What's going to happen in eastern Ukraine?

While I have my own views on this subject, I'd like to help set up an open discussion where everyone has an equal chance to offer an opinion. First let's look at the facts:

Certainly the government of Ukraine is on the brink of collapse. Without a massive about of financial aid, it will happen within the next six months. One newsman for the Financial Times, Neil Martin, estimated recently Kiev needs "$27 billion." And this by this coming summer, June, 2015. Ukraine's economy, never very clean of corruption nor healthy, is near a complete collapse. The prices of heating oil, gasoline and food have skyrocketed along with almost everything else since the ouster of Yanukovich.

This battle (Some might call it a "war"!) over eastern Ukraine soon may resume into an almost all out war between the Ukrainian military and the separatists despite the cease fire agreement recently concluded in Minsk between Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine. Notably absent, the United States. Germany's Chancellor Merkel has adamantly opposed the supply of weapons to Kiev. There has been continued shelling of Ukrainian positions near the southern town of Mariupol near the Black Sea. Odessa, a larger city on the Black Sea, may also be threatened.

Both Vice President Biden and many of President Obama's advisers especially at the Pentagon are in favor of supplying some degree of heavy weapons to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression which has given the separtists thousands of soldiers and heavy weapons including artillery and tanks. During the past few days British Prime Minister Cameron has said he would supply "up to 75 military trainers." This was three day ago on February 24, 2015. President Obama has been quiet both about applying more sanctions to try to slow Russia down and supplying heavy weapons to Kiev. The obvious fear is that either course may cause President Putin to send in even more troops and weapons. On the other hand Putin does not want to witness more dead Russian soldiers coming back to Moscow in body bags.

So, what do the residents of West County, as well as throughout Sonoma County and California think? I would like your opinion.

For example, as we are now doing in Iraq, we could send in our own advisers. Clearly what we (meaning the West and our allies, Britain, Germany and France primarily) must be is resolved with Russia.

How much of Ukraine are we willing to see handed over to Russian control? Keep in mind also that our mainstream media seems intent on down-pedalling/under-reporting the crisis in Ukraine. Today (Feb. 27.2015) for example, three more amateur fighters for Ukraine (the Azov battalion) were killed near Donetsk. According to the Minsk agreement there was supposed to be "no mans land" of thirty to eighty miles throughout eastern Ukraine separating the east from the west.

Ukraine is a long way from America.

Are we going to sit by while eastern Ukraine and possibly the entire country are carved up and swallowed by Russia?

.
We should nuke the Russians.

Then NATO should go in there and settle things permanently, not just in all of Eastern Europe but also ALL of Asia. And if our NATO "allies" don't come with us then we'll take care of things by ourselves, like we have so many times in the past. I won't even waste my time talking about the U.N.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tree14:

Ukraine is a long way from America.

Are we going to sit by while eastern Ukraine and possibly the entire country are carved up and swallowed by Russia?

---

In my opinion we (the US) should exit the stage as quickly as we can. It's too near my bedtime to explain completely, but I'll give it a shot. Broadly, the two reasons are that it will benefit the people of Ukraine the most, and it will disengage from Russia, which has every reason to fear our presence there and may end up in a war not of their choosing but which we cannot win.

Why will our exit benefit the people of Ukraine? The recent history of US interventions should not be very comforting to them. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Palestine are a few that come to mind. If one adds places where our influence has had a bad effect, add Syria, Yemen, Honduras, Korea, Somalia, and probably some others I can't think of right now. It is beyond naive to think we are meddling in Ukraine to support "democracy" or "freedom", two features somwhat lacking in our own country at present.

Two important events should be considered when we look at the armed conflict in Ukraine. One, the coup that the US backed and financed that deposed the elected government, and two, the unwillingness of the coup government to deal with the fears and desires of the third (in area) of the country that didn't support the coup.


Check out the two maps at the left. They both show the same thing: that the south-eastern third of Ukraine, the Donbass, Crimea, and the area around Odessa supported the elected government. They asked for some autonomy and had an election in the Donbass to that effect. Their requests and then demands for a more federalistic government were met by the Kiev coup government with repression at first and then shelling and bombing of the cities of Donbass.

The violence in Ukraine didn't have to happen and was caused by the Kiev sides actions.

Looking at the maps above, one can get a good idea of what the "rebel" side would like to have, and, yes, it does include Mariupol and, in their widest aspirations, Odessa. In answer to the question, "How much of Ukraine are we willing to see handed over to Russian control?" In my opinion, about as much as is shown on the map, although "Russian control" is an inaccurate and loaded way to describe the autonomy the south-east is seeking. They originally just wanted some self rule, and whether they would be satisfied with that now, after all that has happened, would probably still depend largely on the behavior of the Kiev side.

That's all I have time for now, but maybe it will provide some food for thought. One parting comment: as for the three fallen "amateur fighters" of the Azov battalion, I suggest reading what Wikipedia has to say about the Azov Batallion. Don't miss the references to "a far-right Ukrainian militia", "neo-Nazi" and "Men in Black."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tree14:

While I have my own views on this subject, I'd like to help set up an open discussion where everyone has an equal chance to offer an opinion. First let's look at the facts:

Certainly the government of Ukraine is on the brink of collapse. ...

