Is it actually Russia that is imposing more and more costs?

[fathertime]

I was reflecting on the timeline of the current crisis. If I recall after Russia took over Crimea, there was a window where the Western nations could have for various reasons accepted the seizure (while holding nose), as I would have suggested.  Instead we (The West) began to impose sanctions, and threats.  Had we accepted what Russia had done, and immediately encouraged Ukraine to do the same, while supporting the Eastern regions, would it have ended there?   Would have Russia continued to support and foment in Eastern Ukraine?  Or is Russia merely imposing costs on the Western interference, and ratcheting up the costs by increasing their boundaries in the Eastern parts of Ukraine?  It appears that some of the posters familiar with the situation are accepting that Crimea is likely Russian now.  If that had been accepted from the beginning (as perhaps it should have been), would this crisis already be water on the bridge, with Ukraine relatively peaceful, and slowly moving towards western ideals?  I've noticed the more we have intervened the larger the region Russia has moved towards (imposed costs). Further long-term costs are potentially  on the international stage regarding less trading in dollars and a stronger alliance between Russia and China.


 Just another way to look at the situation!   


Fathertime! 

[Boethius]

Would have Russia continued to support and foment in Eastern Ukraine? 

Yes.

If that had been accepted from the beginning (as perhaps it should have been), would this crisis already be water on the bridge, with Ukraine relatively peaceful, and slowly moving towards western ideals?

No.  In fact, it would have emboldened Russia even more than it is right now.  The fact is, Crimea was seized contrary to international law, including memoranda and treaties Russia had agreed to honour.  I don't doubt the majority of Crimeans would have voted, in a legal referendum, to join Russia.  The manner in which the action took place is the issue, not the outcome.

[Shadow]

As I mentioned recently, the position of Crimea might be the key to solving the conflict.
Russia has as much desire to take te Donbass area as the people there have to join Russia, which means only as last resort.
But as soon as this would be solved, attention would shift to Crimea meaning that continuation is necessary until either Crimea is completely independent from Ukrainian resources, or is recognized by all to be Russian.
A return of Crimea to Ukraine is as likely as Yanukovich being re-elected president.

[Boethius]

Yes on the return of Crimea.  However, Russia should not be rewarded for flouting international law.   Plus, Crimea is going to be used as a staging ground for Russia to destabilize and interfere in Ukraine.  For those reasons, sanctions need to remain in place.

[Shadow]

Yes on the return of Crimea.  However, Russia should not be rewarded for flouting international law.   Plus, Crimea is going to be used as a staging ground for Russia to destabilize and interfere in Ukraine.  For those reasons, sanctions need to remain in place.

If you feel the cost of human lives is worth it, keep the sanctions.

[Boethius]

The cost of human lives will not be lessened by removing sanctions.

[Shadow]

The cost of human lives will not be lessened by removing sanctions.

On the contrary, a complete resolution of the situation will save many human lives. That is, if you consider russian lives to be human.

[Boethius]

The cost of human lives in Donbas (which I assume is what you were referring to) will not be changed by accepting Crimea as part of Russia.


Russian interference in Ukraine's internal matters will not stop merely because Crimea is accepted as part of Russia.

[Shadow]

The cost of human lives in Donbas (which I assume is what you were referring to) will not be changed by accepting Crimea as part of Russia.


Russian interference in Ukraine's internal matters will not stop merely because Crimea is accepted as part of Russia.

Political interference may not stop just as Western interference will not stop. Yet I am certain that when played right a recognition of Crimea would be the right incentive to stop the civil war and maintain the integrity of Ukraine.

In a situation woth more friendly relations Crimea would be the perfect place to establish a zone of liberal trade and visa-free visiting, making it an area that could attract wide interest.

But as usual I am for a postive scenario where the need to have enemies in the world is absent.

