"Give us Poland and Finland!" crowd shouts in Moscow

[Vympel]

To put it bluntly, Russia will have no option but to accept if it accepts the partitioning of Ukraine. It will no longer be able to prevent Western and Central Ukraine to become a part of NATO, short of a nuclear war. And no, Ukraine is not worth a nuclear war for Russia either.

That could only conceivably work if Ukraine was formally partitioned and the rump West/ Central part gave up all territorial claims to the East. With existing territorial disputes, Ukraine couldn't join - old Europe (Germany and France) simply wouldn't have it. And frankly, I see no reason to believe the West's attitude to Ukraine now would change if it became a fraction of its current size and the rest was a Russian satellite. It still matters more to Russia than it does to NATO, and always will.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, you are right that so as long as it has disputes, no one will let it enter NATO unless the situation changes. But it is changing, and IMHO a lot of things can happen. I mean, Turkey has its own unrecognized rump state in Cyprus and still it is a part of NATO.

[Tiriol]

So you wish to partition smaller countries in order to appease bigger countries? You were up in arms about treatment of Native Americans but as long as it's Russia doing it to its neighbors, it's just fine and dandy?

You are aware that in Soviet Union, republic borders were mostly administration lines? Because no one expected them to be relevant in any way anyway? You could equate that to US states, in a way. Even then, you had autonomous circles and regions inside of these republics, for minorities and small nations, to guarantee them self-governance, religious and language freedom. You could equate that to reservations in US states.

And here comes the hard part: in 1989, newly created states like Ukraine and Georgia decided to fuck up the minorities and deleted any special rights they had. Some decided to rebel back, like Ossetia and Abkhazia. Some, like Crimea or Gaugazia, were too weak to do anything. The fact is, regardless of outcome, they got less rights (and more oppression) than they under Soviet Freaking Union. Which kind of crushes any feeble excuses about democracy and self determination new overlords might have had.

Sorry, supporting the ex-regions is perfectly consistent with supporting Native American rights and claiming federal government should just step in if say Arkansas tried to annex its reservations and take away all its rights on gunpoint. Even if 'stepping in' would entail making the annexed reservation fully independent from the state it was formerly in. Which is sorta the situation we now have in in various points of old Soviet Union, seeing its fall had nothing to do with any sort of democratic process and apparently Russia was the only new country even remotely interested in giving its minorities any rights or autonomies.

What does the "just administrative lines" have to do with anything? You do realize that Ukrainian desire for independence is much older than the Soviet Union? And what about Estonia, Lithuania etc.? Are you claiming that they were only administrative regions despite them being independent before your precious Soviet Union invaded and annexed them?

And if what you say about treatment of minorities is true, it is a real travesty and should be corrected. However, annexing regions under false pretenses (at a gunpoint, no less!) is not a way to go. And of all the nations RUSSIA has the least cause to complain about minorities suffering abuses at this point in time.

And please. We both know fully well that Russia's aim is not to help oppressed minorities but to realize its own ambitions and bully its neighbors. Russia is doing this to enforce its will upon those weaker than itself, not out of any love for human rights. We already know that Crimea's partition was done while armed men were making sure everyone voted correctly. And what about those "minorities" who didn't want to be annexed? Are their rights being respected or are they under pressure by their new overlords (a term you coined in this discussion), like the Tatars?

If you're so adamant arbitrary lines drawn on map in 1945 are absolute and cannot be changed on will of the people, how about calling for sanctioning Germany until it gives independence back to East Germany? Or for that matter, handing Finland back to Russia? Clearly 1918 revolution was illegal terrorist band sponsored by foreign government (Imperial Germany) and Putin should be fully justified in bombing Helsinki with dozens of Grad batteries until they surrender, just like Ukrainians tried to do, right?

I'd agree with you if any concerned government gave half a damn about its minority citizens and tried to make even most tiny, token gesture concerning their well being or rights, but I am afraid we waited 26 years for that and nothing but persecution and forced assimilation happened, sooo...

Yes, let's go full Stalin! I wonder how much you must salivate at the thought of re-creating your Soviet empire.

