[Strummer]

No, the real threat to Russia is the removal and replacement of its power structures, to gain easy cheap access to its resources. Of course no one is going to invade with tanks, when all they (we) need to do is to first force the country into chaos and then put our puppets in charge.

[Sixstrings]

Ukraine could conceivably take Crimea back

For what purpose? This nonsense again. The vast majority of people in Crimea do not want to have anything to do with Ukraine. Name anyone outside Ukraine who does actually.

The vote to join Russia was just barely over 50%, if I recall, that means the other half wanted to stay with Ukraine.

I'm just being objective with my take on it. There was never a lot of passion about it either way, in Crimea. Some just wanted a better economy, and voted for Russia. People were ambivalent, I remember the articles about a boss saying he's for Russia and then one of his employees saying he really wants to stay with Ukraine but he can't really say that at work.

The actual ballot had no option to remain with Ukraine, only two "yes" options -- separatist state (slower path to annexation), or outright annexation. Many people didn't vote, out of protest.

Anyhow -- I'm just saying from what I observe, a lot of Ukrainians are stuck on Crimea, so objectively Russia does need an effective military if it wants to hold it long term.

Nobody else is ever going to take Crimea back, but I just think there are scenarios where Ukraine may be in a position to try it, in the future.

[Sixstrings]

Plummeting Oil Prices Could Bring Radical Change to Russia. What Comes Next?
The weakness of the petrostate economy could jolt Russia’s political elites—or its ordinary citizens—to take action.
http://www.thenation.com/article/194081/plummeting-oil-prices-could-bring-radical-change-russia-what-comes-next#

You know, what's funny about Russia is that it's already so much like the US anyway.

Both places have the 1% oligarch problem. Both nations' oligarchs have more in common, with each other, than they do the 99% back home. Both nations' 1% party together in the fabulous megarich destinations around the world. They have $80 million flats, and mansions, next to each other in the south of France and London and Miami beach.

Both nations have a rabid right wing, and "Foxnews" type over the top, emotional based, political discourse. Except in the US, we have a "MSNBC" and liberal media to balance the right wing media. And then some mostly objective media thrown in, too.

US has total press freedom, Russia doesn't. Russia is like as if George Bush could have just shut down all the liberal media and all people can see is "Foxnews," and then have the government actually outright buy all the "Foxnews" media and own it and directly control it.

So that's a difference, but otherwise, there are many similarities.

If Russia's gonna be like us anyhow, then what's the fight about.

It's not like communism versus capitalism. Ever since the USSR fall, Russia has been like a rough and tumble politics 19th century America. They are not Venezuela, they aren't leftist, there is no huge ideological difference other than they mirror some things that we USED to be, when we were a younger democracy, in the past.

If they're going to be like us anyhow, then they may as well have the free press freedoms and constitutional rights, and open society and political freedom, too. Would it be so bad, to be like Europe? Like a Finland or Norway? Russians could have it even BETTER than Americans. Much of Europe gets a lot of things a lot more right than the US and Russia does, such as less disparity between the 99% and 1%, and less militarism.

EDIT: the Nation article I just linked is actually pretty good, it touches on what went wrong in the first place in post-USSR Russia. And yep, it's a bit the IMF and West's fault:

The current crisis, like the two before it, demonstrates the peril facing any petrostate, which is always vulnerable to events outside its control. Oil and gas revenues bring about 60 percent of Russia’s export revenues and fund an estimated 50 percent of its federal budget. Western commentators often criticize Russia for its oil export dependence, which shows a failure of historical memory. It was the post-Soviet Russian regime’s slavish following of the neoliberal “shock therapy” policies urged by the IMF and US Treasury Department that transformed Russia’s economy from the diversified industrial economy inherited from the Soviet period into a giant-size version of Kuwait, but with some 145 million people, a big army and nuclear weapons.

Since 1992, every Russian leader has promised to diversify the economy. However, despite state seizure of some key strategic industries in the Putin era, the state has not used its economic leverage to move away from the petrostate economy.

