4 ms·

Russia is stoking tension with Ukraine and the EU

14 points by braymundo 5y ago

Casper2 5y ago
Everything is very open with a clear description of the issues. It was truly informative. Your website is very helpful. Many thanks for sharing! https://www.liteblue.biz/ https://www.liteblue.biz/
pydry 5y ago
>Destabilisation rather than invasion is probably its goal Instability along the Russian border works against Russian interests. Stable and predictable is how they maintain the integrity of one of the most geographically exposed borders in the world. Fomenting ethnic and cultural splits in the border lands of foreign countries, by contrast, was historically a mainstay of British empire-building.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Russia is actively trying to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Both Ukraine's government and the rest of NATO want it to join, but so long as conditions are unstable, the agreement will not actually be reached lest it accidentally pull the various NATO states into a war, or dramatically weakens NATO by revealing that many NATO states won't actually uphold their promises. So long as Russia keeps the situation tense enough that no one can act confidently, no action will actually take place, and the status quo, which is at worst non-harmful to Russia, will remain in place. On top of this, Russia gets a free chip in any other diplomatic negotiations its involved in. They offer to remove troops and de-escalate the situation in return for some gain elsewhere. After their gain is secured, they can begin building up troops again and do the play all over again. The US and its allies will of course complain, but they actually benefit from this too, as it justifies their involvement in the situation and they score a political victory at home every time they get Russia to back down. It is remarkable how stabilizing regularly occurring crises can be.
  - pydry 5y ago
    If NATO wishes for Ukraine to join and Ukraine wishes to join NATO it is them and them alone who need to act. NATO/Zelensky are of course reluctant to go ahead because an application to join would reinvigorate the civil war. They know the cost of giving the middle finger to Ukraine's ethnic Russians and would prefer to wear them down gradually while blaming the whole shitstorm on Russia. Russia (and ethnic Russians within Ukraine's borders) would prefer Zelensky was kicked out and replaced with another Yanukovych who would kickstart the process of deintegrating from the European/American sphere of influence and reintegrating into the Russian sphere of influence. Ukraine could do a better job of playing the two great powers off against one another a la Tito/Yugoslavia, but instead it swings violently between being ruled by a bunch of corrupt Russian-aligned oligarchs to being ruled by a bunch of equally corrupt European/American-aligned oligarchs.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      This is a pretty gross misunderstanding of the situation. Yanukovich was very successfully playing the West and Russia off each other when he was ousted by Euromaiden protesters who specifically wanted Ukraine to turn West, which is the popular sentiment throughout most of Ukraine. The fact that NATO and Ukraine's government are now aligned is what prompted Russia to act in the first place, promoting sepratism in Crimea so that they can guarantee continued control of Sevastopol (a goal of Russian foreign policy for the past 300 years), and promoting unrest in Eastern Ukraine to make NATO hesitant to accept Ukraine's bid to join NATO. It's the exact same strategy Russia used in Georgia to stop it from joining NATO. Of course the whole situation is complicated by the fact Ukraine's borders are a product of Soviet planners who never thought it would wind up as an independent nation, but the ethnic Russian population is small and generally not prosperous. Ironically, Ukraine would probably be better off letting the separatist regions secede, but to do so would be publicly perceived as a win for Russia and thus is not permitted.
      - pydry 5y ago
        >and promoting unrest in Eastern Ukraine to make NATO hesitant to accept Ukraine's bid to join NATO I stayed in Odessa a couple of years after the Maidan with an elderly (ethnic Russian) couple who ranted at me for five minutes straight about "the idiots in Kyiv". They all but endorsed the separatists in Donetsk. They supported the protesters initially "when it was about corruption and living standards", but never desired closer integration with the EU and desperately wished that the value of their savings hadn't plunged 80% as a result of the "coup"/"spontaneous uprising of freedom lovers" I suppose it's always possible that this elderly couple were shadowy agents of Putin sent there to destabilize the country with a "fairly gross" misunderstanding of their own life. No doubt say, the Washington Post would see the bogeyman of Putin hovering there, as it usually does. Nonetheless, I believe that their fury was real and shared by quite a large proportion of the rest of Ukraine (albeit more in, say, the east and less in, say, Lviv).
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
[dead]

