Ukraine War Thread

[White Haven]

Adding general cyber attacks to the mutual-defense clause -- yes, insane. Adding mass infrastructure-level cyber attacks? Not so much. You could do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people with nothing but 'hackers banging away' if the aforementioned hackers were after a body count instead of a bank account. The security community has been harping on the topic for quite some time; a lot of that shit is hilariously exposed and vulnerable, and it doesn't get fixed because replacing critical systems involves potential unexpected downtime, and that's commercially unacceptable (and expensive). Cyber attacks haven't been used for anything that nasty en masse as of yet, but the entire point of any mutual defense treaty is to get out in front of a situation so you're ready if it does occur.

Present proposal? Idiotic, no question. Something vaguely similar, with a proper sense of proportion and scale? Not so idiotic.

[K. A. Pital]

I heard the exact opposite (from Ukraine side, just not from the propaganda arm of their government but rather from a Kiev-supporting citizen who left the country to save self in the EU): the troops are suffering very heavy losses, combat is intense and coupled with a general unwillingness to mobilize and run an even more brutal war (think Chechnya or Afghanistan, with military losses in thousands or tens of thousands and dozens of thousands of civilian casualties), that may lead to a power collapse.

[Thanas]

I heard the exact opposite (from Ukraine side, just not from the propaganda arm of their government but rather from a Kiev-supporting citizen who left the country to save self in the EU): the troops are suffering very heavy losses, combat is intense and coupled with a general unwillingness to mobilize and run an even more brutal war (think Chechnya or Afghanistan, with military losses in thousands or tens of thousands and dozens of thousands of civilian casualties), that may lead to a power collapse.

How do you reconcile that view with the recent successes of the Ukrainian army, especially in that they succeeded in splitting the rebel forces into two isolated areas and completely surrounded Lughansk?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I heard the exact opposite (from Ukraine side, just not from the propaganda arm of their government but rather from a Kiev-supporting citizen who left the country to save self in the EU): the troops are suffering very heavy losses, combat is intense and coupled with a general unwillingness to mobilize and run an even more brutal war (think Chechnya or Afghanistan, with military losses in thousands or tens of thousands and dozens of thousands of civilian casualties), that may lead to a power collapse.

How do you reconcile that view with the recent successes of the Ukrainian army, especially in that they succeeded in splitting the rebel forces into two isolated areas and completely surrounded Lughansk?

It obviously means that the Ukrainian forces are paying dear blood for every meter forward.

[Thanas]

^And they are still winning the overall battle.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

^And they are still winning the overall battle.

IF you want to call that a Pyrrhic victory, yes. And even when they are done, they can be sure, they'd be ruling over a rumble of a city with a good chunk of its population in Russia.

I suppose at the end of the day, the Kievan govt will win at ballot box by default since they drove off anyone who opposed them.

[Thanas]

Meh. If the morale in the Ukraine is that bad, how bad must it be for the seperatists when their leaders have fled to Russia? Both Igor Besler and Alexander Borodaj have already fled to Russia. I guess once you run out of unarmed prisoners to shoot, life gets too tough for them...

[Vympel]

As to the Merkel-Putin plan, let's hope it does not have to come to this. So far, the Ukraine is winning, they isolated Lugansk.

Even if they win (which has been seemingly inevitable ever since it became apparent that Russian units were not going to immediately reinforce the rebels), they'll still lose. Ukraine can't survive economically against a hostile Russia, and that's the absolute best case scenario of how quickly things go south for them. As opposed to a Russian attack to save Donetsk and Lugansk, which would be even worse.

[Thanas]

Meh, it is not like Russia can afford an economic war with the west either.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Meh, it is not like Russia can afford an economic war with the west either.

What... the EU is willing to give Ukraine 50 billion Euros for free at least?

[cosmicalstorm]

Meh, it is not like Russia can afford an economic war with the west either.

Can Putin survive if he backs down from all this right now? From what I hear he can't and wont do that.
His personal status might matter more than the economical war. With the current level of information control his supporters hold in Russia I suspect they can make the population believe that economic woes are solely the work of evil Westerners.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Meh, it is not like Russia can afford an economic war with the west either.

Can Putin survive if he backs down from all this right now? From what I hear he can't and wont do that.
His personal status might matter more than the economical war. With the current level of information control his supporters hold in Russia I suspect they can make the population believe that economic woes are solely the work of evil Westerners.

I think the population has been blaming the West for the latest "Time of Troubles" for over a decade and the crisis of 1997 is still very ripe on a lot of people's minds.

[Kane Starkiller]

What... the EU is willing to give Ukraine 50 billion Euros for free at least?

Ukraine had 115% of per capita GDP of Poland in 1991. Since then Poland has been paying one of the highest prices for energy in Europe and Ukraine the lowest.
Today per capita GDP of Ukraine is 35% of Polish GDP per capita.
I'm going to go on a limb and say that freebies from Russia in exchange for deference is not the way to build your economic future.