I would just add though that with rule of law and good accounting and honest business practices and good government and regulation, economic diversification would be possible. We've argued this out before on this forum, how oil states just ALWAYS seem stuck on that oil reliance and I'm not really sure it's all the "IMF's" fault they can't diversify, as the Nation article contends.

Under such conditions, three different directions of change seem possible. First, if Russia’s elite sees no future in the existing relation to global capitalism, it might seek to reproduce the current energy-export model, along with the flow of riches to the elite that goes along with it, through a deepened relation to China. Russia’s natural resources would be paired with China’s growing industrial prowess and huge appetite for raw materials in a combination that might develop into a serious rival to the US-dominated global system of today. However, it is not clear that China would agree to such an arrangement, given its lucrative insertion in the US-dominated global system.

Well we already know the answer to that, and I predicted it to start with, that China isn't playing ball the way Putin hoped.

A second possibility would be a major transformation of Russia’s economy through adoption of a developmental state model. Russia still has the potential to gradually develop a series of advanced industries, relying on its well-educated population and its still-strong scientific resources. This would require that Russia’s natural resources be devoted to development of the economy instead of enrichment of the elite. Such models have arisen in various countries, such as Japan in the late nineteenth century, South Korea in the 1950s and China since 1978. Each time some group has taken power that has disciplined the developing capitalist class, compelling it to follow the national development program rather than its own short-run enrichment.

Russia's main problem is the same as Ukraine's, it's the corruption, it's the oligarchs; get the good government and honest accounting and people paying their taxes like Japan has, and Russia can have Japan's diversified success.

Today, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation remains the only large party on the left, and there is no sign that its leadership seeks to go beyond the comfortable role of loyal opposition to the current regime. A vibrant democratic left movement exists in Russia, but it is not a major political force. With no mass movement on the horizon and no political party currently able to lead such a movement, this third direction of change seems unlikely in the near future, although there is a history of unanticipated mass-based radical change springing up in various times and places, not least in Russia in 1917.

And that's true, Russia lacks a left wing other than the Communist Party which nobody listens to.

A robust left wing really is very much needed, if we didn't have one then we -- the USA -- would be at war all the darn time with everybody, versus just once every twenty years or so. A left wing in Russia would have prevented the Ukraine conflict, just as Yeltsin told the right wing duma "no, you're crazy, we ain't gonna invade Ukraine to take Sevastopol" back in the 1990s.

This time around, there was no Yeltsin or liberals to stop it.

[AgentR11]

Nobody else is ever going to take Crimea back, but I just think there are scenarios where Ukraine may be in a position to try it, in the future.

Six, its not physically possible. The bottlenecks crossing from Ukraine into Crimea are insanely easy to defend, and Russia has already put a substantial amount of ground and air forces on Crimea. No matter how strong you think Ukraine might get; there can be no military reconquest of Crimea by Kiev. They'd be slaughtered making the attempt.

[radon1]

The vote to join Russia was just barely over 50%, if I recall, that means the other half wanted to stay with Ukraine.

Nonsense, from the first letter to the last, don't even want to comment. It was not 50%, it was overwhelming majority, and if anyone was against it did not mean that they wanted to stay in Ukraine. Being against joining Russia has nothing to do with being for staying with Ukraine. Even within Ukraine's proper there are number of people who do not want to be in the rathole that the present day Ukraine is.
As much as Ukraine may want to take Crimea, Turkey may do, and Romania may do, and Zulu may do.

In any event, suppose that "Russia" says - ok, take Crimea back. What happens next? You think that the Crimeans may want to accept the rule of the Kievan goblins, who have neither respect nor leverage over them other than the temporary water/energy one?

[Sixstrings]

Nonsense, from the first letter to the last, don't even want to comment. It was not 50%, it was overwhelming majority,

Washington Post tells a different story:

The Russian government’s claims that the March 16 referendum in Crimea resulted in a 96.7% vote in favor of annexation were always extremely dubious. But now, as Paul Roderick Gregory of Forbes points out, a report by Russia’s official Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights suggests that the real numbers were far different from those previously claimed:

The website of the “President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights” posted a blog that was quickly taken down as if it were toxic radioactive waste. According to the Council’s report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout was a maximum 30%. And of these, only half voted for annexation – meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.

