Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

[WildCat]

The truth is that a much better option is to allow the Russians to absorb the Ukrainians and culturally absorb the Russians over a time span of decades.

You think the Ukraine is weak?

 

[Mycroft]

Klitschko has called for "over a million people" to come to the protests today, which must have failed miserably as DER SPIEGEL speaks of 200 thousand, which means it may have been a fourth of that. <snip>

So you know, 200k is a fifth of a million.

Always here to help the mathematically challenged.

 

[L.Y.S.]

So, um, you're advocating trampling the rights and wishes of the people of western Ukraine to the wishes of Russian minority in eastern Ukraine, because ...?

It's not a "minority" in Eastern Ukraine. It's pretty much half of the country that supports reintegration into the Russia. Eastern and Southern Ukraine pretty much supports reintegration, and this has essentially been the story of Ukraine for the past 200 years. Eastern Ukraine has always supported close ties with Russia. While Western Ukraine (historically under the dominance of Poland) has always supported closer ties with the west. Again, slowly integrating Russia is a superior option.

If east Slav federation were possible, it would happen by now. Russia had two shots at it, one was about 200 year stint under Russian empire, the other was a 70 year one under USSR. The present situation proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they failed miserably twice. Why do you think it is now suddenly possible in a sixth of that time. Why do you think it's even desirable? Why does Russia deserve another shot?

It's not about Russia deserving another shot. The lives of 7 billion people are worth the lives of 40 million? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Again, I think that socially engineering an East Slav Union to have closer ties with the west is a much more desirable option. If Ukrainians could somehow guide this union closer to the west, it could have excellent results. In fact, Ukrainians were the only ethnic group other than Russians over the past 300 years, to have lead any Russian domain. The Soviet Union possessed two Ukrainian Leaders in its history. A progressive Ukrainian leader could prove to be very much worthwhile.

No. This is exactly what you're saying.

No I'm saying allow for a reasonable policy of containment, which seems to have worked for the past 50 years.

As was pointed out to you before, Russia has no right over Ukraine. Furthermore, we already have the capability to assault Russia's western border, if we desired. Thirdly, no one is even remotely suggesting a war with Russia, this is a fabrication, to justify Russian conquest of Ukraine. A particularly pathetic excuse, seeing as Russia would be well placed for an aggression towards the West.

This entire paragraph is full of falsities. First lets look at your first point.

1.) Russia and Ukraine have been apart of the same country virtually since the 7th century of the Kievan Rus. So it is not look there is no history between them.

2.) Yes we do have the capability to assault Russia within a few hours. However, being on Ukraine's borders allows for an assault to happen in minutes. Do you expect for a country who had a catastrophic war with a western nation, losing upwards of 30 million people, to take an expanding European collective lightly? What reasons do Russia have to trust that this will not end in another war? You haven't answer this question for me.

3.) No Russia has stated several times that European expansion into Ukraine would be considered aggression on the part of the west. Russia has already made concessions by allowing the Baltic Republics to fall in the hands of the west. It was a strategic blow.

4.) Ukraine is close enough to make it a threat to the west? I doubt it. If anything, it would be close to Poland. No where near a western country with the exception of perhaps Austria. However, even that is questionable. The largest European nations would not be threatened by the reabsorption of Ukraine.

Western in the modern sense? No, it wasn't. It was saved by the mutual interests of the West in a few of such wars, Russia stood no chance alone in those conflicts. We can open a new thread about that, if you want.

This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated by westerners. There is no way that Russia, or the U.S/U.K. could've won against the Japanese and the Nazis alone. Russia for the better part of 3 years, faced the brute forces of the Nazis, while America for the better part of 4 years faced the brute forces of the Japanese. It took both superpowers to quell the thirst of each of these militarist fascist nations which would've inevitably consumed the world if left unchecked.

Again, from the Russian perspective, it was the assault by western nations happening across 200 years, from the Napoleonic Wars onward that cost tens of millions of people. It was at that point, that they said enough. They decided that protecting their western borders against western incursions was one of their strategic rights. This among other things is what led to the cold war.

