How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I might let Crimea go. It was Russian originally anyway. Elsewhere I would not give an inch, not even Donbas.

But if the people there don’t want to be part of Ukraine, why force them? That just guarantees future conflict.

In that case, Russia can pay for it.

Absolutely Russia should pay. Eastern Ukraine is Ukraine. That stays Ukraine.

 

[Copernicus]

My understanding is Crimea is predominantly Russian. If there was a significant population of Ukrainians there who wanted nationhood with Ukraine, we would have seen that by now. So far, nothing. Crimea is mostly quite in this war.

My understanding is that 100% of the Crimeans were Ukrainian at the time that Russia invaded. Speaking Russian as a primary language does not make one Russian any more than it makes Vladimir Zelensky Russian because he spoke Russian as his primary language. Moreover, Kyiv and Odesa are largely Russian-speaking cities, not Ukrainian-speaking, although many have been trying to learn Ukrainian. That doesn't make them cities full of Russians.

As for seeing what those Crimean Ukrainians want, we have a referendum conducted by Russia after it occupied that Ukrainian territory. Who do you think counted the votes? The results were unsurprising. Similar results from referenda in Russian-occupied territories of Luhansk and Donetsk would show equally predictable results. The fact that you haven't seen Crimeans clamoring to get back into Ukraine shouldn't surprise you. Consider the possibility that not living there makes it harder to see what they want. We know what Putin wants, because we can see what he does.

Here is how Ukraine sees it: 5 years of resistance in Crimea: figures and facts

 

[Trausti]

As for seeing what those Crimean Ukrainians want, we have a referendum conducted by Russia after it occupied that Ukrainian territory.

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

 

[Copernicus]

As for seeing what those Crimean Ukrainians want, we have a referendum conducted by Russia after it occupied that Ukrainian territory.

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

I honestly don't know, but I am quite confident that no such monitored referendum will permitted by any Russian government. Crimeans would have a choice of joining one of two very broken countries. Perhaps they would opt for going back with Turkey, if they were given that choice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As for seeing what those Crimean Ukrainians want, we have a referendum conducted by Russia after it occupied that Ukrainian territory.

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

Trausti Presents:

The Pulse of Crimea

 

[Trausti]

As for seeing what those Crimean Ukrainians want, we have a referendum conducted by Russia after it occupied that Ukrainian territory.

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

Trausti Presents:

The Pulse of Crimea

Decisions made today should aim to prevent conflict tomorrow. It’s time for Realpolitik.

 

[Copernicus]

As for seeing what those Crimean Ukrainians want, we have a referendum conducted by Russia after it occupied that Ukrainian territory.

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

Trausti Presents:

The Pulse of Crimea

Decisions made today should aim to prevent conflict tomorrow. It’s time for Realpolitik.

That usually follows the Kabuki Theater performance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As for seeing what those Crimean Ukrainians want, we have a referendum conducted by Russia after it occupied that Ukrainian territory.

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

Trausti Presents:

The Pulse of Crimea

Decisions made today should aim to prevent conflict tomorrow. It’s time for Realpolitik.

Firstly, you seemed to have abandoned the Crimea wants to be part of Russia argument pretty quick.

Secondly, giving Crimea to Russia is pretty much saying "invade a country, then do it again and keep the original spoils". It isn't particularly a good message to send. Russia should be forced to pay costly for it, because ultimately, I don't see Russia accepting any deal that doesn't include it.

Trying to prevent tomorrow's conflict is a bit troublesome, especially when the aggressor today will likely be the aggressor tomorrow.

 

[Patooka]

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

That's ignoring a couple of key facts. First that come to mind is how many people living in Crimea today have only lived there since 2014? Allowing them to vote in such a referendum is like saying Anschluss is totally fine if there are couple of extra steps added. The second issue would be voter turnout, but I have a fair idea what your opinion is on voter disenfranchisement so I won't bother highlighting the obstacles there.

Trying to prevent tomorrow's conflict is a bit troublesome, especially when the aggressor today will likely be the aggressor tomorrow.

I would also add legitimizing their initial act of aggression is a fucking moronic way of attempting to deter similar actions in the future.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Always be mindful of the different context we can put things in. I usually try to think of many different points of view. You have to consider the reason from the Russians point of view why they would do such things. Ukraine controls land that is desperately needed to support commerce for everyone.. not just Russia Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine an harm any and all of them by simply denying access to any of them.

So what? That is completely irrelevant. It's not Russia's land, Russia has no say about how it's used.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The damage is not to Russia it is to our entire existence once the nukes start flying like that bugs bunny cartoon where they keep bringing out bigger and bigger weapons…
Russia is saying to Ukraine do not attempt to control our economy or we are prepared to blow you to smithereenies

Ukraine wasn't trying to control Russia's economy in the first place. They were just refusing to kowtow to Moscow.

And we have seen the majority of Russian missiles fail when someone pulled the trigger. I expect it to be much worse with their nukes. Their boomers are hardly able to patrol and would most likely be sunk before they could even try to fire their birds.

I can assure you that any military that has created nuclear weapons knows how to use them.. even if their fodder peons do not.

The issue isn't knowing how to use them, but whether they actually have been build and maintained correct and thus work. We've already seen that the majority of their missiles do not and the rot is probably much worse in their nuclear forces. Especially their missiles in silos--put a big hole in the ground and water will come in. You had better keep pumping that water out or whatever you have there will turn to junk.

