced on brink of bankrupcy (see Hungary) and still have bad economies. One third of Latvia's population works as gastarbeiters in the EU center, only those too old or too entrenched won't leave the place. Life standards of Europeriphery are horrendous, not really much better than Russia. Bosnia, Bulgaria, etc. look just awful. People from these places come to work in the EU center for enormously small wages, often illegally, these migrants are treated like slaves. So these nations still have bad economies and will have them for years to come, with some rare exceptions of well-integrated industrial spots like former Czechoslovakia territory.

But Russias population is only ~145 millon. The 2004 and 2007 enlargements had a total population of ~106 million join the EU. In terms of population, Russia joining would be less of a challenge than those enlargements and would be much less in percentages as the 2004/7 enlargements.

If my view is sad, why has the EU thrived on importing nothing but crude oil and gas from Russia and exporting nothing but advanced machinery to Russia? This is a textbook example of colonial relations.

We also export chemicals, medicine, transport and agricultural products. The Russian imports sure are dominated by resources but I won't call Russia a colony by that alone (see for example Norway, where oil and gas dominates as well but which is not a colony).

Europe will never tolerate such a big country with diversified industries right next to itself, and it has only benefitted from the primitivization of Russian and Central Asian economies.

Benefitted - maybe. But I fail to see why Europe would not be interested in an industrialized and prosperous Russia. Germany alone makes a living of selling stuff to industrialized nations.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, your experiences are a lot more profound than mine so I'll drop it, however I am not sure the oligarchs are one evil mass. Surely there are varying degrees of evil and corruption here. When does one go from millionaire to oligarch?

When the amount of wealth one commands allows to directly impact or even fully command regional and, worse yet, national politics. That's when all the broken ribs and skulls of union activists and protesters start being their personal fault as well.

Do they have the capacity? Because there are some machine tools you cannot just replace nor can China make them (otherwise they would not import them from Germany) and the same goes for chemical industries. Specialized, high tech stuff just cannot be replaced, not by any nation. I think Stuart did some analysis in the past regarding the importance of machine tools to an industrialized nation and what would happen were Germany nuked right now....have to find it.

Actually, there's a very huge lobbying effort (in fact i'm sitting next to the organization that does this lobbying) to prefer German machine tools to South Korean and Chinese in Russia. Even with all this lobbying and very strong ties between government and trade officials, German machine tools are giving way to SK and Chinese ones. Stuart's opinion on machine tools is valuable, but I have people who actually operated South Korean CNC tools and they are of the opinion that they can replace most, if not all, German-bought equipment. Chinese capacity... let's just say it is an ever-growing resource, which by the time China reaches a Taiwan-level of development will be nigh unlimited.

There were reports of Russian minorities being whipped up by agitators and the ship seizures came after that (as did the gas prizes) so I think he is not done yet.

If you allow the SBU to take your potential rebellion leaders, the game is over. New leaders won't count on you as strongly as they were counting before. All military equipment that could be seized was captured already. Ukraine almost lost everything it had in Crimea.

That is due more to not willing to burden European taxpayers, not due to a lack of capacity or capability. Germany could have taken on the entirety of the debt of Greece but did not. Besides, we financed (and still financed) Eastern Europe and East Germany.

Yes, you do. And despite the constant stream of money Eastern Europe is still dirt poor.

And I wasn't talking about Russia joining today, more like in half a century.

What is the reason for this? If in 50 years Russian economy is on par with Europe (that presumes the creation and maintenance of an advanced industrial sector, which Europe isn't really interested in), there's no incentive to join as Moscow will command an economic alliance of its own with Belarus, Kazakhstan and parts of Caucasus together forming a formidable share of world production. There's no reason to join then. Joining now is infeasible, but even if it was, that'd tank Europe as it will mean paying for 10 times Greece over and over again.

But Russias population is only ~145 millon. The 2004 and 2007 enlargements had a total population of ~106 million join the EU.

