How will the Ukraine war end?

How will the Ukraine war end?

  • Rebels win,Eastern Ukraine goes independent

    Votes: 102 47.9%
  • Putin invades Kiev, NATO doesn't move

    Votes: 63 29.6%
  • Putin invades Kiev, NATO fights Russia

    Votes: 13 6.1%
  • Rebels lose, Ukraine stays united

    Votes: 35 16.4%

  • Total voters
    213

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Chalk and cheese. Nothing from Putin says he’s happy with the current borders
Ha! Russia have no borders, Russia have horisonts only.

It’s what you do
Oh, no. Right now chaging is almost bloodless. First tens of thousands victims, even first millions (for denazification of former Ukraine) is nothing.

Like the other colour revolutions?
No. like a civil war with wide usage of nuclear and biological weapon.

I don’t see many clamouring for the return of the Warsaw Pact
Sure. First - you don't see anything that different from your picture of the world. Second - "democracy" in the modern West understanding of the word does not mean "freedom of speech", especially for any pro-Russian activity. Third - "Money talks, BS walks" - european business wants more cooperation with Russia.
 
YarS said:
Ha! Russia have no borders, Russia have horisonts only.

Oh, no. Right now chaging is almost bloodless. First tens of thousands victims, even first millions (for denazification of former Ukraine) is nothing.

No. like a civil war with wide usage of nuclear and biological weapon.

Sure. First - you don't see anything that different from your picture of the world. Second - "democracy" in the modern West understanding of the word does not mean "freedom of speech", especially for any pro-Russian activity. Third - "Money talks, BS walks" - european business wants more cooperation with Russia.
The usual warmongering drivel posted by the raping coward.
 
Ha! Russia have no borders, Russia have horisonts only.


Oh, no. Right now chaging is almost bloodless. First tens of thousands victims, even first millions (for denazification of former Ukraine) is nothing.


No. like a civil war with wide usage of nuclear and biological weapon.


Sure. First - you don't see anything that different from your picture of the world. Second - "democracy" in the modern West understanding of the word does not mean "freedom of speech", especially for any pro-Russian activity. Third - "Money talks, BS walks" - european business wants more cooperation with Russia.
So, to summarise. You're a complete tit.
 
I'm absolutely sure that Putin will not drop support for the rebels in the name of good relations with mr.Zelensky.
I didn't say it would be for the sake of "good relations". I think that Moscow would be looking for something much more tangible and permanent than that.

The Kremlin's strategy is absolutely clear. Ukraine would be prosperous, would receive economical carrots from Moscow only with pro-Moscow leader. (...)
In Ukraine, leaders come and go, sometimes unexpectedly. As I said above, I think that Moscow would be looking for something more tangible.

The current government in Moscow want the following:
  • To keep Crimea and have Kiev recognise this through some means (e.g. another referendum). They see this as correcting an arbitrary, illegitimate and unjust action by Kruschev in the relatively recent past.
  • No NATO expansion into Ukraine.
  • Continued (or resumed) close trade ties between Ukraine and Moscow.
  • Kiev to not create problems for Moscow in international affairs.
If they got all of those, Russia would almost certainly drop support for the rebels. If they got most of them, they might drop support for the rebels. If they get none of them, then they have little reason to not continue to support the rebels.

My impression of the current mood in Ukraine is that while Zelensky currently has popular support, it is purely based on public disgust with the corruption and incompetence of the Poroshenko regime. Zelensky himself has no political party which can be used to force unpopular changes through the political system and sustain them over the long run. Whether he can create such a party and get it into power in parliament before his own popularity starts to fade is a good question.

As such, then I agree with you that the logical course of action for the Kremlin is to wait and see if this latest political development will go anywhere, or whether the result will be political paralysis in Kiev.

The problem of course is that if the Kremlin wait too long and Zelensky does succeed in putting a sustainable political coalition together, then he may no longer be as desperate for a diplomatic "success" that he can show to the public, and so less likely to accept a deal that is proposed by Moscow.

