"Ukraine seeks NATO membership" Topic

Amazingly Rod … you found a way to blame the US/Europe … without them firing a shot … I guess that is the way 21st Century geo-politics works …

At the moment the EU/US are trying to avoid placing themselves in direct confrontation with mainstream Russian forces. Much as Russia may be denying sending them, there are undoubtably Russian servicemen (whether there officially' unofficially, voluntarily or otherwise) and a direct confrontation between, say, US military forces and Russian soldiers could lead to a different sort of conflict.

The EU has laid an ultimatum of one week for Russia to back off or face further sanctions. In some ways that may tell Russia they have one week to complete any plans, so you may see a direct escalation in the next 7 days. The EU has (for now) ruled out any direct military intervention. The Us has acknowledged support with radios, body armour, MREs and some limited intelligence, but not live feeds.

Russia does not need to declare war, it is quite happily working in their favour to have covert 'volunteers' operating there. However if Ukraine was to declare war on Russia it would enable Russia to cross the border en masse.

Rod is right, US drones would be turned into the US escalating the situation by attacking Russia. Unfortunately the best they can do is support Ukrainian drones and hope the Ukrainian army can turn this around, or such convincing evidence that Russia is actually actively involved that they are forced to withdraw. Without direct Russian support Ukraine would be able to take control of the situation. They report they cannot come close to the border without facing artillery strikes from within Russia (confirmed by the Russian paras who were captured and said that their own Grads fired on them when Ukrainian forces were near).

The 10 Russian paras with no sense of navigation have been exchanged today for 35 Ukrainians held in Russia. Russia has protested about how long they were held. Not sure if the paras will be entirely happy about that – under interview they have already indicated that they would be arrested if they returned to Russia.

link

Don't know how accurate this is, can you clear it up Geoff? If its right then Russia is getting very bold about its support.

I see they have located the cafe in the background. Galina and Olga just watching the footage – not sure what the first tank says (possibly a person's name) but second tank definitely says 'for Donbass'.

Just watching this space really. The next week could be crucial.

Two very worried friends from Kharkov currently living with us in the UK, due to go back in two weeks…

Maybe the Russians are just trying to be blatant now to provoke something, give them an excuse to go all in.

They have been trying that since the situation in Crimea, when Ukrainian troops refused to be provoked into taking actual aggressive action.

Unfortunately you can only go so long before you need to defend yourself. If Ukraine announces direct action against Russia, then yes, it could give Putin the very excuse he wants to seize NovoRossiya, as this map suggests:

That deprives Ukraine of a coastline entirely, links Russia with Moldova (Transnistra) and secures all the offshore oil that Ukraine could use over the next 50 years to become independently wealthly and entirely non-reliant on Russia…

Legion4:
You can do just as much damage to a country or region with Euros and Dollars as you can do with bullets and shells. "Suitcase diplomacy" has been a staple of Western foreign affairs for over a century and it has caused the loss of many livelihoods and lives throughout the world.
I am not trying to place the West on par with Russia in terms of its interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. Russia is in a class of its own in this regard. I only want to point out that the West is not guiltless and seen through the paranoid lens of Putin/ Russian perception such comparatively mild actions as NATO membership take on ominous dimensions and trigger ugly reactions. If you bait the bear expect to have to fight him off. The West must back off from trying to achieve a Ukrainian realignment toward the West. The Ukrainians must gauge the political winds in their region and proceed cautiously and slowly toward such an alignment if they conclude that it is in their national interest. To force the issue will only trigger Russian reaction and disaster for Ukraine and possibly Europe.
Rod Robertson

Yes, that is true … but we had economic sanctions on Saddam for over a decade … but still he managed to get what he needed. The same could be said for sanctions on Iran. It takes time if it has an effect at all … The WWII Japanese blamed the US for forcing them into war by economic embargos the US impossed … So it works both ways. Of course, sanctions should be part of a large over strategy … And yes, the West is not without guilt in this conflict … but as you noted not on par with the Russians. Regardless Putin is old school KGB … sometimes they play by a different set of rules … if any rules at all … Of course, the West could completely ignore what Russia has done and is doing. And it will only make it easier for Putin and his cronies. But let there be no doubt … the US or NATO will not get into a shooting war with Russia over the Ukraine …

I'd say the West stuffed up in Ukraine and in Georgia. They expected Russia to give up it's one strategic goal they've had for tow centuries – a strategic defensive buffer.

They expected Russia to buy into the whole EU concept (notwithstanding that most Eastern European states have not gained much out of EU or capitalism as a whole with their GDP still being below 1991 levels).