They had no nuclear weapons. They were a lot more compact and none of them considered themselves a great power (which Russians do), they were all separate. They weren't spread over more than 12 000 km on a thin railway line across Eurasia where the distance between nearest big cities is 1000 km on the average. And they caused the biggest crisis (ongoing!) just 3 years down the road, which may lead to the end of EU.

We also export chemicals, medicine, transport and agricultural products. The Russian imports sure are dominated by resources but I won't call Russia a colony by that alone (see for example Norway, where oil and gas dominates as well but which is not a colony).

Russia's exports are 75% raw natural resources. Compared to the 1960s, that's degradation. For a nation that big, with such a big population and an advanced education in natural sciences, this state of things is clearly abnormal. Imports of advanced products from Russia are nigh nonexistent. Agreements which Russia enters with Europe and the US still suffer from lack of technology transfer (they woulnd't dare to do the same to China, in fact they failed miserably to stop the spread and acquisition of advanced technologies by China).

Benefitted - maybe. But I fail to see why Europe would not be interested in an industrialized and prosperous Russia. Germany alone makes a living of selling stuff to industrialized nations.

Germany may be interested in having an industrialized neighbor because it is not so dependent on Russia being just a place where you go to buy cheap oil and gas. But others... Are a lot less benigh is the most I can say. Germany at least agreed to some tech transfer, but it has been fairly limited if we compare it to the strict requirements China puts for companies to operate there. Import substitution will hurt exporters in the short run, and it is very hard to break that view in the elites.

[Thanas]

Well, your experiences are a lot more profound than mine so I'll drop it, however I am not sure the oligarchs are one evil mass. Surely there are varying degrees of evil and corruption here. When does one go from millionaire to oligarch?

When the amount of wealth one commands allows to directly impact or even fully command regional and, worse yet, national politics. That's when all the broken ribs and skulls of union activists and protesters start being their personal fault as well.

Sure, but "the oligarchs" probably did not act as a whole. Too many rivalries there. I am sure some oligarchs have their pet peeves, others have others. Heck, in Ukraine you saw people supporting their own version of politics despite being oligarchs (and some changed sides). I am not sure if they are a uniform mass, not even political parties are - but business rivals supposedly are?

Actually, there's a very huge lobbying effort (in fact i'm sitting next to the organization that does this lobbying) to prefer German machine tools to South Korean and Chinese in Russia. Even with all this lobbying and very strong ties between government and trade officials, German machine tools are giving way to SK and Chinese ones. Stuart's opinion on machine tools is valuable, but I have people who actually operated South Korean CNC tools and they are of the opinion that they can replace most, if not all, German-bought equipment. Chinese capacity... let's just say it is an ever-growing resource, which by the time China reaches a Taiwan-level of development will be nigh unlimited.

But China still is a net importer of machine tools (in fact in 2012 over a third of all machine tools were imports in China while total production of machine tools decreased in 2010-2012) and German share on the world market has grown by 10% in 2012. Those factors lead me to believe that there is a huge gap. Besides, it will not be the first time there will be an industrial challenge - I am very confident we will meet and beat it the same way we have beaten all other such challenges in the past.

If you allow the SBU to take your potential rebellion leaders, the game is over. New leaders won't count on you as strongly as they were counting before. All military equipment that could be seized was captured already. Ukraine almost lost everything it had in Crimea.

We'll see what will happen. After Crimea one cannot just trust Putin to do the sensible thing.

Yes, you do. And despite the constant stream of money Eastern Europe is still dirt poor.

That is relative. Poorer than Germany and France? Sure. But vastly richer than before.

What is the reason for this? If in 50 years Russian economy is on par with Europe (that presumes the creation and maintenance of an advanced industrial sector, which Europe isn't really interested in), there's no incentive to join as Moscow will command an economic alliance of its own with Belarus, Kazakhstan and parts of Caucasus together forming a formidable share of world production. There's no reason to join then. Joining now is infeasible, but even if it was, that'd tank Europe as it will mean paying for 10 times Greece over and over again.