I'm adamant against any new border drawings done by the force of arms because it will destabilize international politics, it will re-introduce military tensions to Europe and it will ensure that any peaceful solution becomes that much more difficult. And unlike you, I don't have any love for the Soviet Union or its terror. And you know perfectly well that East German territories petitioned, without any presence of Bundeswehr troops or even "voluntary forces", to join the Federal Republic and East Germany disbanded itself. There was no pressure, no military threat, imposed upon East German government. Although considering your love for left-wing dictatorships, maybe you do consider it some sort of terror campaign anyway.

Your beloved Soviet Union, under Lenin, did recognize Finland's independence. Finnish Parliament had voted about it and they formally requested Lenin to recognize it. Imperial Germany had nothing to do with Finnish independence movement at that point. The fact that Finnish White government sought aid from Imperial Germany during our Civil War has just as much to do with Lenin's inability (or disinterest) of getting Russian troops out of Finland and letting them, if they so willed, to aid the Red movement. So your entire point is invalid as all hell. But sure, go ahead and play make-believe so that you can continue your fantasies about Soviet/Russian righteousness.

I would be interested to hear anyone with a serious, intellectually coherent alternative to Duchess' ideas.

I mean seriously, at least Duchess is suggesting a plan, that for whatever faults one might find with it, can present a credible claim for preventing further open warfare in Eastern Europe while giving every ethnic group in the region as much as possible of what they want.

Tiriol? Romulan Republic? Do you guys have an actual plan?

As Thanas said, the continued economic sanctions and political pressure. At this point Putin and his Russia want to wave their military might as much as they can without actually going into a serious war and giving in would simply encourage them further. Any backroom deals where bigger nations decide what's best for those pesky little countries are abhorrent to me and should be to you, too. Russia doesn't have endless supplies of money to keep up its ambitions, infrastructure and military. Putin isn't stupid and he realizes this. His government isn't composed of stupid people, either, or they wouldn't last.

The other alternative seems to be building up a very real risk of nuclear war and militarizing all the border states and nations. Of course those nations might very well do it all on their own, considering how little love there is for Russia and how worrisome Russian actions have been.

[Thanas]

It is questionable to me whether even making it "harder for them to continue on" is wise, given data points like the role of economic hardship in the politics of the Weimar Republic...

That depends on whether you belive one can trust Putin and his ilk to be honorable partners or not. Do you? Because I don't.

If imposing economic hardship destabilizes a dishonorable government and causes it to be replaced by a dishonorable and considerably more warlike and vicious government, then the fact that the previous government was dishonorable is irrelevant.

By that standard you might just as well not take any action at all because it might have negative consequences.

I mean, you are better placed than I to know what Germans actually thought of the Versailles peace treaty in the 1920s and '30s, but it seems pretty clear to me that a lot of them resented it, felt it was unfair, felt that their nation was being unjustly deprived of territory that was rightly German, and felt that German nationals were being unjustly forced to live under foreign rule.

This resentment then seems to have played a large role in the rise of a Nazi government that basically said: "You know, the real mistake of the Second Reich is that they weren't militarist enough, weren't violent enough, weren't ferocious enough in ripping out the gentle and tolerant elements in our society. That is how we wound up humiliated and "punished" by foreigners."

Sure, sure. But the situations are again not comparable. Versailles took territory that had been German for hundred of years and ripped it out. Eastern Ukraine is not the same, nor was it part of Russia politically. If you want an analogy, look for the Sudetenland.

And this is today a cautionary tale for anyone who wants to impose humiliating but non-crippling "punishments" on a nation. Watch out; they may respond to this nonviolent threat with more nationalism and jingoism.

And if they do so, what do you think they will think of massive military occupation? Because none of the "station troops in X" is going to stop them from feeling threatened.

The Russians already know that the West is trying to oppose them; the problem is that they appear to have decided that despite that, the 1993-era frontiers of Russia proper are not an appropriate set of boundaries for an ethnic Russian state.

So the question then is, how far is the West prepared to go to defend the principle that literally all borders everywhere are sacrosanct and non-negotiable no matter who lives on either side of the border?