They didn't understand the Russians, their culture or their psyche. Any Russian leader would've opposed NATO-ification of Ukraine and Georgia and some would've easily have taken all of Ukraine over by now. From memory the Russians even made it a big deal about letting US use bases in former Soviet states like Krygistan and Uzbekistan for purposes of war in Afghanistan.

Basically the West was myopic and underestimated the Russians just like they underestimated their pet jihadis in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

A bit of strategic insight and planning would've go a long way.

But instead the West has lost control and US political power especially has been weakened. The West is struggling with more and more crises as their grip loosens. The West then thrashes around reactively with insufficient band aids or turning blind eyes (like they did in Libya after they toppled Gaddafhi).

Basically we have passed the ball on to the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs and other players. They are now dictating how the world is to be.

You are assuming this whole thing is orchestrated by the west, and not merely the desire of the people themselves.

It is the general sentiment of the majority of Ukraine that they would be better off in association with Europe. After 20 years of independence associating with Russia they have found that their country has not moved forward. The stalled changes attempted by Yushenko were being reversed by Yanukovich against a background of Poland, which had progressed significantly in 5 years. They saw hope (whether that turned out to be real or merely greener grass was yet to be established) in a proposed deal and felt betrayed when the cloth was pulled from under their feet for, as far as they could see, a backhanded deal to keep the president rich in his palaces and Ukraine no further forward.

The west may have made some attempts to influence policy, but no more so than Russia has been doing there for the last 20 years, and ultimately it was the people of Ukraine who said 'enough, this is what we want'.

Donbass is not the same. There may be some genuine fears about what would happen to the heavy industry under EU legislation, but the rest of it is nothing buy state orchestrated media paranoia. Threats of banning Russian language and xenophobic nazi Bandera bandits are media scare stories used to manipulate a small audience into accepting what we have today – a Russian state sponsored war, whether or not it us deliberately orchestrated and supplied, it is definitely fuelled by a failure to prevent it from happening, which it could so easily have done by simply preventing Russian, Chechen, Serbian, French and Spanish mercenary gunmen from crossing the border.

Whether or not Russia is directly behind the current situation, it could have prevented it by not permitting these groups to cross the border.

I asked my wife if she thought Putin had a plan, or was merely stirring it up as a punishment for Ukraine wanting to deal with Europe.

'My god I hope he has a plan, otherwise what sort of cruel *** could inflict such a war on people merely for the pleasure of seeing them suffer'

Talking to Russian friends yesterday. One is off to Moscow next week and slightly concerned about the situation. I asked what the people there are really thinking. 'Brainwashed by media'. They are fed one sided images of Ukraine ruled by nazis, we saw it in Crimea (Russia, or Nazis? You vote) and the same message has been spread by restricted media networks. Most of Russia doesn't watch western TV, so they have a carefully manipulated image that supports this viewpoint, and does nothing to dispel it.

Only now are we starting to see Russian questioning, Russian objections, but they are small and easily controlled.

Speaking to a Swedish friend yesterday, and his view represents the problem for Ukraine. 'I don't really care about Ukraine'. That's not a cruel statement, but Ukraine actually has nothing. It's not strategic (EU and NATO have bordered the Soviet Union for over 50 years, and Russia for 25), it's not economic (Ukraine is financially drained and has very little in the way of resources to offer somewhere like Russia). In this ever-shrinking world it's not even diplomatic (with modern transportation and electronics you can completely ignore Ukraine and work around it with no difference to any negotiations – you no longer need to send messages on horseback across the territory) .

Of course some of it may be strategic on a very long term basis. It's not who has the most oil/gas. It's who still has oil/gas when the other side runs out…

Oh, I forgot … we all know how well sanctions have worked on North Korea … in some cases, the US has actually paid (off) the Norks to play nice … Of course, I don't say in any case not to impose economic sanctions. It should be part of an overall larger strategy … but as we all know it is not the "silver bullet" … unfortunately … But again, the US/NATO will not get into a shooting war with Russia. And Putin knows … as do many others … Which in the long run is very much mostly likely a good thing … The Ukrainians may suffer unfortunatly in the near term. But it is better than an all out WWIII type scenaro. Unless for gaming fodder, and again GHQ has eveything you need for WWIII in Europe … or anywhere else …

Excellent post Geoff, but NATO has bordered Russia proper since 1949. Norway was a founding member of NATO.

I was rounding down

:)

NATO has bordered Russia proper since 1949.

Norway is very different to Ukraine which the Russians viewed as integral and have cultural links to and a mythology behind it (the Serbs had a same thing with Kosovo).

