Russia-Ukraine Crisis Deescalating As NATO Countries Break From Bellicose US-UK Stance

[Ringo]

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Earlier I wrote:

“Hopefully, in the not too distant future Germany and even the U.S. (and finally Ukraine) will realize the wisdom of Ukraine becoming a neutral pro-European country like Austria was during the Cold War, with everybody diplomatically dropping Ukraine’s now pointless claim to Crimea. It will require some brave major European politician or party to speak up and break the logjam.”

That logjam has not yet been cleanly broken, but today it is reported on the “Radio Free Europe” website:

“French officials have raised to reporters the possibility of the ‘Finlandization’ of Ukraine” — which of course presumes that Ukraine will not join any military alliance.

A further report going into more detail on tentative proposals Macron apparently raised in discussion with Putin is here:

Emmanuel Macron in Kiev to fix Ukraine crisis but UK questions tactics

Britain was said to be concerned last night about Emmanuel Macron's (pictured) 'private promises' to Vladimir Putin in a bid to secure a peace deal over Ukraine.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Not sure how Ukraine's claim to Crimea is "pointless".
Russia and Putin stole it on a pretense, which is so Putin-like.

 

[Litwin]

This might help to understand Russias interest in Ukraine

View attachment 599533
The red area is Russian language, 30% of Ukraine speaks Russian at home.

so you say UK can/has right to annex USA tomorrow ?

 

[Litwin]

 

[skye]

Very happy about the Russian troop withdrawal.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Not sure how Ukraine's claim to Crimea is "pointless".
Russia and Putin stole it on a pretense, which is so Putin-like.

Reasonable point, raising some good questions …

First of all I think Ukraine hurts itself by continuing its “legal” but historically very weak claim to Crimea. That is because raising this demand imperils the very existence of an independent, successful and pro-European Ukraine. Russia will no more return Crimea than the U.S. will return Texas or New Mexico to Mexico.

Given that Crimeans have voted to join Russia — and would do so again today in any fair vote — the demand is even more foolish. On the other hand, dropping it and negotiating the return of a federated Donbas (as per Minsk-2) would go far toward resolving Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. A trade-off between settling these issues and Russia accepting Ukraine’s joining the EU (if it wishes and the EU agrees) is imo reachable, provided the country joins no military alliance.

Of course there are Ukrainian nationalists and others who disagree with my analysis and think that Putin and Russia will never accept even a neutral Ukraine, and that they are — like Hitler and Nazi Germany — determined to seize all of (Eastern) Europe, or whatever.

Elsewhere I have gone into some of the complex historical and political reasons Crimea should be recognized as part of Russia, but here I will limit myself to issues of self-determination and this issue of a wider peace agreement.

Let us remember that the U.S. supported Ukrainian nationalist NGOs (to the tune of billions of dollars over several decades) and praised the 2014 “Maidan” overthrow of the corrupt — but fairly elected — Kyiv government. Crimea was a Russian-speaking autonomous part of Ukraine that strongly voted for and supported that overthrown government, its president and the parties supporting him. They opposed Maidan, and it was hardly unnatural they would vote to leave Ukraine. There were tens of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and sailors based at Sevastopol and throughout Crimea then, but practically no real fighting occurred. Just as the hard Ukrainian nationalists were the activists in West and Central Ukraine, the Russian-speaking Ukrainians had the strong hand in Crimea. The referendums were held peaceably, with help from Russian soldiers and volunteers in city buildings, and Western pollsters later confirmed … [see 2014 Crimean status referendum - Wikipedia ] that they accurately reflected popular opinions. Many if not most of the Ukrainian military officers stayed and were transferred into reorganized Russian units, protecting their pensions.

Going back a bit further in history there were also some three Russians to every one Ukrainian in Crimea in 1954, when Khrushchev originally “gifted” Communist Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine (his wife was Ukrainian), essentially because he was fighting to secure power in Moscow then and needed the support of Ukrainian Soviet bosses then sitting in ruling Politburo circles. Many top Kremlin leaders were in fact Ukrainians. This purely bureaucratic move is what 60 years later morphed into independent Ukraine’s “legal claim” to still autonomous Crimea, causing much trouble.

There are many sides to this complex issue which I cannot go into now. Putin is probably actually under some pressure from elements who think he should have gone further in 2014. Even without a wider conflict, the two Donbass “republics” may soon be recognized officially as “sovereign” by Russia. Meanwhile Ukrainian nationalist oligarchs are fighting with each other and accusing each other of being “traitors,” while major NATO states would rather trade with Russia than be drawn into a war with her over Ukraine’s fate. Giant Russia is becoming more authoritarian and cracking down on dissidents, while centrifugal forces are always threatening to tear her apart. Neither famous jailed anti-corruption dissident Aleksei Navalny nor old banned-in-Ukraine Gorbachev is a supporter of NATO membership for Ukraine, and both supported the Russian annexation of Crimea.

 

[Ringo]

22:16, February 17, 2022

Russia showed evidence of Kiev's war crimes to the UN
Deputy Foreign Minister Vershinin: Russia has handed over materials on war crimes of Ukraine to the UN Security Council

Russia has handed over to the UN Security Council member countries evidence of crimes committed by the Ukrainian military using prohibited methods of war in the Donbas. This was announced by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin, RIA Novosti reports.

"I ask you to look at these materials and ask you to be prepared that you will see terrible things," the diplomat said, speaking at a meeting of the Security Council of the world Organization.

On February 8, the first Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luhansk People's Republic, Anna Soroka, said that the former President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, is awaiting an international trial for the genocide of Donbass residents. She noted that Poroshenko should think about finding a country in which he could hide from politically motivated ukrainian retaliation. But at the same time, she also predicted the imminent international trial of the ex-president on the fact of war crimes and genocide of the residents of Donbass, of which, according to her, he was the sponsor and inspirer.

 

[AlexanderPK]

Not sure how Ukraine's claim to Crimea is "pointless".
Russia and Putin stole it on a pretense, which is so Putin-like.

Whatever you may call it it's Russian now and forever will be, so live with it. Donbass and Lugansk will follow suit soon.

 

[ESay]

Reasonable point, raising some good questions …

First of all I think Ukraine hurts itself by continuing its “legal” but historically very weak claim to Crimea. That is because raising this demand imperils the very existence of an independent, successful and pro-European Ukraine. Russia will no more return Crimea than the U.S. will return Texas or New Mexico to Mexico.

Given that Crimeans have voted to join Russia — and would do so again today in any fair vote — the demand is even more foolish. On the other hand, dropping it and negotiating the return of a federated Donbas (as per Minsk-2) would go far toward resolving Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. A trade-off between settling these issues and Russia accepting Ukraine’s joining the EU (if it wishes and the EU agrees) is imo reachable, provided the country joins no military alliance.

Of course there are Ukrainian nationalists and others who disagree with my analysis and think that Putin and Russia will never accept even a neutral Ukraine, and that they are — like Hitler and Nazi Germany — determined to seize all of (Eastern) Europe, or whatever.

Elsewhere I have gone into some of the complex historical and political reasons Crimea should be recognized as part of Russia, but here I will limit myself to issues of self-determination and this issue of a wider peace agreement.

Let us remember that the U.S. supported Ukrainian nationalist NGOs (to the tune of billions of dollars over several decades) and praised the 2014 “Maidan” overthrow of the corrupt — but fairly elected — Kyiv government. Crimea was a Russian-speaking autonomous part of Ukraine that strongly voted for and supported that overthrown government, its president and the parties supporting him. They opposed Maidan, and it was hardly unnatural they would vote to leave Ukraine. There were tens of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and sailors based at Sevastopol and throughout Crimea then, but practically no real fighting occurred. Just as the hard Ukrainian nationalists were the activists in West and Central Ukraine, the Russian-speaking Ukrainians had the strong hand in Crimea. The referendums were held peaceably, with help from Russian soldiers and volunteers in city buildings, and Western pollsters later confirmed … [see 2014 Crimean status referendum - Wikipedia ] that they accurately reflected popular opinions. Many if not most of the Ukrainian military officers stayed and were transferred into reorganized Russian units, protecting their pensions.

Going back a bit further in history there were also some three Russians to every one Ukrainian in Crimea in 1954, when Khrushchev originally “gifted” Communist Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine (his wife was Ukrainian), essentially because he was fighting to secure power in Moscow then and needed the support of Ukrainian Soviet bosses then sitting in ruling Politburo circles. Many top Kremlin leaders were in fact Ukrainians. This purely bureaucratic move is what 60 years later morphed into independent Ukraine’s “legal claim” to still autonomous Crimea, causing much trouble.

There are many sides to this complex issue which I cannot go into now. Putin is probably actually under some pressure from elements who think he should have gone further in 2014. Even without a wider conflict, the two Donbass “republics” may soon be recognized officially as “sovereign” by Russia. Meanwhile Ukrainian nationalist oligarchs are fighting with each other and accusing each other of being “traitors,” while major NATO states would rather trade with Russia than be drawn into a war with her over Ukraine’s fate. Giant Russia is becoming more authoritarian and cracking down on dissidents, while centrifugal forces are always threatening to tear her apart. Neither famous jailed anti-corruption dissident Aleksei Navalny nor old banned-in-Ukraine Gorbachev is a supporter of NATO membership for Ukraine, and both supported the Russian annexation of Crimea.

The main flaw of the Minsk agreements is that they are being interpreted differently by the warring sides. Ukraine doesn't want to implement them as Russia wants and Russia is trying to push their interpretation forward.

I don't believe that Russia will ever agree on Ukraine joining the EU (though, this possibility is quite low). I want to remind you that Austria and Finland joined the EU only in the mid-1990s, when the Cold War was over.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Whatever you may call it it's Russian now and forever will be, so live with it. Donbass and Lugansk will follow suit soon.

That's some justification: We stole it fair and square so now it's the property of rapacious thug, Vlad Putin.

 

[skye]

I am loving this!

In this tweet they used John Travolta to mock Biden.

Russia Mocks the Biden Administration and Its Prediction that Russia Would Invade Ukraine Wednesday​

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The main flaw of the Minsk agreements is that they are being interpreted differently by the warring sides. Ukraine doesn't want to implement them as Russia wants and Russia is trying to push their interpretation forward.

I don't believe that Russia will ever agree on Ukraine joining the EU (though, this possibility is quite low). I want to remind you that Austria and Finland joined the EU only in the mid-1990s, when the Cold War was over.

I agree the Minsk2 agreements are complex and differently interpreted, especially concerning timing of implementing different parts of it. But the main problem is Ukraine flatly rejects the main thing — that Donbas rejoin as an autonomous part of a federated Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalists, in order to push their “cultural revolution” and neuter Russian influence, put a new “unitary state” requirement (and even put “joining NATO”) into their new state Constitution. The “unitary state” business must change if the “independent republics” are ever to rejoin Ukraine with significant autonomy, as required by Minsk2.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Ok Russobot piece of shit. Meantime you have massed troops for invasion around a country that has done nothing. No better than what the Nazis did you imperialist Fuck's.

 

[ESay]

I agree the Minsk2 agreements are complex and differently interpreted, especially concerning timing of implementing different parts of it. But the main problem is Ukraine flatly rejects the main thing — that Donbas rejoin as an autonomous part of a federated Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalists, in order to push their “cultural revolution” and neuter Russian influence, put a new “unitary state” requirement (and even put “joining NATO”) into their new state Constitution. The “unitary state” business must change if the “independent republics” are ever to rejoin Ukraine with significant autonomy, as required by Minsk2.

The mention of a 'unitary state' was put in the Constitution back in 1996, when it was adopted. Also, if you read the agreements you would find out that there is no mention of federated Ukraine. (Though, indeed, Ukraine must give these regions a 'special' status).

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The mention of a 'unitary state' was put in the Constitution back in 1996, when it was adopted. Also, if you read the agreements you would find out that there is no mention of federated Ukraine. (Though, indeed, Ukraine must give these regions a 'special' status).

Thanks, I didn’t know that. Can you tell me what sort of “autonomy” — constitutionally and in reality — Crimea enjoyed in 1996, or prior to Maidan and Russia’s takeover? Thanks again.

 

[ESay]

Thanks, I didn’t know that. Can you tell me what sort of “autonomy” — constitutionally and in reality — Crimea enjoyed in 1996, or prior to Maidan and Russia’s takeover? Thanks again.

Crimea had a status of 'Autonomous republic' with own parliament, government and constitution. Also, a separate chapter of Ukrainian Constitution was dedicated to Crimea which briefly listed rights of local authorities.

 

[AlexanderPK]

That's some justification: We stole it fair and square so now it's the property of rapacious thug, Vlad Putin.

Was there ever a time that any justification convinced you of anything, you boneheaded jerk? We took it, that's it, and you can shove the sanctions up your ass. Times are changing, get used to it.

 

[Ringo]

Source close to Zelensky told me the U.S. first warned his team of a Russian invasion last fall, putting the chances at 80%. The Ukrainians didn't buy it, but they saw an opportunity -- "more aid, more attention" -- and played along. Now they have regrets. Too much attention. (с)

I wonder if he himself realizes how stupid and comical he looks? Although... This is a natural look for a clown.

 

[protectionist]

This might help to understand Russias interest in Ukraine

View attachment 599533
The red area is Russian language, 30% of Ukraine speaks Russian at home.

It does partially. Language is the # 1 basis of nationality.

 

[protectionist]

Ok Russobot piece of shit. Meantime you have massed troops for invasion around a country that has done nothing. No better than what the Nazis did you imperialist Fuck's.

I notice the media isn't reporting on how the UKRANIAN PEOPLE view the Russian military entering Ukraine. Happy ? Unhappy ? Attacked ? Liberated ? Harm ? Benefit ?

Has anybody bothered to ask THEM ?