---

Edward, are you serious!!?:wtf:?? :hmmm:I am perplexed at your stated opinion on this.

There is a KPFA Guns and Butter February 25 2015

:2cents:I suggest you listen to the whole ~ 1 hour show, it is very informative.

BTW Webster Griffin Tarpley (who is in the interview) thinks that NATO should be decommissioned and that a war with Russia over Ukraine is “lunacy”!:littlemarch: :burningman:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

.
We should nuke the Russians.

Then NATO should go in there and settles things permanently, not just in all of Eastern Europe but also ALL of Asia. And if our NATO "allies" don't come with us then we'll take care of things by ourselves, like we have so many times in the past. I won't even waste my time talking about the U.N.

---

Thank you for asking, Hotspring!

No, I'm not serious. As I often do, when I see a reprehensible post, I will deliberately exaggerate the spirit of that message in order to get a point across.

Truth be told, acting upon any militarily antagonistic movements against Russia, in the worst case scenario, could bring about a nuclear confrontation. The US and its not so bright people need to remember the Cold War and what that meant:

We can't fuck around with Russia because it is potentially suicidal not just for us but for the entire planet. Remember "M.A.D."? (Mutually Assured Destruction.)

We have to use diplomacy in conflicts dealing directly with Russia, whether we like it or not. This is really basic and too often politicians exploit the situation (tragically) in order to win electoral 'brownie' points, especially when those public officeholders are in the opposition.

It is Republicans and Conservatives who are enjoying taking shots at Obama by criticizing him for not being tough enough on ISIS, Russia, and whoever else tickles their fancy just for the sake of trying to tear down the president. And it works because that strategy on the part of American reactionaries helped bring about the elections results Repuglicans won in November 2014.

For example (among many others), how would we like it if Russia was supporting either Mexico or Canada in a regional conflict that was taking place along our borders with those countries??? Truth be told, we would not like it one bit (hence Russia's intransigence). All we have to do is remember the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. "Those were tense times" was what one of my 7th grade teachers told me. My own wife, who was born and raised in Spain, remembers the worry that her parents and other people were experiencing in Madrid when that cliffhanger took place.

We overly proud, arrogant, and violent Americans need to learn to eat humble pie. That is something that we are not used to doing but we better learn fast. Ukraine, whether we like it or not, is clearly in Russia's "sphere of influence" and we have to respect that no matter how bitter that horse pill is to swallow.

We can do other things, such as what Obama is doing now, which is precisely why the Right Wing is talking so much trash in order to undermine an enormously successful Democratic president. The Right is far too dishonest and delusional to admit Obama's successful tenure as POTUS. And they base it on ridiculous criticisms, such as how much the Right hates healthcare reform (therefore, Obama is 'bad').

OK that is what I thought.
I ran with the spirit of the moment too: It was fun posting the similes.Big Smile

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Thank you for asking, Hotspring!

No, I'm not serious. ....

---

Outstanding post, Phredo! Thank you.

And I especially agree with the point you made, shown below, regarding handing over territory to Russia. Let each of the little Ukraine provinces join Russia if that's what the pro-Russian residents want. I support them and let's see an end to the bloodshed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phredo:

In answer to the question, "How much of Ukraine are we willing to see handed over to Russian control?" In my opinion, about as much as is shown on the map, although "Russian control" is an inaccurate and loaded way to describe the autonomy the south-east is seeking. They originally just wanted some self rule, and whether they would be satisfied with that now, after all that has happened, would probably still depend largely on the behavior of the Kiev side.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

.
We should nuke the Russians.

Then NATO should go in there and settle things permanently, not just in all of Eastern Europe but also ALL of Asia. And if our NATO "allies" don't come with us then we'll take care of things by ourselves, like we have so many times in the past. I won't even waste my time talking about the U.N.

---

Yeah, where's Chill Wills and Robert Stack when we need them?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phredo:

Their requests and then demands for a more federalistic government were met by the Kiev coup government with repression at first and then shelling and bombing of the cities of Donbass.

The violence in Ukraine didn't have to happen and was caused by the Kiev sides actions.

Looking at the maps above, one can get a good idea of what the "rebel" side would like to have, and, yes, it does include Mariupol and, in their widest aspirations, Odessa

---

I suspect it's not quite that simple. In particular, you make shelling a city sound like the same kind of overreach as unwarranted police shootings. What, Donbass had artillery pieces without the plastic barrels being painted red?

The U.S. also had a civil war rather than tolerating dissolution of the country, though (probably rather relevantly) it wasn't preceded by a coup.

Still, such a majority of the info we hear is from such a narrow perspective that I'm appreciative of your postings on the situation. It's tough enough to interpret the weird world-views the various political factions have in this country, much less trying to understand what it looks like over there. I'm also sure there's as much variety in how the locals feel about government from Kiev as you'd hear from different Americans about, say, the threat to freedom posed by Obama

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

We overly proud, arrogant, and violent Americans need to learn to eat humble pie.

---

oh come on - that's too much to ask!!