[K. A. Pital]

What... the EU is willing to give Ukraine 50 billion Euros for free at least?

Ukraine had 115% of per capita GDP of Poland in 1991. Since then Poland has been paying one of the highest prices for energy in Europe and Ukraine the lowest.
Today per capita GDP of Ukraine is 35% of Polish GDP per capita.
I'm going to go on a limb and say that freebies from Russia in exchange for deference is not the way to build your economic future.

The EU invested a lot of capital in Poland. But it did not do shit for less lucky countries - former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria. Why would it do much for Ukraine, a state known for endemic corruption and plunder as the foundation of their economy?

[Kane Starkiller]

The EU invested a lot of capital in Poland. But it did not do shit for less lucky countries - former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria. Why would it do much for Ukraine, a state known for endemic corruption and plunder as the foundation of their economy?

Ukraine went from over 100% to 46% per capita GDP of Bulgaria since 1991. It went from 82% to 40% of per capita GDP of Croatia. It went from 55% to 26% per capita GDP of Slovenia.
I say maybe they should try their luck in the EU.

[Vympel]

Meh, it is not like Russia can afford an economic war with the west either.

Well the West isn't going to get into an economic war with Russia unless Russia actually invades Ukraine. They're certainly not going to lose money over the Ukrainians getting economically shafted.

[Siege]

The EU invested a lot of capital in Poland. But it did not do shit for less lucky countries - former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria. Why would it do much for Ukraine, a state known for endemic corruption and plunder as the foundation of their economy?

You are wrong regarding EU investment in Bulgaria. It's entirely possible and indeed likely total investment in Bulgaria is less than total investment in Poland (keep in mind Poland entered the EU in '04 and Bulgaria only in '07), but to say that the EU "did not do shit" for Bulgaria is patently incorrect. The EU has in fact invested billions of Euros in Bulgaria. After all if they hadn't, they couldn't've suspended funds over corruption issues, as they did just the other day.

In 2013 alone the EU also invested hundreds of millions in Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. So you are mistaken about former Yugoslavia as well.

Having said that, I agree that it is highly unlikely that the EU will just hand Ukraine €50 billion. I don't think it's politically feasible for the EU to provide Ukraine with the systematic long-term financial assistance it needs if Russia really decides to fuck it over, and frankly I think the Merkel-Putin plan looks to be the optimal way out. In that case the Ukrainians get their gas plus compensation for Crimea, the rebels in the east get their devolved power, and NATO will stay the fuck away from the country. I don't see any realistic way it's going to get any better than that.

[K. A. Pital]

I think that the investment scale is important in this debate, guys, so I will have to wait till evening to reply. I know that all countries receive some EU aid and investment (heh, even Russia itself). The core argument is that it is much less than what was spent on Poland, and much less than what is needed for Ukraine.

I may be mistaken, though, so I do need to check the numbers.

Having said that, I think Ukraine can do better, even without Russia, but I have no hopes it will. Low quality of the elites... And not getting any better.

[Siege]

Of course it has received less financial assistance. Poland's been a member for three years longer, its population is more than five times that of Bulgaria and there have been serious ongoing concerns about corruption and organized crime in Bulgaria which has a further limiting effect on assistance (see the recent decision to suspend funds). My issue is exclusively with the statement that the EU supposedly hasn't done anything for the country. That is factually incorrect, and likewise the part about former Yugoslavia. The rest of your statements I mostly agree with.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, I judged by the Bulgarians I see. Many of them are forced to do hellish work for hellish pay; even worse than the ubiqutous Polish construction workers in Western Europe. Saying the pay is hellish, by WE standards, is not an exaggeration; it was often equal or lower than rent + bare minimum life expenditures. The 'GDP' angle Kane aims for, I don't value that much. Russia and Ukraine have a sizeable GDP difference, but life-standard wise outside Moscow both nations are horrible. The infamous worker-killing state of Qatar has a GDP higher than that of most nations in the world.

I know that something is being done; but truth be told visiting the Europeriphery I've seen things that shocked even me. I am not easily shocked by bad governance, vandalism or violence, and still it was quite a shock. That was not even the East, it was the South.

I need to find out more about the EU funding programs in the periphery and see what is wrong. It may be the numbers, but it can also be local elites plundering funds... In which case the question on whether the EU would seriously invest in a hyper-corrupt state right next to the worst examples on Earth becomes even more serious.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What... the EU is willing to give Ukraine 50 billion Euros for free at least?

Ukraine had 115% of per capita GDP of Poland in 1991. Since then Poland has been paying one of the highest prices for energy in Europe and Ukraine the lowest.
Today per capita GDP of Ukraine is 35% of Polish GDP per capita.
I'm going to go on a limb and say that freebies from Russia in exchange for deference is not the way to build your economic future.