Also from a practical perspective the Norwegian border is more on the periphery and has geographic factors that limit it's threat to Russian territorial integrity.

Ukraine on the other hand is a large country with strategic depth and a massive border with Russia. Having it become an integral part of a long time enemy poses a massive threat to Russia.

I suspect the Russians are willing to risk WWIII as a result.

You are assuming this whole thing is orchestrated by the west, and not merely the desire of the people themselves.

I don't doubt that some minority/majority might've wanted greater EU integration.

A lot might not. Protestors on street are always such a small majority of the overall population (a noisy minority) so the overall wishes of the population are largely unknown.

As for grass is greener, I see a few Croats moaning about EU and NATO. EU has not guaranteed any wealth and indeed the country has gone backwards (unemployment was 23% in early 2014) and the country has deindustrialised to meet EU standards. They still don't trust the USA and don't like sending troops to fight and die in US led "coalitions" like Afghanistan.

Thomas, I'm fully aware of that, but nevertheless, NATO has shared a border with Russia since 1949.

I'm not sure of the relevance though.

Russia/USSR technically also has a border with USA and Japan as well.

However strategic factors make these borders far less threatening than giving NATO access to Ukraine and cutting out Russian access to Black Sea (without Crimea they're hemmed in and Black Sea Fleet becomes useless).

Also Soviet Union used to border with Turkey as well.

However strategic factors make these borders far less threatening than giving NATO access to Ukraine and cutting out Russian access to Black Sea (without Crimea they're hemmed in and Black Sea Fleet becomes useless).

Really? And the coastline and new naval base just to the east would suddenly become unavailable?

Really? And the coastline and new naval base just to the east would suddenly become unavailable?

Pretty much. Your map describes it all.

Without Crimea Russia is hemmed in from South (Turkey) and West and Sea of Azov is effectively blocked off by NATO member Ukraine. Russia basically becomes a nothing power in the Black Sea which becomes a NATO pond just like Baltic is effectively a NATO pond.

No point in having a massive navy if it's effectively blocked in port and unable to sortie out effectively .

Also Russia ground and air forces now also have to maintain the massive Ukranian border thus stretching them thin.

And NATO membership gives the Ukrainians access to relatively cheap (if older) weapons including naval ships and fighter aircraft which would again water down Russian capability.

Not to mention if US starts building bases in Ukraine (including SIGINT/ELINT and early warning "Missile Defence" Shield radar bases).

As stated for the Russians this is life and death stuff – fear of being encircled, fear of losing control over ice-free ports etc. It's why massive battles were fought in 1853-56 and 1941-42 over control of Crimea.

Without Crimea Russia is hemmed in from South (Turkey) and West

No different from how it has always been – with Turkey effectively controlling the entrance its playing in their own pond.

They have invested heavily in a new naval base at Novorossiysk and have no more ability to extend naval power now than they have ever had before.

Also Russia ground and air forces now also have to maintain the massive Ukranian border thus stretching them thin.

They always have done so. They would only need to increase that if their paranoia was sufficiently strong to think that Ukraine intended to invade…

If anything it is Ukraine that would need to increase border security, as it is part of the requirement for EU membership.

…from a practical perspective the Norwegian border is more on the periphery and has geographic factors that limit it's threat to Russian territorial integrity.

Except for extending control over the whole Murmansk region…

Ukraine on the other hand is a large country with strategic depth and a massive border with Russia.

There will always be a border somewhere. Maybe Ukraine is fed up being used as a protective cushion for a paranoid Russian against an imaginary threat. I seriously can't imagine NATO thinking 'hey, I know, let's attack Russia!'

At the very least it would lead to massive civilian objections throughout Europe, and in all likelihood there would be sufficient objection within NATO members to fragment the whole thing. It's simply not set up with the intention of being used as a first strike against Russia.

The only NATO member likely to consider first strike on its own is the US (which has its own embedded, old school conglomerate of Cold War nostalgists) but even then…

Having it become an integral part of a long time enemy poses a massive threat to Russia.

Only if you are paranoid. NATO (and Warsaw Pact, now we have declassified documentation) was established as a system for mutual defence, not mutual attack.

NATO membership? Yep, not likely to happen…

…although Poroshenko is in Wales briefing NATO directly on the situation (?)

NATO was established in 1949 as "…a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party".

The Warsaw Pact was "…a collective defense treaty among eight communist states of Central and Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War"

When Poland de-classified many Warsaw Traty documents they included the Warsaw Treaty's nuclear war plan, Seven Days to the River Rhine – a short, swift attack capturing Austria, Denmark, Germany and Netherlands east of River Rhine, using nuclear weapons, in self-defense, after a NATO first strike.