I don't see Russia being on par of Europe economically ever. For one, they do not have the population and efficiency nor infrastructure. I think Russia will continue to fall behind for the foreseeable future until they either manage a breakthrough or will have to ask neighbouring countries for aid.

They had no nuclear weapons. They were a lot more compact and none of them considered themselves a great power (which Russians do), they were all separate.

Nuclear weapons aren't a great deal. The Russian ideology might be a bigger obstacle but the EU has overcome bigger things.

They weren't spread over more than 12 000 km on a thin railway line across Eurasia where the distance between nearest big cities is 1000 km on the average.

But most of those regions are not densely populated. The west and southwest of Russia holds the vast majority of Russians. I don't see that changing.

And they caused the biggest crisis (ongoing!) just 3 years down the road, which may lead to the end of EU.

It won't lead to the end of the EU.

Russia's exports are 75% raw natural resources. Compared to the 1960s, that's degradation. For a nation that big, with such a big population and an advanced education in natural sciences, this state of things is clearly abnormal. Imports of advanced products from Russia are nigh nonexistent. Agreements which Russia enters with Europe and the US still suffer from lack of technology transfer

Abnormal maybe, but the expected result of communism combined with militarism IMO.

(they woulnd't dare to do the same to China, in fact they failed miserably to stop the spread and acquisition of advanced technologies by China).

Intellectual theft can only get you so far, let's see them develop those technologies into competitive high tech industries.

Germany may be interested in having an industrialized neighbor because it is not so dependent on Russia being just a place where you go to buy cheap oil and gas. But others... Are a lot less benigh is the most I can say. Germany at least agreed to some tech transfer, but it has been fairly limited if we compare it to the strict requirements China puts for companies to operate there. Import substitution will hurt exporters in the short run, and it is very hard to break that view in the elites.

What European countries do you think would be threatened by an industrialized Russia?

[K. A. Pital]

Sure, but "the oligarchs" probably did not act as a whole. Too many rivalries there. I am sure some oligarchs have their pet peeves, others have others. Heck, in Ukraine you saw people supporting their own version of politics despite being oligarchs (and some changed sides). I am not sure if they are a uniform mass, not even political parties are - but business rivals supposedly are?

I am not saying they are a uniform mass. They have rivalries. But what they support is despicable. Cleptocracies of various colors they support, the only real difference is who gets the bigger cut. That's why I said they are some of the worst scum Earth has ever seen. Completely incapable of creating any worthwhile products, not interested in the well-being of the people and the long-term future the slightest bit, they are truly the prime example of comprador bourgeois. Oil tycoons, timber tycoons, gas tycoons... they're scum, plain and simple. Some are worse than others, because they support something like Talibanization, or archaization in general. Those of course should not even be.

But China still is a net importer of machine tools (in fact in 2012 over a third of all machine tools were imports in China while total production of machine tools decreased in 2010-2012) and German share on the world market has grown by 10% in 2012. Those factors lead me to believe that there is a huge gap. Besides, it will not be the first time there will be an industrial challenge - I am very confident we will meet and beat it the same way we have beaten all other such challenges in the past.

Germany is a good producer, but it is not the only one. Germany itself imports South Korean and Chinese machine tools - am I to believe that those imported Korean CNC machines are worse than German ones to such a degree that it would cause an economic collapse? Please. Russian industrial sector is rather smallish and often relies on equipment from pre-collapse times. This means it would not stop working even in case it needs to fully shift to Chinese and SK production. As for Germany itself, of course loss of Russian import market wouldn't mean much for Germany. Besides, China and SK can resell some critical equipment at a premium to circumvent sanctions.

That is relative. Poorer than Germany and France? Sure. But vastly richer than before.

No, many parts of former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria aren't 'richer than before', the life level is abysmally low and like I said, their citizens are treated like slaves in the central powers. There are no vast riches to be found in Europe's periphery. I found some parts in EU-controlled Eastern Europe doing worse than Russia. That says a lot to me.

