War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[goboatingnow]

- Something not discussed for a long time is that without occupied Donbas and Crimea in the Ukrainian electorate this removes a large portion of 'pro russian voters' and this has been very helpful to stablise government.

- Will Ukraine now stop financially supporting occupied Donbas? Pension payments, etc?

As a said, despite the moral outrage, Ukraine is in a lot of respects better off with both Crimea and Donbas for the moment, which have always been a drain on the Ukrainian state, in more ways than one - despite protests to the contrary.

So, if there is no other invasion, this is all very interesting.

A "Win" for Ukraine? That can't be right...

Yes I do think , after listening to the Ukrainian MP , That Ukraine may " cut its losses and walk away from the separatist regions , even if Ukraine was to drive Russia back and in effect also kill a lot of Ukrainian separatists, it would not resolve the disputed territories and subject Ukraine to in essence an endless resistance and asymmetric war in those regions.

IN my view Putin has calculated this risk , hes a very cautious schemer and I suspect his view is Ukraine will not prompt a war in the disputed territories. I do not think Russia will advance outside the disputed areas into Ukraine as a whole unless Ukraine begins a big offensive in the area

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It was always dead air, the world just ignores that rhetoric , we don't even believe it ourselves anymore

Democracy and freedom sucks, it's just better than any alternative we've come up with.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

@Dockhead (and others) - here are some other general articles which you may find interesting:

Łukasz Adamski: Putin’s Ukraine playbook echoes the tactics of Russian imperialism.
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/...n-imperialism/

Bohdan Vitvitsky: Disarming Putin’s history weapon
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/...istory-weapon/

stuff from the Atlantic Council tends to be highly biased in my experience of reading their articles

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Seriously have you been under a rock , clearly you've not been in Northern Africa, the Middle east , parts of Asia , etc etc etc , "relatively free trade, growing respect for individual rights, and relatively peaceful cooperation among nations'", please give me a break .

Lets not consume our own propaganda, I think we are capable of self analysis , better then that

I haven't had to be under a rock.

I've traveled the world relatively freely, because there's a decent world order that I'm pretty confident in.

The world today is safer and more prosperous than it's ever been, mostly because of the established world order and cooperation between nations.

I can have this conversation about world politics relatively freely. You can feel free to bash the government who helps to ensure you have these freedoms. We can value these freedoms, and maybe even take them for granted. But not all citizens of the world are afforded them.

The countries I don't feel particularly safe in are the ones who don't hold personal or political freedoms in particularly high regard.

You know, like Russia and China.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Democracy and freedom sucks, it's just better than any alternative we've come up with.

The problem with democracy is the tyranny of the majority , a situation for example the US founding fathers were extremely concerned with and as a result set significant limits on said democracy , to the extent that many would say the US is not exactly a democracy in the strict sense

Democracy has been used to justify all sorts of decisions that would have been better never going any near that decision style process.

So lets not get too hung-up on the superiority of Democracies

freedom and democracy are of course often intertwined but are in fact different things entirely

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

stuff from the Atlantic Council tends to be highly biased in my experience of reading their articles

All these articles are biased in some way since they are effectively 'op-eds' - an opinion, hopefully by an expert of some sort - they are not 'news'.

But you will note that I added various different links from various different sources (in english of course, because of the readership here) over the course of my posts.

It's necessary to read widely, and gain an overview.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The problem with democracy is the tyranny of the majority , a situation for example the US founding fathers were extremely concerned with and as a result set significant limits on said democracy , to the extent that many would say the US is not exactly a democracy in the strict sense

Democracy has been used to justify all sorts of decisions that would have been better never going any near that decision style process.

So lets not get too hung-up on the superiority of Democracies

freedom and democracy are of course often intertwined but are in fact different things entirely

Of course Democracy isn't perfect. Democracies are run by humans with flaws. They're inefficient. They're messy. They make mistakes.