This by the way is why many observers thought that of the leading contenders Moscow favoured Tymoshenko. While she wasn't favourable towards Moscow, the Kremlin thought they at least understood her and knew how to deal with her. Zelensky on the other hand is an unknown quantity and so is less predictable.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
I didn't say it would be for the sake of "good relations". I think that Moscow would be looking for something much more tangible and permanent than that.
Yes. And this 'permanent solution' means at least federalisation and denazification of Ukraine, at maximum - its reintegration in Russia.
The current government in Moscow want the following:
  • To keep Crimea and have Kiev recognise this through some means (e.g. another referendum). They see this as correcting an arbitrary, illegitimate and unjust action by Kruschev in the relatively recent past.
  • No NATO expansion into Ukraine.
  • Continued (or resumed) close trade ties between Ukraine and Moscow.
  • Kiev to not create problems for Moscow in international affairs.
If they got all of those, Russia would almost certainly drop support for the rebels. If they got most of them, they might drop support for the rebels. If they get none of them, then they have little reason to not continue to support the rebels.
Russia will not decrease support of rebels even if Ukraine will be federalised and accepted Russian as the state language. There is no need to loose effective tool. If Republics will be useless as a tool, Russia will use her own regular military force.


My impression of the current mood in Ukraine is that while Zelensky currently has popular support, it is purely based on public disgust with the corruption and incompetence of the Poroshenko regime.
I agree.

Zelensky himself has no political party which can be used to force unpopular changes through the political system and sustain them over the long run. Whether he can create such a party and get it into power in parliament before his own popularity starts to fade is a good question.
Or, may be, his popularity will grow up (if he will be succesfull on solving of national problems).

As such, then I agree with you that the logical course of action for the Kremlin is to wait and see if this latest political development will go anywhere, or whether the result will be political paralysis in Kiev.
Actually, I very doubt, that Russia have a much time to wait. Problems between EU and Gazprom (for example with North Stream), as well as between Gazprom and Naftogaz must be solved (or clearly demonstrated as insoluble) in 2019.
 
Yes. And this 'permanent solution' means at least federalisation and denazification of Ukraine, at maximum - its reintegration in Russia.

Russia will not decrease support of rebels even if Ukraine will be federalised and accepted Russian as the state language. There is no need to loose effective tool. If Republics will be useless as a tool, Russia will use her own regular military force. (...)
If Canada had handled the English-French language, culture, law, and religion issues the way that Ukraine has been handling their own equivalents, then we would have had our own civil war and I doubt that Canada would have survived.

By rather interesting coincidence, the major political element in Canada opposed to any sort of compromise on these issues also had an Orange tinge to it.

Actually, I very doubt, that Russia have a much time to wait. Problems between EU and Gazprom (for example with North Stream), as well as between Gazprom and Naftogaz must be solved (or clearly demonstrated as insoluble) in 2019.
You have your uses now and again, and reminding us of the importance of pipeline politics in all of this is one of them.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
If Canada had handled the English-French language, culture, law, and religion issues the way that Ukraine has been handling their own equivalents, then we would have had our own civil war and I doubt that Canada would have survived.
Would USA intervened in the war, and support one of sides?
You have your uses now and again, and reminding us of the importance of pipeline politics in all of this is one of them.
Sure. USA intervented in Ukraine to cut links (including pipes) between Russia and EU.
 
Would USA intervened in the war, and support one of sides? (...)
I would expect that they would have. They had conducted two direct invasions and allowed three different groups of insurgents to operate from US bases against Canada at various times from the late 18th to late 19th century and had threatened war at other times. It was by no means a peaceful relationship.

They had thought they would receive local support, and seemed puzzled as to why that didn't happen. There were several reasons for that however. In their first invasion they treated the Francophone population so badly that the Francophones realised that their rights and freedoms would be better protected under enlightened British rule than under American rule. The original significant influx of Anglophone population into Canada (which was what is now Ontario and Quebec) were refugees from the American Revolution, and they had no desire to go back to the political persecution, arbitrary confiscation of property, and prison camps they had left behind.

None the less, there were still English-French and Protestant-Catholic tensions within Canada which the national political leadership had to be careful to balance. One time they failed was during the annexation of the lands belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company (the Canadian equivalent to the East India Company) who owned most of what are now the western provinces and most of Ontario and Quebec. The result was the Red River Rebellion, in which local Francophone forces more or less staged an armed coup against the HBC's government, installed themselves in power, and offered to open negotiations with Ottawa on terms of annexation. They wanted more or less the same political compromises that were already in force in Quebec and Ontario with regards to language, education, principles of law (the legal system of the HBC territories was based on Scottish law, which was different from English law), as well as addressing problems with property surveys.

