Putin Goes to War in Crimea | Hacker News Reader

Putin Goes to War in Crimea

newyorker.com

35 pointsbcn22 comments

Isn't there some legitimacy to Russia's claims that the new ruling government is made up of fascists, anti-semites, and russophobes?

NPR recently had a speaker that denied this calling it Russian propaganda and I bought that but today I saw that the guardian mentions in the article at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/ukraine-genuine... , that there does seem to be a very strong ultra rightest component to it in the Svodoba party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party) .

So far, members of the Svodoba are "deputy prime minister for EU integration, interior, justice, energy, infrastructure, defense, culture, social issues,". According to wikipedia, these guys were initially inspired by the Nazis. So apparently, literally fascists.

The protesters fought against corruption and cronyism, but was their fight hijacked by these Svodobans?

I'm confused about one thing. All news outlet are reporting this as "occupation of Crimea" as if Crimea was not politically a part of Ukraine proper, as if Russian army in Crimea is not the same as Russian army in the Ukraine even though Crimea is part of the Ukraine. Why is that? Is it because the majority of Crimea's population is ethnically Russian? Or is Crimea a disputed territory, like Abkhazia?

Crimea is a semi-autonomous region of the Ukraine. They elect their own PM, etc.

Russia is still technically invading a sovereign nation, though the line gets smudged somewhat because of Crimea's status.

I mean I've read the wiki but to me it's still clearly in Ukraine.

Trying to think of analogy here but nothing concrete comes up. The messy thing about this is that the ethnic, cultural and linguistic makeup of Crimea is by majority, Russian. It's something of an foreign-induced rebellion that the majority willingly accept.

So, let's say Crimea overwhelmingly wishes to secede to Russia. Would it be undemocratic for the US to oppose such a move, whether it is induced/heavily influenced by a foreign nation? It get's murkier at that point. It's a rather well-planned move on Putins part and I believe it was pre-mediated months in advance. But that's just my opinion.

It's not a rebellion when all the fighting / military involvement is done by soldiers of another country. It's called an invasion.

From wikipedia: "Crimea is an autonomous parliamentary republic within Ukraine and is governed by the Constitution of Crimea in accordance with the laws of Ukraine."[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

It was part of Russia till 1954 when it was transferred to Ukraine. Even after fall of Soviet Union naval bases are still used by the Russian navy. So basically historically population is pro-russian and military personnel was already there before the crisis.

Yes, I've read the wiki. It's still a part of the Ukraine. Similarly, Kaliningrad was part of Germany (Prussia) until end of WW2. Yet if Germany invaded Kaliningrad today, it would still be perceived as declaration of war.

Incorrect. They are not going to war yet. Putin just got senat permission to make this desition, but the desition is not made yet.

I still can't believe RF will go to war in Ukrain. I hope they won't.

Except that Crimea is already taken over by Russian soldiers. So the senate rubber-stamp is just that.

I am speculating. What could Putin really hope to accomplish? And at what expense?

I am looking at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine

Ethnic groups (2001)

77.8% Ukrainians

17.3% Russians

4.9% others / unspecified

The Russians are concentrated in the eastern-most provinces, and also in the Crimea.

Russia has 145 million people, the Ukraine has 46 million people, so in terms of the ratio of people, Russia invading the Ukraine would be a bit like the USA invading Mexico.

Russia also has a large per-capita GDP advantage relative to the Ukraine, sort of like the USA advantage over Mexico:

Russia:

GDP (nominal) Per capita $15,717

Ukraine:

GDP (nominal) Per capita $3,862

I'm using the nominal GDP, not the PPP numbers, because when it comes to war it is the nominal numbers that matter (PPP is focused on quality of life, and the fact that your rent might be cheap, or that you can get a haircut for cheap, influences your personal standard of living, but does not effect the outcome of a war).

The USA wasted over $1 trillion in Iraq. If the USA tried to conquer Mexico the war would drag on for many years and very nearly bankrupt the USA. Likewise, I suspect a full invasion of the Ukraine would bankrupt Russia. Chechnya is much smaller, yet still caused Russia considerable pain. And also, Chechnya was isolated from Western help. The Ukraine has a border with a country that is a member of the EU. It is true that the Poles dislike the fact that famous Polish cities such as Lwów were stolen and given to the Ukraine, but if it came to war with Russia, it strikes me as likely Poland allow its border to become porous, in the sense that the border would become a way of getting supplies to the Ukraine. It seems to me likely that the West would be largely united in wanting to help the Ukraine.