But they are superior to autocracy, from my perspective. I value political freedoms. I like the people ruling. I like free speech. These are things that can be limited or eliminated in an autocracy.

The human rights we take for granted are afforded us by our liberal democracies.

So I'm not really buying into the "we're just as bad as them" narrative. Not even for a minute.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I haven't had to be under a rock.

I've traveled the world relatively freely, because there's a decent world order that I'm pretty confident in.

The world today is safer and more prosperous than it's ever been, mostly because of the established world order and cooperation between nations.

I can have this conversation about world politics relatively freely. You can feel free to bash the government who helps to ensure you have these freedoms. We can value these freedoms, and maybe even take them for granted. But not all citizens of the world are afforded them.

The countries I don't feel particularly safe in are the ones who don't hold personal or political freedoms in particularly high regard.

You know, like Russia and China.

Im an equal opportunity national basher, but my perspective is I don't engage in moralising , I expect to see large national powers exercise their self interest , whether that's in Crimea or Iraq . Powerful nation states simply act in their own self interest and I have actually no issue with that.

What I dont enage in is claiming that " my side" has any moral superiority. Modern so called liberal democracies have committed multiple civil rights violations , atrocities and genocide , but sugar coat it in sweet propaganda

Lets move past that nonsense and see it for what it is

Freedom and safety are largely illusional , I happen to know several people in the US for reasons of ethnicity etc do not feel safe

The world today is decidedly less safe as a result of actions by western powers, I used to visit several countries in North Africa , That now are completely destabilised as a result of Western influence and interference

[goboatingnow]

So I'm not really buying into the "we're just as bad as them" narrative. Not even for a minute.

you are entitled to you opinion , but if you lived in parts of Syria, Iraq, and so forth your perspective on our liberal democracies might not be quite so benign.

Its all a function of what umbrella youre currently taking shelter under

Within ones national borders democracy and freedom and the right to purchase white goods, is great . Its when we project that others might benefit from our ideology , whether they like it or not , is where the bus goes over the cliff

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

you are entitled to you opinion , but if you lived in parts of Syria, Iraq, and so forth your perspective on our liberal democracies might not be quite so benign.

Its all a function of what umbrella youre currently taking shelter under

Not really.

If you lived in Syria, Iraq, and so forth, you don't get to speak your mind, unless your mind is in alignment with the powers that be.

Say the wrong thing, and you might be killed. The Saudis dismantled a guy with a bone saw in their embassy.

To me, that's a fundamental difference.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It will be now interesting to see if Ukraine reacts. The statement I heard on the radio todays , suggests they will not if Russia remains within the disputed areas

At this time there is nothing really to react to, except for moral outrage, since nothing has materially changed on the ground, except more occupying russian soldiers (sorry! 'peacekeepers'), in already occuppied territories.

Nothing has (yet) changed in Ukrainian controlled territories.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes I do think , after listening to the Ukrainian MP , That Ukraine may " cut its losses and walk away from the separatist regions , even if Ukraine was to drive Russia back and in effect also kill a lot of Ukrainian separatists, it would not resolve the disputed territories and subject Ukraine to in essence an endless resistance and asymmetric war in those regions.

IN my view Putin has calculated this risk , hes a very cautious schemer and I suspect his view is Ukraine will not prompt a war in the disputed territories. I do not think Russia will advance outside the disputed areas into Ukraine as a whole unless Ukraine begins a big offensive in the area

Correct, I think in general this is actually a help to Ukraine rather than a hinderance. And this actually gives Ukraine an excuse to walk away, even if there will remain a technical demand for these territories to be returned.

Not much changes, those territories have already been lost both physically and ideologically for years already, because most of the pro ukrainian citizens that lived there previously were either killed, are still held captive and being tortured and raped (yes it's still happening, women too) - or they moved to Ukrainian controlled territory years ago for their safety.