I don't see Russia being on par of Europe economically ever.

In terms of per capita production, life standard? Never? Then there's no reason to ever join a union of countries where some are forever destined to rule and others to forever have a lower life standard and serve as sources of cheap labour and natural resources. Sorry. If the EU won't ever equalize the life level between the center and the periphery, Russia does not need it, and neither do other periphery countries.

Nuclear weapons aren't a great deal.

I understand that you'd want the EU to be a huge independent nuclear power equal to the US, but the US would not want this. And Russia likes its nuclear shield, it won't give it away.

But most of those regions are not densely populated.

So you would give away Siberia and the Far East to China? What's the point then? I'd rather have the entirety of Russia join China. Then I can ride from Moscow to Beijing in a free travel zone and have all the fun in the world.

It won't lead to the end of the EU.

Maybe. Who knows.

Abnormal maybe, but the expected result of communism combined with militarism IMO.

You can't say this with a straight face. Russia had a diverse industrial sector in the 1960s and 1970s.

Intellectual theft can only get you so far, let's see them develop those technologies into competitive high tech industries.

It got South Korea and Japan into the First World.

What European countries do you think would be threatened by an industrialized Russia?

All the poor deindustrialized ones in the East, which the EU protects from Russia.

[Thanas]

I am not saying they are a uniform mass. They have rivalries. But what they support is despicable. Cleptocracies of various colors they support, the only real difference is who gets the bigger cut. That's why I said they are some of the worst scum Earth has ever seen. Completely incapable of creating any worthwhile products, not interested in the well-being of the people and the long-term future the slightest bit, they are truly the prime example of comprador bourgeois. Oil tycoons, timber tycoons, gas tycoons... they're scum, plain and simple. Some are worse than others, because they support something like Talibanization, or archaization in general. Those of course should not even be.

I don't think we'll get anywhere here so I'll just drop it.

Germany is a good producer, but it is not the only one. Germany itself imports South Korean and Chinese machine tools - am I to believe that those imported Korean CNC machines are worse than German ones to such a degree that it would cause an economic collapse? Please. Russian industrial sector is rather smallish and often relies on equipment from pre-collapse times. This means it would not stop working even in case it needs to fully shift to Chinese and SK production. As for Germany itself, of course loss of Russian import market wouldn't mean much for Germany. Besides, China and SK can resell some critical equipment at a premium to circumvent sanctions.

No, I never said an economic collapse would be caused by the loss of machine tools. I am saying a combination of several factors might cause it. As to the imported machine tools, to my understanding they are not the kind of precision machinery that are worth a lot - for Germany does not even show up in the top 30 of machine tools importers world wide.

No, many parts of former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria aren't 'richer than before', the life level is abysmally low and like I said, their citizens are treated like slaves in the central powers. There are no vast riches to be found in Europe's periphery. I found some parts in EU-controlled Eastern Europe doing worse than Russia. That says a lot to me.

Yugoslavia is not part of the EU with the exception of Croatia and Slovenia, both who are doing good. Bulgaria is also not a new member. It is kinda bad to cherrypick things and not mention those nations who are doing better like Poland, which on its own is more important than Bulgaria and Yugoslavia combined.

In terms of per capita production, life standard? Never?

On their own? Sure. And that is all I am talking about here - reread what you said, you said that if Russia becomes on par with the EU without being a member then they would not join. My never comment refers to that scenario alone and should only be read in the context of that scenario.

I understand that you'd want the EU to be a huge independent nuclear power equal to the US, but the US would not want this. And Russia likes its nuclear shield, it won't give it away.

No, I really don't care about the EU or the USA having the bigger nuclear dick. Further nukes in Europe are to me a waste of time and money. EU can already wipe out whoever attacks us, so why would we need more? If Russia wants to waste money on it they can, I hear their budgets are just fabulous and they totally can afford it.

