Great summary Feanor and pretty much covers all the cogent alternative arguments.
Not sure I agree with option 5. Bloodless & bold yes, but would forever lose Ukraine as a sphere of influence and further push Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldovia, Georgia et al into an aggressive posture through plain paranoia.
It's not a question of agreement. I'm merely listing alternatives to the current course of action.
I actually forgot one, which was most obvious one of all. The wait and see.
There is also the fact that video of
Russian T-72s have been geolocated to being inside Ukraine.
I don't think that's Russian military. There was a handover of T-72B tanks to the rebels, with at least one (probably more) T-72B mod. 1989. That's what you see on the photo in question. There is no doubt T-72Bs with K-5 are in the conflict zone. Just no clear answer to whether they are Russian military or rebel. I'd lean towards the latter, for a number of reasons.
I suppose it's possible, but I'd look at ambushes and long range raids that look like they were carried out by professionals.
And one of Vladimir Putin's
human rights advisors thinks there is an invasion going on.
Neither of which is still proof positive that the Russians are there...but it's starting to enter the point of where you have to willfully believe they aren't.
Well the debate at this point isn't whether they are, but what the extent of the involvement, and the exact nature of the involvement is.
Well i agree in priceable with your assessment, I do believe that russia needed certainty in regards to ukraine especially crimea as had they lost influence (and there for there navel power in the area) or even worse from there prospective had ukraine become another poland. It would have broken what power they did have in the region in short what voice would russia have if they let the west walk in and take the ukraine from them? it would be the death of there budding economic union they are trying to keep alive no doubt.
What? How would the tiny and rapidly crashing Ukrainian economy have had anything to do with the Eurasian Union or Customs Union? To be sure, Ukraine would have benefited from joining (they've been losing ground on those markets since the Customs Union came online in 2011). But to say that the Eurasian Union would have been dead, if Ukraine hadn't joined is plain silly.
Not to mention the possible encroachment of nato into ukraine is something russia cannot as a major power take lightly. I would argue that ukraine would actually find its membership all but guarantied if they managed to crush the rebels and hold on to antirussian polices as nato in ukraine is a loaded gun pointed strait at Moscow. not to mention the transit lines for russian gas would no be under western control.
Putting the transit lines under western control would be a dream come true, because then any interruptions in supplies due to Ukraine throwing a tantrum or being broke, would be the wests problems. Russia could wash their hands of it. They're building a huge and expensive pipeline along the sea-bottom just to avoid the Ukrainian transit problem.
As for NATO membership, I'm not so sure. Remember you can't have unresolved territorial disputes to join NATO. And Ukraine has a dispute with Russia over Crimea. There's also the fact that Ukraine is an unstable and problematic country, that could drag NATO into all kings of problems. Finally Ukraine will have a hard time reaching the conditions to join NATO.
In the long term i see this as more of another georgia then anything else. Russia well it could have been more subtle, and i believe it would have had Kiev not opted for a quick military victory and forced there hand.
In geopolitical terms it had to act and it had to be sure of the outcome. Well the west may be quick to condemn russian actions they are not willing to play proxy war in the ukraine to oppose there interests. Truth be told I'm betting the west is more concerned it may be stuck with the western ukraine bills then russian aggression.
Maybe. We will see if they opt for direct supplies of weapons and equipment. That will tell us a lot.
The quick military invasion would have been harder for the west to stomach i think russia was right in offering them "something they can ignore"
tho i could of course be wrong but if i am we should be seeing massive economic and notable military support for the ukraine. I think this is a short term loss for russia politicly. Its not a unexpected reaction on there part and they arnt provoking the west or overreacting. But long term they have lost ukraine as a ally. this will be something that russia will be dealing with for decades domestically
had russia not acted they could be facing the real possibility of nato in ukraine and not just a pro westren ukrain but a anti russian one
They already have an anti-Russian Ukraine. From the total banning of Russian media in Ukraine (and even some western media that's critical of the Ukrainian government) to the huge wall of propaganda, to the blaming of Moscow and Putin for everything under the sun.
And another one here. I will just add that without Ukraine, Russian Federation probably would not last long enough to see fully pro western Ukraine with EU membership. They HAD TO do something to keep Ukraine in their sphere of influence. They know it too and thats why I think annexation of Crimea and starting this whole mess in the east was a mistake and at least partly panic reaction.
Care to elaborate? Why exactly would EU membership for Ukraine lead to the collapse of the RF?
That's utter hogwash. NATO is no threat to Russia, unless Russia is worried about a Europe that can defend itself and won't be bullied by threats. If NATO had a base 1 mile from the Moscow suburbs, I can promise you it would never march on the Kremlin. Why? Because NATO wants to engage with Russia. Russia's the one that needs to see a psychiatrist about its paranoia.
Depends on the circumstances. NATO had no problem bombing Libya into sawdust, and look at where that went. Was that a defense of Europe from bullying?
Nope, long-term. Europe, North America and other countries won't trust Russia anymore. It will take a long time, or a huge Russian concession over another issue, to make up for what has happened.
You think a concession elsewhere will make up for this? I honestly don't see how.
Or they could have accepted the change of government in Kiev, built new relations with a Ukraine that wanted Russian cooperation and stayed out of Ukrainian affairs. But I guess Putin's ego wouldn't let him.
A ridiculous oversimplification. You really think Putin's ego is the only reason things took this route? Come on. Russian elites and Russian society has been talking about the weakness of the west and rise of Russian power for quite some time, and the Georgian War gets regularly cited and misinterpreted as a sign where the West was too weak to act. This runs a lot deeper then Putin.
