nangyale
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 31, 2010
- Messages
- 2,251
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Why there is no Russian military intervention in the Ukraine
Posted on worldcrisis.ru 30 Май22:19опубликовалСухов боец красной армии [suho]
The level of analytical discussions on the Russian Internet is perfectly described by the political scientist Simon Uralov: "To consider that the Ukrainian crisis set off only the minds of the Kievan colleagues and turned them all into bloodthirsty hysterics is fundamentally mistaken. Among the Moscow colleagues there is also an incredible number of such." The purpose of this material is to take a step back from the hysteria and coldly analyze the situation in Ukraine.
I'll start with the necessary clarifications on several emotionally important topics:
Why is there no Russian military intervention?
If this text was written a few days earlier, a significant part of it would had to have been devoted to explaining why sending troops to Ukraine was inappropriate and just plain stupid even after the referendum. Fortunately, the head of the resistance in Slaviansk, Igor Strelkov, coped with this task better than I: in his video message, he very clearly described the inertness of the local population of Lugansk and Donetsk in terms of real action to protect their interests against the junta. Anticipating the arguments about the referendum, I hasten to say that a check mark on the ballot is certainly cool, but not much different from any hipster-white-ribboned (belolentochnyh) attempts "carry mode" – the “like” on Facebook. Because a "like" handle made in the bulletin doesn’t change anything. The referendum was a necessary but not sufficient action.
How much was the Kremlin prepared for events in Ukraine and how much does it improvise even now?
I advise you to read the Wikileaks telegrams: Cable: 08MOSCOW265_a , in which it is shown that Kremlin clearly pointed out to the Americans in 2008 the scenarios that we see today: "Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face."
It is logical to assume that such a development for the Kremlin was not a surprise and that we are now in even more unpleasant but less nuanced script that something like "Plan E".
In order to understand what the Kremlin will do next, let’s formulate objectives:
- Do not allow the entry of Ukraine into NATO.
- Do not allow the establishment and stabilization in Ukraine of a Russophobic regime, which assumes re-nazification.
- Do not allow the genocide of Russian South-East population.
Ideally this requires implementation of all three objectives while, not breaking the Russian economy during its reorientation toward Asia and, at the same time, preventing the Americans from pulling off their economic ends at the expense of the EU.
How can these goals be realized?
Let us consider the simplest scenario and see what are the vulnerabilities and negative consequences:
So, the Russian army enters Ukraine and a few days later comes to Kiev, then captures all of Ukraine. "Patriots" are jubilant, there are parades on the Khreschatyk, etc.
It seems that all three goals have been achieved, but the following problems emerge:
1. In the EU, where the European business elite has slowly pressed on the feet of their politicians and stamped on the brakes with regard to sanctions, the "war party" (a/k/a "The Party of the United States", or rather "Party Pax Americana») clearly triumphs. Against the Russian Federation, the maximum of real sanctions cut in with terrifying effect principally for the European economy themselves, which immediately falls into a recession. But nothing to rejoice about.
Against this background, the Americans easily force the signing of their version of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a trade pact, which turns the EU into an appendage of the U.S economy. Negotiations about the treaty are going on right now and, for the Americans, the entry of Russian troops in Ukraine would be a huge gift. Sanctions against Russia would destroy European business and trade barriers with the U.S would finish it. What we have at the end: EU in a state as if after a war; the United States, all in white, joyfully absorbing European markets on which they have not and will not have competitors; the Russian Federation - not in the best shape. Does it seem to anyone that someone in this situation is the fool (лох), and that that someone is clearly not the U.S.? By the way, it is not necessary to take into account the arguments to the effect that European politicians would not allow economic suicide. Euro-bureaucrats are not capable even of this, as practice shows.
2. Besides the fact that the Kremlin will render a service to Washington, we need to look at what will happen to Russia itself.
• If the sanctions cut against Russia before the gas mega-contract for 30 years with China is signed, then China will be able to negotiate a price from a position of strength. In fact, from a position of blackmail (This shows in China’s comportment, however, but not clearly).
• If the sanctions are imposed against Russia before the oil mega-contract with Iran is initialled, through which Rosneft will be able to control an additional 500,000 barrels of oil per day, Iran will be able to negotiate a price from a position of strength.
• All subsequent attempts to build something up even to the delivery of imports we need now, will be very, very expensive.
• If sanctions cut in before the signing of the agreement on the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community, imagine what trumps Lukashenko and Nazarbayev will have to twist Putin’s arms at negotiations. A little more of this, and Moscow, in order to create the EurAsEC, will have to pay for its oil. 3. The Russian Federation would have to assume the responsibility for the restoration of the Ukrainian economy and de-nazification: where to get the needed number of “de-nazifiers” in “dusty helmets” (if anyone has forgotten, according to Okudzhava, it was the commissars in dusty helmets that bent over the dead hero of the Civil War) to fight compact groups of Ukrainian Nazis, which will enjoy support and supply from abroad. On aggregate, it is clear that this scenario greatly benefits the United States and China. Russia remains in a deep sense of moral satisfaction, economic issues and future curses of the “generous” (щирых) Ukrainians who are unhappy with "life under occupation."