So you would give away Siberia and the Far East to China? What's the point then?

No (unless they want to leave), what I meant was that Russia is not that huge a challenge population wise as if they were all split up in tiny communities over the country. But that is not the case, a lot of Russia is just wasteland.

I'd rather have the entirety of Russia join China. Then I can ride from Moscow to Beijing in a free travel zone and have all the fun in the world.

Don't you live in Germany atm? And I cannot see Russia wanting to join China.

It won't lead to the end of the EU.

Maybe. Who knows.

My standing bets with regards to the end of the EU have gone very well so far (not that Surlethe ever paid up).

You can't say this with a straight face. Russia had a diverse industrial sector in the 1960s and 1970s.

And then communism and militarism wasted it in pointless wars and pointless military dick-measuring contests with the west which wrecked the soviet economy. Colour me unimpressed.

It got South Korea and Japan into the First World.

Into, yes, but what made them stay there (sans the decade+ crisis in Japan) was their capacity to invent, engineer and educate. With the chinese education system being what it is I am not sure they will get that far unless they learn to question more instead of just copying authorities.

All the poor deindustrialized ones in the East, which the EU protects from Russia.

Doubtful, considering their business is primarily with the EU and not Russia. Japan and SK have shown that nations can both be industrialized and competitors to the EU without destroying either one.

[Mange]

Absolute nonsense. First and foremost, the Crimea was a land grab by another state which Kosovo wasn't.

Irrelevant to the allegation of special pleading, no matter how many times you insist it is. The Crimeans held a referendum and decided to be part of Russia. Why is this less legitimate than not holding a referendum and simply declaring independence, as certain members of Kosovo's assembly did? Why does the difference in the intent of the declaration matter?

I, as well as others, have already pointed out the irregularities at that joke you call a "referendum". I have no desire to repeat myself ad nauseum. Also see further below.

So what?

What? Please tell me you are joking? It's a violation against international law for an occupying power to either change the laws or the status of the area it occupies. That's a very basic tenet. According to the Hague-convention:

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations which was adopted in 1970, confirmed that a country can not validly acquire territory belonging to another country by force or the threat of use of force.

Anyone can say "dubious" - what actual evidence can you bring to the table that the will of the people of Crimea was not actually represented by this vote? Where is the evidence of this nonsense narrative you're peddling that the people of Crimea's will was subverted by fraud?

Two things: I've already discussed the issues concerning the so-called "referendum" and whether the Crimeans wants to belong to Russia or not is irrelevant. International law doesn't guarantee independence and the matter should have been dealt with in a legal manner. If Russia was so concerned about the Russians, then they should have taken the matter to the Security Council (or, at the very least, shouldn't have annexed the area against international law).

And I don't doubt that a majority of the Russian-speakers would vote for joining Russia. Heck, in a referendum in 1919, 95.5 percent of the electorate on the Swedish-speaking Åland Islands, which belonged to Finland, voted to join Sweden as the population was afraid that they would become assimilated by the Finnish-speakers after the Finnish independence. The League of Unions decided against allowing Åland joining Sweden and the islands were retained by Finland. But who knows? Now that the True Finns party has gained traction and with incidents in which people belonging to the Swedish minority has been harassed, perhaps we should invade the Åland Islands and the Swedish-speaking parts of Ostrobothnia and fix ourselves a little referendum, huh? No, that's an alien concept (though Sweden should've protested more loudly when the Swedish minority in the occupied Baltic states was being oppressed by the Soviet authorities in the '40s onwards).

The very definition of the special pleading fallacy. There's no actual logical reason to treat it as a special case - as the link I've set out demonstrates. At all. Its just "ok for me but not for thee" bullshit artistry.

