Exit polls: Yushchenko will win by a wide margin

[MKSheppard]

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).

Which will become a moot point when the 1st Byelorussian Front is
summering in Paris after fighting across the EU in an orgy of battlefield
usage of Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

Face it, if Russia wanted to curbstomp the EU, she'd be able to do so
in a few months, and you would all be listening to your new slavonic
overlords, while the US negotiates for oil and gas purchases from Russia.

[TheDarkling]

Which will become a moot point when the 1st Byelorussian Front is
summering in Paris after fighting across the EU in an orgy of battlefield
usage of Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

Face it, if Russia wanted to curbstomp the EU, she'd be able to do so
in a few months, and you would all be listening to your new slavonic
overlords, while the US negotiates for oil and gas purchases from Russia.

Shush now, the growns ups are talking.

[MKSheppard]

Shush now, the growns ups are talking.

Shush now, since 1980, the Sweedish Army's strength has dropped
from 700,000 to just a mere 30,000 thousand.

And with the new "reorganization" by Sweeden ostensibly to support
foreign peacekeeping missions, will disband their 4th Cavalry Regiment,
which has produced 40% of all Swedish troops who have gone on peace
keeping missions.

Of course, the regiments being massacred by the Swedish government
are those that recived expensive investments after the last regimental
massacre.

Meanwhile....the Soviet Bear continues to recieve new Tu-160 BLACKJACK
bombers.

[MKSheppard]

Shush now, Dumbling. Nevermind that the British Army is cutting it's
infantry battalions from 40 to just 36, the smallest number in almost
150 years, or that Europe was categorically incapable of affecting change
in it's own backyard in 1999, requiring you all to run to Uncle Sam to
get what you couldn't do done.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

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).

Which will become a moot point when the 1st Byelorussian Front is
summering in Paris after fighting across the EU in an orgy of battlefield
usage of Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

Face it, if Russia wanted to curbstomp the EU, she'd be able to do so
in a few months, and you would all be listening to your new slavonic
overlords, while the US negotiates for oil and gas purchases from Russia.

I doubt the US would just stand idely by- espically since we're still in NATO.

[MKSheppard]

I doubt the US would just stand idely by- espically since we're still in NATO.

Well, considering the lack of support from NATO members for our war
when we stood up for their war and bailed their asses out in 1999...let
them out to dry is my opinion.

[TheDarkling]

Shush now, since 1980, the Sweedish Army's strength has dropped
from 700,000 to just a mere 30,000 thousand.

And with the new "reorganization" by Sweeden ostensibly to support
foreign peacekeeping missions, will disband their 4th Cavalry Regiment,
which has produced 40% of all Swedish troops who have gone on peace
keeping missions.

Of course, the regiments being massacred by the Swedish government
are those that received expensive investments after the last regimental
massacre.

Meanwhile....the Soviet Bear continues to recieve new Tu-160 BLACKJACK
bombers.

And I care why?

You started off into one of your typically irrelevant military/war loving posts with Nuke appreciation thrown in for good measure.

We were discussing Russian influence over Ukraine and to a lesser extent the EU, Russia is hardly likely to start WW3 just because the EU doesn't give them visa free travel or makes transit to Kalingrad more difficult.

That is why I ridiculed your irrelevant answer.

Of course I can understand how you got confused, given you answer to every situation is the use of military forces (preferable the kind that turns sand into glass) you automatically assumed that the Russians are as simple minded in conjuring up their solutions to problems.

You also no doubt assume that by rivals I mean enemies because you can't conceive of something in between enemy and obedient lapdog(as you statement above about abandoning Europe to the Red horde because only 17 out of 26 joined the coalition and helped you in Iraq never mind they all jumped in for Afghanistan).

I honestly don't know whether you actually think your post here is relevant or whether you just like using that twisted smilie so much you have to post any irrelevancy to get your fix.

[TheDarkling]

Shush now, Dumbling. Nevermind that the British Army is cutting it's
infantry battalions from 40 to just 36, the smallest number in almost
150 years,

I doubt that the British army being 1,500 people smaller will matter all that much if Russia Vs NATO were to happen.

or that Europe was categorically incapable of affecting change
in it's own backyard in 1999, requiring you all to run to Uncle Sam to
get what you couldn't do done.

It is somewhat easier to defend yourself than invade another nation but I suspect you just raised this because you seem to rather fond of mentioning it for some reason.

[Vympel]

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 mean you don't see Russia rattling its sabre if Ukraine attempts to use it's pipelines against Russia? This isn't in terms of Russian "strength" so much as it is Russia's ability to get pissed off at Ukraine. Of course the Russian's are going to be cautious and seek to diversify their lines, but that doesn't mean they won't punish a country that carries so much of it for acting against their interests.

They are slap bang on the road to Russian territory (Kalingrad) let alone Europe and do support important oil pipelines.

Kalingrad however is not Europe. Though they do support important pipelines, they do not nearly as much as Russia.

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).

Good idea didn't think of that.

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.

Agree.

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).

