More Bad News for Russia

[Boethius]

so.. what's wrong with that?

As we sit safely in our homes, there are 30,000 Russian soldiers massed on Ukraine's border, another 2,000 to 3,000 in Donbas, and equipment is crossing Ukraine's border daily.  This month, six soldiers have been killed in Ukraine, and more than a dozen wounded.  These are not as a result of provocations by Ukraine.  This is increased military offensives by Donbas terrorists, thanks to newly arrived weaponry.  This has all been confirmed by neutral observers.

There are attacks at Mariupol almost daily.  I know this, as I have a cousin posted there. 

Russia refuses to honour the Minsk Accords, as do the terrorists.  Russia's goal is to bleed Ukraine, to ensure it does not give up that territory and move to normality.  So, while a laudable goal, your perspective is unrealistic.

[BC]

Russia refuses to honour the Minsk Accords, as do the terrorists.  Russia's goal is to bleed Ukraine, to ensure it does not give up that territory and move to normality.  So, while a laudable goal, your perspective is unrealistic.

Boethius,

without getting into a chicken or egg first discussion, using the MinskII requirements outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II#Measures as a baseline that all interested parties signed, which points have been complied with by each side?  Can either side state that they have fully complied with MinskII?

I'm just curious as to the current status quo and what is still left to do.  At this point, I see a bit of a stalemate of noncompliance on both sides whereas UA could only benefit on the international stage by fully implementing MinskII, even if it is done unilaterally.

[Boethius]

Ukraine did everything on the ceasefire front per Minsk. The Russian response was to send more arms to the terrorists. In fact, they expanded attacks to regions outside the conflict zone.

Russia's intention is to keep a low level war percolating so that Ukraine cannot implement any significant reforms. What Ukraine has not done yet is amend its constitution, but it can't do that until there is an actual ceasefire.

[JayH]

Boethius,

without getting into a chicken or egg first discussion, using the MinskII requirements outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II#Measures as a baseline that all interested parties signed, which points have been complied with by each side?  Can either side state that they have fully complied with MinskII?

I'm just curious as to the current status quo and what is still left to do.  At this point, I see a bit of a stalemate of noncompliance on both sides whereas UA could only benefit on the international stage by fully implementing MinskII, even if it is done unilaterally.

Really--how ignorant are you-no answer required.
You do not even have the most basic concept of what is going on in Ukraine.
If you spent some time reading some of the links posted( and many others deleted)you would understand how ridiculous your comments are.
Part of the reason I post links is that they often have substantial details that add weight to the point/s being made. Of course-- I note you use links in the ridiculous US politics thread where the substance is --yes it is- no it's not --or vice versa repeated 22000 times.
Your general comments in the above posts support my comments made earlier about you.
So-- go back and read some of what has been posted in links-- and you may be capable of learning something.
Your not a fit person to be "advising" anything on the forum.

[msmobyone]

You can bet money that I was there a lot more recently than you were in Ukraine!
The fact is I avoid going there now if I possibly can.

I was in Ukraine in January ....

Your detection? What down at the beach in Sochi?On a chartered yacht? Yeah--you will have your finger right on the pulse!

I've been in Moscow and Novosibirsk, too. I can assure you some folk SC knows live in places that would be condemned in the west...

I prefer to listen to Mende for intelligent assessment of today;s Russia-- and the many reports we can read-- some of which I post!

I have no problem with your preference - he has a great deal more experience than I

Nonsense-- it has been repeatedly documented that the truth is being kept from most Russians.By the time they wake up as a whole--chances are it will after the really bad news!!

When it comes to news - especially things like 'away games' and MH17, I agree.  ..But, I  refer to everyday perspective of  the 'man in the street'.


If that covers F1 fans, Yachties and people who live in crap houses .... I'd say that was a wide spectrum

[JayH]

I'm just curious as to the current status quo and what is still left to do.  At this point, I see a bit of a stalemate of noncompliance on both sides whereas UA could only benefit on the international stage by fully implementing MinskII, even if it is done unilaterally.

Answer this question BC--- what business( ie right) does Russia have for invading eastern Ukraine?

[msmobyone]

Answer this question BC--- what business( ie right) does Russia have for invading eastern Ukraine?

None, but Minsk was a deal to stop folk dying -with an end game whereby Kyiv regained control of her frontiers

If you read the daily reports from the monitors [OSCE]BOTH sides are breaking the  agreement...

http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports


Moscow is playing on Kyiv's cutting off finances to the region - which is understandable - but hardly going to win support and now Moscow is funding the 'rebel' held territory.

Many Russians believe that the 'rebels' will ultimately take Mariupol ...I have no idea where the 'creeping' westwards will stop.

 

[Belvis]

So, while a laudable goal, your perspective is unrealistic.