Right or wrong, those countries, including my own, which have recognized Kosovo has done so under the provision that it's a special case. The circumstances that existed in Kosovo hasn't existed in Crimea and the process in Kosovo took ten years whereas it took ten days in Crimea. While that would be a joke under any circumstances, the Crimean process was not the result of an expressed will of self-determination as the region had been invaded and was under military occupation of another country (a circumstance that the ICJ in its ruling on Kosovo noted violates international law) and with no proper debate, discussion of practicalities, the fears of the minorities wasn't addressed and the "referendum" wasn't allowed to be monitored by internationally recognized organizations. To make it brief: The process wasn't the result of a strive for self-determination, but it was the result of a process lasting less than two weeks in which only one side was able to make its case. Anyone with a functioning brain would realize that.

The only relevant question in the case of Crimea and Kosovo is this, and this alone:

Is it permissible for the population of a region to secede from the host country if they express the will to do so? Yes or no?

Nonsense. Again, the ICJ didn't rule on whether it was legal for Kosovo to secede (or its status). The only thing the court said in its ruling was that it doesn't violate international law to declare independence. However, in its opinion, the ICJ does mention circumstances in which unilateral declarations of independence have violated international law and they have direct bearing on the Crimean situation:

[T]he illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations [Southern Rhodesia, Northern Cyprus and the Republika Srpska] as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens).

So, there you have it: That caveat renders your question moot as the circumstances surrounding the declaration of independence and the Russian annexation of Crimea which followed violated international law.

Refer above.

Yes, you were wrong. Moving on.

Oh my god, Russia is hypocritical and defending its own interests? STOP THE PRESSES.

Tell me, do you consider the US a "reliable neighbor and partner" given all its massive hypocrisy over the years, or does this sanctimony of yours only apply to Russia? If the answer to that question is no (if you are to have any objectivity at all, it must be) then do you think its constructive to treat the US as a pariah from this point forward? Because its not.

You can ask me that question again after you've taken a hard good look in the mirror.

The fact that you seriously just rolled your eyes at a statement of fact like "one-sided" tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. Let me know when they finally find the bodies of the 100,000 ethnic Albanians that NATO said the Serbs killed to justify their bombing campaign. Oh wait, they never existed.

I haven't said a word about 100,000 ethnic Albanians having been killed, but I really don't care if it's 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 as the campaign to ethnically cleanse (if not outright genocide) the area of Kosovo Albanians has been well-documented and recognized. I'm of the firm opinion that NATO acted in good faith and that the campaign was fully justified.

Shockingly, Western propaganda to rally the populace into wars didn't start in 2003. They didn't even start in 1999.

And a little all-inclusive anti-Western rant to round off the post with, huh Vympel?

[K. A. Pital]

No, I never said an economic collapse would be caused by the loss of machine tools. I am saying a combination of several factors might cause it. As to the imported machine tools, to my understanding they are not the kind of precision machinery that are worth a lot - for Germany does not even show up in the top 30 of machine tools importers world wide.

Cutting off oil and gas imports abruptly might cause a collapse. Doing it gradually, same as cutting off supplies of advanced machinery, will only complete the turn eastwards that started with delineation of the borders between Russia and China and continued with the recent oil-gas agreements that are bound to make China the biggest buyer.

Yugoslavia is not part of the EU with the exception of Croatia and Slovenia, both who are doing good. Bulgaria is also not a new member. It is kinda bad to cherrypick things and not mention those nations who are doing better like Poland, which on its own is more important than Bulgaria and Yugoslavia combined.

Poland wasn't a part of the EMU for a very long time, so like the Czech Republic it retained more control over monetary policy. The nations that were incorporated into the EMU mechanism did not fare so well, especially with severe unemployment hitting the South of Europe.

No, I really don't care about the EU or the USA having the bigger nuclear dick. Further nukes in Europe are to me a waste of time and money. EU can already wipe out whoever attacks us, so why would we need more? If Russia wants to waste money on it they can, I hear their budgets are just fabulous and they totally can afford it.

Well, Russia can afford the nuclear arsenal - heh, even Pakistan affords one.

No (unless they want to leave), what I meant was that Russia is not that huge a challenge population wise as if they were all split up in tiny communities over the country. But that is not the case, a lot of Russia is just wasteland.