Posted on worldcrisis.ru 30 Май22:19опубликовалСухов боец красной армии [suho]
The level of analytical discussions on the Russian Internet is perfectly described by the political scientist Simon Uralov: "To consider that the Ukrainian crisis set off only the minds of the Kievan colleagues and turned them all into bloodthirsty hysterics is fundamentally mistaken. Among the Moscow colleagues there is also an incredible number of such." The purpose of this material is to take a step back from the hysteria and coldly analyze the situation in Ukraine.
I'll start with the necessary clarifications on several emotionally important topics:
Why is there no Russian military intervention?
If this text was written a few days earlier, a significant part of it would had to have been devoted to explaining why sending troops to Ukraine was inappropriate and just plain stupid even after the referendum. Fortunately, the head of the resistance in Slaviansk, Igor Strelkov, coped with this task better than I: in his video message, he very clearly described the inertness of the local population of Lugansk and Donetsk in terms of real action to protect their interests against the junta. Anticipating the arguments about the referendum, I hasten to say that a check mark on the ballot is certainly cool, but not much different from any hipster-white-ribboned (belolentochnyh) attempts "carry mode" – the “like” on Facebook. Because a "like" handle made in the bulletin doesn’t change anything. The referendum was a necessary but not sufficient action.
How much was the Kremlin prepared for events in Ukraine and how much does it improvise even now?
I advise you to read the Wikileaks telegrams: Cable: 08MOSCOW265_a , in which it is shown that Kremlin clearly pointed out to the Americans in 2008 the scenarios that we see today: "Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face."
It is logical to assume that such a development for the Kremlin was not a surprise and that we are now in even more unpleasant but less nuanced script that something like "Plan E".
In order to understand what the Kremlin will do next, let’s formulate objectives:
- Do not allow the entry of Ukraine into NATO.
- Do not allow the establishment and stabilization in Ukraine of a Russophobic regime, which assumes re-nazification.
- Do not allow the genocide of Russian South-East population.
Ideally this requires implementation of all three objectives while, not breaking the Russian economy during its reorientation toward Asia and, at the same time, preventing the Americans from pulling off their economic ends at the expense of the EU.
How can these goals be realized?
Let us consider the simplest scenario and see what are the vulnerabilities and negative consequences:
So, the Russian army enters Ukraine and a few days later comes to Kiev, then captures all of Ukraine. "Patriots" are jubilant, there are parades on the Khreschatyk, etc.
It seems that all three goals have been achieved, but the following problems emerge:
1. In the EU, where the European business elite has slowly pressed on the feet of their politicians and stamped on the brakes with regard to sanctions, the "war party" (a/k/a "The Party of the United States", or rather "Party Pax Americana») clearly triumphs. Against the Russian Federation, the maximum of real sanctions cut in with terrifying effect principally for the European economy themselves, which immediately falls into a recession. But nothing to rejoice about.
Against this background, the Americans easily force the signing of their version of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a trade pact, which turns the EU into an appendage of the U.S economy. Negotiations about the treaty are going on right now and, for the Americans, the entry of Russian troops in Ukraine would be a huge gift. Sanctions against Russia would destroy European business and trade barriers with the U.S would finish it. What we have at the end: EU in a state as if after a war; the United States, all in white, joyfully absorbing European markets on which they have not and will not have competitors; the Russian Federation - not in the best shape. Does it seem to anyone that someone in this situation is the fool (лох), and that that someone is clearly not the U.S.? By the way, it is not necessary to take into account the arguments to the effect that European politicians would not allow economic suicide. Euro-bureaucrats are not capable even of this, as practice shows.
2. Besides the fact that the Kremlin will render a service to Washington, we need to look at what will happen to Russia itself.
• If the sanctions cut against Russia before the gas mega-contract for 30 years with China is signed, then China will be able to negotiate a price from a position of strength. In fact, from a position of blackmail (This shows in China’s comportment, however, but not clearly).
• If the sanctions are imposed against Russia before the oil mega-contract with Iran is initialled, through which Rosneft will be able to control an additional 500,000 barrels of oil per day, Iran will be able to negotiate a price from a position of strength.
• All subsequent attempts to build something up even to the delivery of imports we need now, will be very, very expensive.
• If sanctions cut in before the signing of the agreement on the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community, imagine what trumps Lukashenko and Nazarbayev will have to twist Putin’s arms at negotiations. A little more of this, and Moscow, in order to create the EurAsEC, will have to pay for its oil. 3. The Russian Federation would have to assume the responsibility for the restoration of the Ukrainian economy and de-nazification: where to get the needed number of “de-nazifiers” in “dusty helmets” (if anyone has forgotten, according to Okudzhava, it was the commissars in dusty helmets that bent over the dead hero of the Civil War) to fight compact groups of Ukrainian Nazis, which will enjoy support and supply from abroad. On aggregate, it is clear that this scenario greatly benefits the United States and China. Russia remains in a deep sense of moral satisfaction, economic issues and future curses of the “generous” (щирых) Ukrainians who are unhappy with "life under occupation."
