Ukraine War: Berth El Buk

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Ukraine War: Berth El Buk

«‹›1431 »

(Thread IKs: weg, Toxic Mental)

Karma Comedian: Feb 2, 2012

Does doing that have anything to do with the war in Ukraine?

# ? Mar 7, 2023 03:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 15:50

Mr Teatime: Apr 7, 2009

Somewhat? It�s pretty interesting reading about Ukrainian attempts to break away from the empire during the chaos of the revolution, it gives a bit of context to modern events and viewpoints.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 03:18

fizzy: Dec 2, 2022; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Mr Teatime posted:

Currently starting Antony Beevors Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917�1921 which is definitely an interesting read given the current situation. Anybody want to explain to me how he�s a decadent biased Anglo and everything in the book is wrong?

Not conclusive of anything in particular, but Ukraine did ban one of Antony Beevor's books in 2018 (albeit during the presidency of Petro Poroshenko and not the current administration).

quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Beevor

In January 2018, Beevor's book about the Battle of Stalingrad was banned in Ukraine. Beevor told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: "I must say, this sounds absolutely astonishing. There's certainly nothing inherently anti-Ukrainian in the book at all."[20]

quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/19/stalingrad-author-anthony-beevor-speaks-out-over-ukraine-book-ban

Stalingrad author Antony Beevor speaks out over Ukraine book ban
Fri 19 Jan 2018 15.10 GMT

Serhiy Oliyinyk, head of the Ukrainian Committee for State TV and Radio Broadcasting�s licensing and distribution control department, told Radio Free Europe (RFE) that the ban was imposed because of a passage that details how 90 Jewish children were shot by Ukrainian militia �to save the feelings of the Sonderkommando�, the work units made up of the Nazis� death camp prisoners.

�It�s a provocation,� he told RFE. �When we checked the sources he used, we found out he used reports of the People�s Commissariat for Internal Affairs. It was enough to discuss the issue at expert council and we are happy they supported us.�

But Beevor said the source was not an internal Soviet document, but a book by the anti-Nazi German officer Helmuth Groscurth. The book is noted as a source in Stalingrad, and the quotes attributed to Groscurth are sourced to it. Beevor also pointed to a harrowing but corroborating description of the incident in the the 1988 collection of firsthand recollections The Good Old Days: The Holocaust As Seen By Its Perpetrators and Bystanders.

�It�s utterly outrageous. They have no reason for doing it. It�s quite clear both in the Russian edition and English edition what the source was and where it came from � this rather brave and religious officer [Groscurth] who protested strongly, despite threats he would be reported to Himmler � about this massacre of the children. There�s no way the Soviets would even have known about it,� said Beevor.

quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/03/antony-beevor-stalingrad-ukraine-ban-censorship

Antony Beevor: why did Ukraine ban my book?
Sat 3 Feb 2018 11.00 GMT

I certainly did not expect this latest contretemps, following the Ukrainian government�s sudden banning of a Russian language edition of Stalingrad, especially 20 years after the first publication. This was basically because one passage recounts how the SS forced Ukrainian militiamen to massacre 90 Jewish children in August 1941. The Ukrainian government�s �committee of experts� claimed this story was taken from Soviet propaganda. In fact the source notes show clearly that it was based on reliable German accounts, especially one by an anti-Nazi officer who was so horrified that he wrote to his wife to say that Germany did not deserve to win the war. There is also a harrowing eyewitness account of the killings written by an SS officer.

At least there has been one encouraging aspect to the whole sorry story. I received a bewildering array of support from Ukrainian human rights groups, Human Rights Watch in the US, the Canadian foreign minister and the Foreign Office in the UK. (This prompted my daughter to observe: �And what about people who have real human rights problems?� She had a point.) Fellow historians naturally regarded the decision to ban the book as ridiculous. Philippe Sands, the president of English PEN, immediately offered to change his mind and accept an invitation to the Kiev book fair for his book East West Street so that he could put the case there. It was an astonishing own goal by the Ukrainian committee of experts when the country wants to be seen as more democratic and western than Vladimir Putin�s Russia to their north, and, finally, mainly thanks to representations by the British embassy, the committee has backed down. There is no longer any suggestion that the story came from Soviet sources.

They did, however, have one complaint outstanding. My Russian publisher�s translator had changed �Ukrainian militiamen� to �Ukrainian nationalists�, which implicitly tars all Ukrainian nationalists with the reputation of having helped the SS Einsatzgruppen. But now my Russian publisher believes that it was right to change the word on the grounds that the militiamen were operating under the aegis of the OUN, the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists. This may seem a trivial spat over nomenclature, but it is a pertinent reminder of how powerful the grim legacy of the war remains three-quarters of a century on.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 03:20

Mr Teatime: Apr 7, 2009

If was being flippant it�s only because I�d seen a lot of pushback against some of Beevors stuff from some circles, particularly after his descriptions of the conduct of soviet soldiers in Germany in �Berlin�. I like his stuff but I�m still open to hearing criticism of him.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 03:31

Karma Comedian: Feb 2, 2012

I'm not shitposting clearly

Also this is good article but cw it's heavy, some bits of interviews with combatants

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/03/13/how-russian-journalists-in-exile-are-covering-the-war-in-ukraine

after accidentally airing an interview where a Russian soldier admits to war crimes posted:

When the newscast cut back to Korostelev, an editor in the studio, whom Korostelev could hear in his earpiece, told him that the next segment was delayed. He had to fill more than a minute of airtime.