The substantial expense makes me think that Putin would not want to try to conquer the whole country. If that is what he wants, then he has gone insane. What seems to me more likely is that he wants to seize those provinces that are majority-Russian. This would be a grievous violation of the sovereignty of the Ukraine, and would probably be regarded as a dangerous precedent. Also, if Putin can get away with it, then there are obvious parallels to Hitler's 1938 occupation of the Sudetenland (which was majority-German). Also remember that Neville Chamberlain's reputation was destroyed when he argued that this one concession to Hitler would lead to peace, when in fact it lead to world war. No Western politician would want to be cast as a modern day Chamberlain, so I suspect many politicians in the West would be inclined to take a strong stand against the partial annexation of the Ukraine to Russia.

I'm trying to think of any major powers that would be willing to support Russia. It has some minor friends: the Serbs, the Syrian government, Cuba, maybe Hungary, etc. But what major power would be willing to support this? Does China have any reason to support Russia in this invasion? I suspect many oil-producing Middle Eastern nations would love to see an economic blockade of Russia, as that would jack up the price of oil.

Finally, there is Putin's use of language, in particular his desire to describe this as an effort to protect the Russians living in the Ukraine. There a parallel to be drawn to the language that Mussolini used when he decided to invade Greece:

"These troops do not come as enemies of the Greek people and the Italian Government does not in any way intend that the temporary occupation of several strategic points, dictated by special necessities of a purely defensive character, should compromise Greek sovereignty and independence."

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/10/liveblogging-world-war...

You're misleading. We're talking about Crimea here. Ethnic breakdown in Crimea:

58.2% Russians 27.5% Ukrainians Rest are mixed.

Crimean Tartars are a substantial group in Crimea as well, and they (for historical reasons) are very sceptical of the Russians.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crimean_Tatar_2001-num.svg

Updated figures:

58.32% Russians

24.32% Ukrainians

12.03% Tarters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Ethnic_groups

I think it's the same strategy as Georgia/Abkhazia. You go in to "defend" the ethnic Russians. You don't take it over, you simply "Keep the peace" and make them a separate country. Congrats, now you have a very important military port in a country that you control.

Remember the consequences Putin faced for Georgia in 2008? Neither does he, because there really weren't any.

He may be inclined to annex Crimea. Remember that there is precedent, albeit on a smaller scale, in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Hopefully, it won't come to that, but I don't see anyone who would be willing to stop him.

I don't think Putin has a well-defined plan per se. I suspect he's simply testing the waters to see how far he can go without causing any significant blow back. First he sends some troops in unmarked uniforms to seize the Crimean goverment and parliament buildings. It goes well. He then unofficially moves in some more unmarked troops and equipment and officially requests the Russian parliament to authorize an invasion. He's now probably gauging the reaction of the international community.

Also, as history shows, he doesn't necessarily need to seize any territory - installing in situ goverments and establishing secure zones around the borders seemed to have worked to Russia's advantage in Transnestria, Abkhazia, and South Osetia. I don't see why it wouldn't work in Crimea, and - if Putin gets really lucky - in Eastern Ukraine.

My only hope is that it doesn't come to a shooting war with mass civilian casualties the way it did in all 3 of those regions.

Crimea is a complicated place. The majority of the population are ethnic Russians. But there's a very active Crimean Tatar minority (~15%) which is staunchly pro-Ukrainian (or anti-Russian, if you will). There are also two potentially hostile militaries close to each other - the Ukrainian army has its bases there and Russia keeps its Black Sea Navy units in the Crimean city of Sevastopol.

I would suggest to invite UN troops to control the peace in this region until Crimea holds the referendum on March 30. Not Russians nor Ukraine military should interrupt this process.

thought this was good - http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116810/putin-declares-war...

Actually, HN is not a political forum, so this thread is offtopic here.

Demons run when a good man goes to war

Reply on news.ycombinator.com