Both systems are intended to work as a mutual defense strategy, a deterrant against any single [member] nation from attack by way of a 'big brother' of all the other members watchig over it and prepared to stand up for it.

As such any fear over attacks presumes that this defensive strategy is used for offensive purposes, but as neither doctrine was set up for that, either in the original statement of formation nor in the operational doctrines then provided one side does not carry out a first strike, the rest of it will never happen.

Russia is replying on Ukraine not being in NATO, for whatever reason, but that does not deter that Russia has interfered with the territorial boundary of another country. Although Russia may state opposition to NATO expansion, it is the free right of nations to choose who they are bound to, and not for Russia to simply redraw those borders at will, whether through direct military annexation (Crimea) or sublte deniable infiltration (eastern Ukriane). Russia is relying on Ukraine not being in NATO, thus being unable to rely on Article 5 for protection, while at the same time encouraging it to seek that protection in fear of territorial incursion.

Whatever may be said about US encouragement, I have been going to Ukraine for over 10 years. The people have been fed p with the lack of progress for some time. That's what you saw in Kyiv. Promises of a European deal have been around for nearly 10 years, they have seen Poland improve and they have been left behind. There are no guarantees that Ukraine would improve in the same way, but they saw an opportunity and they wanted to take it.

Initial promises were that they would do that, which were dashed by a sudden turnaround which was fundamentally against the wishes of the majority of the population. Ukraine is not divided in half. The Donbass region forms less than 20% of the population of Ukraine, and even there a significant proportion saw change as opportunity.

Instead they saw ongoing corruption compiled with more corruption as their leader reverted to Russia (and kept his own lifestyle in opulant luxury).

And they objected.

The violence that occured in January related to… of all things… a Christmas tree!

Yanukovich wanted to put up the Christmas tree, as normal, on Indepdence Square. The Maidan camp was located there. His solution? Make protests illegal, then use that to declare they were all criminals and could be moved or arrested at will. One thing guaranteed to stir up a crowd is tell them they simply are not allowed to protest!

"I'm not sure of the relevance though."

The relevance is that talk of 'NATO getting closer to Russia' are errant nonsense, as Russia has directly shared borders with NATO since 1949.

Indeed, and with weapons capable of firing across two continents anyway, the whole thing is an excuse.

Another political thread, which has nothing to do with TMP.

It represents a significant proportion of potential future modern wargaming, not to mention the whole 'what-if' scenario.

If fact this whole thread represents the basis and background of most postwar wargaming for the last 30+ years.

At the very least it would lead to massive civilian objections throughout Europe, and in all likelihood there would be sufficient objection within NATO members to fragment the whole thing. It's simply not set up with the intention of being used as a first strike against Russia.

Libya proved NATO could operate without needing all member's agreement (Germans certainly didn't want to have anything to do with it and even pulled staff out of NATO resources like AWACS). And the US now epmhasises coalitions of the "willing."

Libya and Afghanistan showed NATO as an offensive force too being used to pursue largely American goals.

I always thought Libya was a turning point too – US/UK/France basically put the nails in the coffin for international law by so blatantly using the UNSC Resolution as a means to their own political goals.

…for a paranoid Russian against an imaginary threat

The Russians probably remember 1708, 1812, 1853, 1918-20, 1941 as well as that whole Cold War thing (and let's not forget that it was Gorbachev who started path to peace, not Reagan and his Euro-buddies).

NATO or the West has proven to be quite warlike in the last 20 years. They've basically had a blank cheque to do as they please, regardless of legality (e.g. Iraq 2003 or going beyond the parameters of UNSC to topple Gaddafhi in 2011).

They have done a lot to antagonise Russia – NATO expansion into Warpac, planned expansion into Caucasus, missile defence shield designed to neutralise Russian nuclear deterrent, support of jihadis fighting against Russia's ally in Syria.

And then you have people like Jhm McCain who wanted to keep a "military option" on the books with regards to Ukraine.

Indeed I suspect if we had any other President rather than Obama we'd be fighting WW3 right now!

Hence I don't think Russia is paranoid. There are numerous precedents in history about Western interventions in Russia's affairs and modern precedents showing that the West has tried to marginalise Russia.

Not saying the Russians are the good guys – they can be even nastier. However just trying to show differing perspective on this issue.

I'd look at this map and say, is it really here or there (as far as Russia is concerned) whether Ukraine is in or out?

