• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What can Ukraine do to settle the crisis in the eastern Oblasts

As I have said many times, the referendum in Crimea might have been iffy, but the result was not. Even if it was a totally free and fair referendum, the result would have been the same. The animosity between ethnic Russians and the regime/political elite in Kiev is massive and has been building up over decades.. largely thanks to the political elite in Kiev trying to take away rights from Russians.

Kiev needs to do more to bring Russian speakers into the government and make them feel as equals in Ukraine that's true, it doesn't justify what Putin is doing though.

Still though as I said an election would help nobody and nobody would support it anyway.
 
Why would Russia accept this offer? They gain nothing that they do not already have. It would merely be a Ukrainian acknowledgement of the existing state of affairs while offering concessions to those who will never return to Ukraine anyway. It removes a powerful totem that Russia has and a major tool for creating a pretext for intervention. They have already stated the February 21st Accord as their baseline--which is unacceptable and they know it.

Well, that is where creativity and a sound foreign policy from the USA comes to play- make the costs for Russia higher not accepting.

Russia has Crimea-- its not going back to the Ukraine.
It was, as John Kerry said, a 19th century solution. OK-- so have another one. What else to do? Russia pays an indemnity-- they get the land, which is what they say they want. And Russia is no longer an outcast in the world-- or at least the potential for a outcast. Russia is sure to want that- providing the costs of being a pariah are made high enough.

For Ukraine it ends what will only be divisive and destabilizing-- prosecution of an overthrown despot. Who cares? He's gone. Move on. And the Ukraine has Russia recognizing the new government.
 
Well, that is where creativity and a sound foreign policy from the USA comes to play- make the costs for Russia higher not accepting.

Russia has Crimea-- its not going back to the Ukraine.
It was, as John Kerry said, a 19th century solution. OK-- so have another one. What else to do? Russia pays an indemnity-- they get the land, which is what they say they want. And Russia is no longer an outcast in the world-- or at least the potential for a outcast. Russia is sure to want that- providing the costs of being a pariah are made high enough.

For Ukraine it ends what will only be divisive and destabilizing-- prosecution of an overthrown despot. Who cares? He's gone. Move on. And the Ukraine has Russia recognizing the new government.

Russia marginally cares about the pariah status not only because they suspect it will only be transitory but because they have greater interests on the table. They have the opportunity to further press their advantages and heavily secure their Ukrainian rampart potentially as far as Moldova and the Central European hinterland--why stop?
 
In Lviv to death beat the girl that talked in Russian.


The USA supports the Ukrainian terrorists and nationalists.

And they kill peace Russians! ! !

What meanness and cruelty


NATO stop!!!

Don't kill russian people in Ukraine.:(:(:(

Keep up the senseless propaganda and stupid posts for the sake of posting stupid stuff and you'll dethrone DOL as the king of the worst contributor to the topic of Ukraine.

NATO isn't killing anyone in Ukraine. You have no valid source to back up your claims.
 
Russia marginally cares about the pariah status not only because they suspect it will only be transitory but because they have greater interests on the table. They have the opportunity to further press their advantages and heavily secure their Ukrainian rampart potentially as far as Moldova and the Central European hinterland--why stop?


Make the costs of going after Moldova and the Central European hinterland higher than any benefits which might accrue.
 
Initially I wanted to name this thread: How the crisis in Ukraine will end - A Game of Thrones approach ; but when I started writing, by the 2nd paragraph, I figured the title wouldn't match the topic and so I've decided to revamp the whole thing and start again.

So as you know, 2 Oblasts, Kharkiv and Donestsk have been taken over, their regional administrative buildings that is, by pro-russian supporters, some of them armed, who took down the Ukrainian flag and raised the Russian one and called for the independence of the 2 regions. Luhanska is also very much bordering the same situation but nothing has been reported, as far as I've seen, about it there. These protesters who occupied govt buildings in the region called for independence from Ukraine and also set a date of a referendum, 11 May in the case of Kharkiv. So next month.