See here Link- the most densely populated region in all Ukraine is Donetsk, Yanukovich's stronghold of support, with 4.7 million.

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.

As a vote for the West rather than Russia, I would. It was clearly a main issue of contention.

Let us not forget that Yanukovich also supports an EU membership bid.

But not NATO membership, which Kuchma deleted from the country's requirements earlier this year, apparently at Putin's bequest. Yanukovich also unequivocally supported closer ties with Russia.

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.

Yes, but as I said, see the cultural/historical issues. I have no idea why the entire link didn't work, but here is another link to the same article link

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.

I can't. As the article itself said, when you get numbers that high in a former Soviet republic, it's a sign of a rigged election. Coupled with the utter lack of reportage in the mainstream about high numbers Yushchenko got in his strongholds in the election before last, the same kinds of numbers they railed about with Yanukovich, I have suspicions as to the OSCE's partiality in these matters.

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.

It's not land of the poor cousins, but it clearly doesn't share a special place in the Russian psyche and ego as Ukraine does.

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.

I think we're at a fundamental misunderstanding here- joining the EU was never my bone of contention, it was the act of Ukriane removing itself from Russia's sphere of influence as a whole, both by aligning it's policies against Russia, joining the EU, and even joining NATO. If it attempted those three things, then I think we'd see the kind of attitude I was talking about here.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I have no doubt that the western Ukraine will join the EU eventually. But it will only happen after the eastern and southern Ukraine have seceded from the Ukraine and quite possibly rejoined Russia. Russia's brief extreme contraction is going to be eventually replaced with a gradual recovery. Russia will never recover all the territory of the old USSR, but I expect them to regain parts of the Ukraine, all of Belarus and Moldava, parts of Georgia, and at least some of Central Asia. Possibly also Armenia, since the population decline there is so rapid it won't be a functional state soon enough. Putin has made it quite clear before that he supports the reintegration of Russian majority areas in former Soviet republics back into the Russian Federation. And some places like Kazakhstan actually don't have a majority population of Kazakhs and the Russians could easily regain power there by appealing to the minority groups which are actually in the majority.

In fact, Kazakhstan has already proposed an economic union between Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. This would be a definite alternative to the EU and might solve many of the economic problems of the region; it would also essentially provide a resurgence of Moscow-based power. Yushchenko is of course quite determined to send the Ukraine into the arms of the EU, but if there is a secessionist movement, the areas of the country which secede would certainly support such a union as an alternative to the EU, assuming they do not directly integrate into Russia. They will need somewhere to sell their industrial products to, and that is the perfect region.

Essentially, the border between the EU and the Russian sphere will most likely solidify on roughly the lines of old Catholic and Greek Catholic populations vice Russian Orthodox populations, with a few exceptions. The interesting question is if all of the Balkans will go to the EU or not. I could easily Serbia tying itself in with any Russian economic federation, possibly also several of the other small Balkan states. Turkey also has very strong economic ties with Russia, and if their EU bid should fail, even though Russia is a traditional enemy, they may turn to her out of necessity. Certainly Putin would not care if Turkey has military influence in her government and/or continues to occupy Northern Cyprus, as long as it gained him free and secure military access through the Bosporus, which has always been the perennial effort of Russian foreign policy.

[MKSheppard]

It is somewhat easier to defend yourself than invade another nation but I suspect you just raised this because you seem to rather fond of mentioning it for some reason.

Your precious European Militaries were categorically incapable of
affecting any real change in the Kosovar War.

Total allied aircraft at beginning of Kosovo conflict, March 1999: 344 (214 US, 130 other allies)

Total at end of Kosovo conflict: more than 1031 (731 US, at least 300 other allies)

Funny, even though we deployed across an ocean thousands of miles
from our homeland, we still managed to put up orders of magnitude more
airpower than the Europeans, for whom, Kosovo is in their backyard.

Meanwhile, the VVS maintains a fleet of over 1,300 fighters, and 1,100
ground attack aircraft, 30 tankers, 20 AEW, and 1,430 transport aircraft.

Against this, the RAF can only put up 65~ Tornado F3s, 60 Tornado GR4s,
39 Harriers, 22 Jaguars, 6 AEW, and about 20 Tankers and roughly the
same transport aircraft.

Your fever dreams of a unified European Union being able to "stand
up" to Russia are just that, fever dreams.

[frigidmagi]

The EU vs Russia has been done quiet a few times. The EU never wins without outside help. Of course the idea of the US and others (read China) just sitting on it's hands in such a conflict is rather unlikey.

Which is why I suggest we not bet on a military confrontation between Europe and Russia anytime soon.

[TheDarkling]

You mean you don't see Russia rattling its sabre if Ukraine attempts to use it's pipelines against Russia? This isn't in terms of Russian "strength" so much as it is Russia's ability to get pissed off at Ukraine. Of course the Russian's are going to be cautious and seek to diversify their lines, but that doesn't mean they won't punish a country that carries so much of it for acting against their interests.