With Finland and Sweden both effectively working in cooperation with NATO, and both now considering NATO membership (mainly off the back of perceived Russian aggression this year) the current stance seems very counter-productive to their announced objections.

I notice that NATO yesterday said they stand behind Ukraine, including the return of Crimea…

While Russia is talking of a peace plan, Ukraine is promoting pece talks and a ceasefire, and pro-Russian separatists agreed a cease-fire to come into effect at 11am today… they are still shelling Ukrainian forward positions near Mariupol, trying to grab one more town before they acceed to talks.

No doubt if Ukraine responds by a counter attack and fires back, they will be deemed the agressors…

Thomas Hobbes:
An excellent analysis. I would add two points.
Paranoia can be in part based on empirical fact and can be a rational choice if there is enough real provocation to supplement the imagined fears. Russia has historically had a strong mistrust of Europe and that has inculcated a sort of culturally based paranoia rather than a dementia based version of the disorder in the population and to varying degrees the leadership.
To your list of memorable dates I would add 1999 and the NATO bombing of Jugoslavia/ Serbia coupled with the denial of land and air corridors to Russian forces which wanted to intervene on Serbia's behalf. Although it did not happen in Russia, that event truly frightened Russia and probably imprinted upon Putin and others in power a desire to never again endure that humiliation and strategic incapacity which Russia had sunk to.
Geoff:
As long as Russia and its proxies keep Ukraine in an Active territorial dispute with armed conflict there is no way Ukraine can join NATO. The rules of NATO prevent the admission of any nation with an on-going territorial dispute in armed conflict. Since Crimea is a fait accompli at the moment and there is no shooting going on there, Russia needs to keep the pot stirred in SE Ukraine to block Ukraine's bid for NATO membership. I have no illusions that this peace deal will amount to much (even though I earnestly wish it would) – and I predict this even if it becomes a formal agreement. It is in Russia's strategic interests to prolong and drag out this conflict until it can figure out a way to install a more pro-Russian government or neutralize Ukraine (a very difficult task now).
Also a land corridor to Crimea must be an attractive prospect for Russia and its proxies so the escalation of attacks on Mariupol is understandable from Putin's perspective. I am not clear on how exhausted and over stretched the Ukrainian Armed forces are but I think Poroshenko is making a big mistake backing down right now. The terms outlined by the rebels amount to a defacto surrender of the southeast of Ukraine and Russia's 7 points will leave Ukraine in a permanently weakened state while the rebels grow stronger.
Rod Robertson

The rules of NATO prevent the admission of any nation with an on-going territorial dispute in armed conflict

Do they? I thought each applicant had an individual MAP to meet? Each membership action plan has five chapters: political and economic issues, defense and military issues, resource issues, security issues, and legal issues.

The defense chapter provides for candidates to reform their armed forces and to contribute militarily to the collective defense, while the resource chapter deals mainly with allocating sufficient funds to defense. Security and legal issues, require aspirant countries to ensure the proper security of sensitive information according to NATO standards and bring national legislation into line with that of the alliance.

Not aware of anything that says they cannot be engaged in actual conflict. You sure you are not confusing EU membership (which requires them to demonstrate security of the border)?

In most other instances, NATO membership has almost been an unwritten pre-requisite to EU membership.

I think Poroshenko is making a big mistake backing down right now

Not if Ukraine really under attack by a heavily supported force, against which he couldn't hope to win. I am still waiting to see where 2000 tons of aid went – no signs of it that I have found, yet we see an immediate counter attack in depth across several fronts from an opposing force that had been falling back on an almost daily basis.

A ceasefire deal has apparently been signed, as of 3pm GMT today. However separatists continued to shell about 4km outside of Mariupol, and Ukrainian artillery and air support responded.

What was most surprising about the peace plan was that it backed down from demands of a separate state, reverting to increased autonomy (that had been on offer from the outset). The important thing will be that it is not simply used as an excuse to consolidate and expand control, but a move to stablise the region. The problem may be the non-Ukrainian citizens who have no reason to stop fighting…

Indeed I suspect if we had any other President rather than Obama we'd be fighting WW3 right now!

Very much doubt that … WWIII is a nightmare scenario, we don't even want to think about. Putin may see the US govenment as weak … and now is the time to make a move. A different US government, may have been precieved as too strong to taunt or mess with … maybe … Putin still thinks like KGB. Too many assets are considered "expendable" …

Geoff:

"A country's participation in MAP entails the annual presentation of reports concerning its progress on five different measures:

Willingness to settle international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of armed forces.
Ability to contribute to the organization's defence and missions.
Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership
Security of sensitive information, and safeguards ensuring it.
Compatibility of domestic legislation with NATO cooperation."