Karma Comedian fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Mar 7, 2023

# ? Mar 7, 2023 03:34

Burns: May 10, 2008

Anthony Beevor is profoundly moronic. He has real old man historian energy and doesnt actually understand people. My favourite example is his comparison of occupied paris and paris during liberation. He found some journals of olds stating how quiet the city was when the germans rolled in (because everyone was walking on eggshells) and how respectful zee germans were and compared it to liberation when the city exploded into a party because thats what happens when a million 20 year old american kids roll into town with money to spend and girls yo imprsss. Hes a dumb mothefucker.

Burns fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Mar 7, 2023

# ? Mar 7, 2023 03:35

FPzero: Oct 20, 2008; Game Over
Return of Mido

fizzy posted:

Round-Up of News of the Day

Office of the President of Ukraine

quote:
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/okupant-ubivaye-za-sam-fakt-sho-mi-ukrayinci-za-odne-slovo-p-81473

The occupier is killing for the very fact that we are Ukrainians, for the mere word about Ukraine - address by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
6 March 2023 - 22:26

...

Today at the Staff meeting, I directly asked both Khortytsia commander, General Syrskyi, and Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny about their view of the further defense operation in the Bakhmut sector.

Either withdrawal or continuation of defense and reinforcement of the city.

Both generals replied: do not withdraw and reinforce. And this opinion was unanimously backed by the Staff.

There were no other opinions.

I told the Commander-in-Chief to find the appropriate forces to help the guys in Bakhmut.

There is no part of Ukraine about which one can say that it can be abandoned. There is no Ukrainian trench in which the resilience and heroism of our warriors would be disregarded.

...

I don't want to see Ukraine have to retreat from Bakhmut either, but I hope Zelenskyy and his generals are making the right decision. Bakhmut's fall has been sounding like a foregone conclusion in recent days. A tactical retreat could be just as beneficial to the overall fight as holding the position.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 04:17

zone: Dec 6, 2016

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1632836459370618881
Voenkors collectively are panicking about some potential offensive aimed at occupied Zaporizhzhia oblast.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 04:21

shadow puppet of a: Jan 10, 2007; NO TENGO SCORPIO

zone posted:

Voenkors collectively are panicking about some potential offensive aimed at occupied Zaporizhzhia oblast.

Someone should reply to their concerns to put them at ease.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 04:25

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

I'm gonna laugh my rear end off forever if they do the same trick again and sucker the Russians into moving all their poo poo from Bakhmut to Zaporizhzhia and Ukraine's counteroffensive ends up taking Severodonetsk and Lysychansk instead lmao

# ? Mar 7, 2023 04:30

zone: Dec 6, 2016

HonorableTB posted:

I'm gonna laugh my rear end off forever if they do the same trick again and sucker the Russians into moving all their poo poo from Bakhmut to Zaporizhzhia and Ukraine's counteroffensive ends up taking Severodonetsk and Lysychansk instead lmao

Losing territory in Luhansk or Donetsk oblast would probably be a resounding slap in the face, and set back severely even the limited goals Russia set for itself at the beginning of the year, and that being the complete occupation of both these oblasts.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 04:42

Comfy Fleece Sweater: Apr 2, 2013; You see, but you do not observe.

zone posted:

Peace can happen any time Russia and their colonial transplants in Crimea pack their bags and leave for Russia again, and pay the bill for their dumb war in full.
https://twitter.com/vic_top555/status/1557376547605975040

Gosh I feel awful for this lady, but like... what was she supposed to do, she looks like an average mom. If anyone feels good that she's suffering, well, I don't know what to tell you.

All this bullshit comes from the people in power (Putin and his cronies and supporters, who I assume are all crabs???), the rest of us plebes are just lambs to the slaughter

Putin is a crab reference: https://uproxx.com/viral/putin-crab-bald-dwarf-russian-online-censors/

# ? Mar 7, 2023 05:39

SlurredSpeech609: Oct 29, 2012

Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:

Gosh I feel awful for this lady, but like... what was she supposed to do, she looks like an average mom. If anyone feels good that she's suffering, well, I don't know what to tell you.

All this bullshit comes from the people in power (Putin and his cronies and supporters, who I assume are all crabs???), the rest of us plebes are just lambs to the slaughter

Putin is a crab reference: https://uproxx.com/viral/putin-crab-bald-dwarf-russian-online-censors/

If I remember right she was upset that her vacation got cut short.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 05:43

zone: Dec 6, 2016

Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:

Gosh I feel awful for this lady, but like... what was she supposed to do, she looks like an average mom. If anyone feels good that she's suffering, well, I don't know what to tell you.

All this bullshit comes from the people in power (Putin and his cronies and supporters, who I assume are all crabs???), the rest of us plebes are just lambs to the slaughter

Putin is a crab reference: https://uproxx.com/viral/putin-crab-bald-dwarf-russian-online-censors/

She was crying about having to leave Crimea, talking about how cool it was living there and how it was like a second home to her and that she didn't want to leave there at all for these reasons. That's why she essentially got memed on by Ukrainian citizens who could have cared less for that line of thought, because in their eyes she really had no business being there so long in the first place. For context this happened around the time the Saki airbase got torched and several planes and airbase facilities destroyed or damaged, and sent most of the tourists as well as the people who'd either bought or otherwise obtained property in Crimea fleeing across the Kerch bridge.

Look, I understand your point, and agree with it, I really do, my gripe isn't with the common Russian citizen and never has been, but ultimately one way or the other they're going to have to go back home in the event Ukraine recaptures Crimea.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 05:50

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:

Gosh I feel awful for this lady, but like... what was she supposed to do, she looks like an average mom. If anyone feels good that she's suffering, well, I don't know what to tell you.

All this bullshit comes from the people in power (Putin and his cronies and supporters, who I assume are all crabs???), the rest of us plebes are just lambs to the slaughter

Putin is a crab reference: https://uproxx.com/viral/putin-crab-bald-dwarf-russian-online-censors/

shes a transplanted russian colonist, op. Here's more info:

https://kyivindependent.com/national/security-council-chief-russia-moved-600000-people-to-crimea-since-occupation

Kyiv Independent posted:

Security Council chief: Russia moved 600,000 people to Crimea since occupation

Over 600,000 Russians have moved to Crimea since the Kremlin illegally occupied the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014, according to National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov.

The relocations are part of a broader Russian effort to influence the region, Danilov said during an online conference on Dec. 15-16, according to a news report by Crimea.Realities, a project of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

�Russia uses Crimea as a springboard,� Danilov said. �We see complete rearmament and constant military training there.�

The estimate reported by the secretary may be conservative. Russia may have moved up to 1 million people to Crimea by 2020, according to a Black Sea News report published in November 2020.

The population of the city of Sevastopol grew the fastest, increasing by 17% in 2018-2020, according to RFE/RL and Russian media. Sevastopol is where Russia�s Black Sea fleet is based. The port city had 450,000 residents in 2020. As of April this year, it added 64,000.

Some experts reportedly believe that Russia is trying to dilute the pre-existing population. Olga Skripnik, head of the Crimean Human Rights Group told RFE/RL that Russian military personnel loyal to Putin are being moved to permanent residence in Crimea with their families. She also accused the Kremlin of seizing local commercial assets and reallocating them to Russia�s representatives.

Native citizens complained to RFE/RL that newly arrived Russians get preferential treatment from local authorities. For instance, Russian doctors and teachers can get $13,600 in financial aid if they agree to work in rural areas for five years. Locals don�t get such an incentive.

Local citizens also complained that Moscow firms are recruiting people en masse to live and work in Crimea. Sevastopol-based restoration expert Anatoliy Tumanov told RFE/RL that he heard there may be an unofficial order not to hire locals.

The peninsula�s indigenous population, Crimean Tatars, have faced widespread persecution by Russian authorities. As of May, more than 150 Crimean Tatars were persecuted since 2014.

Activists believe that it�s Russia's revenge because of the Crimean Tatars� pro-Ukrainian sentiments, as well as an attempt to change the peninsula�s demographics by pressuring those who are not loyal to the occupants to flee.

Keep in mind the above article is from 12/27/21, so pre-full scale invasion but definitely when it was obvious that Russia was going to invade.

Edit: Here's a great academic paper examining Russian colonization of Crimea during the 90s: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/7077/

University of Ontario posted:

Where does the myth that �Crimea has always been Russia� come from? How did the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union �make� Crimea Russian? This dissertation shows how the they applied settler colonial practices to Crimea, displacing the indigenous population and repopulating the peninsula with loyal settlers and how Crimean settler colonial structures survived the fall of the Soviet Union. It argues that this process defines post-Soviet history of the peninsula.

For centuries Crimean existed within the discourse of Russian imperial control. This dissertation challenges the dominant view by applying settler colonial theory to Crimea�s past and present for the first time. This produces two major scholarly contributions. Firstly, it broadens the geography of settler colonialism, demonstrating that it existed not only in Western European imperialism but also in Russia�s imperial project. Secondly, it challenges the �uniqueness� of Russian imperialism.

The focus is on Crimea as a settler colony during the first years after the USSR�s collapse. The main argument is that the 1990s conflict in Crimea was mainly around decolonization attempts and resistance by the settler colonial system. Contrary to the analysis of �conflicts that did not happen� it argues that Crimea is a case of a conflict that never stoppedsince the late 18th century. It analyses how settler colonial structures fought for their own preservation in opposition to the forces of decolonization represented by the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar national movements, maneuvering between the Russian and Ukrainian capitals, which in turn triggered perceptions of Crimean separatism.

A main theme is control over the narrative. Crimean settler colonial institutions maintained their monopoly over �the truth� about the peninsula�s past and present. This dissertation demonstrates how this continued in the 1990s, how Crimean newspapers forged the meaning of �Crimean,� redesigned boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in order to marginalize Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar activists. Another important issue is the role of hybrid institutions including government structures in Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet, both which conducted subversive operations (informational and military) to counter and reduce the growing presence of the Ukrainian state on the peninsula.

Summary for Lay Audience
The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014 for many people was the first time they heard about the existence of this peninsula. A region in the Eastern Europe for most people of the West was too far away from their home to take the conflict around it seriously. Meanwhile, the claims of the Russian authorities that Crimea is �historically Russian� for many seemed like a good enough justification for the annexation. As a result, the first territorial annexation in Europe since the Second World War received little to no active response from the world.

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the popular image of Crimea is a result of the Russian and Soviet imperial policies. I argue that since the late 18th century Crimea has been a settler colony of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union, and now � Russian Federation. In other words, the history of Crimea is similar to the history of other settler colonies of Western European empires. Therefore, the fact of settler colonization has to be at the basis of any analysis of Crimean past and present. Through the analysis of the political events in Crimea during the 1990s, this dissertation demonstrates that the fall of the Soviet Union did not bring decolonization to the peninsula. Quite the contrary, local institutions fought to preserve the colonial status quo and prolonged a conflict between the colonizers and the colonized. In that fight, Russian state, a former metropole, pretended to be a non-participant, but in fact actively interfered into Crimean domestic politics.

Edit 2: sorry sorry this was too much of an effortpost for gbs so have a meme

all my occupied territories, gone

HonorableTB fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Mar 7, 2023

# ? Mar 7, 2023 06:20

Turtle Watch: Jul 30, 2010; by Games Forum

Even in 2014, before Maidan roughly 70 percent of Crimea was ethnically Russian, and the vast majority of them sided with Russia over Ukraine repeatedly as in the 1991 referendum, the 1992 election, the 1994 Declaration of Independence, the Orange revolution, Maidan and 2014- on.

What group of them are designated as colonists? All of them? Those who arrived after annexation in 2014? those who were born after Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in 1954? By what practical or ethical mechanism could you do any of that against the popular will of the majority of Crimea?

# ? Mar 7, 2023 06:39

Cugel the Clever: Apr 5, 2009; I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

I've about as much sympathy for Russian colonizers in Ukraine as I do for Israeli colonizers in the West Bank, i.e. not much. People can make all the excuses about either that they want, but these occupiers are actively complicit in the oppression and victimisation of those they've asserted domination over.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 06:41

Turtle Watch: Jul 30, 2010; by Games Forum

Cugel the Clever posted:

I've about as much sympathy for Russian colonizers in Ukraine as I do for Israeli colonizers in the West Bank, i.e. not much. People can make all the excuses about either that they want, but these occupiers are actively complicit in the oppression and victimisation of those they've asserted domination over.

I don�t think Israel is a good parallel to Crimea. The goal of Crimean �decolonization� does not seek to return it to previous Tatar inhabitants from Russia but instead to another state historically involved in their expulsion and suppression, Ukraine.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 06:47

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

Turtle Watch posted:

I don�t think Israel is a good parallel to Crimea. The goal of Crimean �decolonization� does not seek to return it to previous Tatar inhabitants from Russia but instead to another state historically involved in their expulsion and suppression, Ukraine.

Crimean Tatars overwhelmingly prefer Ukrainian management if you want to appeal to popular will here.

The Russians are textbook settler colonialists in regards to any of the recent land grabs (Abkhazia, Crimea, Mariupol) with businesses and land being sold for cheap to Russian nationals

# ? Mar 7, 2023 06:49

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Turtle Watch posted:

I don�t think Israel is a good parallel to Crimea. The goal of Crimean �decolonization� does not seek to return it to previous Tatar inhabitants from Russia but instead to another state historically involved in their expulsion and suppression, Ukraine.

You don't care about the Tatars or anything, you are just trying to score sick burns on Ukraine and just making yourself look like a stupid imperialist.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 06:51

Cugel the Clever: Apr 5, 2009; I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

Turtle Watch posted:

Even in 2014, before Maidan roughly 70 percent of Crimea was ethnically Russian, and the vast majority of them sided with Russia over Ukraine repeatedly as in the 1991 referendum

Independence won a majority of the vote in Crimea and Sebastopol, so I'm not sure what you're referring to? Unless you're weird and think people choosing not to vote should count more than the people who do vote. Try showing up next time.

It's also unclear what you're referring to in the other votes. People voting for a party that is more Russia-affiliated doesn't give Russia authorization to annex and colonize wholesale. Sincere question: do you think Germany deserved the Sudetenland?

# ? Mar 7, 2023 06:52

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

Ah yes the headquarters city and garrison of the Black Sea Fleet, one of Russia's most important strategic interests in the entire world, voted to go Independent by 4.1% , and surely this has nothing at all to do with the abovementioned Black Sea Fleet base, which has been a strategic weakness of Russia's ever since they started leasing the base's land from Ukraine, or the 1.5 centuries of colonization since the Crimean War ended in 1856

I recommend interested parties to read this Center for Strategic & International Studies post about the strategic importance of Crimea to the Russian Federation:

https://www.csis.org/blogs/post-soviet-post/crimeas-strategic-value-russia

CSIS posted:

Russia�s takeover of Crimea has dramatically escalated the recent East-West struggle over Ukraine, converting an economic and diplomatic dispute into a major geopolitical crisis. Despite increasing Western condemnation and impending sanctions, Russia thus far shows no signs of yielding its control over Crimea. In fact, by agreeing to allow a referendum to be held on whether Crimea is to rejoin Russia, and then announcing Crimea�s annexation, Putin has allowed the crisis to escalate even further, although he has not yet completely foreclosed the possibility of eventual compromise. But Putin�s decision to occupy Crimea raises several questions, which are worthy of exploration. Why for example did Putin choose to act in Crimea? What does he hope to achieve? Most importantly, what is Crimea�s strategic value for Russia?