The fate of Crimea, therefore, was decided by the 15 percent of Crimeans, who voted in favor of unification with Russia (under the watchful eye of Kalashnikov-toting soldiers).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/06/russian-government-agency-reveals-fraudulent-nature-of-the-crimean-referendum-results/

In any event, suppose that "Russia" says - ok, take Crimea back. What happens next? You think that the Crimeans may want to accept the rule of the Kievan goblins, who have neither respect nor leverage over them other than the temporary water/energy one?

They were doing just fine being hooked to Ukraine long before Russia rolled in this last year. If anything, isn't it a fact that Russia has tanked the tourist economy in Crimea? Landmines and wars are kind of bad, for a tourist place like Crimea. Ukrainians aren't coming to holiday anymore. Tourism was a major part of that economy, now it's gone.

And what about all the other problems. Like the banking that's still not sorted out, and some people don't know where their money is.

Anyhow -- Russia is never "giving Crimea back" so that's a hypothetical not worth discussing.

But with things all settled in the east, then Kiev's attention will now turn to the previously ignored Crimean front. Ukraine really wants Crimea back. There's a lot of things they could do to try to get it back; they could destabilize it, send in weapons for tartars or something, on and on. Do an insurgency, in Crimea.

If the Russian gov gets unstable and things get shaky in Russia, then by that time Ukraine will be farther along with its military buildup, and I just think there are scenarios where Ukraine may be in a position to retake Crimea.

I'm not saying it should be done, or that it's anything the US or EU would ever do or support, but Crimea was a part of Ukraine that got taken from them so if they really want it back who can tell them to give it up.

[Strummer]

Washington Post tells a different story

Did you even f***ing read it?

The report states that it is based on interviews with numerous Crimean officials, experts, civil society leaders, and ordinary citizens.

In the opinion of virtually all the experts and citizens interviewed:

- The vast majority of the citizens of Sevastopol voted in favor of unification with Russia in the referendum (50-80%); in Crimea, various data show that 50-60% voted for unification with Russia, with a turnout of 30-50%.

A report showing election results that is based on "interviews" with some people???

[radon1]

They were doing just fine being hooked to Ukraine long before Russia rolled in this last year.

They were not doing fine at all. The were doing poorly and were unhappy. And throughout the post-Soviet period, you could be beaten on the street there for saying publicly that Crimea was Ukraine.

In any event, the facts have now dramatically changed. Ukraine did little to hold on to Crimea when it could. Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine in the view of Crimeans. How would Ukraine attempting to take over Crimea be now different from Greenlanders attempting to take over Crimea?

[Sixstrings]

Did you even f***ing read it?

I've already said before that Crimeans were pretty much okay with annexation, even though that was not a legal referendum under international law, and it was not a fair vote either in that there was no status quo option -- only annexation, or the "no" vote was to return to an old constitution from the 90s.

Foreign powers do not have a right to come into any region of another country and just do whatever they want to, with no UN approval, and worse just annex the darn thing and keep it for all eternity -- the US does not even do that.

And, as I've said before, it may be the case that folks in a Vermont may vote to join Canada if Canada just rolled its imperial forces into there and took over the place and then had an annexation referendum -- just cuz folks would vote for something, doesn't make it right. The US could seize Panama or any number of messed up latin american countries, and people there may actually vote for annexation to get the US dollar and other benefits -- but it doesn't make it right.

The best analogy is like the US naval base in Cuba, at Guantanomo. That's a lease too. So what if the USA just said it thinks that base is threatened and just so we just annex all of Cuba! You guys would be howling over that, right? All the same BS arguments could be made, to support it. It's gonna be a very messy world with wars all over the place, if this ever becomes "okay," for people to trump up justifications for landgrab an annexation.

I have a right to my opinions and my opinions happen to match up with the most of the entire planet except for Russia, North Korea, and as far as I know I don't think China ever said this annexation is okay. Not that nationalist communist China's anyone to talk either, with their fisheries and ocean territory seizing and all the crap they do plus they barely know how to figure out how to build interstate highways over there and how to have traffic police and all the drivers on the road are new drivers. Like China can lead the world, give me a break. But even they have never been waving flags for Russians annexing things.