The first requirement is that the applicant country must be willing to settle international or internal territorial disputes peacefully. That requires the cooperation of both sides in the dispute.

Georgia has been refused entry to NATO for among other things its territorial dispute with Russia. Macedonia has been refused entry because Greece views Macedonia's name as a territorial dispute. Given these and other blockages to entry it would be very difficult to make a case for allowing Ukraine entry into NATO even if it is willing to settle these disputes with Russia and its own minorities. As long as Russia keeps the dispute hot, there does not seem to be a legal way to do it without changing the MAP requirements of 1999 and 2002.
Cheers and I brace myself for your legal rebuttal.
Rod Robertson

The first requirement is that the applicant country must be willing to settle international or internal territorial disputes peacefully.

…"international, ethnic or external territorial disputes…"

Doesn't say internal. Russia says it is not involved so the dispute is internal. It's not international (Russia acknowledges, and actually relies on it being an internal issue), it's actually not ethnic (there are ethnic Russians and Ukrainians on both sides) and it's definitely not external (again, Russia says it is not involved).

Georgia has been refused entry to NATO for among other things its territorial dispute with Russia.

External/international, not purely internal.

Macedonia has been refused entry because Greece views Macedonia's name as a territorial dispute.

Presumably 'Novorossiya' would be refused entry without Ukraine on the same grounds.

Geoff:
The Oxford definition of "ethnic" is, "…of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition."
Does not the term "ethnic" strongly imply an internal dispute as a state or nation cannot have an ethnic population outside its borders? If that population is outside the border they are foreigners and not an "ethnic" population. So it seems to me that it does relate to internal disputes.
The Russian denials of involvement are a transparent farce and might make a very shaky foundation for a legal argument.
By that logic the IS movement of Syria and Iraq/ the Islamic Caliphate – which claims all the world as its own – could not be refused entry and membership to NATO on grounds of mistreating ethnic and religious minorities because such atrocities were purely an internal matter and were in line with Sharia and Koranic law. Not a convincing argument in my mind!
Cheers.
Rod Robertson

The dispute is not ethnic by that definition, otherwise any and every dispute would be ethnic on the basis that at least one ethnic group was involved.

Ethnic relates to the dispute of one ethnic group over another, as we have seen with the Serbs and Bosnians. Although there has been Russian media attempts to claim this is Ukrainians against ethnic Russians, the facts on the ground simply do not support that.

Russian denials may be farcical, but as yet do remain unproven in real terms. Russia's continual denial and insistence that this is an internal problem strengthens that argument. Funnily enough Ukraine's insistence of direct and open Russian involvement would seen to work against them, as it would make the issue both international and external.

Any country can 'claim' the world, but that does not automatically make it so. The IS claim is not recognised by any country or body other than themselves, unlike Ukraine's territorial boundaries.

Geoff:
To be an ethnic dispute you must have a dominant population and an ethnically different sub-population within the borders of a state. The two groups must be in dispute. The dominant population need not be the more numerous group but it must be more powerful. In Ukraine you have Ukrainians of Ukrainian origin and Ukrainians of Russian origin (two different cultures) who are disputing over language, education, political autonomy, citizenship and at least some of them are shooting at each other. That seems to be an ethnic dispute to me!
With regard to Russian denials of involvement, I think you may have a weak case for SE Ukraine given the lack of clear evidence which has emerged to date, but considering Russia has admitted to invading and annexing the Crimea, perhaps it is a demonstrably international dispute after all. While the violence may be confined to SE Ukraine the dispute extends to Crimea too.
If IS renamed themselves the Abbasid Caliphate which is an historically recognized political entity would that make their claim any more valid? Of course not. IS knows that power and legitimacy in international relations and even in international law ultimately comes from the barrel of a gun. If they can conquer it, keep it and rule it they become legitimate over time. That is why Tibet does not exist and Taiwan still does. That is why there is a state of Israel and no state of Palestine. That is why there is a United Kingdom and no "England" recognized internationally. Of course all of these nations have wonderful military uniforms and interesting military kit, so I am pleased that this diversity exists as it also enriches my figure painting and wargame experience.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson

In Ukraine you have Ukrainians of Ukrainian origin and Ukrainians of Russian origin (two different cultures) who are disputing over language, education, political autonomy, citizenship and at least some of them are shooting at each other.

That's not the dispute. That's the Russian media image of it. The dispute is political. I have that from two pro- Ukrainian ethnic Russians (from Kharkiv) currently living in my house.

NATO membership has almost been an unwritten pre-requisite to EU membership.

