Putin is saving his Conscripted Core of Troops for Liberating Hokkaido and Alaska.
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
Doomsought
Well-known member
I am now imagining a russian tank being carried off by a dogsled,
Which MP is it that bought a Yacht with the Lend Lease money?
He be breedin' the next generation of Ukrainians that way! It's all a part of the grand master plan lol!
A good article:
fair.org
FWIW, I'm not opposed to Crimean and Donbass national self-determination. Rather, what I'm opposed to is having Russia invade the rest of Ukraine in order to acquire its human capital. Had Russia only wanted to protect the Donbass, it could have simply sent its own troops there (as it actually did, in fact, do right before its invasion of the rest of Ukraine) and possibly even annexed it and bombed and destroyed all Ukrainian artillery positions next to the Donbass border. There was absolutely no need for Russia to invade the rest of Ukraine unless its goal was much broader than simply protecting the Donbass.
And FWIW, I think that Ukrainians themselves have, in a specific way, benefitted from Crimea's and the Donbass's loss since this loss ensured that a pro-Russian resurgence in the rest of Ukraine would become impossible due to the huge loss of pro-Russian voters that this secession caused and also due to the alienation of the rest of Ukraine's population from Russia.
Media Support ‘Self-Determination’ for US Allies, Not Enemies
A self-determination claim that accords with Russian interests, and diverges from the US position, is concealed from the public.
fair.org
FWIW, I'm not opposed to Crimean and Donbass national self-determination. Rather, what I'm opposed to is having Russia invade the rest of Ukraine in order to acquire its human capital. Had Russia only wanted to protect the Donbass, it could have simply sent its own troops there (as it actually did, in fact, do right before its invasion of the rest of Ukraine) and possibly even annexed it and bombed and destroyed all Ukrainian artillery positions next to the Donbass border. There was absolutely no need for Russia to invade the rest of Ukraine unless its goal was much broader than simply protecting the Donbass.
And FWIW, I think that Ukrainians themselves have, in a specific way, benefitted from Crimea's and the Donbass's loss since this loss ensured that a pro-Russian resurgence in the rest of Ukraine would become impossible due to the huge loss of pro-Russian voters that this secession caused and also due to the alienation of the rest of Ukraine's population from Russia.
Nah, it's written by someone who looks like a general anti-western shill, and the article doesn't counter that impression.
>progressive media watchdog
Author:
Media Support ‘Self-Determination’ for US Allies, Not Enemies
A self-determination claim that accords with Russian interests, and diverges from the US position, is concealed from the public.
FWIW, I'm not opposed to Crimean and Donbass national self-determination. Rather, what I'm opposed to is having Russia invade the rest of Ukraine in order to acquire its human capital. Had Russia only wanted to protect the Donbass, it could have simply sent its own troops there (as it actually did, in fact, do right before its invasion of the rest of Ukraine) and possibly even annexed it and bombed and destroyed all Ukrainian artillery positions next to the Donbass border. There was absolutely no need for Russia to invade the rest of Ukraine unless its goal was much broader than simply protecting the Donbass.
And FWIW, I think that Ukrainians themselves have, in a specific way, benefitted from Crimea's and the Donbass's loss since this loss ensured that a pro-Russian resurgence in the rest of Ukraine would become impossible due to the huge loss of pro-Russian voters that this secession caused and also due to the alienation of the rest of Ukraine's population from Russia.
It was always an excuse. The original plan was to let separatist run LNR/DNR be reintegrated into Ukraine while keeping own armed forces so they could pretty much run a criminal empire serving own and Russian goals and have a veto on major political decisions of Ukraine while at it.
A "hard separation" of these areas from Ukraine is something that Russia could have done in 2014 but very specifically avoided doing because it would completely undermine all future plans to get control of Ukraine without outright conquering it. In hindsight, their plan also fell apart while underway because Ukraine didn't accept "the plan" due to the outrageous provision like said veto and maintaining a foreign controlled hostile armed group held area as an autonomous region, and only tipped off Ukraine as to Russia's intentions years before the unavoidable attempt at invasion, instead of doing the invasion by actual surprise.
No one sane cares about what "self determination" Russians hammer out with their "vote magic", directed by Stalin's famous quote. If lucky, they could have gotten Crimea semi-honestly, but no more. If unlucky and someone was to use similar vote magic on them, Russia could lose major chunks of its very large territory instead. And that's without getting into the questions of why are there even any Russians in Crimea, Donbas and Kaliningrad to begin with, massively undermining even otherwise solid self-determination claims.
The counterargument being why won't Russians, especially those being supposedly so mistreated and oppressed, fuck off from their former imperial possessions to their largest country on the planet with its terrible demographics according to which they won't be running out of proverbial lebensraum anytime within foreseeable future.
So unlike in many other civil war style situations, it's not like Russians have nowhere to go to if they don't like how the non-Russian controlled countries treat them.
Yeah, and that's the problem with Russia. It didn't give a shit about the Donbass people themselves. Had it wanted to, it could have negotiated a South Tyrol-style solution for the Donbass. But Russia wanted to use the Donbass as its tool to control and subjugate Ukraine, as you said. Simply having regular autonomy would not have been enough. Russia wanted the Donbass to have veto power over Ukraine's domestic and foreign policies, conditions which almost any sovereign state would refuse to accept. Texas doesn't have veto power over the US joining economic unions or military alliances, after all. Neither do New York, California, or Florida.
Russia's victories at Ilovaisk in 2014 and Debaltseve in 2015 were just tactical victories: They helped the Donbass separatists but did absolutely nothing to alter Ukraine's pro-Western course, which "necessitated" a much larger Russian invasion of Ukraine this year.
If I was Putin, I'd have sent Russian peacekeepers into the Donbass in the spring of 2014 and then spent a year or two spending a lot of Russian money in the Donbass to build up additional goodwill among the Donbass people and only then hold an annexation referendum. FWIW, I myself was initially opposed to the Donbass venture back in 2014 since I feared that Russia would not be able to make support for its rule there permanently stick in the same way that it probably could in Crimea, but I changed my mind once it became clear just how much the rest of Ukraine has benefitted from the Donbass's secession and the removal of its huge number of pro-Russian voters.
Yeah, I don't dispute that Russia might have very well rigged the referenda in Crimea and the Donbass. However, as I showed you with an earlier poll (do you want me to link to it again?), a slight majority of the Donbass people did at the very least support federalization in Ukraine. Well, either that or outright secession. This was in May 2014 and this is what made the Donbass people different from other Ukrainians, excluding Crimeans, of course.
And FWIW, I myself honestly wouldn't mind it if, say, Chechnya or Ingushetia seceded from Russia. Though I would very much fear for Chechnya's gay people afterwards.
Yeah, Russia certainly has more than enough space to accommodate any Russian diaspora members who will ever seek to move back to Russia.
In terms of Russian sympathies in Donbas and rest of Ukraine, Russia really scrooged its way into a PR defeat. Letting warlords run the place like warlords do (personal torture dungeons included), being generous on guns but not so much on butter.
It's not just that Ukraine has lost the Russia sympathizer voters in the separatist territories themselves, it's that the fate of the regions and people under Russia and their proxy control was such that it was a cold shower to many of the Russia sympathizers all over the country.
Many of them would have thought that Russian rule will bring economic largesse at least on EU level, to turn their part of Ukraine into a Potemkin village to promote their political option, but what they got is slavic, more chaotic version of North Korea.
But how good was the poll, what exactly was meant by federalization, and last but not least, how much of that figure was hard work of then still functioning Russian propaganda operations in Ukraine?
Well its not like Putin is making Kadyrov be nice to themAnd FWIW, I myself honestly wouldn't mind it if, say, Chechnya or Ingushetia seceded from Russia. Though I would very much fear for Chechnya's gay people afterwards.
And many times over.Yeah, Russia certainly has more than enough space to accommodate any Russian diaspora members who will ever seek to move back to Russia.
In terms of Russian sympathies in Donbas and rest of Ukraine, Russia really scrooged its way into a PR defeat. Letting warlords run the place like warlords do (personal torture dungeons included), being generous on guns but not so much on butter.
It's not just that Ukraine has lost the Russia sympathizer voters in the separatist territories themselves, it's that the fate of the regions and people under Russia and their proxy control was such that it was a cold shower to many of the Russia sympathizers all over the country.
But how good was the poll, what exactly was meant by federalization, and last but not least, how much of that figure was hard work of then still functioning Russian propaganda operations in Ukraine?
Well its not like Putin is making Kadyrov be nice to them
And many times over.