 

[ZiprHead]

Always be mindful of the different context we can put things in. I usually try to think of many different points of view. You have to consider the reason from the Russians point of view why they would do such things. Ukraine controls land that is desperately needed to support commerce for everyone.. not just Russia Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine an harm any and all of them by simply denying access to any of them.

That's like saying the farmer next door to you needs your land to improve his crop yields so it okay for him to drive you off your land by violent force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is a geriatric cat who discovered the mouse was a capybara. Moscow is raining crap on neighborhoods because it's not capable of doing anything more.

And look at the reliability (lack thereof) of Russian weapons. What happens if he tosses a nuke at Ukraine and it doesn't go boom?

Right even if they miss with one nuke.. they have another thousand at the reasdy. You saw what a nuclear accident could do at Chernobyl.. a deliberate attack would do far more damage…making the Ukraine an indefensible uninhabited wasteland but perfect for access to the Black Sea.

I'm not talking about the actual act of bombing Ukraine. If they take the nuclear option I have no doubt they can destroy Ukraine. I'm talking about the political fallout. We've already seen their army exposed as pretty much a paper tiger. If they drop a nuke and it doesn't work they'll be the laughingstock of the world. Even if they eventually find a bomb that does go boom they'll be in an awfully bad place.

And you talk about them needing Ukraine for commercial reasons--if they use the bomb they will basically shut themselves out of world commerce and have no need of access.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for seeing what those Crimean Ukrainians want, we have a referendum conducted by Russia after it occupied that Ukrainian territory.

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

The fact that Russia felt the need to put it's finger so heavily on the scale in the last election shows they didn't expect to win an honest election.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Always be mindful of the different context we can put things in. I usually try to think of many different points of view. You have to consider the reason from the Russians point of view why they would do such things. Ukraine controls land that is desperately needed to support commerce for everyone.. not just Russia Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine an harm any and all of them by simply denying access to any of them.

That's like saying the farmer next door to you needs your land to improve his crop yields so it okay for him to drive you off your land by violent force.

I don't know. I'm starting to see his point. The US needs more elbow room. There are parts of both Canada and Mexico that could be good for us to take.

 

[ZiprHead]

Always be mindful of the different context we can put things in. I usually try to think of many different points of view. You have to consider the reason from the Russians point of view why they would do such things. Ukraine controls land that is desperately needed to support commerce for everyone.. not just Russia Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine an harm any and all of them by simply denying access to any of them.

That's like saying the farmer next door to you needs your land to improve his crop yields so it okay for him to drive you off your land by violent force.

I don't know. I'm starting to see his point. The US needs more elbow room. There are parts of both Canada and Mexico that could be good for us to take.

I call Windsor. I still like the Detroit sports teams even though they are generally losers.

 

[Jayjay]

If an internationally monitored referendum were held today, which way do you think it’d go?

That's ignoring a couple of key facts. First that come to mind is how many people living in Crimea today have only lived there since 2014? Allowing them to vote in such a referendum is like saying Anschluss is totally fine if there are couple of extra steps added. The second issue would be voter turnout, but I have a fair idea what your opinion is on voter disenfranchisement so I won't bother highlighting the obstacles there.

Trying to prevent tomorrow's conflict is a bit troublesome, especially when the aggressor today will likely be the aggressor tomorrow.

I would also add legitimizing their initial act of aggression is a fucking moronic way of attempting to deter similar actions in the future.

You are absolutely right. But Ukraine doesn't have enough leverage to force Russia to make that kind of concession. It could in theory continue a war of attrition until Russia is bankrupt, but the cost of human lives and time would be too great. At some point Ukraine has to decide whether Crimea is worth it, even if it does send a wrong message.

We don't yet know where the line will be drawn, but Crimea will probably lay solidly on the Russian side of that line.

 

[Patooka]

You are absolutely right. But Ukraine doesn't have enough leverage to force Russia to make that kind of concession. It could in theory continue a war of attrition until Russia is bankrupt, but the cost of human lives and time would be too great. At some point Ukraine has to decide whether Crimea is worth it, even if it does send a wrong message.

There is a third option. Ukraine's proposals during the peace talks are reasonable from the point of view of third party observers. Putin, being Putin, rejects them out of hand. A static front is formed in the Donbass region with a significantly reduced amount of contact between the two armies. Putin wilfully lives in fantasy world and ignores all the signs that Russia is facing economic ruin from sanctions. Putin then has to give up Crimea just so he can consolidate (reconsolidate?) his hold on the average Russian citizen.

Just so we're clear, I'm classifying this scenario as, "possible, but I wouldn't bet any more than I'm prepared to lose that it would happen"

We don't yet know where the line will be drawn, but Crimea will probably lay solidly on the Russian side of that line.

Absolutely. However, conventional wisdom stated that Ukraine shouldn't have had a standing conventional military this far into the conflict. My default response to everything going on at the moment is I have no fucking clue, with the exception of whether this invasion was justified. Clearly it wasn't.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[SLD]

I might let Crimea go. It was Russian originally anyway. Elsewhere I would not give an inch, not even Donbas.

But if the people there don’t want to be part of Ukraine, why force them? That just guarantees future conflict.

I say let Crimea go, but Russia has to pay for it, but not Donbas or any other area. If the people don’t want to be part of Ukraine, let them emigrate to Russia.

Russia also has to pay reparations for the damage they’ve done.