That is not true. Austria, Sweden, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland and Malta are all non-NATO members.

With Finland and Sweden both effectively working in cooperation with NATO, and both now considering NATO membership (mainly off the back of perceived Russian aggression this year) the current stance seems very counter-productive to their announced objections.

Sweden's neutrality was always somewhat dubious – it's focus in Cold War was war with Russia not war with anyone including the West The US guaranteed Swedish security and provided it with military assistance (e.g. development of J37 had US support – the so-call 37 annex).

There has always been sharing of intelligence too.

And the Swedes started chumming up big time with NATO in the 1990s. They joined Partnership for Peace in 1996 and have been involved in NATO exercises and have participated in NATO operations including Afghanistan and Libya, including deployment of combat jets. Since 2008 they have commited troops to Nordic Battlegroup which includes mainly NATO states

Sweden is even more active in NATO operations than most of the NATO partner members these days and far more enthusiastic than say Germany, Italy or Greece in these affairs who only sign up begrudgingly or don't contribute at all.

Hence I doubt the Soviets truly considered Sweden neutral as such and I doubt the Russians are that naive either. Sweden's neutrality has always been somewhat farsical since 1945.

----------

Finland started considering NATO membership as early as 1996. It joined Partnership for Peace in 1994 and are participating in Nordic Battlegroup.

Both Sweden and Finland have spent the last couple of decades adopting NATO military standards and co-operability.

So formally joining NATO would just be symbolic.

Geoff:
You claim that the dispute between Ukrainians of Ukrainian descent and Ukrainians of Russian descent is a political and not an ethnic one. This is a distinction I cannot understand. If two groups of different cultural backgrounds are disputing issues which grow out of their cultural differences (such as language rights and education rights) then that to me is an ethnic dispute as well as a political dispute. Please help me understand the distinction you are trying to make because I am not getting it to date. Please define what you mean by a "political dispute" and then contrast it with what you perceive to be an "ethnic dispute". Maybe then I will be able to follow the argument you are trying to make. I apologize for my lack of understanding and ask for your patience in making your argument clear to me.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson

You claim that the dispute between Ukrainians of Ukrainian descent and Ukrainians of Russian descent is a political and not an ethnic one.

I'm saying there is no dispute between Ukrainians of Ukrainian descent and Ukrainians of Russian descent, other than one the media and certain political affiliations are trying to claim.

There is not, and never was, any dispute over language rights. Russian has not been an official language (and we are only taking on official documents) for a very long time. It was introduced by Yanukovich last year, in the same reforms that attempted to give him Putin-like overarching powers. The interim government reversed that action which, as part of the package of counteracting those rights coincidentally removed the language rights he had installed, but there has never been any question about banning the Russian language. Some of that was played (for political prowess) by certain minority groups in the west, but you will notice they have gone much quieter lately. Reminds me, I need to add some more Ukraine photos, including my one and only sighting of a Bandera flag.

A riot almost started last year when Yanukovich (President of Ukraine) delivered his speech in Russian… that's a bit like the Queen of Englandn deciding to give her Christmas speech in German.

I have a wide variety of friends across Ukraine, who are both Russian and Ukrainian ethnic backgrounds, Russian and Ukrainian speaking. Both groups have lived happily together, and in most cases are pretty much blended ethnically anyway, since independence 23 years ago.

This dispute is not growing out of ethnic variations. It is being played that way for effect, but it is really all to do with power and control. Russia declared she is looking out for her 'interests', nothing to do with Russian people (I said that when Crimea was taken over, and pointed out that Russia was not going to come in full mob and 'rescue' the Russian people of Donetsk – its not about ethnics and people, its about interests and power.

Sadly I don't think it is even really about mainstream power, but a series of small mob bosses trying to carve out their little piece of turf…

[Example from Amnesty: In an illustrative incident, residents of Slovyansk told Amnesty International that separatist fighters kidnapped a local pastor, two of his sons and two churchgoers, and requested a US$50,000 ransom for their release. By the time the local community managed to collect the requested ransom, the witnesses said, the captors had killed all of the men.]

…and it is the Russian and Ukrainian Ukrainians who are suffering.

Sweden and Finland joining may be symbolic, but it does open up a far bigger question mark over the perceived threat.

Nato is apparently now shipping arms to Ukraine

Geoff:
NATO or NATO member states? There is a big difference. Is this an official policy of NATO or is this the action of individual member states within NATO? I must do some homework but I'm too sick to do it now and am going back to bed.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson

Five NATO member states.

"Nato officials say they have no plans to send lethal assistance to non-Nato member Ukraine, but that members states may do so."