No I mean I don't see Russia being cavalier about rattling their sabre because Ukraine can rattle back.
Sure, in a proper battle of economic and political might Russia will win but I don't think they will engage in such a battle of wills without a very good reason (a very good reason being more than Ukraine inching towards the west).

Kalingrad however is not Europe. Though they do support important pipelines, they do not nearly as much as Russia.

No but Kalingrad is rather important given that it is Russian territory, transit to the area is something of an important issue for Russia. (they expend a lot of political capital getting rather meagre returns, which are set to diminish even further tomorrow with new regulations being instituted in Lithuania)

Good idea didn't think of that.

This is the game I think Russia is playing, the EU has no real quarrel with Russia(hey we got then to sign up to Kyoto which is more of an understanding than we were able to reach with the US) so letting them improve the economy of states near to Russia (and thus Russians economy in the long run) probably isn't all that offensive.

Contrast the Russian position on Ukraine joining the EU (Putin thinks it a good idea) with the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO.

The US may have ulterior geopolitics ends when interfering in Ukraine or Georgia but the EUs geopolitical goals amounts to spreading peace, harmony and blue flags with yellow stars on them where appropriate.
This may change in the future but for now the EU is more a means of forestalling US influence in an area than promoting it.

the most densely populated region in all Ukraine is Donetsk, Yanukovich's stronghold of support, with 4.7 million.

Ah, I was looking at this map which does things on a more detailed scheme (so one large area of high concentration doesn't make one region look uniformly packed).
I misunderstood you meaning but you are correct in that that region has the highest population.

As a vote for the West rather than Russia, I would. It was clearly a main issue of contention.

Yes but not the only one (the Industrial East isn't sure they will like Yushchenko's economics).

Getting closer to the west will only result in a distancing from Russia if either side makes deliberate mischief.

Painting Yushchenko as being overly in love with the west doesn't seem to be quite right; after all he wouldn't be supporting a withdrawal from Iraq if he was overly chummy with Washington.

I would frame the question more in terms of Ukraine playing a secondary role to Russia or gaining more independence and being more of an equal (probably as part of the EU).
That is how a see Yushchenko approaching it although the people of Ukraine no doubt sure the situation differently given that neither side was shy of painting the other as being a puppet of one power or the other.

L
But not NATO membership, which Kuchma deleted from the country's requirements earlier this year, apparently at Putin's bequest. Yanukovich also unequivocally supported closer ties with Russia.

Well NATO membership is the rub, however if Yushchenko wants into NATO removing the troops from Iraq is hardly a good way to set a foundation for such a move.
Yushchenko probably doesn't want closer ties to Russia but nor can he do a great deal to cut the cord in the short term.
He has pledged to make the mandatory "we are all friends" foreign visit to Russia so he isn't going to pursue a policy openly hostile to Russia.

All I can really say is that I saw lots of EU flags in the orange crowds but I don't recall seeing a NATO one.

Yes, but as I said, see the cultural/historical issues. I have no idea why the entire link didn't work, but here is another link to the same article

Good that worked, as I said earlier I agree that Ukraine has a special place in Russian hearts I just objected that the Baltics had no place in Russia history and culture when they were gearing up to leave Moscow’s influence behind.

I can't. As the article itself said, when you get numbers that high in a former Soviet republic, it's a sign of a rigged election.

He was predicted before the fact to win with a huge landside, the BBC was reporting it as a done deal as the elections opened.
One sociologist said he doubted the other runners would get 1% between them.

This guy lead a revolution to overthrow the former President (who was unpopular), he was clearly going to get a huge victory, especially when eth regions of the country which dislike him boycotted the election.

Coupled with the utter lack of reportage in the mainstream about high numbers Yushchenko got in his strongholds in the election before last, the same kinds of numbers they railed about with Yanukovich, I have suspicions as to the OSCE's partiality in these matters.

Why? They were quite frank that the elections in Georgia still had a long way to go.
The difference is that in Georgia’s case the results reflected what was expected to happen, whilst the results in Ukraine conflicted with at least some polls.

It's not land of the poor cousins, but it clearly doesn't share a special place in the Russian psyche and ego as Ukraine does.

As I said earlier I don't contest Ukraine has a special place n Russian minds, I just don't think the disparity is that huge that it overwhelms the other similarities (length of time in Russia, Russian ethnics, infrastructure, Russian speakers etc) enough to render any comparison pointless.

I think we're at a fundamental misunderstanding here- joining the EU was never my bone of contention, it was the act of Ukriane removing itself from Russia's sphere of influence as a whole, both by aligning it's policies against Russia, joining the EU, and even joining NATO. If it attempted those three things, then I think we'd see the kind of attitude I was talking about here.

Oh no doubt, I don't see Ukraine jumping out of Russia’s sphere and then turning hostile, just becoming more independent and joining the EU.

In that case I guess we agree, thanks for what was a rather interesting and civil discussion.

[TheDarkling]

Your fever dreams of a unified European Union being able to "stand
up" to Russia are just that, fever dreams.

Only if the Russians are idiotic enough to escalate any and all disagreements to WW3 and I don't think the Russians have quite the desire for mass and random carnage that you have.