Military Benefits

Most importantly, control of Crimea gives Moscow continuing access to the naval base at Sevastopol, home to Russia�s Black Sea Fleet. Sevastopol�s warm water port, natural harbor and extensive infrastructure make it among the best naval bases in the Black Sea. While Russia�s current lease of Sevastopol runs through 2042, due to recent events Russia had become increasingly concerned that its future access might be compromised. Operating from Sevastopol, the Black Sea Fleet provides Russia with the ability to project power in and around the Black Sea, while also serving as a potent symbol of Russian power. True, the Black Sea Fleet is not currently much of a force, consisting of about forty aging vessels dating primarily from the 1970s, including two cruisers, several frigates, corvettes, mines warfare vessels, amphibious transport craft, and one submarine. However, Russia is in the process of upgrading the fleet, which is scheduled to receive six new submarines, six new frigates and a French-built Mistral helicopter carrier within the next few years.

Moreover, even as currently configured, the Black Sea Fleet provides Russia with substantial operational capability within the immediate area. In 2008, for example, Russia used the fleet to ferry troops and to conduct a blockade against Georgia. Sevastopol also provides the Russian Navy with access to the Mediterranean, and to the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans beyond, subject to certain limitations imposed by the Montreaux Convention on transit of warships through the Turkish Straits in time of war. It serves as headquarters for Russia�s newly constituted Mediterranean Task Force, which has recently resumed permanent operations in the Eastern Mediterranean, extending Russia�s reach and enhancing its prestige in the region. The Mediterranean Task Force was recently used to deliver military equipment to Syria, to remove Syrian chemical weapons and to conduct anti-piracy operations near Somalia.

Additionally, control of Crimea provides Russia with important strategic defense capabilities. While it may lack modern vessels, the Black Sea Fleet remains capable of addressing naval threats from other states in the region to Russian interests within the Black Sea. Its warships are well equipped with advanced supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, air defense systems, and torpedoes. Crimea is also home to the BSF 11th Coastal Defense Missile Brigade, which uses the K-300P coastal defense system, armed with the very capable Yakhont anti-ship missile. Moreover, with long-term control assured, Russia is already upgrading Crimea�s air defense capabilities, and will eventually install an integrated air defense system likely based on Russia�s formidable S-400 area defense platform. Together with advanced combat aircraft stationed at Crimea�s Kacha and Gvardeisk air bases, this will significantly enhance Russia�s air defense capabilities on its southern flank.

Thorn in Ukraine�s Side

Important though they may be, securing the military benefits described above was probably not the only reason for Putin�s takeover of Crimea. Perhaps of equal importance was the need to regain influence over Ukraine�s future direction, which was diminishing rapidly following the removal of Yanukovich. By taking control of Crimea, Putin is likely seeking to make integration with Ukraine much less attractive for the West. He probably hopes that Crimea will serve as a symbol to encourage pro-Russian factions in Ukraine to support Russia and resist efforts by Kiev to achieve closer integration with the West. He also may well believe that the West will hesitate to incorporate Ukraine while it is deeply embroiled in a territorial dispute with Russia over Crimea. These are all elements of the playbook that Putin used in Georgia and elsewhere in the CIS to counter past efforts at NATO and EU expansion.

Should Putin�s strategy fail to achieve the outcomes that he desires, Crimea could well serve an additional strategic function, as a base of operations for future military action against Ukraine. By seizing Crimea, Russia is now able to threaten Ukraine on three fronts, from the northeast, the southeast and the south (Crimea). This has rendered the eastern half of Ukraine much less defensible. Should Ukrainian forces move too far to the east in an attempt to defend Ukraine�s sovereign territory, a military offensive from Crimea would threaten to cut off such troops from the rear. In addition, in the event of conflict, Crimea could serve as a base for conducting a naval blockade against Ukraine�s southern ports, and potentially for launching amphibious operations at selected coastal targets. Finally, Russian air power based in Crimea could operate deep inside of Ukraine to strike strategic targets, provide ground support for Russian forces and interdict Ukrainian troop movements.

Conclusion

Strategic decisions, it is said, are seldom based on a single factor. Certainly, Putin�s decision to seize Crimea was no exception. Assuming for the sake of argument that Putin was determined not to �lose� Ukraine to the West, as he apparently thought he would, he may well have thought that seizing Crimea offered him the best strategic return on his investment in comparison with other options. First of all, the immediate costs of seizing Crimea were relatively low. The actual operation was rapid, effective and bloodless because Russia already had troops on the ground in Crimea and the local populace was for the most part favorably disposed towards Russian intervention. Once seized, its relative geographic isolation meant that it would be relatively easy to defend against efforts to retake it. Moreover, the rewards were perceived to be quite significant. By seizing Crimea, Putin hoped to both preserve control over Sevastopol while maintaining his ability to shape events inside Ukraine.

Yet, indications are that Putin may have substantially underestimated the costs of his Crimean adventure, especially in the long run. At some point, Ukraine may well decide to ramp up pressure by restricting the supply of natural gas and water to Crimea. In the near term, Russia�s ability to make up the shortfall remains quite limited. In fact, Russia�s seizure of a gas plant in Ukrainian territory just outside of Crimea indicates the extent of Putin�s perceived vulnerability to such action. Moreover, the West has thus far been surprisingly unified in denouncing Russia�s actions in Crimea. US and EU officials have already imposed sanctions on specified Russian individuals, and have announced plans to impose ever-stronger sanctions over time should Russia continue to defy calls for withdrawal. Furthermore, Russia�s actions seem to have made the West more receptive, rather than less, in pursuing closer integration with Ukraine. Still, having taken this decisive step, Putin is not likely to give way easily without gaining at least some of his objectives in Ukraine.

This heavily informs what Russia will and won't do with regards to Crimea

HonorableTB fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Mar 7, 2023

# ? Mar 7, 2023 06:56

the holy poopacy: May 16, 2009; hey! check this out; Fun Shoe

Turtle Watch posted:

Even in 2014, before Maidan roughly 70 percent of Crimea was ethnically Russian, and the vast majority of them sided with Russia over Ukraine repeatedly as in the 1991 referendum, the 1992 election, the 1994 Declaration of Independence, the Orange revolution, Maidan and 2014- on.

What group of them are designated as colonists? All of them? Those who arrived after annexation in 2014? those who were born after Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in 1954? By what practical or ethical mechanism could you do any of that against the popular will of the majority of Crimea?

Technically both Ukrainians and Russians are colonizers.

In all the elections cited that did not have Russian boots on the ground Crimea ultimately compromised with Ukrainian rule, despite its obvious cultural and political yearnings towards Russia. Presumably, this is a reflection of the pragmatic reality that Crimea is dependent on Ukraine as a matter of geography.

Personally I'm all for Crimean self-determination, but they can't self-determine access to Ukraine's water.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 07:16

slurm: Jul 28, 2022; by Hand Knit

zone posted:

Peace can happen any time Russia and their colonial transplants in Crimea pack their bags and leave for Russia again, and pay the bill for their dumb war in full.
https://twitter.com/vic_top555/status/1557376547605975040

The problem with this is as an American I'm not any different from this woman lmao

# ? Mar 7, 2023 07:24

Captain Splendid: Jan 7, 2009; Qu'en pense Caffarelli?

slurm posted:

The problem with this is as an American I'm not any different from this woman lmao

I guess that depends on how self-aware she is :shrug:

# ? Mar 7, 2023 07:27

Toxic Mental: Jun 1, 2019

Turtle Watch posted:

Even in 2014, before Maidan roughly 70 percent of Crimea was ethnically Russian, and the vast majority of them sided with Russia over Ukraine repeatedly as in the 1991 referendum, the 1992 election, the 1994 Declaration of Independence, the Orange revolution, Maidan and 2014- on.

What group of them are designated as colonists? All of them? Those who arrived after annexation in 2014? those who were born after Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in 1954? By what practical or ethical mechanism could you do any of that against the popular will of the majority of Crimea?

I think in general you don't really get to pick and choose in those cases and it is what it is. I mean I (and many others where I'm from originally) probably have more in common with a country other than the US politically, ideologically, ethnically, etc. but that doesn't mean I would be cool with that country coming over and claiming my hometown as their own and citing those things as reasons. It's a bit of a double edged sword in that sense. You're either for a sort of government mandated colonialist/manifest destiny-ish type of deal or you just kind of live with it until you either move or things change.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 07:41

Turtle Watch: Jul 30, 2010; by Games Forum

Kchama posted:

You don't care about the Tatars or anything, you are just trying to score sick burns on Ukraine and just making yourself look like a stupid imperialist.

This is not true, and I don�t think you should attack people for caring about the civilian population of Crimea. I am not trying to troll you, I am trying to argue that there is a serious case for recognizing that a military solution in Crimea is not as simple as I fear some think it is.

Cugel the Clever posted:

Independence won a majority of the vote in Crimea and Sebastopol, so I'm not sure what you're referring to? Unless you're weird and think people choosing not to vote should count more than the people who do vote. Try showing up next time.

It's also unclear what you're referring to in the other votes. People voting for a party that is more Russia-affiliated doesn't give Russia authorization to annex and colonize wholesale. Sincere question: do you think Germany deserved the Sudetenland?

I refer to the 1991 Crimean Sovereignty Referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum
�A referendum on sovereignty was held in the Crimean Oblast of the Ukrainian SSR on 20 January 1991,[1] two months before the 1991 All-Union referendum. Voters were asked whether they wanted to re-establish the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which had been abolished in 1945. The proposal was approved by 94% of voters.�
�The referendum did not just call for the restoration for the ASSR, but further called for Crimea to be a participant in the New Union Treaty � an ultimately futile attempt by Mikhail Gorbachev to reconstitute the USSR. This would have meant that Crimea would have been a sovereign subject of the renewed USSR[7] and separate from the Ukrainian SSR.�

Obviously that fell apart after the dissolution, the vote for Ukrainian independence would take place later and pass in Crimea in much narrower margins. Crucially that vote provided Crimea autonomous rights that were later abrogated when Ukrainian military deposed Crimeas elected government in 1995.