We just need to make it look like some things aren't worth our attention....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I suspect it's not quite that simple. In particular, you make shelling a city sound like the same kind of overreach as unwarranted police shootings. What, Donbass had artillery pieces without the plastic barrels being painted red?

---

I suppose it's not quite that simple. (I don't fully understand what you mean in the other two sentences.) But isn't this roughly what happened? After the coup, its leadership had made some threats towards the people who were on the other side, whereupon in several cities of the Donbass activists took over some public buildings, totally without violence. When police and military were sent from Kiev to force them out, the activists fought back, and at that point armed confrontation began. As the troops, which incidentally included ultra-right "death squads" performing "cleansing" operations, continued to be unsuccessful in prevailing, the Kiev government started to use large scale artillery, including the shelling and bombing of civilians. The rebels, who of course were on their home ground, were only fighting against the invaders, if I may use that word, reclaiming areas of their provinces that they were at first too weak and unorganized to hold. As far as I know, the rebels have not attacked in any areas outside of their own provinces. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm certainly not an expert, just someone who follows some of the news.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

The U.S. also had a civil war rather than tolerating dissolution of the country, though (probably rather relevantly) it wasn't preceded by a coup.

---

That's certainly a point -- that one could argue that a state has some right to prevent its dissolution. It can be argued either way, national integrity versus local right to self-determination. Sometimes it comes down to which side one's sympathy lies with, but also issues of fairness, etc. Which side do you like better in Ukraine? Who do you think has "played fair" and who hasn't? And why does the US have some part to play in this?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Still, such a majority of the info we hear is from such a narrow perspective that I'm appreciative of your postings on the situation. It's tough enough to interpret the weird world-views the various political factions have in this country, much less trying to understand what it looks like over there. I'm also sure there's as much variety in how the locals feel about government from Kiev as you'd hear from different Americans about, say, the threat to freedom posed by Obama

---

Thanks, and I'm sure you're right about the rest.

There are several sides in the number of countries involved and ultimately the entire international community is also in the mix, even though it might be very little.

I think most people are only seeing 3 countries involved but much of the European continent is being affected with countries from both East and West. And then there is the U.S., which has had a strong, covert hand in the destabilization of Ukraine for several years now. Why? I'm not really sure. I'm disappointed that Obama has continued to push this hidden agenda. But there is more to it than meets the eye, at least at first.

Comparing Ukraine to the American Civil War is a fascinating subject. Why are those two different? I would say that slavery was both the cause and that is really what it was about. Libertarians and other Confederate apologists today continue to say that the Civil War was about states' rights but that is a gargantuan lie that has persisted in this country (primarily in the South) since the civil war ended. And it is the source of public policy generation on the part of conservative and Southern politicians, even today and, tragically, to a large extent.

In my opinion, everyone has acted like an asshole. The Ukranians, the pro-Russian Ukranians, the Russians, the United States, and there are probably other players involved, even if to a lesser degree. For example, Germany and France have been substantially involved, speaking frequently to the press, participating in hurtful sanctions (deservedly so) against the Russian economy, meeting with Putting and the Ukraine president until very recently, like two weeks or so ago. So the other big boys on the European block have stepped up to the plate. The UK has been more reserved (the closest ally the US has) but has also participated in economic and other sanctions against Russia.

I think that the solution is to allow referendums in all of the Eastern Ukrainian provinces and allow the ones who wish to break away to secede. And end the bloodshed!@ I don't like people getting killed. That is some very fucked up shit. People should not be dying. Period. Someday I might travel to Europe and meet Ukrainian folks, or meet them here in the US, and I'll have to hear how a relative of theirs was killed in this messed up conflict and that's why they had to leave. Human life is not for destroying. It needs to be protected dearly.

The difference between this civil war and ours is manifold. If slavery had not existed, the American Civil War would not have ever happened. Thats it. On the other hand, with Ukraine, there is not slavery issue and there are no other ulterior motives. Ukrainians, are in a forced marriage and they want a divorce. Let them have their divorce; let the Easterners leave and either start their own country or join Russia. Hooray!

Should local jurisdictions have the right to secede? Always and under all circumstances? I don't know. I think it is a case by case issue. In 1861, secession in the US was a very bad thing indeed and it was simply because of slavery. In 2015, the Ukrainian Civil War is about a nation wanting independence. They should get it.

The coup? I supported the coup (from an intellectual perspective, of course. I did not go over there to stir shit up). The pro-Russian president of Ukraine was a leviathan DICK-WAD and needed to be ousted. Pro-Russian Ukrainians voted that asshole into power, hence, the problems. That means that there are more Pro-Russian Ukrainians than there are Pro-Ukrainian Ukrainians! Can you imagine that? Hence the rub. Without Crimea (since Russia annexed it last year?), elections in Ukraine probably only go in favor of pro-Ukrainian future presidents. So, part of the solution has already been achieved.

Let them leave.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phredo:

I suppose it's not quite that simple. (I don't fully understand what you mean in the other two sentences.) But isn't this roughly what happened? After the coup, its leadership had made some threats towards the people who were on the other side, whereupon in several cities of the Donbass activists took over some public buildings, totally without violence...

---