Controlling the Russians with nonviolent threats may very well not work, so the West must be prepared to cope with what happens if they don't work. So either the West has to be prepared to go to war to defend these borders, or it has to be prepared to negotiate the status of the borders.

Again with the fallacy to reduce all options to two binary choices.

Maybe, but it's hard to say how much, given that a nation in the grip of a nationalist resurgence can get away with sacrificing a larger proportion of its wealth to foreign adventures. If the sanctions have the effect of perpetuating the Russians' distrust of foreigners and desire to integrate all Russians into a single, secure polity... that may well accelerate their expansion more than the actual sanctions decelerate them.

That project was dead forever when Russia lied about its troops being in Crimea. I can't see it having any resurrection unless Putin is gone. Nobody will trust him.

[K. A. Pital]

Um, Thanas, you do realize that Germany started its fascist takeover with the reconstitution of the Reich from Austria, Germany and, later, Sudeten and finally Danzig and surrounding territories (smashing some smaller nations in the process). Simon has a valid point. Pressuring Russia will only make it more militaristic and crazy. It has been the same with most other nations that were pressured by the West.

Then again, it will be militaristic and crazy revanchist anyway, so I guess no harm done (other than the cementing of Russia's alliance with China, which harms the West in the long term but does not really harm any major power in the short term).

[Metahive]

I'm pretty sure it was the exact opposite of "military pressure" that enabled Hitler to rearm, militarize the Rhineland, grab Austria and the Sudetenland, just saying.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm pretty sure it was the exact opposite of "military pressure" that enabled Hitler to rearm, militarize the Rhineland, grab Austria and the Sudetenland, just saying.

Thanas said nothing about "military" pressure, the subject was economic sanctions. A direct war with Hitler would have stopped him, but such a thing did not happen. It is unlikely that a direct war with a nuclear power is possible, too.

[Thanas]

Um, Thanas, you do realize that Germany started its fascist takeover with the reconstitution of the Reich from Austria, Germany and, later, Sudeten and finally Danzig and surrounding territories (smashing some smaller nations in the process).

The earlier grabs were done completely unopposed by the West. In fact, had the West opposed it, it is quite clear that the Nazi regime would have collapsed. Simon's suggestion is to let Putin have what he wants unopposed. I don't get the point you are trying to make with this, maybe we are talking past each other.

[Vympel]

The earlier grabs were done completely unopposed by the West. In fact, had the West opposed it, it is quite clear that the Nazi regime would have collapsed. Simon's suggestion is to let Putin have what he wants unopposed. I don't get the point you are trying to make with this, maybe we are talking past each other.

I think the point may be that your saying Eastern Ukraine is different from Russia i.e. "Eastern Ukraine is not the same, nor was it part of Russia politically" (a very debatable point, given its history as part of the Russian Empire and Ukraine's entirely shorter history) and making analogies to German revanchism misses the fact that Germany's first move towards constituting the Reich was anschluss with Austria.

Of course, this ignores the fact that WW2 analogies are trite, simplistic, and simply not applicable to the present situation. Contrary to the doomsaying pronouncements, it is not always 1938 and making a good treaty with another power is not always Munich. There is no ideological parallel between Russia seizing Crimea and the actions of Nazi Germany. Zero. The people asserting Russia is about to launch into an orgy of revanchist conquest are simply alarmists. In particular, the entire narrative of Russian revanchism pretends that history began when Russia seized Crimea. It totally ignores the fact that said action arose from circumstances Russia neither wanted nor caused. There is no similarity to Germany's aggression whatsoever.

And please. We both know fully well that Russia's aim is not to help oppressed minorities but to realize its own ambitions and bully its neighbors. Russia is doing this to enforce its will upon those weaker than itself, not out of any love for human rights. We already know that Crimea's partition was done while armed men were making sure everyone voted correctly. And what about those "minorities" who didn't want to be annexed? Are their rights being respected or are they under pressure by their new overlords (a term you coined in this discussion), like the Tatars?

Bullshit, mate. There has been poll after poll after poll on this. There is no evidence whatsoever that "armed men made sure everyone voted correctly". None. The most recent poll was performed by GfK - an anti-Russian organisation that wants to free Crimea from Russia. Their findings are unambiguous, and reflect a Pew poll and Gallup poll taken last year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2 ... w-to-kiev/

The U.S and European Union may want to save Crimeans from themselves. But the Crimeans are happy right where they are.

One year after the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in the Black Sea, poll after poll shows that the locals there — be they Ukrainians, ethnic Russians or Tatars are mostly all in agreement: life with Russia is better than life with Ukraine.

Little has changed over the last 12 months. Despite huge efforts on the part of Kiev, Brussels, Washington and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the bulk of humanity living on the Black Sea peninsula believe the referendum to secede from Ukraine was legit. At some point, the West will have to recognize Crimea’s right to self rule. Unless we are all to believe that the locals polled by Gallup and GfK were done so with FSB bogey men standing by with guns in their hands.

In June 2014, a Gallup poll with the Broadcasting Board of Governors asked Crimeans if the results in the March 16, 2014 referendum to secede reflected the views of the people. A total of 82.8% of Crimeans said yes. When broken down by ethnicity, 93.6% of ethnic Russians said they believed the vote to secede was legitimate, while 68.4% of Ukrainians felt so. Moreover, when asked if joining Russia will ultimately make life better for them and their family, 73.9% said yes while 5.5% said no.

In February 2015, a poll by German polling firm GfK revealed that attitudes have not changed. When asked “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?”, a total of 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% answered “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% said they didn’t know, and another 2% said no. Three percent did not specify their position.

With two studies out of the way, both Western-based, it seems without question that the vast majority of Crimeans do not feel they were duped into voting for annexation, and that life with Russia will be better for them and their families than life with Ukraine. A year ago this week, 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification with their former Soviet parent. The majority of people living on the peninsula are ethnic Russians.

The U.S. made a big deal about the rights of ethnic minorities there known as the Tatars, which account for around 10% of the population. Of the 4% total that said they did not endorse Russia’s annexation, the vast majority — 55% — said that they feel that way because they believe it should have been allowed by Kiev in accordance with international law. Another 24% said the referendum vote was “held under pressure”, which means political or military threats to vote and vote in favor.

The GfK survey also asked if the Ukrainian media have given Crimea a fair assessment. Only 1% said that the Ukrainian media “provides entirely truthful information” and only 4% said it was “more often truthful than deceitful.”

For now, the Gallup and GfK polls show a deeply divided Ukraine. The division of political allegiances ultimately threatens Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Only 19% in the east and 26.8% in the southeast think Ukraine should join the European Union, while 84.2% in the west believe Ukraine is a natural fit with the E.U.. Nearly 60% in the north agree that E.U. is the place to be, and just under half in the center part of the country want E.U. integration.

NATO integration is even less supported in the southeast and east, and a little over a third in the center and north agree that Ukraine should join the Western military powers. In the west, that number rises to 53%.

Those numbers also coincide with Ukraine’s trust or distrust with Washington. The pro-integration west, north and center portions of Ukraine all view the U.S. role in the crisis as mostly positive. Well under a third say so in the east and southeast, and almost no one, including the Tatars, believe so in Crimea, GfK poll data suggests.

Interestingly enough, despite Russia’s involvement in the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine, only 35.7% of people polled there said they viewed Russia’s involvement as mostly positive while 71.3% of Crimeans were more in line with Russia’s world view, according to the year old poll from Gallup.

This week, the State Department’s press secretary Jen Psaki said sanctions on Russia will continue until Crimea is returned to Ukraine. Both the State Department and Treasury Department did not clarify whether that was an actual policy statement, nor whether that included the sectoral sanctions which were applied in a third round of sanctions last July following the downing of Malaysian flight MH17 over east Ukraine.

This persistent fantasy that there's some vast, unspoken majority in Crimea - a historically Russian territory full of Russians - which was somehow intimidated into joining Russia - is unsupported by any relevant facts whatsoever. Its a claim that can only be made by people who have no idea as to Crimea's history. Its nothing more than pure ignorant chauvanism - "Kiev's revolutionaries *cough hack cough ahem* sorry I meant Ukraine wanted to join Europe, and Europe is good. Russia is bad, so therefore it is impossible that the population of Crimea voted to join Russia of their own free will."