The point of bringing any of this up is that I am not saying any of this makes the Russian annexation ok. I am saying that Ukrainian that victory in this war that leads to an occupation of Crimea will be fraught with difficulties that should be addressed. I don�t think Russians usefully analogize to Israelis in the West Bank, but even if they did I think the question of what should be done to any of them is not to be dismissed.

I agree that Putin annexation of Crimea is not meaningfully motivated by any concern for Crimean general well-being, and I believe you when you say ethnic Tatars would prefer Ukrainian government.

Thanks for those who are responding to me seriously, I don�t believe any of you would really want such a thing as ethnic cleansing. It just seems to me �winning� in Crimea seems a lot further away than even the end of this war. The only reason I bring any of this up was that it seems that potentially ethnically cleansing Crimea seems like a bad idea, and I�m not sure what the alternative plan looks like, and a lot of the rhetoric around �Russian colonizers go home� seems to be heading in a worrisome direction. If this seems like �concern trolling� to you I don�t know what to tell you, I have no such worries about the well-being of people in most of the other territories Ukraine has reclaimed but I feel that the Crimean situation is more complicated.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 07:42

Mr Teatime: Apr 7, 2009

I have little sympathy for recent transplant chud rear end nationalists beating the �crimea is Russian clay� drum, however colonialism leaves a hosed up hard to unpick legacy and despite my overall sympathies laying with Ukraine I don�t know if Crimea is going to be an easily solved issue barring a total Russian military collapse.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 07:46

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

Turtle Watch it would help if you understood the reason why there are so many Russians there in the first place. The referendums you keep citing are bullshit precisely because they were stacked in the first place because

Demographics of Crimea posted:

The upheavals and ethnic cleansing of the 20th century vastly changed Crimea's ethnic composition. In 1944, 200,000 Crimean Tatars were deported from Crimea to Central Asia and Siberia, along with 70,000 Greeks and 14,000 Bulgarians and other nationalities. By the latter 20th century, Russians and Ukrainians made up almost the entire population.

Let's take a look at those demo stats:

Do you see something that could possibly have affected the demographics of the people who would be voting in the referendums you continue citing, say between 1897 and 1959 when Ukrainian Tatars went from a combined 47.3% of the pop to Russians becoming 71.4% of the population in two generations, and still remains the majority ethnicity due to annexation at 67.9% as of 2014.

Almost as if they got rid of everyone who would be opposed to Ukrainian association :thunk:

As if they..."Russified" it...

HonorableTB fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Mar 7, 2023

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:04

Der Kyhe: Jun 25, 2008

"Won't someone please think how awful that poor imperial colonist must feel."

Yeah, and the Ukrainians whose homes, lives and most earthly possessions those Russians just took for themselves as prizes as they drove them away to live their lives as rootless refugees were surely overflowing with joy. And if you wish to reply me with "STFU you have no idea what you are talking about", please go read about what happened to the Karelians, who lived in the parts of Finland that Soviet Union took after WW2.

I have little to no sympathy for those Russian colonists who moved in after 2014, they only lost their money on their bad bet of being the first vultures to pick on what was left at the area after the ruling elite took theirs.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:05

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

If you really want to get wild with Crimea, let's consider this:

According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language, 11.4% � Crimean Tatar, and 10.1% � Ukrainian. Of the Ukrainians in Crimea, 40% gave Ukrainian as their native language, with 60% identifying as ethnic Ukrainians while giving Russian as their primary language.

The number of Crimean residents who consider Ukraine their motherland increased sharply from 32% to 71.3% from 2008 through 2011

How to square that with the referendum in Crimea? Simple:

It was made up to begin with, as all Russian elections are

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:10

DiomedesGodshill: Feb 21, 2009

I still think Russia should just go back to Russia and be nice. Dumbest war ever.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:14

slurm: Jul 28, 2022; by Hand Knit

Der Kyhe posted:

"Won't someone please think how awful that poor imperial colonist must feel."

Yeah, and the Ukrainians whose homes, lives and most earthly possessions those Russians just took for themselves as prizes as they drove them away to live their lives as rootless refugees were surely overflowing with joy. And if you wish to reply me with "STFU you have no idea what you are talking about", please go read about what happened to the Karelians, who lived in the parts of Finland that Soviet Union took after WW2.

I have little to no sympathy for those Russian colonists who moved in after 2014, they only lost their money on their bad bet of being the first vultures to pick on what was left at the area after the ruling elite took theirs.

I just don't know what leg I have to stand on here as an American lmao

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:16

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

slurm posted:

I just don't know what leg I have to stand on here as an American lmao

I'm a Native American (muscogee creek tribe ayyy) and while the awareness is appreciated its not like you had anything to do with colonizing this land on a decision that was taken 10 generations before you, unlike the russians who colonized such land *checks notes* 9 years ago (colonization meaning annexation, drastically simplified of course, but the ramp up in Russification during the late and post-Soviet eras mean that a large part of this happened within living memory for the vast majority of Russians AND Ukrainians)

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:18

teen witch: Oct 9, 2012

slurm posted:

I just don't know what leg I have to stand on here as an American lmao

You stand on the side against imperialism, this ain�t hard

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:20

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

When you think about it, isn't anti-imperialism a form of imperialism aimed against imperialists?