[Gator]

A plan for Crimea was discussed yesterday, with timely input by Mendy, starting here:

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18230.msg386588#msg386588

[fathertime]

Yes.
No.  In fact, it would have emboldened Russia even more than it is right now.  The fact is, Crimea was seized contrary to international law, including memoranda and treaties Russia had agreed to honour.  I don't doubt the majority of Crimeans would have voted, in a legal referendum, to join Russia.  The manner in which the action took place is the issue, not the outcome.

From what I've read, and many have acknowledged here, Russia had the ability to swoop right in and simply seize large parts of E. Ukraine while the country was in chaos (if they wanted to), and yet they chose not to, but they did choose to in Crimea.   If their goal from the onset was to completely control regions in the Eastern Regions of Ukraine, why didn't they just do it all at once, instead of going about it in a way that is bound to be far less effective? It could be contended that they are merely imposing costs as the conflict goes based on each step we take.

Order of things from this POV might be:
1. Western influence helps take down Pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine
2. Russia retaliates by seizing Crimea
3 Western nations strike back by supporting Ukraine and sanctions on Russia
4.  Russia retaliates by helping to create more havoc in Eastern Parts of Ukraine.

If this is the stance Russia has taken, then we have control to end this....or we have the option to take it further but it appears Russia will continue to retaliate.

Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

The cost of human lives in Donbas (which I assume is what you were referring to) will not be changed by accepting Crimea as part of Russia.

I think that statement is not an absolute..

Russian interference in Ukraine's internal matters will not stop merely because Crimea is accepted as part of Russia.

Maybe, maybe not.  I think that Russia will always attempt to maintain some influence.  But had we accepted Crimea at first, that may have stopped the sequence.  It appears what we have done has exacerbated the situation. 


Fathertime!

[Doll]

As I mentioned recently, the position of Crimea might be the key to solving the conflict.
Russia has as much desire to take te Donbass area as the people there have to join Russia, which means only as last resort.
But as soon as this would be solved, attention would shift to Crimea meaning that continuation is necessary until either Crimea is completely independent from Ukrainian resources, or is recognized by all to be Russian.
A return of Crimea to Ukraine is as likely as Yanukovich being re-elected president.

In my understanding this conflict has nothing to do with certain areas.  Russia and Ukraine are not interested in keeping fighting, but somebody else is.

[JayH]

The OP persists in showing his ignorance--be it deliberate misrepresenting,ignorance or just plain id.....c is another question.
Fact are that Russia was extremely active in interfering and attempting to control Ukraine prior to Maidan.
In the immediate aftermath Russian provocateurs were extremely active in attempting to raise discontent all over Ukraine-- that is fact --not some wild highly unlikely explanation of what occurred.
None of this was some spontaneous piece of opportunism--it was planned and implemented long before the demise of Yanukovych.

Any idea that the east was a local uprising is clearly ridiculous-- events prove that-- and despite that we have posters in this thread still trying to tell us that black is white!!

As far as Crimea situation-- currently the Russians are busy making Sevastopol    a closed city within the Crimea-with it's own borders. Many potential explanations-- perhaps they are thinking they will lose Crimea and be able to keep Sevastopol?
 If this thinking is on the Russian agenda--it is interesting in itself-they are smelling defeat and still think they can negotiate to their advantage.

As for comments her about ending the war--it would end the second Russia removes its troops from Ukrainian territory and respected the borders that it agreed to protect for Ukraine.

[AC]

As far as Crimea situation-- currently the Russians are busy making Sevastopol    a closed city within the Crimea-with it's own borders. Many potential explanations--

Jay I think you are hyperventilating again.  If Russia is up to something in Sevastopol it could be Nuclear.  The chance of Ukraine getting Crimea back within 5 years is extremely slim.  If I were a betting man I would certainly bet against that.

Soviet Russia beat the Nazi's there and prior to that they beat the combined efforts of Britain, France and Turkey and yet you really think that Ukraine by herself is going to get the barnacles out of there?  Or do you want to start WWIII like lordtiberius does?

[fathertime]

The OP persists in showing his ignorance--be it deliberate misrepresenting,ignorance or just plain id.....c is another question.
 

Apparently the set events I've proposed does set well with poor lonely (and sometimes ignorant) JayH!  I'm  not surprised although I'm not seeing the timeline disputed.   

Fact are that Russia was extremely active in interfering and attempting to control Ukraine prior to Maidan.
In the immediate aftermath Russian provocateurs were extremely active in attempting to raise discontent all over Ukraine-- that is fact --not some wild highly unlikely explanation of what occurred.
None of this was some spontaneous piece of opportunism--it was planned and implemented long before the demise of Yanukovych.

 

Although some of these statements may be at least be in part true, I don't think they are relevant to the point I made earlier.  Of course Russia would have planned for all contingencies and attempted to exert influence over Ukraine, as the nation is/was very important to them.  Duhhhhhh!       


Fathertime!   

[JayH]

Jay I think you are hyperventilating again.  If Russia is up to something in Sevastopol it could be Nuclear.  The chance of Ukraine getting Crimea back within 5 years is extremely slim.  If I were a betting man I would certainly bet against that.

Soviet Russia beat the Nazi's there and prior to that they beat the combined efforts of Britain, France and Turkey and yet you really think that Ukraine by herself is going to get the barnacles out of there?  Or do you want to start WWIII like lordtiberius does?

Not close to what I was saying here.
My point here was that  Russia could be preparing alternatives for itself-- to get what is most important to it at the negotiating table.
There have been discussions going on for some time between US and Russia over Ukraine(months not days)--  as you may guess I am underwhelmed at the idea of conceding anything to Russia--but realities say that anything that stops the loss of Ukrainian lives needs consideration.

To answer the question you allude to-- the Russians can and would be defeated in an escalated war-- including removing them from Sevastopol and the Crimea.That answer applies to a nuclear war or a more localised restricted war.  Putin is bluffing-- and I would call his bluff--at any level. The only thing that a bully will respond to is self preservation-- and that is the issue that needs driving into Russian heads is that they are are going to lose here--one way or another.

[krimster2]

"In my understanding this conflict has nothing to do with certain areas.  Russia and Ukraine are not interested in keeping fighting, but somebody else is."

Seriously?  You think the conflict has noting to do with Russia or Ukraine and you want to blame it on let me guess - Liechtenstein??  Yup, certainly looks like that way, why there's not a bit of evidence that Russia wants to acquire more territory like it did with Crimea, oh and Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well, not a bit, but Liechtenstein, they're definitely behind the whole thing, and RT has lots of videos that say this, so it must be true, because they've repeated this over and over and over and over and over...  ... yeah Liechtenstein that's the ticket!

 

[Boethius]

From what I've read, and many have acknowledged here, Russia had the ability to swoop right in and simply seize large parts of E. Ukraine while the country was in chaos (if they wanted to), and yet they chose not to, but they did choose to in Crimea.   If their goal from the onset was to completely control regions in the Eastern Regions of Ukraine, why didn't they just do it all at once, instead of going about it in a way that is bound to be far less effective? It could be contended that they are merely imposing costs as the conflict goes based on each step we take.

Order of things from this POV might be:
1. Western influence helps take down Pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine
2. Russia retaliates by seizing Crimea
3 Western nations strike back by supporting Ukraine and sanctions on Russia
4.  Russia retaliates by helping to create more havoc in Eastern Parts of Ukraine.

If this is the stance Russia has taken, then we have control to end this....or we have the option to take it further but it appears Russia will continue to retaliate.

Fathertime!   

You are assuming Russia thought that using proxies would be far less effective.  But it isn't.  Russia could overtake Ukraine militarily, but it would not be able to maintain that without significant human, and financial, capital. 


Unlike Crimea, nowhere else in Ukraine does a majority population (anywhere in Ukraine) support Russia.  It would make the US invasion of Iraq look like a cake walk.

[Doll]

"In my understanding this conflict has nothing to do with certain areas.  Russia and Ukraine are not interested in keeping fighting, but somebody else is."

Seriously?  You think the conflict has noting to do with Russia or Ukraine and you want to blame it on let me guess - Liechtenstein??  Yup, certainly looks like that way, why there's not a bit of evidence that Russia wants to acquire more territory like it did with Crimea, oh and Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well, not a bit, but Liechtenstein, they're definitely behind the whole thing, and RT has lots of videos that say this, so it must be true, because they've repeated this over and over and over and over and over...  ... yeah Liechtenstein that's the ticket!

If it was not Crimea, it would be anything else. The goal is to defeat Russia which won't happen.

[Boethius]

If it was not Crimea, it would be anything else. The goal is to defeat Russia which won't happen.

No it would not have.   There is no "goal" to "defeat" Russia.  Moreover, Russia is defeating itself.

[Photo Guy]

Doll, you need to speak with some Ukrainians. They see Crimea differently from you. You're brainwashed. Americans do not want to defeat Russia. Ukrainians want to defeat Russia. There are Russian invaders in their country. Russia wants Donbas, just like they wanted Crimea. Barbaric.

[fathertime]

You are assuming Russia thought that using proxies would be far less effective.  But it isn't.  Russia could overtake Ukraine militarily, but it would not be able to maintain that without significant human, and financial, capital. 

Interesting, so if i'm reading you right you are saying that the Russian use of proxies has been effective. 

Unlike Crimea, nowhere else in Ukraine does a majority population (anywhere in Ukraine) support Russia.  It would make the US invasion of Iraq look like a cake walk.

Unlike many others here, from the beginning, I thought a large scale invasion wasn't very likely.   Reason being, that I felt an occupation of a large part of Ukraine was not very feasible.  It may be that the Russians feel their hand is being forced with the sanctions and are going to continue to help stir up trouble so long as the West continues to  ratchet up.  I continue to hold that they are not backing down, so throwing them a bone or two seems like a good way to move forward, and minimize the damage...although that doesn't necessarily have to happen today or tomorrow.   Of course another option is to never stop the current way of handling things and take our chances that something doesn't get much more ugly, but I think it likely would. 


Fathertime!

[I/O]

Fathertime: Your theory perhaps fails to fully recognise Russian strategy, which historically, in general terms, has often been very good (terrible executioners but great strategists). Crimea excepted, a simple military walk-in-takeover, which as you say, militarily, was relatively simple, would not be as saleable to the nationalistic audience.
 
The current quagmire of Eastern UA is working very well for RU strategists (again, great strategists, terrible executioners) because it is allowing, perhaps even fuelling, the demonization, of "these crazy UA people" in RU circles and convincing the same that USA is far more involved than it probably is - perhaps even allowing time for the latter to become more so.
 
On the nationalistic bent, it is interesting to observe even my wife and some of her friends, who are all quite well educated, most having lived and worked abroad for many years (quite similar to some we've seen here), clam up and admit that the only real feeling in the sickness of their stomach is that America is somehow at the bottom of this and then in the same breath admit that the fact they feel this way points to them not having matured much beyond soviet thinking even yet....   
 
I contend the current "strategy" is near perfect - the execution is extremely expensive in human capital but I don't think that was ever a consideration, nor has it ever been in Russian military history.

[AC]

To answer the question you allude to-- the Russians can and would be defeated in an escalated war-- including removing them from Sevastopol and the Crimea. That answer applies to a nuclear war or a more localised restricted war.  Putin is bluffing-- and I would call his bluff--at any level. The only thing that a bully will respond to is self preservation-- and that is the issue that needs driving into Russian heads is that they are going to lose here--one way or another.

You are completely deluded.  When Ukraine began to win against the separatists in E. Ukraine Russia sent in their regular Army guys and there was a massacre of Ukrainian soldiers.  Poroshenko immediately pressed for a cease-fire and that brings us to where we are today. 

Yet you persist in thinking that Ukraine could dislodge the Russian regular Army and special forces which are stationed all over Crimea.  Completely delusional thinking.