So there ya go.

The places that agree with Russia are: North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, and Assad in Syria, and I guess the Moscow-backed dictator in Belarus and that's about it.

[Sixstrings]

In any event, the facts have now dramatically changed. Ukraine did little to hold on to Crimea when it could. Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine in the view of Crimeans.

My personal opinion is that nothing can be done about Crimea -- that needed to happen fast, there was no response, so it's too late now as far as NATO and US goes and international community.

This was a Kuwait the world did nothing about. And to be fair, it's different from Kuwait in that a lot of Crimeans either supported it or were "okay" with it.

BUT -- there are Russian minority populations ALL OVER EUROPE -- many of them NATO states. Having Russians in one's country does not give Russia an annexation right, or a right to carve out a separatist state. We've got a lot of Russians in the US, there's like a quarter million Russians in Brooklyn alone, there are Russian neighborhoods all over the US. Under the Putin Doctrine, that theoretically gives the motherland a right to start carving separatists states out of the USA.

But anyhow, don't get mad at me I'm not saying Ukraine SHOULD try to get Crimea back and I definitely say the US shouldn't be involved in that nor NATO etc. For the US position, I would say any more annexations or separatist states has to stop and if it happens again then it has to be stood up to.

What I'm saying here though is that the Ukraine position is different -- they have not accepted it, I'm not sure if they ever will. If Russia destabilizes in the future and opportunity presents itself, and Ukraine has had five or ten years of military buildup time, then I do think it's conceivable they may try to get it back. If opportunity presents. Remember, things are settled now in the east, so naturally Kiev's attention may turn to Crimea next. It's just a possibility.

Ukraine could send weapons in to rebels, too. Ukraine could stoke insurgency and separatism, too.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

EDIT: seriously, is there no international law about this? A nation can't just annex places that it *used to* own.

Great Britain used to own half the darn world.

Nazi Germany owned a lot of things, for a while, until they were liberated again. Spain owned another quarter of the planet, all the colonial imperial powers owned things, they can't take them back though.

USA built and owned the Panama Canal, we gave it over to the Panama, we have no right to just take it back again unless the canal was actually disrupted and Panama ever violates its agreements with us. Russia *had a naval base lease with Ukraine* and Ukraine *never violated that lease*, there really was no kind of legal justification to not only take Sevastopol (the duma's idea back in the 90s, that Yeltsin said no to) but to go ahead and take all of Crimea. What's the legal justification for that.

[Strummer]

or a right to carve out a separatist state.

Nobody "carved out" anything. The state (Autonomous Republic Of Crimea) already existed for decades.

[Sixstrings]

Nobody "carved out" anything. The state (Autonomous Republic Of Crimea) already existed for decades.

Russia thinks it's clever with the separatist state thing, but nobody falls for it.

It's like:

[AgentR11]

Russia thinks it's clever with the separatist state thing, but nobody falls for it.

And Russia doesn't care whether they fall for it or not, because acceptance by the West is completely irrelevant to the issue of Crimea. It is Russian, and it will remain Russian until the end of industrial civilization. Full Stop.

The ONLY question of relevance is whether Kiev can accept that fact, and turn the loss into a business opportunity.

If they can, then Kiev and the residents of Crimea will both be richer and happier as a result. If they can not, then both Kiev and the residents of Crimea will be poorer as a result. My hunch is that fact on the ground eventually trumps stupid emotional jingoism. Kiev can sell electricity, water, and retail goods to Crimea and make a good profit; they only need to choose to do so. What they will *NEVER* be able to choose to do is exercise sovereignty over Crimea.

Its over. Kiev lost, and lost big. Living in denial to the end of time will not change the loss.

[AgentR11]

Ukraine *never violated that lease*,

The Russian side of the argument is that they did in fact violate it.

Personally, I think both sides violated it in spades, got caught, and turned an interesting bit of international dance, into a blood soaked massacre of relatively innocent people all trying to avoid being cleansed by the opposing side.