It's not the perspective, it's almost certain future. Right now roughly 50% of Ukrainians are ready to accept Minsk. Speaking about Minsk we imply  termination of  military stage of the conflict, while the result will be in de-facto  cessation of Donbass.
For Kiev  two options are acceptable, military solution (rather fantastic) and keeping the situation in status quo. Second option leads to cessation too, but the process will be more painful for both Donbass and Ukraine from economy point of view as well as political instability within Ukraine.

There are theoretical chances that  the cessation of Donbass will turn over time into the reintegration with Ukraine. Ukraine must change itself into attractive country for people at Donbass. At present time the  perspective of such transformation looks foggy, and time is limited. 5 years without Ukraine will turn Donbass into part of Russia.

[Boethius]

I agree with most of your post, Belvis. However, 5 years is a long time. Furthermore, Donbas' primary industry is a dying one. There is no reason Russia would want this region.

[msmobyone]

5 years without Ukraine will turn Donbass into part of Russia.

Exactly the plan, surely?

[BC]

What Ukraine has not done yet is amend its constitution, but it can't do that until there is an actual ceasefire.

Isn't that a or maybe even 'the' crucial step that needs to be taken for both sides to move forward?

What's stopping it?  As moby stated from the official observers there are ceasefire violations, but the reports are not able to say which side is responsible, leaving all to assuming both.

Is the following opinion (still) valid?
http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/02/10/88929/

Are smaller scale ceasefire skirmishes really the reason behind UA not amending their constitution per the agreement or being used as a veil for a political conundrum, even catch 22?


 

[JayH]

None, but Minsk was a deal to stop folk dying -with an end game whereby Kyiv regained control of her frontiers

If you read the daily reports from the monitors [OSCE]BOTH sides are breaking the  agreement...

http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports


Moscow is playing on Kyiv's cutting off finances to the region - which is understandable - but hardly going to win support and now Moscow is funding the 'rebel' held territory.

Many Russians believe that the 'rebels' will ultimately take Mariupol ...I have no idea where the 'creeping' westwards will stop.

I am pretty damn sure you are not anywhere remotely close to having followed OSCE reports.

Actually it is really simple--Russia stops shooting-removes all Russian military and weapons-now that would be a "compliance" I would admire.
Why will that not happen? Because Putin knows Ukrainian forces would clean the rest of the scum out in a week. Putin does not want resolution in the east. Amongst other aims is to cause as much disruption in Ukraine as possible and prevent it functioning effectively as a democracy.
So really-- Russia continues to make it impossible for Ukraine to resolve.
The most likely way the eastern Ukraine issue will be resolved will be that Russia  goes broke and internal change happens-Putin still thinks he is holding the cards as he attempts to continue to bluff the west.

It's not the perspective, it's almost certain future. Right now roughly 50% of Ukrainians are ready to accept Minsk. Speaking about Minsk we imply  termination of  military stage of the conflict, while the result will be in de-facto  cessation of Donbass.
For Kiev  two options are acceptable, military solution (rather fantastic) and keeping the situation in status quo. Second option leads to cessation too, but the process will be more painful for both Donbass and Ukraine from economy point of view as well as political instability within Ukraine.

There are theoretical chances that  the cessation of Donbass will turn over time into the reintegration with Ukraine. Ukraine must change itself into attractive country for people at Donbass. At present time the  perspective of such transformation looks foggy, and time is limited. 5 years without Ukraine will turn Donbass into part of Russia.

A military solution being achieved by Ukraine is not fanciful--it is a very real possibility. The implications for Russia and Putin- we will see.
The Ukrainian economy is in the process of readjusting itself without the Donbass already. The fact is that remarkable progress has already been made.
So-- that transformation of Ukraine is underway already.With or without the Donbass.

The way things will go-- all those Russian impoverished by Putin's stupidity will be clamouring to move to Ukraine in 5 years( including those on the Crimea)

[Belvis]

Furthermore, Donbas' primary industry is a dying one. There is no reason Russia would want this region.

The fight for Donbass lays beyond economics or politics, it's rather existential question. Russia has no benefits to posses Donbass but she feels obligations to men there which Russians consider being Russians too.

[JayH]

Isn't that a or maybe even 'the' crucial step that needs to be taken for both sides to move forward?

What's stopping it?  As moby stated from the official observers there are ceasefire violations, but the reports are not able to say which side is responsible, leaving all to assuming both.

Is the following opinion (still) valid?
http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/02/10/88929/

Are smaller scale ceasefire skirmishes really the reason behind UA not amending their constitution per the agreement or being used as a veil for a political conundrum, even catch 22?

It is in a Catch22 situation as it stands now.
The most militatnt and powerful force in internal Ukrainian politics--is vehemently against conceding anything in the east.
The constitution will not be amended to allow a settlement--unless that settlement is the return of full control over the area.

The OSCE reports clearly show who is instigating ceasefire violations.

Russia gets out--that would be a start!

So--let us try again---
WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR RUSSIA INVADING EASTERN UKRAINE?