As to the minorities who didn't want to be annexed - why is minorities in air quotes? They are minorities. The Serbs of Kosovo didn't get a choice when Kosovo declared independence either.

[Thanas]

I think the point may be that your saying Eastern Ukraine is different from Russia i.e. "Eastern Ukraine is not the same, nor was it part of Russia politically" (a very debatable point, given its history as part of the Russian Empire and Ukraine's entirely shorter history) and making analogies to German revanchism misses the fact that Germany's first move towards constituting the Reich was anschluss with Austria.

Ah, ok. Still not getting it though - Austria after all was in favor of it and not under the control of an enemy country.

Of course, this ignores the fact that WW2 analogies are trite, simplistic, and simply not applicable to the present situation. Contrary to the doomsaying pronouncements, it is not always 1938 and making a good treaty with another power is not always Munich. There is no ideological parallel between Russia seizing Crimea and the actions of Nazi Germany. Zero. The people asserting Russia is about to launch into an orgy of revanchist conquest are simply alarmists. In particular, the entire narrative of Russian revanchism pretends that history began when Russia seized Crimea. It totally ignores the fact that said action arose from circumstances Russia neither wanted nor caused. There is no similarity to Germany's aggression whatsoever.

Well, except that Russia is actively doing all these things like destabilizing its neighbours, seizing their territory and supporting separatist movements. All tools employed by previous dictators. And Russia is stepping up that program. Let's not pretend that this was forced on Russia. Nobody forced them to invade.

Bullshit, mate. There has been poll after poll after poll on this. There is no evidence whatsoever that "armed men made sure everyone voted correctly". None. The most recent poll was performed by GfK - an anti-Russian organisation that wants to free Crimea from Russia. Their findings are unambiguous, and reflect a Pew poll and Gallup poll taken last year.

Bullshit, mate. In the Ukraine war thread I already posted the youtube interview with the Russian separatist leader who said exactly that thing for the vote by the Crimean assembly.

[Vympel]

Well, except that Russia is actively doing all these things like destabilizing its neighbours, seizing their territory and supporting separatist movements. All tools employed by previous dictators. And Russia is stepping up that program. Let's not pretend that this was forced on Russia. Nobody forced them to invade.

The mere fact that it is doing a thing are entirely seperate from the reasons why its doing those things. Russia seized Crimea in circumstances where a pro-Russian government of a neighbor was toppled and replaced with a virulently anti-Russian one, and then it moved to destabilise that new government, which it considered an enemy. The toppling of the government is the circumstances I refer to as being circumstances which Russia neither wanted nor caused. Conflating Russian motivations for intervention in Ukraine and German motivations for its massively revanchist programme is completely misconceived.

Bullshit, mate. In the Ukraine war thread I already posted the youtube interview with the Russian separatist leader who said exactly that thing for the vote by the Crimean assembly.

I was talking about the referendum - the circumstances by which the vote by the Crimean assembly occurred has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the way people of all Crimea voted in the subsequent referendum. They're two entirely seperate issues. The polls say what they say and it is what it is- refusing to accept what they say is just refusing to accept reality, on its face.

[Flagg]

I just wanted to publicly thank phongn for privately educating me on AMB systems. I also want to concede that the tests were not rigged (especially not without the DoD's knowledge), but given "help" in an area that wasn't being tested at that time in the early '00s. And finally I want to blame it all on the shitty AP job put on CNN's website at the time.

But in all seriousness, thanks phongn.

[phongn]

I just wanted to publicly thank phongn for privately educating me on AMB systems. I also want to concede that the tests were not rigged (especially not without the DoD's knowledge), but given "help" in an area that wasn't being tested at that time in the early '00s. And finally I want to blame it all on the shitty AP job put on CNN's website at the time.

But in all seriousness, thanks phongn.

Didn't want to hijack the thread. You're quite welcome.

[Simon_Jester]

If imposing economic hardship destabilizes a dishonorable government and causes it to be replaced by a dishonorable and considerably more warlike and vicious government, then the fact that the previous government was dishonorable is irrelevant.