Appeal to ignorance noted.

Appeal to insane ideals which could lead to WW3 noted.

 

[L.Y.S.]

1938. We have been there already... it applies to your all points including about "being attacked". We don't forget or forgive that easy as you. (1968) And we were never under direct and complete control by Russian.

So then people of Ukraine know much better what pros(if any) and cons of their decisions and how much they love Russia...

And you should know very well that Gorbachev wanted to let the eastern European nations go and free. Gorbachev was everyone's best hope. His failure had disastrous consequences for all parties involved. Russia had actually wanted to create a federation that would've had greater ties with the west. Instead, Russia now has a bunch of oligarchs hellbent on economically manipulating its neighbors. Again, your nation has nothing to do with this.

ETA: Oh, interesting factoid, the leader of the Soviet Union was Ukrainian when the Czechs and Slovaks were attacked in '68. Just an interesting fact I wanted you to know.

 

[uke2se]

Perhaps we should invite all the involved leaders (except the Ukranians) to a summit - let's say in Southern Germany? There we can hammer out a treaty that'll give us peace in our time.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Perhaps we should draw up all the nuclear weapons and corner everyone to a choice part of the Earth. That will resolve everything right?

 

[trustbutverify]

It has always been Russia's plan to reintegrate Ukraine and Belarus. In all honesty, Russia's reintegration of these two countries is perhaps the best of all nations involved. Nothing constructive can come of western incursions on Russian borders, pretty sure it will result in the annihilation of humanity.

Astoundingly idiotic.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Astoundingly idiotic.

How astoundingly stupid does this sound from a Russian perspective? Answer this question.

 

[trustbutverify]

How astoundingly stupid does this sound from a Russian perspective? Answer this question.

Sure, I'll answer your question.

Concluding that Ukraine agreeing to a comprehensive set of trade agreements with the EU (or even outright joining the EU), would result in WW3 and the probable end of humanity would sound equally ridiculous to rational, reasonably well informed Russians as it would to rational, reasonably well informed non-Russians.

 

[McHrozni]

It's not a "minority" in Eastern Ukraine. It's pretty much half of the country that supports reintegration into the Russia. Eastern and Southern Ukraine pretty much supports reintegration, and this has essentially been the story of Ukraine for the past 200 years. Eastern Ukraine has always supported close ties with Russia. While Western Ukraine (historically under the dominance of Poland) has always supported closer ties with the west. Again, slowly integrating Russia is a superior option.

Taking this assertion of yours at face value (which I refuse to do anyway), all you're suggesting is to trample over the rights and wishes over ~20 million people by threat of force. I can see plenty of better scenarios there.

It's not about Russia deserving another shot. The lives of 7 billion people are worth the lives of 40 million?

Why stop at Ukraine? Are lives of 450 million of people worth the lives of 7 billion people? Clearly Russia shouldn't be aiming so low at to take the measly Ukraine, but rather try to dominate the entire European continent. For starters. Using the exact same logic.

No I'm saying allow for a reasonable policy of containment, which seems to have worked for the past 50 years.

The reasonable policy of containment did not include letting Russia do whatever it wants. Remember Berlin? Cuba? Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? All were instances where Soviet expansionism was contained by means other than letting it run wild.
How exactly do you contain an expansionist force by letting it run wild anyway?

This entire paragraph is full of falsities. First lets look at your first point.

1.) Russia and Ukraine have been apart of the same country virtually since the 7th century of the Kievan Rus. So it is not look there is no history between them.

First of all, not quite. The borders ebbed and flowed, plus there were those 300 years when the Mongols changed much. That said, despite sharing much of the history, at least half of Ukrainians don't want that. Some big success there.

2.) Yes we do have the capability to assault Russia within a few hours. However, being on Ukraine's borders allows for an assault to happen in minutes. Do you expect for a country who had a catastrophic war with a western nation, losing upwards of 30 million people, to take an expanding European collective lightly? What reasons do Russia have to trust that this will not end in another war? You haven't answer this question for me.