BC,BELVIS,MOBY--let's hear it?

[BC]

Answer this question BC--- what business( ie right) does Russia have for invading eastern Ukraine?

Because they can, which unfortunately has become a quite popular stance by precedent, used by multiple superpowers over the last few decades. Pandora's box was opened long ago.

One of many opinions and yes I realize every @-hole has one.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/05/america-and-international-law

[Belvis]

Exactly the plan, surely?

Not the plan but sociology confirmed by precedents.

[msmobyone]

I am pretty damn sure you are not anywhere remotely close to having followed OSCE reports.

It is one of the first things I read on  daily basis ....

Actually it is really simple--Russia stops shooting-removes all Russian military and weapons-now that would be a "compliance" I would admire.

The main issue is the porous border and lack of Kyiv control ... the current situation means the likelihood of Kyiv regaining such control recedes with every day that passes.

 

The way things will go-- all those Russian impoverished by Putin's stupidity will be clamouring to move to Ukraine in 5 years( including those on the Crimea)

With the rise in world energy prices and no sign of unrest from within - once again this is very much wishful thinking on your part

[JayH]

.

Is the following opinion (still) valid?
http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/02/10/88929/

No--it is a series of comments-not definitive ( on super quick read)

[msmobyone]

Not the plan but sociology confirmed by precedents.

I 'see' and Putin referring to the people of novorossiya was a mistake .. You'll forgive me, if we agree to disagree re the 'plan'...

[JayH]

The fight for Donbass lays beyond economics or politics, it's rather existential question. Russia has no benefits to posses Donbass but she feels obligations to men there which Russians consider being Russians too.

Thats your explanation?
And BC's-- because they could?

[BC]

It is in a Catch22 situation as it stands now.
The most militatnt and powerful force in internal Ukrainian politics--is vehemently against conceding anything in the east.
The constitution will not be amended to allow a settlement--unless that settlement is the return of full control over the area.

The OSCE reports clearly show who is instigating ceasefire violations.

Russia gets out--that would be a start!

So--let us try again---
WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR RUSSIA INVADING EASTERN UKRAINE?

BC,BELVIS,MOBY--let's hear it?

Thanks for at least an indication that there is a lack of and maybe even inability of UA to comply with MinskII.  The bold font I added goes back to a chicken egg first discourse which of course is never productive so I won't even go that direction.

[JayH]

BC-- Ukraine will do no more until Russia complies.

As I said earlier-Putin does not want it settled.

[BC]

BC-- Ukraine will do no more until Russia complies.

As I said earlier-Putin does not want it settled.

And there are indications that UA doesn't either, at least not on MinskII terms.

Then it shall remain as it is and both you and I simply have to accept it for exactly that and drop the blame game.  Until one side or the other takes the first step forward nothing will be resolved on either side.

My assertion is that UA can only gain by fully implementing MinskII.  That is the only way forward that would provide real teeth for the west to fully support UA if RU does not follow suit.

Until one side or the other implements MinskII, both are to blame.  UA has more to gain than RU doing so.

As for :

So--let us try again---
WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR RUSSIA INVADING EASTERN UKRAINE?

BC,BELVIS,MOBY--let's hear it?

I suggest reading up on the invasion of Panama along with interpretations of how international law was interpreted and set precedent.  IMHO the correlations to UA cannot be ignored, even if the sides are switched a bit.

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

and

http://books.google.it/books?id=nyVMqHrwMHQC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq
=panama+invasion+and+international+law&source
=bl&ots=B1w47U1dQz&sig=
eG9V9jp7v0d3WM5EsPv4Z4wM-JE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJt-DliJPNAhXLthQKHQRWBDwQ6AEIJDAB#v
=onepage&q=panama%20invasion%20and%20international%20law&f=false

are good starters.

[Boethius]

The fight for Donbass lays beyond economics or politics, it's rather existential question. Russia has no benefits to posses Donbass but she feels obligations to men there which Russians consider being Russians too.

Well, once again, that is propaganda.  No part of Ukraine, other than the city of Donetsk, had a majority ethnic Russian population.  Now of course, with the terrorists and their Russian masters controlling parts of the region, any ethnic Ukrainian there will automatically become a Russian in any census to fit their narrative.

[Belvis]

Well, once again, that is propaganda.  No part of Ukraine, other than the city of Donetsk, had a majority ethnic Russian population.  Now of course, with the terrorists and their Russian masters controlling parts of the region, any ethnic Ukrainian there will automatically become a Russian in any census to fit their narrative.

What do you mean propaganda? Russians in Russia consider population of Donbass as Russians, that's the fact. Nobody cares about their ethnic background while they're voting to be Russians. Ethnos in our understanding is  cultural self-identification, plus the language. To be Russian or Ukrainian at Donbass now is the choice of cultural values, so  ethnic reasoning is not working there.