But Russians are Russians, even if they come from Siberia.

Don't you live in Germany atm? And I cannot see Russia wanting to join China.

Russia may not want, but it joined the SCO. A special freetrade agreement with some travel preferences would be nice.

My standing bets with regards to the end of the EU have gone very well so far (not that Surlethe ever paid up).

I'm not betting. I know it can outlast the current troubles.

Colour me unimpressed.

I am not impressed either. But maybe the sanctions will force Russia to make something useful once again, instead of just being a large and cold version of Saudi Arabia.

Into, yes, but what made them stay there (sans the decade+ crisis in Japan) was their capacity to invent, engineer and educate. With the chinese education system being what it is I am not sure they will get that far unless they learn to question more instead of just copying authorities.

Korean and Japanese systems aren't much better. Japan has much feudal leftovers in it that's not even funny. But yet they are there. Not growing at a high level is bad, but if your population isn't growing, you are not losing much.

Doubtful, considering their business is primarily with the EU and not Russia. Japan and SK have shown that nations can both be industrialized and competitors to the EU without destroying either one.

They're on the other side of the world, though. Russia would be right next door. I know some countries would appreciate a more industrialized partner, but others are locked in the 'haha, they're just like Qatar but bigger' mentality forever.

[Thanas]

Cutting off oil and gas imports abruptly might cause a collapse. Doing it gradually, same as cutting off supplies of advanced machinery, will only complete the turn eastwards that started with delineation of the borders between Russia and China and continued with the recent oil-gas agreements that are bound to make China the biggest buyer.

Maybe. For the record, I wish this whole thing could have been resolved without any intervention and that Putin will not step farther and force Merkel's hand.

Thing is though this totally changed the perception Germans had of Russia. Now Putin has openly been called a thug by our state TV commentators and Russia is now viewed as a threat. Before that Russia was - at least to my knowledge - viewed more sympathetic due to Germany also having lost a lot and having sympathies for Russia in general. Putin has pissed away all of the goodwill.

Poland wasn't a part of the EMU for a very long time, so like the Czech Republic it retained more control over monetary policy. The nations that were incorporated into the EMU mechanism did not fare so well, especially with severe unemployment hitting the South of Europe.

But the only eastern nations that joined the EMU were the baltics and slovakia. So I fail to see how EMU has anything to do with that. In fact, the countries that are in the EMU are significantly better off compared to where they started or are already the top economies in the EU.

Well, Russia can afford the nuclear arsenal - heh, even Pakistan affords one.

Pakistan affords a very small fraction of what Russia currently has. If Russia draws down to that level, more power to them.

But Russians are Russians, even if they come from Siberia.

True, but let's not act as if the Russian wasteland will be that big of a challenge to a further EU integration. Heck, the EU already stretches over all continents.

Russia may not want, but it joined the SCO. A special freetrade agreement with some travel preferences would be nice.

Sure, freetrade agreeements in general are pretty nice. Heck, Russia was considering a travel agreement with the EU already until the EU cancelled it due to Crimea.

I am not impressed either. But maybe the sanctions will force Russia to make something useful once again, instead of just being a large and cold version of Saudi Arabia.

I hope so, but no nation so far has had industry thrive under international sanctions.

Korean and Japanese systems aren't much better. Japan has much feudal leftovers in it that's not even funny. But yet they are there. Not growing at a high level is bad, but if your population isn't growing, you are not losing much.

Until you are hit with the retirement wave. Still, in general I feel the Chinese could do that much better by having more freedom in their academics, but for obvious reasons freedom is a no-no in China.

They're on the other side of the world, though. Russia would be right next door. I know some countries would appreciate a more industrialized partner, but others are locked in the 'haha, they're just like Qatar but bigger' mentality forever.

So? For logistic purposes the USA might very well be considered next door as well. Doesn't take much longer for goods to reach the EU from the USA than it does from the middle of Russia.