First of all, this defensive reasons are a bunch of dingos' kidneys. No one is planning to attack Russia. No one even desires that - except maybe the Chinese. That's where Russia should look for for threats, not the West. The last time Russia fought a major war it was saved from the West. If the West adopted the same policies Russia did during that war, it wouldn't loose just 34 million people, it would loose 150 or so million people, and all of it's territory.

3.) No Russia has stated several times that European expansion into Ukraine would be considered aggression on the part of the west. Russia has already made concessions by allowing the Baltic Republics to fall in the hands of the west. It was a strategic blow.

Russia can claim whatever it wants, it doesn't make it true in international law. Russia has no right to tell Ukraine who it may associate with and who it shouldn't associate with.
The West can easily claim that Russia should stay out of Ukraine for good, or else it would be considered an aggression towards the West. What's Russia gonna do, lob nukes? Are the lives of 40 million people worth the lives of 7 billion?

4.) Ukraine is close enough to make it a threat to the west? I doubt it. If anything, it would be close to Poland. No where near a western country with the exception of perhaps Austria. However, even that is questionable. The largest European nations would not be threatened by the reabsorption of Ukraine.

Hungary and Romania are two. Both have checkered history when it comes to having Russia at their border. And by checkered I mean horrible they don't want to repeat, ever again. Unlike "Russia being attacked by the West" excuse, Hungary actually was invaded by Russia (technically, USSR) in 1953. The crime? Not bowing to Russia deep enough. So yeah, there are at least good as if not better historical reasons for Ukraine to align itself with West.

This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated by westerners. There is no way that Russia, or the U.S/U.K. could've won against the Japanese and the Nazis alone. Russia for the better part of 3 years, faced the brute forces of the Nazis, while America for the better part of 4 years faced the brute forces of the Japanese. It took both superpowers to quell the thirst of each of these militarist fascist nations which would've inevitably consumed the world if left unchecked.

Yup, but the Germans would happily sign the peace with UK et.al. and withdraw from France with relatively small concessions and from Norway, Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg (probably also Greece et.al) with most likely no concessions at all, and fight Russia alone. In fact, that was their strategic grand plan. As you said, Russia would stand no chance then - especially since it would likely face Japan as well. Russia was saved by the West, who luckily didn't want Nazis to exist. This was a good thing, and Russia should be thankful to the West, not resent it for it.

Again, from the Russian perspective, it was the assault by western nations happening across 200 years, from the Napoleonic Wars onward that cost tens of millions of people. It was at that point, that they said enough. They decided that protecting their western borders against western incursions was one of their strategic rights. This among other things is what led to the cold war.

Russia fought three major wars with the West since Napoleonic wars. It was invaded during the Crimean war, which was fought to contain Russian expansion (the exact opposite of 'Russian perspective'), it declared war on Austria-Hungary over Serbia in 1914 (this one is a very weak maybe, Russia wasn't even the target of the Central powers, it could let it slide as you now suggest for Ukraine), and was invaded by the Nazis a year and a half (roughly) after they shared Poland between them, and helping them run their war machine with shipments of food and raw materials. It was hardly an innocent bystander, by any standard.

This is not a history of being invaded by the West. It's hardly even a history of unusually severe conflict with the West - to the contrary, Western nations fought as many wars between them as Russia did with the West. If Russian perspective is that they were continuously invaded by the West, their perspective is wrong. It wouldn't justify dominion over Ukraine in any event, but the history also proves it wrong.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

And you should know very well that Gorbachev wanted to let the eastern European nations go and free. Gorbachev was everyone's best hope. His failure had disastrous consequences for all parties involved. Russia had actually wanted to create a federation that would've had greater ties with the west. Instead, Russia now has a bunch of oligarchs hellbent on economically manipulating its neighbors. Again, your nation has nothing to do with this.

ETA: Oh, interesting factoid, the leader of the Soviet Union was Ukrainian when the Czechs and Slovaks were attacked in '68. Just an interesting fact I wanted you to know.