Canada responded by sending an army. The leaders of the rebellion decided not to fight and fled the country for exile in the US. Eventually political compromises were reached which addressed many of the concerns which sparked the rebellion in the first place. However, the entire incident could have been avoided had Ottawa been open to reasonable compromise in the first place. What largely prevented this was nationalist sentiment in Ontario had been stirred up to such a feverish pitch at the thought of the annexation of the HBC territories allowing Canada to achieve its destiny as the most glorious part of an ever more glorious British Empire that they were outraged when they saw that being even temporarily thwarted. The government were therefore forced to make a show of taking immediate action to crush the rebellion. This however was unpopular in Quebec, where there was much sympathy for the rebels. Today the handling of these events by Canada is seen by most historians to have been very bad and created further political division in Canada.

The Americans were not able to take advantage of this situation, but concern that they might make the attempt may possibly have played a part in Ottawa's decision to immediately send an army rather than spend time negotiating.

All of this by the way opened up the prairies to building a transcontinental railway and then bringing in large numbers of settlers to develop farms to supply wheat to Britain. The need for more of a labour force than Canada and Britain could supply required searching for settlers in eastern Europe, resulting in importing large numbers of Ruthenians and Galicians, people we now call "Ukrainians". That in turn has had consequences to this day with regards to Canadian foreign policy with respect to Ukraine.

The Mexicans faced the same sort of attention from the Americans, but came off with the worst of it as they were not part of the British Empire plus they also had a series of internal revolts and revolutions the Americans could take advantage of. The end result was they lost half their country to the Americans, and they have not forgotten nor forgiven that to this day.

If Ukraine were not such a political and economic basket case, but were instead more like Poland, then it is unlikely that Russia would have much success in stirring up trouble there.
 
I didn't say it would be for the sake of "good relations". I think that Moscow would be looking for something much more tangible and permanent than that.

In Ukraine, leaders come and go, sometimes unexpectedly. As I said above, I think that Moscow would be looking for something more tangible.
In my opinion the only tangible thing for Putin in Ukraine is pro-Moscow government in Kiev. Anything else - other steps toward Moscow's position could be welcomed if they lead to the main objective.
As for Putin's foothold in Ukraine - Donbass then it would be naive to suggest that Putin will abandon it anytime soon.
The current government in Moscow want the following:
1) To keep Crimea and have Kiev recognise this through some means (e.g. another referendum). They see this as correcting an arbitrary, illegitimate and unjust action by Kruschev in the relatively recent past.
2) No NATO expansion into Ukraine.
3) Continued (or resumed) close trade ties between Ukraine and Moscow.
4) Kiev to not create problems for Moscow in international affairs.
1a) Current de facto status of Crimea. For Putin and the vast majory of population in Crimea the question is closed. Crimea is a part of Russia. Period. It doesn't matter what others think about it. So it is not an objective as it has been reached.
1b) De jure status of Crimea. Legitimation of current status of the peninsula would be possible with pro-Moscow government in Kiev. Highly unlikely any pro-Western government in Kiev would agree for the new referendum. So to reach this objective Kremlin has to reach the main objective - Russia friendly leadership in Ukraine.
2) NATO in theory could incorporate Ukraine just now. But only idiots could believe that it would end peacefully. Are NATO countries ready for full scale war with Russia quite close to Russia's borders? I strongly doubt. Crimea and Donbass are sufficient factors to prevent Ukraine's membership in NATO at least in the near future. So in fact this objective has been reached.
3) For Moscow trade relations themselves are not an objective but a tool to reach other objectives. I agree that for Ukraine restoration of trade relations with Russia is important as the only hope for economical development is cooperation with Russia, access to huge Russian market. With pro-Moscow government in Kiev the trade relation will be reasoted swiftly but Kremlin is not ready to give economical carrots to any pro-Western government.
4) With pro-Western rules Kiev will create (really minor) problems for Moscow anyway. And only pro-Moscow government will not create them.
If they got all of those, Russia would almost certainly drop support for the rebels. If they got most of them, they might drop support for the rebels. If they get none of them, then they have little reason to not continue to support the rebels.
Let's suppose that Ukrainian government (that is not pro-Moscow)
1) Agrees to legetimize de facto status of Crimea.
2) Declares not to seek NATO membership
3) ---- This point is irrelevant for Moscow
4) Promise not to create problems for Moscow
As a result you suggest that Donbass separatist forces would be disbanded and Kiev's military conrol in Donbass would be restored.. Do you really think that Putin is that stupid. After the next Maidan, the next government could revoke any previous statements and promises while Donbass would remain under Kiev's control.
My impression of the current mood in Ukraine is that while Zelensky currently has popular support, it is purely based on public disgust with the corruption and incompetence of the Poroshenko regime.
Absolutely agree.
Zelensky himself has no political party which can be used to force unpopular changes through the political system and sustain them over the long run. Whether he can create such a party and get it into power in parliament before his own popularity starts to fade is a good question.
Creation of able political party is not simple business. It requires money, a lot of them. It requires a lot of activists, paid organisers. Without sponsorship from oligarchs it is a hopeless endeavor. Just now mr.Zelensky is surrounded by mostly random people and there is a good question - will they be corrupted? Highly likely they will be. The people in Ukraine will see it immediately and popularity of mr.Zelensky will fade.
In my opinion he will be weak president, voided real power, he will be rather a toy in the hands of almighty oligarchs.
As such, then I agree with you that the logical course of action for the Kremlin is to wait and see if this latest political development will go anywhere, or whether the result will be political paralysis in Kiev.
Yes, at first Moscow will wait and at the same time prepare for actions that would harm Ukraine's economical interests as complete termination of the gas transit. Moscow expects that during the next parliamentary elections Ukrainian citizens in Russia and Donbass will be allowed to vote. It is millions of politically active voters.
For Moscow it is critically important issue. Indeed Ukrainian citizens in Canada are allowed to vote but in Russia not. It is not fair. Mr.Zelensky will be unable to do anything in this respect (withotu support base in the Parliament) and likely will not support such an idea publicly.
The problem of course is that if the Kremlin wait too long and Zelensky does succeed in putting a sustainable political coalition together, then he may no longer be as desperate for a diplomatic "success" that he can show to the public, and so less likely to accept a deal that is proposed by Moscow.
I believe that for Moscow mr.Zelensky is anyway an intermediate formal leader not worth to deal with.
This by the way is why many observers thought that of the leading contenders Moscow favoured Tymoshenko. While she wasn't favourable towards Moscow, the Kremlin thought they at least understood her and knew how to deal with her. Zelensky on the other hand is an unknown quantity and so is less predictable.
Mr.Boyko was apparent pro-Moscow candidate while ms.Timoshenko could be another intermediate variant.
 