14 points by braymundo 5y ago

Everything is very open with a clear description of the issues. It was truly informative. Your website is very helpful. Many thanks for sharing! https://www.liteblue.biz/ https://www.liteblue.biz/

pydry 5y ago

>Destabilisation rather than invasion is probably its goal Instability along the Russian border works against Russian interests. Stable and predictable is how they maintain the integrity of one of the most geographically exposed borders in the world. Fomenting ethnic and cultural splits in the border lands of foreign countries, by contrast, was historically a mainstay of British empire-building.

jjk166 5y ago
Russia is actively trying to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Both Ukraine's government and the rest of NATO want it to join, but so long as conditions are unstable, the agreement will not actually be reached lest it accidentally pull the various NATO states into a war, or dramatically weakens NATO by revealing that many NATO states won't actually uphold their promises. So long as Russia keeps the situation tense enough that no one can act confidently, no action will actually take place, and the status quo, which is at worst non-harmful to Russia, will remain in place. On top of this, Russia gets a free chip in any other diplomatic negotiations its involved in. They offer to remove troops and de-escalate the situation in return for some gain elsewhere. After their gain is secured, they can begin building up troops again and do the play all over again. The US and its allies will of course complain, but they actually benefit from this too, as it justifies their involvement in the situation and they score a political victory at home every time they get Russia to back down. It is remarkable how stabilizing regularly occurring crises can be.
- pydry 5y ago
  If NATO wishes for Ukraine to join and Ukraine wishes to join NATO it is them and them alone who need to act. NATO/Zelensky are of course reluctant to go ahead because an application to join would reinvigorate the civil war. They know the cost of giving the middle finger to Ukraine's ethnic Russians and would prefer to wear them down gradually while blaming the whole shitstorm on Russia. Russia (and ethnic Russians within Ukraine's borders) would prefer Zelensky was kicked out and replaced with another Yanukovych who would kickstart the process of deintegrating from the European/American sphere of influence and reintegrating into the Russian sphere of influence. Ukraine could do a better job of playing the two great powers off against one another a la Tito/Yugoslavia, but instead it swings violently between being ruled by a bunch of corrupt Russian-aligned oligarchs to being ruled by a bunch of equally corrupt European/American-aligned oligarchs.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    This is a pretty gross misunderstanding of the situation. Yanukovich was very successfully playing the West and Russia off each other when he was ousted by Euromaiden protesters who specifically wanted Ukraine to turn West, which is the popular sentiment throughout most of Ukraine. The fact that NATO and Ukraine's government are now aligned is what prompted Russia to act in the first place, promoting sepratism in Crimea so that they can guarantee continued control of Sevastopol (a goal of Russian foreign policy for the past 300 years), and promoting unrest in Eastern Ukraine to make NATO hesitant to accept Ukraine's bid to join NATO. It's the exact same strategy Russia used in Georgia to stop it from joining NATO. Of course the whole situation is complicated by the fact Ukraine's borders are a product of Soviet planners who never thought it would wind up as an independent nation, but the ethnic Russian population is small and generally not prosperous. Ironically, Ukraine would probably be better off letting the separatist regions secede, but to do so would be publicly perceived as a win for Russia and thus is not permitted.
    - pydry 5y ago
      >and promoting unrest in Eastern Ukraine to make NATO hesitant to accept Ukraine's bid to join NATO I stayed in Odessa a couple of years after the Maidan with an elderly (ethnic Russian) couple who ranted at me for five minutes straight about "the idiots in Kyiv". They all but endorsed the separatists in Donetsk. They supported the protesters initially "when it was about corruption and living standards", but never desired closer integration with the EU and desperately wished that the value of their savings hadn't plunged 80% as a result of the "coup"/"spontaneous uprising of freedom lovers" I suppose it's always possible that this elderly couple were shadowy agents of Putin sent there to destabilize the country with a "fairly gross" misunderstanding of their own life. No doubt say, the Washington Post would see the bogeyman of Putin hovering there, as it usually does. Nonetheless, I believe that their fury was real and shared by quite a large proportion of the rest of Ukraine (albeit more in, say, the east and less in, say, Lviv).

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

[dead]