I have seen more than one article state that Poland got hundreds of billions of EU aid in the course of over a decade and given that Ukraine is an even worse basket case now, the sum of cash required is now even far greater. (See: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-2 ... flaws.html)

So unless the West comes back with an actual deal to prop their puppets in Kiev, I say all the posturing is for show.

[Vympel]

Well, this story is pretty much everywhere now:

Over 400 Ukrainian troops cross the Russian border seeking refuge

RT was there to interview one of the soldiers, who claimed that they had been betrayed by their generals and were low on everything.

Reports about the conditions in Ukraine's armed forces are not great. This is probably the first conflict where the government has had to crowd fund for equipping its troops.

As to Ukraine's prospects for reform - The IMF's Big Lie

The Westerners had good reason for being tight-fisted. They knew that the incredibly corrupt Yanukovych and the Ukrainian oligarchs would take the money and stay put. That is how the country’s oligarchic system works, with or without Yanukovych. Most of the new billionaires – including the leading candidate to become the new president, Petro Poroshenko – made their first big money by “privatizing” formerly state-owned enterprises.

“Ukraine’s oligarchs got rich during the privatization sales of former Soviet-owned industries and factories shortly after independence in 1991,” explained the Monitor. “The country’s main industries of mining, metals, chemical production, and energy distribution were snatched up by individuals, who then reaped millions in profits.”

The Monitor did not mention one significant fact. Privatization only came about the way it did with what one academic study called “the support and cajoling of Western donors.” Will foreign meddlers never learn?

Nor did the Western-backed rip-off stop with the original sin. Several analysts tell the same story, none more succinctly than the Monitor. “Many of the oligarchs’ businesses – particularly in the mining, heavy industry, and energy distribution industries – operate in dilapidated, Soviet-era facilities that are extremely energy-inefficient, and heavily dependent on government subsidies.”

In other words, when would-be reformers talk about Ukraine’s corruption, they mean the oligarchic system. Not necessarily personal corruption, but a pervasive systemic corruption.

“Corruption and politics have always had a close relationship in Ukraine,” explains the Monitor. “The oligarchs have benefitted for two decades from close relations with government officials, who have at times turned a blind eye to the activities in exchange for support. At other times, politicians have enabled their oligarch supporters to get richer through key government appointments and a lack of transparency in government contracts.”

Systemic corruption also gobbled up foreign assistance. Ukraine has gotten far more aid than any county in the former Soviet Union, energy specialist Emily Holland told Bloomberg Businessweek. And where has it gone? “Into the pockets of an incredibly corrupt political elite and oligarchs.”

...

Yats has a much bigger problem. He and his Western-backed interim government have gone to great lengths to give the oligarchs even greater power – far more than to the Svoboda Party or followers of Stepan Bandera in Yatsenyuk’s Fatherland Party. In one of their first acts in office, they appointed oligarchs like Ihor Kolomoisky and Serhiy Taruta as governors in Eastern Ukraine, and are already working closely with the country’s likely new president, Petro Poroshenko.

Many in the West welcome “the Chocolate King’s” presence, especially since he was the highest-profile oligarch to support the Euromaidan protest. Western “deciders” have looked kindly on him for years, as journalist Andriy Skumin wrote in March 2012, just after Yanukovych appointed Poroshenko Minister of Trade and Economic Development.

“European circles, blindly searching for any adequate Western-thinking individuals within Ukraine’s establishment, have a favorable opinion of Poroshenko as a person who is reliable, can be charged with introducing changes in Ukraine and ending the deadlock in EU–Ukraine relations” Skumin wrote. But “the preservation of the monopolistic oligarchy will not allow for any European integration or even domestic transformations using European patterns. The only thing that could be done is perhaps only an outward European appearance.”

“Profound transformation” requires killing the oligarchic system, which no one in the game – least of all Poroshenko – has come close to suggesting. This is the IMF’s big lie. Lagarde talks of changing Ukraine, but the people she has entrusted to make those changes are the precisely the ones whose power the country most needs to curtail.

To crib from Vladimir Putin, Poroshenko and his fellow oligarchs are neither pro-American, pro-European, nor pro-Russian. They are not even necessarily pro-Ukrainian, though a bit of patriotic fervor may help them shove austerity down the throats of their underlings. Ukrainian oligarchs, like American plutocrats, are simply pro-themselves.

The idea that Ukraine under Poroshenko is going to pursue any significant reforms is laughable.

[K. A. Pital]

Poroshenko is not forever, though. He pushes too hard and then, theoretically, he can de deposed.

[AMX]

This is probably the first conflict where the government has had to crowd fund for equipping its troops.

"Buy War Bonds"
"Gold gab ich für Eisen"

Hell, how about THIS?

[Purple]

This is probably the first conflict where the government has had to crowd fund for equipping its troops.

"Buy War Bonds"
"Gold gab ich für Eisen"

Hell, how about THIS?

Lend binoculars? I wonder if the army actually returned them after the war.