Disastrous for all parties involved? I'm reasonably sure that East Germans, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Poles, Czech, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians and Bulgarians are doing quite fine, thank you very much. That's approximately 138 million people, give or take - almost the population of Russia, incidentally. It was disastrous for some parties, and a heavenly boon for others. Future is what you make it, if Russians squandered theirs they have no one but themselves to blame.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Again, from the Russian perspective, it was the assault by western nations happening across 200 years, from the Napoleonic Wars onward that cost tens of millions of people. It was at that point, that they said enough. They decided that protecting their western borders against western incursions was one of their strategic rights. This among other things is what led to the cold war.

This actually deserves slightly more attention. You hint that Russia was invaded by Napoleon. Though technically correct, it must be put in context. Russia was actively fighting against Napoleon in several wars and was violating the peace treaty with France, and got invaded as a result. It wasn't some sort of western aggression towards Russia as you portray, but a logical and predictable result of foreign policy Russia undertook in the previous two decades. Saying otherwise demonstrates disconnect with reality.

McHrozni

 

[L.Y.S.]

I think we were all wrong about this situation. What has transpired here is nothing more than a trade dispute. It seems that the EU would like for the Ukraine to rid of all of its beneficiary trade arrangements with Russia in order for closer economic ties to the EU. It seems that the best hand for Ukraine to play is to stay economically close to Russia. While many of its nationalistic western citizens would like closer ties to the west. A cancellation of their agreements however would result in an economic crisis for the Ukraine worse than the 1990s, and subsequent unemployment.

They get energy at reduced rates, and also many beneficial transit deals. For Ukrainian politicians this is simply. This economic deal with the EU is suicide. Seems that there is a paradoxical situation. This deal would pretty much screw up Ukraine's economy. There's no strategic plan to integrate the Ukraine. This deal cannot be made without including Russia, which composes more of the Ukraine's trade than all other trading countries combined.

It seems that this is a relatively simply matter. Those rioting idiots need to go home and pray to keep their jobs. Seems simple enough.

 

[Klimax]

Nothing can go wrong with such "trade offer", Russians were always nice to Ukraine, right? Right?

That small upside in Russian "offer", is just carrot, while big bloody stick ready to beat Ukraine to submission is being readied. They were there already number of times, so this "offer", is nothing more then forcing them back into submission.

 

[L.Y.S.]

More worthless rhetoric that ignores the issue at hand. I understand that your people have a 400 year old axe to grind with Russia, but without a comprehensive trade deal between the EU, Ukraine, and Russia this trade deal will be suicide for the Ukraine. It is clear that this deal is not in the financial interest of Ukraine, and there is no real plan to integrate the Ukraine. This is yet another attempt to spite Russia.

So you have no concept of economics? If Ukraine pulls away from Russia it's economy would be devastated for decades. The Great Depression would be laughable in this instance. There will be no means to displace the unemployed cheap Ukrainian labor. Meaning that once the Ukraine is forced to choose a crappy economic package from the EU, most of it's newly unemployed workers will not be easily reabsorbed into the European worked force. It would take decades to repair the economic damage.

The solution is clear. Put aside your stupid nationalistic differences and draw a beneficial deal for all parties involved and move on. A comprehensive trade deal between the EU, Russia, and the Ukraine is the most desirable outcome.

 

[Klimax]

More worthless rhetoric that ignores the issue at hand. I understand that your people have a 400 year old axe to grind with Russia, but without a comprehensive trade deal between the EU, Ukraine, and Russia this trade deal will be suicide for the Ukraine. It is clear that this deal is not in the financial interest of Ukraine, and there is no real plan to integrate the Ukraine. This is yet another attempt to spite Russia.

Any deal with Russia is losing. It is nothing but trap, where energy source is used as a carrot and a threat and a stick.

So you have no concept of economics? If Ukraine pulls away from Russia it's economy would be devastated for decades. The Great Depression would be laughable in this instance. There will be no means to displace the unemployed cheap Ukrainian labor. Meaning that once the Ukraine is forced to choose a crappy economic package from the EU, most of it's newly unemployed workers will not be easily reabsorbed into the European worked force. It would take decades to repair the economic damage.