By that standard you might just as well not take any action at all because it might have negative consequences.

I do not understand how can so casually shrug off the argument "doing this will not have the desired effect?"

Russia can sustain a civil war in the Donets Basin for a trivial expenditure of effort on its part, probably using nothing but stockpiled weapons it already owns. Sanctions on Russia will almost certainly not end the civil war, especially since many of the separatists are fighting for their homes and lives at this point because the Ukrainian government is not going to be benevolent if they do manage to retake their eastern provinces. Moreover, the sanctions will almost certainly increase Russia's incentive to take further, possibly irrational, steps at a later date out of vindictiveness and hostility toward an "enemy" West. It's a lose-lose proposition.

I mean, you are better placed than I to know what Germans actually thought of the Versailles peace treaty in the 1920s and '30s, but it seems pretty clear to me that a lot of them resented it, felt it was unfair, felt that their nation was being unjustly deprived of territory that was rightly German, and felt that German nationals were being unjustly forced to live under foreign rule.

This resentment then seems to have played a large role in the rise of a Nazi government that basically said: "You know, the real mistake of the Second Reich is that they weren't militarist enough, weren't violent enough, weren't ferocious enough in ripping out the gentle and tolerant elements in our society. That is how we wound up humiliated and "punished" by foreigners."

Sure, sure. But the situations are again not comparable. Versailles took territory that had been German for hundred of years and ripped it out. Eastern Ukraine is not the same, nor was it part of Russia politically. If you want an analogy, look for the Sudetenland.

This strikes me as either historically myopic or self-serving from the point of view of Germany.

The Donets Basin had been Russian territory since the mid-1700s, and was the property of the Cossacks and Tatars before that time, which are now defunct states. It was removed from Russian control only about 25 years ago, under circumstances that made it impractical to consult the locals about whether they preferred being Ukrainians to being Russians.

That is not a long time. If the Germans could ever have grounds to be irredentist over Alsace-Lorraine, then I think the Russians could have grounds to be irredentist over the Donbass.

And this is today a cautionary tale for anyone who wants to impose humiliating but non-crippling "punishments" on a nation. Watch out; they may respond to this nonviolent threat with more nationalism and jingoism.

And if they do so, what do you think they will think of massive military occupation? Because none of the "station troops in X" is going to stop them from feeling threatened.

Occupying territories they think belong to them is likely to cause trouble, a la the Saar.

Occupying territories they don't think belong to them, or that only a tiny minority think belong to them, is likely to reduce trouble because it creates an incentive against trying rash land grabs that would violate the terms of a negotiated border.

Again with the fallacy to reduce all options to two binary choices.

How is this a fallacy?

Either nonviolent means will work, or they won't. If they don't work, which is quite possible, then either we must accept failure, or go to war.

Now, if you want to say "I accept that we may fail to halt Russian expansionism with sanctions, and oppose going to war to halt it because that would have bad consequences," fine, you're being consistent. It might not feel good for your ego but it's an intellectually honest thing to say.

My point is that this entire "try to contain Russia with nonviolent means" is not the only strategy we could be pursuing, and perhaps not the one most likely to result in peace and order in Eastern Europe.

Maybe, but it's hard to say how much, given that a nation in the grip of a nationalist resurgence can get away with sacrificing a larger proportion of its wealth to foreign adventures. If the sanctions have the effect of perpetuating the Russians' distrust of foreigners and desire to integrate all Russians into a single, secure polity... that may well accelerate their expansion more than the actual sanctions decelerate them.

That project was dead forever when Russia lied about its troops being in Crimea. I can't see it having any resurrection unless Putin is gone. Nobody will trust him.

...What project? Are you even talking about the same thing I am?

I was talking about how sanctions may cause more harm than good if they result in a Russian people willing to sacrifice what comfort they possess to get back at the Westerners who "stabbed them in the back" in their minds.

---

Um, Thanas, you do realize that Germany started its fascist takeover with the reconstitution of the Reich from Austria, Germany and, later, Sudeten and finally Danzig and surrounding territories (smashing some smaller nations in the process).

