Vympel wrote:
Too add to this, Ukraine has pipelines that run Russian energy into Europe. Chalk up +1 for reasons Russia won't let Ukraine "go".
Pipelines exist in the baltics that run Russian energy to Europe as well.
Ukraine also sports pipelines which are independent of Russia and are backed by the EU.
90% of Russia to Europe gas goes through Ukraine
Transit of oil is 86 million tons, compared with 20 million through Lithuania and a pipeline for an additional 18 million is planned.
The Baltic ports are also important centres for trade for Russia interests (when Latvia attempted to raise tariffs in 98 the Russians blew their top, for example).
And these pipelines aren't a strength for Russia but a weakness, the Ukrainians have them over a barrel with regard to gas and to a lesser degree oil and Russia is desperately trying too find alternate routes so as to decrease dependence on Ukraine (including a route through the Baltic sea to (eventually)Britain).
Currently the Russians believe they could reroute about half of their gas exports to Europe through non Ukraine transit points but they are still seeking to increase this.
Until 2002 Ventspils in Latvia was the second biggest export port for Russian crude after Novorossiysk on the black sea.
Russia has recently opened its own port and decided to ship through there, however this shows that until very recently the Baltics were very important to Russia’s oil exports and that instead of throwing its weight around the Russians simple switched to routes around the lost territory.
This is also the policy they are pursuing with regard to Ukraine, indicating that they would probably allow Ukraine to head for the EU in a similar manner instead of trying (probably futilely) to prevent them reducing Russian control over them.
Back on the topic of Ventspils, it is important to note that the two of the main ports for Russia crude are in Baltic hands, these are ice free year round whilst the Russian port spends 1/3 of the year iced up however Russia has chosen to favour their own port and thus it has recently out stripped the other two..
So while you are correct that Ukraine is important to Russian gas lines to Europe (less so oil), the Russians are going out of their way to decrease the importance of Ukraine in this regard just as they did with the Baltics who were important in the oil field.
You responded by bringing up the Baltic States' dependence on Russian energy as well, unfortunately, they are on the periphery and are not on the "road" to Europe.
They are slap bang on the road to Russian territory (Kalingrad) let alone Europe and do support important oil pipelines.
Geographically, they are less critical. Also see near the bottom- Russia's "affinity" for Ukraine makes it more likely to use its energy leverage against her than against the relatively insignificant Baltic States, though if the Baltics ever posed any threat to Russia or say, moved a few too many NATO forces there for comfort, one would imagine they'd feel the burn.
The problem for Russia in that regard is Ukraine can retaliate by taking what they want from the pipelines (which happens anyway), unless Russia shuts down 90% of its gas exports (or rather 45% since they can switch approx 50% of Ukraine load to other routes) and a sizeable part of its oil exports (although here again other routes exist and their development is given a high priority) then they can't put the pressure on Ukraine in that manner.
They may be able to play that card once they have built the many new routes however it may be too late by that point and the importance of Ukraine would have been decreased anyway.
Getting Ukraine into the EU actually helps in this regard because Ukraine would find itself between too masters neither of which wanted the tap turned off (of course Russia would have to shelve the energy card).
As for Russia playing the energy card against the Baltics, I don't see it happening because it would be too belligerent a move.
Perhaps if somebody more hostile to the west was in charge of Russia but Putin is interested in increasing ties (albeit on Russian terms).
Of course if that happened we would likely see a decline in Russia fortunes as both sides hardened their positions.
a
Second point. This is the largely and densely populated east and southeast. Russians make up 20% of Ukraine's population, apparently, but of course, it wasn't just Russians voting for Yanukovich in the "non-fraud" election.
The most densely population region of Ukraine is the far west, the region which up until 50 years ago was part of Poland (and before that A-H).
The South and East are rather sparsely populated (especially the south).
I also wouldn't put a vote for Yanukovich as a vote for Russia anymore than a vote for Yushchenko was a vote against Russia.
Let us not forget that Yanukovich also supports an EU membership bid.
Pretty self-explanatory. I don't feel any of this applies to the Baltic States, but I'll concede I was sloppy in arguing against equivalence, in particular in regards to the issue of the Russian language ("recently conquered" was an off-hand reference to very recent 20th century history) though as far as Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire vs the Baltic States, Ukraine has clearly been part of it for longer- the Baltic States weren't all intergrated into the Russian Empire until the 19th century (though it began in the 18th), Ukraine of course was absorbed in the 17th. There is also the historical issue of the Kievan Rus prior to that.
Ukraine wasn't integrated into Russia until the 20th century if we are playing for the whole and your figures are somewhat misleading.
I have already given exact dates, there is a 60 year starting difference between teh two but the bulk of both nations was added at the same time with part of Ukraine lagging a century and a half behind.