[Strummer]

What's the legal justification for that.

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

[Sixstrings]

A piece on Huffpost with an interesting take on things, I've sensed this myself before a long time ago and said it in these threads, that the Ukraine thing is like a red state vs. blue state thing, or democrat / republican divide, or as this article says a "North" vs. "reactionary intolerant Jim Crow South:"

Ukraine's Donbas Is Like America's Deep South

A far more appropriate analogy for understanding Russo-Ukrainian relations is the Jim Crow South, with Russians as the whites and Ukrainians as the blacks. Not only have Russians and Russian speakers ruled the Crimea and the Donbas and enjoyed complete language and cultural rights. They have also proven to be the most reactionary, intolerant and illiberal population within Ukraine.

During Viktor Yanukovych's four-year reign from 2010 to 2014, Ukraine's Jim Crow South captured Kiev and began extending its norms to all of Ukraine. "Black" Ukrainians fought back, first with the Orange Revolution in 2004 and then with the Maidan Revolution of 2013-2014. The slogans of both revolutions centered on human and civil rights, dignity and personal autonomy -- just as during the civil rights movement in the United States. The "white" Yanukovych regime fought back -- in the same manner as racist whites in the Deep South -- with violence, intimidation and the equivalent of its Ku Klux Klan, the armed fanatics that eventually formed the core of the separatist armies.

Unsurprisingly, "black" Ukrainians have divided into a variety of factions. The overwhelming majority supported, and continues to support, moderation, tolerance and inclusion, along the lines of Martin Luther King. Although there is, alas, no equivalent of Dr. King in contemporary Ukrainian politics, most Ukrainian democrats employ his rhetoric and promote his ideals. But there are also "black" Ukrainian radicals. The right-wing Svoboda party's leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, has sounded remarkably like Malcom X. The hyper-nationalist Azov Battalion resembles the Black Panthers, and its leader Andrii Biletsky could easily pass for Eldridge Cleaver.

The analogy with the Deep South breaks down because of Russia's annexation of the Crimea and its invasion of eastern Ukraine. Russia's presence in these regions ensures that they will remain as reactionary, intolerant and illiberal as they have always been. If Kiev were to reach some political accommodation with the pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas, Ukraine would face an impossible choice. If the Donbas retains the autonomy it has always had, it will remain a Jim Crow bastion that will prevent Ukraine from becoming a liberal democracy. If Ukraine attempts to spread liberal values to the Donbas Deep South, the region's "white" elites and Ku Klux Klan will, once again, rebel. Moscow will claim that their rights are being violated by the Ukrainian racists and fascists in Kiev!

The United States could eventually overcome Jim Crow laws because Washington was stronger than the Deep South. As long as Russia supports the Donbas Deep South -- and that is likely to be for a long time -- Ukraine will be too weak to grant it autonomy or to absorb it. Faced with such an unenviable choice, Ukraine would be well advised to leave the Donbas to its own devices, borrow from Dr. King's rhetoric and "dream" of a sunny future.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexander-motyl/alexander-motyl_b_6414802.html

Ongoing Russian intervention into Ukraine is what has kept the country from ever getting over its divisions, it would be as if a foreign power kept intervening in our North vs. South, maybe carving Alabama out to be a separatist state during the civil rights era -- if that had been done, Alabama would never have changed.

If we go with this analogy -- the American South was changed, eventually, via the spread of Northern values into the South. Northerners moved south, jobs came south, and slowly over time the values followed.

The same could be done with Ukraine's "reactionary right wing intolerant Deep South." Just focus on making west ukraine an economic success and then, over time, the values will spread east and south along with the money.

Ultimately, the Russian government is trying to hold back the tide of liberalism, that's what it comes down to. They're trying to keep Russians from changing, Russians in Russia and even Russian minorities in nations that are not Russia.

Ultimately, this is a losing battle, and we all know it. Rights and freedoms always win out, eventually. All the kremlin can do is spend a lot of money and have wars to slow it down but they can never stop change, at home or abroad.