The earlier grabs were done completely unopposed by the West. In fact, had the West opposed it, it is quite clear that the Nazi regime would have collapsed. Simon's suggestion is to let Putin have what he wants unopposed. I don't get the point you are trying to make with this, maybe we are talking past each other.

Actually, no. Simon's suggestion is that we seriously consider actually negotiating with Putin and trying to exchange some of what he wants for some of what we want.

Rather than unilaterally saying "give us everything we want, and take nothing that you want, or we will punish you." Which is an incredibly arrogant and ill-advised strategy to pursue with a nation as large as Russia. It doesn't work very well even when the mismatch in raw national power is as great as that between the US and North Korea or Iraq; how do you expect it to work between the EU and Russia?

Maybe no negotiated settlement is possible, but honestly we haven't even tried- the West has spent the past year screaming about how 'unacceptable' it is that the Russians are doing exactly what they've been doing. And frankly, Putin would be justified in asking precisely what it means when the West 'does not accept' something, and whether the consequences actually matter to his ability to hold power and pursue his goals.

The problem is that no one seems to remember how to negotiate a border anymore, so we're locked into this model where any border we inherited from the past is sacred. Except that we're too sensible to fight wars over them. So when someone actually violates a border by force, we just stand around squawking and looking foolish. And we can't even think meaningfully about their incentives for violating that border, whether or not 'soft power' has any chance of actually working on them.

Because we can't fight over the border, but we can't just ignore the violation, so we have to do things like levy sanctions, whether it makes sense or not.

[Thanas]

I just wanted to publicly thank phongn for privately educating me on AMB systems. I also want to concede that the tests were not rigged (especially not without the DoD's knowledge), but given "help" in an area that wasn't being tested at that time in the early '00s. And finally I want to blame it all on the shitty AP job put on CNN's website at the time.

But in all seriousness, thanks phongn.

Didn't want to hijack the thread. You're quite welcome.

Could you post the info in another thread for all to see? Because I've seen this crop up a lot.

[phongn]

Could you post the info in another thread for all to see? Because I've seen this crop up a lot.

Done.

[Irbis]

And now, to put this whole bullshit scaremongering to rest - have some actual data:

[source, staunchly anti-Russian and anti-Putin in particular (to filter out any possible pro-Russian bias) "Gazeta Wyborcza", biggest Polish newspaper]

Number of Russians in favour of annexing Ukraine - less than 1%, including 0% among the uniformed personnel (police and military).

Number of Russians in favour of annexing Belarus - 8%, and this is state as Russianised as Russia proper, which is already integrated into Russia to a large degree in an Union State, state that already had large majority in favour of rejoining Russia in 90s.

For comparison, poll in France on annexing south Belgium should country split was 55% in favour.

So, yeah, scary scary, WW III is upon us, god have mercy upon us sinful

Donald Tusk hasn't been always hawkish towards Russia - years of trying to establish (as a Prime Minister) friendlier relations caused him to be criticised by right-wingers in Poland. Too bad that Russia did many things that soured the relations (such as not returning the wreck of the Polish president's plane to Poland even it was promised by Russian president - it still hasn't been returned after 5 years). And invading a neighbour of Poland certainly didn't help.

Uh... When exactly he wasn't hawkish?

No, seriously. In 90s, Tusk was in anti-Russian party. This reached zenith in AWS government, possibly the most xenophobic, reactionary, religious and anti-science people in charge we ever had. Granted, Tusk might have not agreed with everything, and to his credit, he decided to leave AWS and form PO, but then went right back to (only slightly less bad) POPiS only leaving when Kaczynski/Kurski pulled the grandpa from Wehrmacht trick (which only highlights how xenophobic their electorate is, really).

That period of 'frendlier' relations you refer to at best can be claimed to exist in 2007-2009, and that was frosty neutrality. Through this period, Tusk was repeatedly bashed for stuff like showing human side when meeting with Putin, much less enacting any policy even slightly geared towards Russia. This was especially done by PiS president of Poland, who ironically died en route to make campaign show at one of most anti-Russian symbols in Polish history. Ever since then, Smolensk crash became another rabidly anti-Russian strawman in Polish politics, despite being really the fault of kamikaze disregard of laws of physics just to make a point.