Putin: Russia May Simplify Granting Citizenship To All Ukrainians
Russian President Vladimir Putin says his administration is considering a plan to ease the process of granting Russian citizenship to all Ukrainians, not only those in war-torn parts of eastern Ukraine.
Previously
On April 24, Putin announced a presidential decree that eases the process of granting Russian citizenship to anyone living in parts of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are under the control of Russia-backed separatists.
That decree drew a swift and angry response from Kyiv, the United States, Britain, the European Union...
Previously to gain Russian citizenship any person should be Russia's resident for at least 5 years, abandon any other citizenship, has legal source of income in Russia and pass complicated procedure in FSB (security service).
Now the procedue is quite simple. Any Ukrainian citizen can gain Russian citizenship and preserve its Ukrainian one.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Most stupid and most fearless German degenerates suggest to send German forces in the Ukraine to eliminate Peoples Republics

"▶︎ Im UN-Sicherheitsrat solle die Bundesregierung einen Friedensplan erarbeiten, der neben einer zeitlich begrenzten UN-Mission an der ukrainisch-russischen Grenze, dem Abzug aller Kampftruppen und Waffensysteme auch die Ab- und Auflösung der „Regierungen“ in den selbsternannten „Volksrepubliken“ Donezk und Lugansk umfasst. Eine zivile Übergangsverwaltung unter UN-Führung mit klarem Mandat solle die Gebiete verwalten und freie, unabhängige Wahlen vorbereiten."

"▶ In the UN Security Council, the federal government should draw up a peace plan, which includes not only a time-limited UN Mission at the Ukrainian-Russian border, the withdrawal of all combat troops and weapons systems, but also the removal and dissolution of the "governments" in the self-proclaimed "People's republics" of Donetsk and Lugansk. A UN-led transitional civilian administration with a clear mandate should manage the territories and prepare free, independent elections."


Wegen Putins Aggressionen: FDP will mehr Polizei in Ukraine schicken


Looks like they forgot their previouse attempt:

Ok. But I hope they understand, that this time war will be started with massive nuclear strike at German cities, continued with land invasion and finishing all survivals, and end with demolishing all constructions, burning all books and poisoning of all German soil.
 