I have a bad feeling that after exchange of prisoners, and Ukrainian army regaining its spirit ( and its planes/tanks/artillery/ courtesy of some former Warsaw pact countries, then the ceasefire will be broken.

At the moment it seems just some "NATO member states". Non-lethal supplies were there for quite a time, recently followed by cartridges & plastic AK magazines. There was a Czech-manufactured self-propelling howitzer spotted about 3 weeks ago, but it might have been brought by euro volunteers.

There's a lot of people in the East from both sides who are not happy with ceasefire – rebles, bcs they still have enemy troops on their territory and were on vitorious streak, government troops – bcs they're not controlling the border in full, as well as Donetsk and Lugansk.

Some strange political deals are brewing behind the scenes…I'm no longer can be surprised with any other possible outcome.
I was several weeks in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, meet my colleague on return, who spoke with one of the Russian volunteers who recently came back from Donetsk.
He was a contracting soldier in Chechnya ca 8 years ago, tank specialist. He was offered 1 mln. roubles per month, upfront on his card. He spent his month there, returned, and will go again if the fight continues. This is a lot of money for Russia, others are just going there bcs. they're hooked on war – there're even some units of veterans from Yugoslavia slavic batallions, or really want to fight for the case.
There were also several journalists, attempting to join rebel forces as a non-paid volunteers ( went without problem). Still, the stories of a merc, journalists and other volunteers confirm a relatively small percentage of these volunteers (even that some of them play important role in giving tactical advice).
There's still an open question of 9 deaths of Pskov paratroopers. This is the number which is more or less confirmed, and there's a registered inquiry into their case – however I'm not sure if we're getting the truth in the end.

What is reported by press, is that some people were offering "the work" – to these soldiers for the vacation time, so officially they're not Russian troops, but in fact they have all the training. Not all of them were lucky to get the money and make way back.
This recruiting made in time could have provided the rebels with the right manpower to crew all the equipment they have acquired and strike the army.
The more I think about it, the more it looks like the first Chechen campaign that ended with Khasavyurt agreement.
The army was only good on leveling the cities, was badly beaten in city fights, with incompetent commanders and traitors who were selling weapons to the enemy.It all here in the Ukrainian east at the moment….

Talked to our partners in Donetsk on Friday – the life is getting back to normal slowly, however some of their main customers are in Mariupol, therefore servicing the equipment on local steel mill is not possible at the moment. A lot of specialists from local former Gazprom design office left for Russia for other subsidiaries. While they're blaming Ukraine for the war, they want to end the fighting (ok, one of them wants a march on Kiev, but he has his house badly damaged by a missile from government troops).

Until the question with the east is not solved – hopefully, with diplomatic means, as the military operation is not giving results, I'd be very concerned about NATO membership for Ukraine…

I have a bad feeling that after exchange of prisoners, and Ukrainian army regaining its spirit ( and its planes/tanks/artillery/ courtesy of some former Warsaw pact countries, then the ceasefire will be broken.

Not to mention the equal opportunity for the separatists to consolidate control, with the continued lack of border security and the acknowledged presence of multiple freelance foreign nationals.

On top of that "…On September 13, a[nother] convoy of over 200 trucks crossed the border and headed to Luhansk to deliver more than 2,000 tonnes of relief supplies…

Again, the convoy was not inspected and images such as this do nothing but raise suspicion about the true contents and intentions:

link

Add in wider and wider evidence of direct involvement, and I agree that the changes of the ceasefire holding seem to get slimmer.

"It's not the (local) militia here anymore, it's mostly Russians who take part in combat," says 'Yakut', a former paratrooper who says he left the Russian armed forces to fight with pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine. "It's the professionals here now." When his job here is done, it is to the ranks of the Russian army that he will return.

Each report seems to water the deniability factor down more and more…

A cab driver in Moscow who gave his name as Vitaly said his son was also sent to Ukraine. He has a picture on his dashboard of the 20-year-old boy smiling atop an armoured personnel carrier. Vitaly says he is furious that his son – a paratrooper based in Pskov near Estonia – has been sent to Ukraine to fight for the rebels.

"They sent him there illegally to fight for the rebels two weeks ago. He says he'll be back on Nov. 20. I'm counting the days," he said.

Vitaly says officers tried to force his son – serving mandatory military service – to change his status to a contract soldier, which would legally allow him to serve abroad. Conscripts in Russia are exempt from foreign service. His son refused to sign, but officers sent him to Ukraine anyway. "They dressed him up like a rebel so no one would know he was a Russian soldier and off he went," said Vitaly.