Yes, Russians didn't return the wreck, but one, they didn't promise to return it before the end of the investigation, two, it's just a pile of metal that would be long sent to scrapyard if they did return it (all bodies were returned instantly) and will tell us nothing new despite helium/helicopters/thermobaric bomb/armoured bomber bullshit conspiracy theories. Three, it's not like Poland did dozens of anti-Russian gestures to solidly sour any possibility of cooperation on that matter.

Look, this week alone had warrant of arrest of Russian controllers on that airport issued, apparently just for forbidding landing instead of closing airport entirely. What they were supposed to do, telepathically recognize Polish pilot was just tiny bit less suicidal than Andreas Lubitz and will try (or be ordered to try) land in dense mist despite no clearance? Causing colossal international accident that would be ballooned by PiS despite saving Kaczynski's life?

Polish people have many reasons to be wary of Russia.

Yes. We do. But, sadly, not existing Russia. We need to be wary of Russia from dreams of anti-Russian polish xenophobes, and their policy if anything helps creating that state. See for example Ukraine - it would be one thing if we helped Ukrainians to spread freedom or something. But no, if you ask any Polish politician why we help, to honest answer always was "because without Ukraine Russia is weak so we need to antagonise them".

Tell me, how friendly would say Germany be towards Poland if Poland openly campaigned for DDR independence, funded Die Linke, and Polish ambassador was attending rallies calling to hang Merkel on street lamp for treason and for armed revolt in Berlin? Because that's exactly what happened in the East, thank you very much.

[Wojtek_Pod]

Irbis, my worries about Russia are not because of what Polish press is saying.

According to the Economist article I linked earlier (here), since 2000 (much earlier than Tusk's or Kaczynski's rule as Prime Minister or the whole argument with missle shield) scenarios under which Russian army made exercises included limited nuclear first attack on Warsaw (in the exercises the attack was of course simulated). This by itself could be dismissed as a theoretical exercise but at least since 2013 (perhaps even as early as 2011) Iskander-M missles are stationed in Kaliningrad, a few minutes for missles to Warsaw (source: Reuters). It caused some alarm in nearby countries - putting nukes near captal cities of neighbouring countries tends to upset those countries. Anti-Russian propaganda has little to do with that.

Second reason of my worry is the recent events in Crimea - it was taken over by Russia with the use of unmarked Russian special forces. While the annexation was popular among the people of Crimea, it is a fact that now Russia is willing to use force on a neighbouring country if they feel their vital interests are threatened. And Putin himself said to be willing to use nukes in their worst-case scenario.

I know that Tusk wasn't exactly friendly with Russia when he was PM, but as I seem to recall, he wanted to normalise the relations with Russia for some time, and president Kaczynski disagreed with that. This is what I meant by "Tusk not being hawkish".

Some Polish politicians are xenophobes and conspiracy theorists. The sad fact is that some of them are leaders of the most popular opposition party at the moment (PiS). And they are using the tragedy of the plane crash for their political needs. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment about the Polish prosecutor warrant - as far as I know, most the blame is put on the Polish plane crew and the disagreement is with whether Russian controllers are blameless or they share some guilt (a disagreement even among Gazeta Wyborcza readers and commenters).

I recall that some public people of Poland cheered Euromaidan for being pro-EU (which wasn't wise as the following events weakened the Ukraine and their presence just lent credence to the anti-Polish rhetoric in Russian media). As far as I know, Euromaidan was united in wanting to have EU association signed and in wanting to oust Yanukovych. I am unaware of any Polish politicians supporting death threats to Yanukovych - as far as I remember, most of them were not there when the tensions got so bad. Can you cite your sources?

As far as your DDR comparison, isn't it what Russia is doing to the Ukraine at the moment? Funding and arming separatists who want to tear apart the Ukraine and join the separated territory with Russia? Unless you want to imply that the Ukraine is not an independent country and is in fact a part of Russia and that Poland is wanting to take it from Russia.

Also, I'd like to know how exactly Poland was funding or arming Euromaidan. Because so far all I've seen is long screeds against Nuland (who is not in any way a member of Polish government or a Polish politician).