When Peter was grabbing Estonia the Turks were pushing into what is now Russia let alone Ukraine.
I have in front of me a map of Eastern Europe with dates of Russian conquests (from the Times History of the World) so let me relate them.
The far North east of Ukraine -1667.
Southern Russia east of Ukraine (Sea of Azov area) -1739.
Just above Crimea -1774.
Crimea -1783.
Odessa region -1791.
Bulk of remaining Ukraine (between Dnieper and Souther Bug rivers)-1793.
Moldova and the section of Ukraine immediate south of it(Bessaraaia) -1812
Far west Ukraine -1945.
Now let us look at the Baltics.
Estonia - 1721
Latvia (Livonia) - 1721
Lithuana -1795.
As I hope you can see, claims about a vast difference are unfounded, Estonia beats out the bulk of Ukraine by 70 years or so and loses to the far north east by 60 years.
Heck, the OSCE said that the election of the current President of Georgia was "a big improvement" even though he garnered a ridiculous 86% of the national vote. Something to do with the fact that Mr. Saakashvili now was pro-Western? Now, it may have been a big improvement on the previous fraudulent parliamentary elections (ballots were stuffed with the names of like 700,000 dead people), but we're supposed to be beleive 86% of the vote? Who gets those kinds of margins in a democratic country?
The OSCE said it was a big improvement and you admit it was, where is the bias?
As for the 86%, that indeed seems rather high but as the OSCE pointed out, they still have a long way to go.
He currently has 58% approval (which has fallen for its previous highs), given the election was rushed job had he had a hero status I can easily see him getting very high results.
See here. Judging from the results in Ukraine (both times) I'd be more inclined to believe the previous fraudulent election was more fair and honest than Saakashvili's election.
Maybe so, but the OSCE said those elections had a long way to go as well.
I'm pretty sure Putin wouldn't like it. Ukraine is a key part of Russia's strategy to create a zone of trade which it controls between all the former Soviet republics in the reogion. Unless Russia was allowed in too, that is.
That is what I would have thought and Putin may just have been sweet talking, on the other hand he was talking about Ukraine like it was a colony and it would be a good way to get Russia’s economy into the EU without actually having to join.
What do you mean? The mere fact that Russia supported a candidate who was pro-Russian is hardly unsurprising. There's no evidence of Russian "sabotage" or interference in Ukraine's elections anymore than the West offering support for Yuschenko is.
I meant with regard to getting Ukraine into the EU, not the elections which were between a pro EU candidate who was also pro Russia and a very pro EU candidate who was tolerant of Russia.
It's a well known fact that Russia had its origins in Ukraine.
True enough, on the other hand when Imperial Russia really started to get going they moved the capital up onto the Baltic (although not actually into what is now the Baltic republics) and that became the centre of the new European looking Russia, which is what Russian has been every since.
Ukraine is important but the Baltic area isn’t exactly the land of the poor cousins as you seem to think it is.
Doesn't work for me but you outline it below so it doesn’t matter.
Its odd the Russians would want Ukraine when 57% of Russians said they wanted "Russia for ethnic Russians".
A poll also found that 42% of Russians believe Ukraine pursues an unfriendly policy towards them.
Of course I have also seen polls that indicate Russians seen Eastern Ukrainians as Russians and those in the West as not and I could easily believe that is their opinion.
Not surprisingly it mentions Kievan Rus in a round about way. The Baltic States cannot claim this. You also agreed as to the lack of pro-Russian sentiment in the Baltics, which is certainly present in eastern Ukraine.
I don’t think there is an utter lack of pro Russian sentiment; the countries have high proportions of ethnic Russians who still have strong ties to Russia.
I just think that the opposite opinion is stronger in the Baltics, which means they don’t feel as close to Russia over all as Ukraine.
We can debate this back and forth all day but I just can't see Russia doing anything rash and attempting to prevent Ukraine joining the EU, Russia has said they are in favour of such an action, Ukraine seems rather happy with such an idea, Russia allowed the Baltics to join the EU without to much fuss (and I'm still no convinced nothing can be drawn from that example).
Assuming Ukraine joins the EU (not a foregone conclusion although not impossible due to Russia control issue as you seem to think) then the control Russia can exert will diminish.
Russia will still have power but they will be facing a rival with 650 million or so people as opposed to 50 and with an GDP around $12 trillion (10 times that of Russia, although the gap will likely have closed somewhat by the time of a possible Ukraine entry into the EU).
Of course Russia only acts inappropriately compared to other European nations (the US tends to horn in about as much as Russia although they can have more tact depending upon who is in charge), historically speaking they are rather live and live with regard to the former parts of the USSR.