This is not the first time this has happened. In late february, after the Yanukovich govt fell, the same thing happened, protesters raised the russian flags on govt buildings in eastern ukraine, but for some administrative buildings the flag was replaced back with the Ukranian one, for some, on and off... complicated stuff depdending on the city you're in. Safe to say, a volatile last month. But yesterday, protesters made a coup de grace if you will and at least Kharkiv is now, illegally but officially, moving forward with independence and a referendum.

Police clashed with protesters in Donestsk, again today... we'll see what leads where.

What is the worst possible scenario in this situation? Let's start with worse for Ukraine.
I) Pro-ukranian partisans like the Right Sector move in the respective regions and start causing havoc. If this happens, Putin wins hands down. He'll have reason to enter eastern Ukraine to actually, legitimately this time, protect Russian ethnics and stabilize the region. No more army without markings, legit, full on legitimate entry into the country. Let me put it this way, you'd be wrong to call it occupation in this case. Likely outcome: the 3 regions join Russia and Putin will get the credit. He'll end this story being the hero that eastern europe needs. He would have saved lives, caused stability and uphold the right of self-determination of the people.

II) Ukrainian govt starts Berkrut-style crackdowns on the protesters. Massive fights, people getting injured, maybe even a fatality or two. Outcome? Russia condemns this action to the international community, waits a few days for some other tragedy to happen, it happens, that's cause for intervention... the end result is same as I).

III) Partisan warfare. Nationalists on each side start causing havoc in the region. Hundreds die because pro-russians clas with pro-ukranians. There is speculation in the west that the Ukranian govt is letting the pro-ukraine nationalists fight so they dont get their hands dirty, ukraine is discredited in the eyes of the west... at the same time the west sees Russia as supporting the pro-russian partisans. The region falls into a state of chaos, not a dysfunctional type of chaos, but sufficient to warrant some kind of intervention, both Ukraine and Russia send in the army for "stabilizing" purposes and "humanitarian" reasons, we don't get a war, but we do get a Crimea-style situation where both armed forces are stationed side by side, neither want to leave... both "co-exist" if that's the term you want to use... meanwhile, there's a referendum being planned and sooner or later, the regions join Russia or become independent and nobody wins. Russia is considered an aggressor and a bully. Ukraine is considered corrupt. Everyone loses.

Worst case scenario for Russia?
There is just one really. The economy collapses before it can make a move and this will only happen if strong sanctions and immidiate decisive drastic action is taken by the EU. A war of economic attrition which will bend Russia to it's knees before the Wests' knees give in.

well, there is a second case which may a "loss" in terms of PR but really, what PR does Russia have in the eyes of all decent folk?
And that case is a Crimea 2.0. Soldiers with no markings make their way into the 3 regions and "secure" the territory while regional administrations, now with self-appointed parliaments make a referendum whose result overwhelmingly shows that they want to join Russia. So Russia wins but doesn't get the PR boost as it does in scenario I and II, and basically "enjoys" a second round of fallout with the west, similar to what happened due to Ukraine, only worse.


So this is my analysis.
Russians are great at waiting. I mean they're really, really good at it. And the waiting game wins them the scenarios. It did historically, every time, waiting makes them win. All of them, from the perspective of expansion, they only lose face... and who cares about what the West things as far as a lot of Putins' constituency and sympathisers say and think... The chance for those 3 Oblasts to somehow magically stop being pro-RU is impossible and therefore, it is not presented here.

Convenient date, 11 May. On 25 May is the election day for the Presidential elections in Ukraine which would reconfer legitimacy to the institution of the Presidency and may help reduce the toxicity and the agitation and the radicalism we see today on both sides. The only way it'd be more tongue in cheek is if it would have been placed on 24th of May.

Turn off the water and power to those buildings and starve the agitators out. This is nothing but a ploy by Putin. Eastern Ukraine is not Crimea.
 
Make the costs of going after Moldova and the Central European hinterland higher than any benefits which might accrue.

Which can only be done with firm security commitments.
 
That would be almost as good in my opinion. In general I would have liked it taken to the UN to establish a procedure and precedence, however. We need a global guarantor of the security of populations and I think that requires a solution at the top international level.

I too think that the UN would be almost as good.

But the OSCE aroven to be good in keeping neutral elections in various parts of Europe. Ukraine is in Europe and thus this should be about the OSCE.
 