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:27

Funky See Funky Do: Aug 20, 2013; STILL TRYING HARD

slurm posted:

I just don't know what leg I have to stand on here as an American lmao

Time matters. We like to talk as though it doesn't but it does. If you were an European colonist in the 1700-1800s building "your home" on "your property" which was recently stolen native lands, then yes, it would be a fair moral comparison. It doesn't make you a hypocrite to note that imperialism and colonization are bad.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:27

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Turtle Watch posted:

This is not true, and I don�t think you should attack people for caring about the civilian population of Crimea. I am not trying to troll you, I am trying to argue that there is a serious case for recognizing that a military solution in Crimea is not as simple as I fear some think it is.

The Tatars are uh, not fans of Russia, and in fact a lot of the people who were very Russian-yearning before Russia invaded have very publically changed their minds because the Russians curb-stomped them as hard as they could for funsies. That is why I know you don't give a poo poo about Tatars.

Also, the person in that video is a tourist who had to go because the war her country started is making the place dangerous. Because Russia wouldn't have had such troubles in Crimea if they hadn't decided to murder the rest of the Ukrainians in Ukraine.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:32

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

A key factor in the Crimea discussion over whether the Russians in Crimea have a right to join Russia by the virtue of forming a regional demographic plurality is that under Russian rule, there is no such a thing as protection of civil rights for the minorities living there, including not only ethnic Ukrainians, but also the Tartars, who have already seen their community persecuted under Russian authority, and others. While under Ukraine, there was no violation of the rights of Russians; the majority has no right to impose their will on the minority if it would lead to harm to the latter, arguing otherwise would be a textbook example of the tyranny of the majority, unfortunately appealing to naked chauvinistic nationalism and ethnic Russian supremacy is a core part of Russian regime playbook, and exactly what the 2014 occupation was about.

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 15:50

Turtle Watch: Jul 30, 2010; by Games Forum

HonorableTB posted:

Turtle Watch it would help if you understood the reason why there are so many Russians there in the first place. The referendums you keep citing are bullshit precisely because they were stacked in the first place because

Let's take a look at those demo stats:

Do you see something that could possibly have affected the demographics of the people who would be voting in the referendums you continue citing, say between 1897 and 1959 when Ukrainian Tatars went from a combined 47.3% of the pop to Russians becoming 71.4% of the population in two generations, and still remains the majority ethnicity due to annexation at 67.9% as of 2014.

Almost as if they got rid of everyone who would be opposed to Ukrainian association As if they..."Russified" it...

Der Kyhe posted:

"Won't someone please think how awful that poor imperial colonist must feel."

Yeah, and the Ukrainians whose homes, lives and most earthly possessions those Russians just took for themselves as prizes as they drove them away to live their lives as rootless refugees were surely overflowing with joy. And if you wish to reply me with "STFU you have no idea what you are talking about", please go read about what happened to the Karelians, who lived in the parts of Finland that Soviet Union took after WW2.

I have little to no sympathy for those Russian colonists who moved in after 2014, they only lost their money on their bad bet of being the first vultures to pick on what was left at the area after the ruling elite took theirs.

I agree that the ethnic Russians there are descendants of colonial projects and an ongoing campaign of Russification and that the ones that moved there after 2014 have even less of a claim there than others. But here is where I start to disagree: The people they took Crimea from were Tatars, not Ukrainians,(e:here perhaps I am misinterpreting your use of Ukrainians as �ethnic Ukrainians� and you may have meant �people who now would identify as Ukrainian nationals) that census shows a constant trend downward of Tatars and a constant increase of Ukrainian and Russians up until 1959 date. To then argue that we have to evict these descendants of people who took Tatar land and replace them with Ukrainians doesn�t make sense to me.

I have heard Ukrainians saying they regret the treatment the Tatars have had from Ukrainians. I do not doubt you when you say Crimean Tatars would prefer being a part of Ukraine to Russia. Many Crimean Tatars support Ukraine and proudly identify as Ukrainian citizens. I know some ethnic Russians also support Ukraine, although I don�t know amounts. I would prefer if all these groups could live in peace in Crimea after this war, and I have to imagine that eliminationist rhetoric only harms those chances.

Am I being simple? Am I worrying about a forced exodus won�t happen? Maybe I am. Maybe Crimean reintegration with Ukraine would be more straightforward than I am imagining, and any rhetoric is just that. But the one thing I don�t accept is that �the colonists have it coming to them who cares�.(I don�t believe anyone here is seriously saying this, but I feel maybe some curiosity wouldn�t go amiss)I care! What is the �it� coming to them? It sounds very ominous and even if they do �deserve� �it� shouldn�t we be curious what exactly the �it� we are agreeing to is?

Turtle Watch fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Mar 7, 2023

# ? Mar 7, 2023 08:43

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Ukraine War: Berth El Buk

«‹›1431 »