Most stupid and most fearless German degenerates suggest to send German forces in the Ukraine to eliminate Peoples Republics

"▶︎ Im UN-Sicherheitsrat solle die Bundesregierung einen Friedensplan erarbeiten, der neben einer zeitlich begrenzten UN-Mission an der ukrainisch-russischen Grenze, dem Abzug aller Kampftruppen und Waffensysteme auch die Ab- und Auflösung der „Regierungen“ in den selbsternannten „Volksrepubliken“ Donezk und Lugansk umfasst. Eine zivile Übergangsverwaltung unter UN-Führung mit klarem Mandat solle die Gebiete verwalten und freie, unabhängige Wahlen vorbereiten."

"▶ In the UN Security Council, the federal government should draw up a peace plan, which includes not only a time-limited UN Mission at the Ukrainian-Russian border, the withdrawal of all combat troops and weapons systems, but also the removal and dissolution of the "governments" in the self-proclaimed "People's republics" of Donetsk and Lugansk. A UN-led transitional civilian administration with a clear mandate should manage the territories and prepare free, independent elections."


Wegen Putins Aggressionen: FDP will mehr Polizei in Ukraine schicken


Looks like they forgot their previouse attempt:

Ok. But I hope they understand, that this time war will be started with massive nuclear strike at German cities, continued with land invasion and finishing all survivals, and end with demolishing all constructions, burning all books and poisoning of all German soil.
But they nearly won and had Stalin sh!tt!ng his pants for months.
 
1556561422604.png


In the center you may see mr.Reva - Ukrainian minister for social policy. Two years ago he said that Ukrainians are so poor because they eat too much. As for some Ukrainian politicians then they apparently don't bound themselves in this respect.

1556561689562.png


Mr.Reva recently appointed as his deputy a person who highly likely doesn't eat too much

1556561788738.png


Ms.Churkina will have salary $3450 per month (fantastically high in Ukraine).

Recently BBC showed minister Reva. Whatch from 3:40

He doesn't care about Ukrainians who live in the separatist controlled region. From his point of view they don't have right for pensions and all 'pro-Ukrainian' people have left the separatist controlled areas long ago.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 390124

In the center you may see mr.Reva - Ukrainian minister for social policy. Two years ago he said that Ukrainians are so poor because they eat too much. As for some Ukrainian politicians then they apparently don't bound themselves in this respect.

View attachment 390125

Mr.Reva recently appointed as his deputy a person who highly likely doesn't eat too much

View attachment 390126

Ms.Churkina will have salary $3450 per month (fantastically high in Ukraine).

Recently BBC showed minister Reva. Whatch from 3:40

He doesn't care about Ukrainians who live in the separatist controlled region. From his point of view they don't have right for pensions and all 'pro-Ukrainian' people have left the separatist controlled areas long ago.
And i’m Sure Putin by contrast cares deeply about all his citizens.
 
And i’m Sure Putin by contrast cares deeply about all his citizens.
You know that I'm not a big fan of Putin - the head of thieving gang of oligarchs and corrupted officials but he is not complete idiot and takes into account that the Russians at least sometimes wish to eat.
There is Orthodox Easter week now. Btw
ХРИСТОС ВОСКРЕСЕ!!!
You know pretty well that Orthodox Christians need a lot of eggs for Easter - to paint them and use them at holiday meal.
Shops (at least in Moscow) are overloaded by eggs with unseen low prices - as low as 26 roubles for 10 (31 penny).
Of course It doesn't mean that Putin and his crew really care about the Russians.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
You know that I'm not a big fan of Putin - the head of thieving gang of oligarchs and corrupted officials but he is not complete idiot and takes into account that the Russians at least sometimes wish to eat.
There is Orthodox Easter week now. Btw
ХРИСТОС ВОСКРЕСЕ!!!
You know pretty well that Orthodox Christians need a lot of eggs for Easter - to paint them and use them at holiday meal.
Shops (at least in Moscow) are overloaded by eggs with unseen low prices - as low as 26 roubles for 10 (31 penny).
Of course It doesn't mean that Putin and his crew really care about the Russians.
At least he know, that Russian people and Russian Army is the only thing that stay between him and the fate of Miloshevich, Saddam, Ghadaffy and other victims of West Barbarians. Good reason to really take care about his nation.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top