Which can only be done with firm security commitments.

Not necessarily: -- develop strategies. Take Russia's natural gas stranglehold off the table; increase sanctions; send weaponry to Ukraine. Use Both shortterm and longterm approaches.
 
Not necessarily: -- develop strategies. Take Russia's natural gas stranglehold off the table; increase sanctions; send weaponry to Ukraine. Use Both shortterm and longterm approaches.

Sending weaponry to Ukraine without a preceding security commitment would be disastrous. It would do little to alter the lopsided balance of power while providing Russia with a pretext for intervention. A strategy for diminishing Russia as a natural gas source will be painful and longer term, while possible it doesn't address the immediacy of the current crisis.
 
I too think that the UN would be almost as good.

But the OSCE aroven to be good in keeping neutral elections in various parts of Europe. Ukraine is in Europe and thus this should be about the OSCE.

In general I think that you are right in wanting regional arbitrators and enforcers. That would fit well in an overlay architecture for global security, in which the UN would delegate security of populations to the most local entity possible. If the city can't handle it the county steps in. If that doesn't work. ?.. until as a last resort the UN has the responsibility to protect.
 
WHAT DID I SAY AT THE START OF THIS ****ING THREAD? OP:

What is the worst possible scenario in this situation? Let's start with worse for Ukraine.
II) Ukrainian govt starts Berkrut-style crackdowns on the protesters. Massive fights, people getting injured, maybe even a fatality or two. Outcome? Russia condemns this action to the international community, waits a few days for some other tragedy to happen, it happens, that's cause for intervention... the end result is same as I).

Ukraine forces kill up to five rebels, Russia starts drill near border | Reuters

Ukraine forces kill up to five rebels, Russia starts drill near border
Ukrainian forces killed up to five pro-Moscow rebels on Thursday as they closed in on the separatists' military stronghold in the east and Russia launched army drills near the border in response, raising fears its troops would invade.

Under an international accord signed in Geneva last week, illegal armed groups in Ukraine, including the rebels occupying about a dozen public buildings in the largely Russian-speaking east, are supposed to disarm and go home.
In St Petersburg, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if the authorities in Kiev had used the army in eastern Ukraine, this would be a very serious crime against its own people.

"It is just a punitive operation and it will of course incur consequences for the people making these decisions, including (an effect) on our interstate relations," Putin said in a televised meeting with regional media.

So ofc, now, instead of police action it's military action so a variation on II) but the same idea.

This is so bad. I mean honestly, it's like the govt in Ukraine wants to provoke Russia to send its troops in and give them a legitimate motive. Christmas may be coming to Putin very early this year indeed thanks to the criminal incompetence of the Kyiv government. Honestly, you cannot win this war with guns. I posted what I think should happen to make people understand that the idea of Ukraine is real, it's strong. It exists. A lot of russians claim that ukrainians are just "russians in denial". By doing actions like these you are encouraging the militants to be more militant and giving the pro-russians more reason to feel threatened and to feel victims. Cretins. Idiots.
 
WHAT DID I SAY AT THE START OF THIS ****ING THREAD? OP:




Ukraine forces kill up to five rebels, Russia starts drill near border | Reuters





So ofc, now, instead of police action it's military action so a variation on II) but the same idea.

This is so bad. I mean honestly, it's like the govt in Ukraine wants to provoke Russia to send its troops in and give them a legitimate motive. Christmas may be coming to Putin very early this year indeed thanks to the criminal incompetence of the Kyiv government. Honestly, you cannot win this war with guns. I posted what I think should happen to make people understand that the idea of Ukraine is real, it's strong. It exists. A lot of russians claim that ukrainians are just "russians in denial". By doing actions like these you are encouraging the militants to be more militant and giving the pro-russians more reason to feel threatened and to feel victims. Cretins. Idiots.

As far as I can deduce, all the protesting Ukrainians want is fair elections and Kiev (USA State Dept/CIA) is unwilling to proffer this option. They absolutely want complete control of who the candidates are and who gets TV time, and a predictable outcome, definitely not democracy. If 3 viable candidates are offered the Russin sympathetic electorate will win. That is democracy and we aren't going to be having any of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom