Yes you did jump into my discussion and that much anyone can see by going back 2 pages. But like I said earlier this low level trolling is really tiring. Let me know next time you have sth worthwhile to say. I'll be waiting to hear from you at some point that side of never.
That's Putin's fault though. It's quite plausible that Ukrainian politics could have swung back after 2014 had the Russians not started making moves (this is what happened after 2004 after all). Or he could have simply accepted Ukraine's drift and held onto Crimea as a consolation prize (prior to 2022 there wasn't much belief that Ukraine retaking Crimea was practical nor significant Western support for doing so). But he overplayed his hand.
Imho, Ukraine can't be blamed for not wanting to implement the Minsk agreement (or for feigning it would, so as to get time to rearm). Let's be realistic, no state would accept more actions against it (even more autonomy for regions) when it just lost an entire region (Crimea).
Now one could argue that Crimea was already pro-Russia. But still, it was just too greedy a move to not sign a treaty which would give Ukraine something - even up to exchange of populations. It's not like Russia couldn't afford to lose Donbass.
But none of that happened, so now we are where we are. Ideally, Russia would have removed all claims on Donbass in 2014, and Ukraine (unwillingly) would grant de jure recognition of russian Crimea.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Re: training, was there years of it? I'm speaking as an utter civilian if course, so no actual idea.
My impression is there were lots of Polish, US and UK (in that order) advisors on the ground calling in the shots. I guess just working the javelins etc took some training.
Not sure that's ideal. As for Ukranian agency, yeah they have some..
I think the US wasn't happy being outsmarted in Syria (where they got surprised, then botched a slam dunk removal of a Russian ally and it turned into a PR disaster).
Likely Ukraine hoped for help but I think the decision got made in the US under Obama that Russia was going to have a bad time in their next move in Ukraine.
Zelenskyy might have a shopping list but US isn't a supermarket, more like a doctor. "Alright Jack you've got Russia-itis, here's what I'm prescribing ya..." "HIMARS? sounds expensive" "I wasn't asking. Anyways, first rounds on me".
Ukraine's gift? That's an odd turn of phrase. Whatever the case Russia wouldn't have needed to take Crimea if Ukraine wasn't violently drifting towards the US. It can be argued indeed that it is Putin's fault because he underplayed his hand in 2014. Russia would have probably had more luck launching this invasion in 2014. Putin thought he could negotiate instead. Perhaps get a bit better prepared too, though as it turns out the Ukrainians got a lot better prepared in that time.
But Russia did not want the Donbas. They needed the Crimea as it was the base of their fleet, but what they wanted was to keep the Americans out of Ukraine in general. Putin gambled he could do that via negotiations (aka threats) even after taking the Crimea. He was wrong. He underestimated the nationalists in Ukraine and how far the Americans were willing to go to screw with Russia. He also overestimated both the effectiveness of the Russian military and the popularity of Russia within Ukraine. Those were serious intelligence miscalculations that directly contributed to the blunder that was the Kiev offensive.
Last edited by Alastor; May 31, 2023 at 02:40 AM.
^Russia indeed only recognized the movements in Donbass officially, days before the war. But obviously it was very much aware that the tension would continue there. And also I was thinking that while Crimea (apart from being pro-russian) is important strategically for Russia, Donbass (afaik, I may be wrong) is only of note due to the russian population there. Then again, maybe russian part of Donbass also is instrumental for defense - but what would be stopping Russia from building a large city to the east of it?)
I believe it was leverage. Sth to hold over Ukraine. Regarding the strategic value of the Donbas itself, it does come with many economic benefits for Ukraine. It was an industrialized area, with sea access, sitting on top of natural resource deposits. I can argue that for Russia to keep it, considering its immense natural wealth, it wouldn't mean too much, but for Ukraine to lose it, that would be a big deal. So it was good leverage in order to push Ukraine back in Russia's orbit. But like I said, there was a good number of intelligence miscalculations and failures there. The Donbas conflict rather than becoming a drain on Ukraine sapping their will to resist Russia's overtures, ended up becoming their rallying point against all things Russia.
A bit off-topic, but only now noticed Spartan's signature.
A representative of the species of Pozzo
Strictly speaking, the December 1991 referendum was essentially a confirmation of Ukrainian independence from the USSR at a point where a) Ukraine had been de facto independent from the USSR since August and b) the Soviet Union was basically dead. It is not really correct to say that the Crimean population voted to be part of Ukraine since that was not what was being asked (and the Ukrainian government repeatedly refused to permit any referendum on the matter).
Between 1992 and 1995, the Crimean regional government repeatedly clashed with the Ukrainian central government. In the 1994 Crimean presidential election, Yuri Meshkov, who was openly in favour of transferring Crimea to Russia, won with >70% of the vote, but was unable to get Yeltsin's support for this. After a crisis, Meshkov was forcibly removed and deported by the Ukrainian military and the Crimean constitution suspended. So it seems pretty reasonable to say that in the early 90s at least majority opinion in Crimea supported joining Russia. How much this had changed by 2014 is a different question.
Drift, specifically towards the EU/US. I'd agree with the assertion that events have basically been a worst possible outcome for the Russians; either invading outright in 2014 or not at all both would have presented better chances in hindsight.Ukraine's gift? That's an odd turn of phrase. Whatever the case Russia wouldn't have needed to take Crimea if Ukraine wasn't violently drifting towards the US. It can be argued indeed that it is Putin's fault because he underplayed his hand in 2014. Russia would have probably had more luck launching this invasion in 2014. Putin thought he could negotiate instead. Perhaps get a bit better prepared too, though as it turns out the Ukrainians got a lot better prepared in that time.
Last edited by Laser101; May 31, 2023 at 03:54 AM.
I have to say that for a mercenary warlord, Prigozhin can be quite entertaining, well, at least from a distance:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-attacks.html
----Known for his foul-mouthed rants, Prigozhin, who handed Bakhmut over to Russia's army last week, was translated as shouting: 'Smelly scumbags! What are you doing?'
I choose to blame lack of coffee.
Last edited by Alastor; May 31, 2023 at 05:24 AM.
Hard to know what to make of various rants lately. Interesting. I wonder if He and guys are headed for more lucrative and greener pasture in Africa and Syria.I have to say that for a mercenary warlord, Prigozhin can be quite entertaining, well, at least from a distance:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-attacks.html
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
It is curious that Prigozhin is allowed to be this candid. But no more curious than I find the fact people like Shoigu haven't been axed yet. It does make me wonder about the inner workings of the Kremlin currently. Maybe a few decades down the line, when we can get a somewhat more objective picture of events, we'll get a better idea.
My impression based on what one comes across in terms of rumeros and such is that Putin trusts Shoigu. Seems the same for Gerasimov. Maybe BS but makes sense Putin needs a circle he trusts more than competence.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.