The solution is clear. Put aside your stupid nationalistic differences and draw a beneficial deal for all parties involved and move on. A comprehensive trade deal between the EU, Russia, and the Ukraine is the most desirable outcome.

So you propose your own fail. None of your assertions is backed up. There is no evidence of any "supposed economical damage" nor threat of it by entering EU deal. Also there is no evidence that Russian's "offer" is of any benefit.

Frankly, it looks more like Russia threatened Ukraine to force them to back off of the EU deal. (Simply cut of Ukraine again as they did already several times)

ETA: Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it and with Russia that history says keep as far away from them as possible. No good comes from there.

 

[dudalb]

Perhaps we should invite all the involved leaders (except the Ukranians) to a summit - let's say in Southern Germany? There we can hammer out a treaty that'll give us peace in our time.

Appeasing agressors. That always works great........

 

[L.Y.S.]

Any deal with Russia is losing. It is nothing but trap, where energy source is used as a carrot and a threat and a stick.

This is just utterly stupid. So you'd rather not deal with the elephant in the room. You'd rather make Ukrainians unemployed and poor at the expense of reason, and for what? To spite Russia and for some cheap national pride? Very dumb reason if you ask me. Go cry about your historical grievances with someone who cares. This is not an issue of emotion, but an issue of pragmatism.

Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that the EU draw up a trade deal with Mexico and not deal with the trade deals that they've forged with America. It'd be stupid and financially suicidal. Notice that the trade deals recently done between the EU and Canada take into account Canada's special trade relationship with the US, while the EU/Ukraine deal does nothing of the sort? Hmmm, I wonder why they're doing this, it surely isn't to spite Russia is it? I'm sure they have a plan to integrate Ukraine's cheap labor force into the EU. They don't already have ample cheap industrial labor from Turkey. Nah, I'm sure it's done in all good faith.

So you propose your own fail. None of your assertions is backed up. There is no evidence of any "supposed economical damage" nor threat of it by entering EU deal. Also there is no evidence that Russian's "offer" is of any benefit.

How can you make this stupid argument? Russia composes some 50% or greater of Ukraine's economy and would remain that way even in the event of a Ukraine-EU deal. It would devastate their economy. Millions of Ukrainians would be unemployed. Energy and transportation costs would dramatically increase. It would be nightmarish for decades. Again, I beg that you understand basic economics. Can Europe offer the same deals? I doubt.

Frankly, it looks more like Russia threatened Ukraine to force them to back off of the EU deal. (Simply cut of Ukraine again as they did already several times)

Not what happened at all, but I understand that a little Czech nationalist has an axe to grind with the big bad Russians. Again, Russia depends on Ukrainian goods and services. Replacing these with EU goods and services would disrupt the Russia market. Out of necessity they had to limit the situation. EU also made a caveat that they basically had to end their special relationship with Russia. Ukrainian officials made it painfully simple that they would not support a trade deal that dissolved it's trade relationship with Russia. The EU refused the conditions behind their agreement, so the government refused to proceed with the deal. Western Ukrainian idiots are rioting for nothing but their own unemployment. Again, why can't a trilateral deal be struck up?

ETA: Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it and with Russia that history says keep as far away from them as possible. No good comes from there.

Because the EU has a good track record with Romania and Balkan nations? Last time I checked their economies were damaged. Not that they won't recover, but again, these economies will take decades to restructure adequately. Romania's economy sucks. Ukraine's will too.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Appeasing agressors. That always works great........

Wow really? Why can we not invite Ukraine and just make this damn trilateral deal work? Not inviting Russia would be financial suicide for Ukraine. They won't sign a deal if it destroys their economy. I respect that.

 

[WildCat]

Wow really? Why can we not invite Ukraine and just make this damn trilateral deal work? Not inviting Russia would be financial suicide for Ukraine. They won't sign a deal if it destroys their economy. I respect that.

What on earth makes you think Russia has the right to meddle in the affairs of Ukraine?