Yeah, certainly. When the Donbassers were not rewarded for their Russian choice anywhere near as much as the Crimeans were, well, this didn't exactly make the Russian choice appealing in the eyes of the rest of the Ukrainian population. Economic stagnation, unemployment, poverty, gangsterism, warlordism, et cetera. Classic Russia!
Here's the poll, so you can judge for yourself:
Russian propaganda played a role, no doubt, but possibly the improved quality of life in Russia relative to Ukraine played some role as well.
Yep, unfortunately.
Yep.
It was taken by this group:
Kyiv International Institute of Sociology - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Which is apparently reliable. And it was apparently taken right before the separatists took over the Donbass.
But were even Crimeans rewarded?Yeah, certainly. When the Donbassers were not rewarded for their Russian choice anywhere near as much as the Crimeans were, well, this didn't exactly make the Russian choice appealing in the eyes of the rest of the Ukrainian population. Economic stagnation, unemployment, poverty, gangsterism, warlordism, et cetera. Classic Russia!
Here's the poll, so you can judge for yourself:
Russian propaganda played a role, no doubt, but possibly the improved quality of life in Russia relative to Ukraine played some role as well.
Yep, unfortunately.
Yep.
Has life improved for people in Crimea since its annexation?
What is life like on the peninsula five years since Russia announced its accession?
www.euronews.com
Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation
Examine the situation in Crimea six years after its illegal annexation by Russia.
www.brookings.edu
But were even Crimeans rewarded?
Has life improved for people in Crimea since its annexation?
What is life like on the peninsula five years since Russia announced its accession?According to these, even though many are happy with being in Russia, the reasons they give tend to be more ideological than objective life quality indicators, suggesting strong propaganda and self selection effects.Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation
Examine the situation in Crimea six years after its illegal annexation by Russia.
"Self-selection": What percentage of Crimeans moved to either Ukraine or the West? My hunch is that it's less than 10%.
You guessed right. The other part of the self selection is reverse one - 6 digit figures of Russians have migrated *to* Crimea since the invasion. However one thing influencing the low number of leavers is Crimea being a pensioner haven - 31.5% of them. Being old and promised higher pensions, they have no will nor motivation to move, even if they aren't big fans of the change of management.
That makes sense. That said, though, it's still interesting if approval for the Crimean annexation is 80+%:
Trump is Factually Right on Crimea
In a recent interview with ABC for which he is now taking flak, Trump said: As usual, Trump is right and cannot be stumped. Above is a list I compiled half a year ago with all the most prominent polls and referendums ever held that directly or indirectly queried Crimeans on their attitudes...
www.unz.com
Applying imperialist Russian logic to the US and Canada:
archive.ph
I hate to say it, but they do make annexing Canada sound cool. The thing is, though, that I would never be willing to use force to do it. I don't want to deal with Canuck terrorism or undermine Canucks' right to national self-determination. I'd prefer to slowly poach their human capital instead, though I'd also gladly agree to an economic union if the Canucks themselves actually want this.
If the US wanted Canada, then it should have joined the CPs during WWI. Now that was the golden moment for the US to conquer Canada--and Australia, and New Zealand as well!
The Case for Annexing Canada, by Anatoly Karlin - The Unz Review
archived 8 Jul 2022 02:14:39 UTC
I hate to say it, but they do make annexing Canada sound cool. The thing is, though, that I would never be willing to use force to do it. I don't want to deal with Canuck terrorism or undermine Canucks' right to national self-determination. I'd prefer to slowly poach their human capital instead, though I'd also gladly agree to an economic union if the Canucks themselves actually want this.
If the US wanted Canada, then it should have joined the CPs during WWI. Now that was the golden moment for the US to conquer Canada--and Australia, and New Zealand as well!
Don't call people tankies unless they are stalinists.
@Bacle, you have repeated been leveling accusations of extremism against a poster by calling them a Tankie (i.e. a Stalinist, or at the very least, a person fine with using the military to forcefully impose authoritarian communism) and insinuating that the member is a pedo. These are clearly unfounded. Given that the repetitive nature of this, a month long ban has been given in this thread and a week in the Politics subforums for these actions.
Others in the thread, please do not reply to Bacle, as he cannot respond.
Others in the thread, please do not reply to Bacle, as he cannot respond.
Are you allowed to tell us specifically which member was insulted by Bacle?