The more important question is what will come next? Here's some thoughts:

Madness Or Method? Why Putin Recognized The Russia-Backed Separatists In Ukraine
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukrai.../31715074.html

The most interesting of these to me is that 'the separatists claim the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in their entirety, not just the smaller chunks of territory that they hold, so recognition carries the implicit threat of a push to take over the rest of the two provinces.'

The separatists only hold about 30% of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (states) - collectively known as 'Donbas' for the purpose of this discussion - and Russia may well decided that as part of recognising them they also recognise that those lands are actually 'occupied' by Ukraine (ridiculous I know) and that they have the right to 'liberate' them.

That sounds to me more like President Putin's style and would be a more substantial strategic gain, not to mention would also include the important south eastern export seaport town of Mariupol (on the Azov sea) over which there has been heavy fighting in the past.

There is also significant business infrastructure in this area, steel mills, etc, which would be both a strategic as well as an export loss for Ukraine. Russia has already constrained Ukrainian exports from this port after the new Crimea bridge was built (purposely too low for big ships) and after further constraints on sea traffic in general.

And this then leads into a more easily established land bridge to Crimea too.

Here's a map of the situation I'm describing. It's a few years old but is sufficient for general understanding:

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The world today is decidedly less safe as a result of actions by western powers, I used to visit several countries in North Africa , That now are completely destabilised as a result of Western influence and interference

North Africa was never a safe place by our current standards.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

At this time there is nothing really to react to, except for moral outrage, since nothing has materially changed on the ground, except more occupying russian soldiers, in already occuppied territories.

Nothing has (yet) changed in Ukrainian controlled territories.



Correct I think in general this is actually a help to Ukraine rather than a hinderance.

The more important question is what will come next? Here's some thoughts:

Madness Or Method? Why Putin Recognized The Russia-Backed Separatists In Ukraine
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukrai.../31715074.html

The most interesting of these to me is that 'the separatists claim the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in their entirety, not just the smaller chunks of territory that they hold, so recognition carries the implicit threat of a push to take over the rest of the two provinces.'

The separatists only hold about 30% of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts (states) - collectively known as 'Donbas' for the purpose of this discussion - and Russia may well decided that as part of recognising them they also recognise that those lands are actually 'occupied' by Ukraine (ridiculous I know) and that they have the right to 'liberate' them.

That sounds to me more like President Putin's style and would be a more substantial gain, not to mention would also include the south eastern port town of Mariupol (on the Azov sea) over which there has been heavy fighting in the past. This then leads into a more easily established land bridge to Crimea.

Here's a map of the situation I'm describing. It's a few years old but is sufficient for general understanding:

My instinct here is too agree with you , Its interesting that Putin has signalled all this in advance , Military incursions are generally not signalled

I think he now has thrown the ball back to the Ukrainians . If they react , and attempt to retake the regions , its likely to fail amd kill a lot of Ukrainians

If they dont act if will be a humiliating climbdown for the current president who has vowed to end the conflict in the Donbas.

Putin has shown himself to be a very wiley operator , He called Syria correctly , He gambled and won in Crimea and I think he believes he can get away with this, and put a degree of a buffer zone between him and NATO and destabilse the rest of Ukraine to boot.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

North Africa was never a safe place by our current standards.

it certainly isnt now, it was a reasonable place to visit by their standards for many years , I visited Tunisia , Morroco , Libya and I sailed into some of these countries as well. Today that simply not possible.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

My instinct here is too agree with you.

I edited and added some more info in that big post of mine with the map of Donbas.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Its interesting that Putin has signalled all this in advance , Military incursions are generally not signalled

It's pretty difficult NOT to signal these movements in advance now, with all the satellite imagery.

Recognising the occupied territories is a way to move Russia's military deeper and closer towards Ukrainian territory somehow 'legimately and officially' - see, we are not invading, we are sending 'peacekeepers'...

That's straight out of Russia's playbook and was done mutiple times before already.