This Dr. King quote also applies to the struggle between dictatorship / fascism and liberal democracy:

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

As long as Russians are allowed to leave Russia and live, study, and travel in other places -- as long as the kremlin does not go North Korea and shut off all the internet -- then eventually, Russia WILL change and rejoin the West. It's as sure as the sky is blue, so any more wars and artillery shells going into apartments between now and then *is just senseless loss of life*. And it's going to take a very long time but China will come around one day as well, and the whole middle east, and Iran.

It will take a lot of time, but democracy will win in the end.

[radon1]

During Viktor Yanukovych's four-year reign from 2010 to 2014, Ukraine's Jim Crow South captured Kiev and began extending its norms to all of Ukraine. "Black" Ukrainians fought back, first with the Orange Revolution in 2004

Yanuk grabbed power in 2010, and to prevent this, Ukranians travelled back in time and arranged for Orange Revolution. Only to find out that Yanuk would still come to power in 2010. Run, Lola, run.

[AgentR11]

Other than the fact that its the Kiev loyal folks that called for screening camps, cleansing, language preferences, you might have a point. As it is; not so much. Huff is just doing a bit of race propaganda, makes for good soap sales here in the states.

[Sixstrings]

During Viktor Yanukovych's four-year reign from 2010 to 2014, Ukraine's Jim Crow South captured Kiev and began extending its norms to all of Ukraine. "Black" Ukrainians fought back, first with the Orange Revolution in 2004

Yanuk grabbed power in 2010, and to prevent this, Ukranians travelled back in time and arranged for Orange Revolution. Only to find out that Yanuk would still come to power in 2010. Run, Lola, run.

Yeah, the Huffpost blog is a bit off but it's hitting at something true there because I have kept getting this same sense before, a long time ago. You don't know about the US I realize, but looking at Ukraine it is just so much like the red state vs. blue state thing.

I remember looking just at pictures of the different protest crowds -- the pro Russia people look like a John McCain crowd in Arizona or something. And then you had the Maidan, and they looked like liberal occupy wall street folk, talking about freedom and rights and wearing birkenstocks and shoppin' at the whole foods for arugala.

We all have our opinions. And liberalism is starting to fail in a lot of ways, it's true. At the end of the day though I do side with the OWS crowd, and not with the 1% oligarch crowd that stokes intolerance and hate, and also uses the Church to further its ends.

Radon, you're a more liberal Russian so you're alright by me. Hopefully your country does not send troops to any more places, that's all I can say. If Russia really started doing this all the time then all it's going to have are a bunch of repeats of its experience in Afghanistan in the Soviet era.

Back on point about Yanu -- he was Party of Regions, to continue with a US analogy, Ukrainian voters THOUGHT he was a "compassionate conservative." Yanu PROMISED a EU deal and THAT is how he got elected and then he renigged on it, under pressure from Moscow. So the people rebelled and threw him out of there.

Now Ukraine has a new compromise "mainstream" president -- Poroshenko. He was in Yanu's government at one time, isn't he party of regions too? Or used to be? So far he has not made Yanu's mistake, and is keeping campaign promises.

[Sixstrings]

Other than the fact that its the Kiev loyal folks that called for screening camps, cleansing, language preferences, you might have a point. As it is; not so much. Huff is just doing a bit of race propaganda, makes for good soap sales here in the states.

The huffpost article's analogy is that the rightist radicals in Kiev are akin to the civil rights' movement's Black Panthers.

I think that's pretty fair. People got so scared about the darn Black Panthers, but that extremism -- while a part of the civil rights movement -- was never anything more than a very small minority.

And on the other side, there was the violence of the ku klux klan.

In Ukraine, you saw the same thing, everyone is just pointing fingers at Kiev's "black panthers" but nobody talks about the violent extremists and thugs on the separatist / pro russia side.

Similar to the civil rights struggle in the US, if you look at the TOTALITY of intolerance between the two sides in Ukraine, I'd say that's the pro Russia side. Which makes sense. They are conservatives, that do not want change, do not want inclusiveness, and they support strong men dictator types. It's the other side that wants EU-style democracy, and Western values, no?