04 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidOh boy. Recycling jokes from memes made in 2014.
California was annexed from the Mexicans in 1948. Get over Crimea. Mostly ethnic Russians live there and support Russia. Crimea river.
04 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidSure, Yanukovych wasn't going to join NATO, but the previous Yushchenko administration had pushed for membership in 2008, and the Kuchma administration proposed a "special partnership" with NATO as early as 1997 (where there were worries that the Russians might move to annex Sebastopol).
That's a bit too much of an alternative universe; with Yanukovych as President Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO who's overthrow triggered the Crimean annexation.
The Russian naval base at Sevastopol and other military installations would have had to be considered in your scenario prior to Ukraine joining NATO; the Russians may well have decided to keep them by force if necessary.
However, I think you're right in spirit, in the sense that these bids weren't going anywhere. Moreover, they almost certainly didn't command majority support; right up to 2014, pro-Russian attitudes were just as common as pro-Western one in the country, and many Ukrainians were pragmatically content with a neutral posture.
04 Oct 22
1 edit
@teinosuke saidTrue. But he was going to enter into a deal with the EU, which drew Putin's ire. Crippling sanctions were threatened by Russia, which ultimately forced Yanukovych to withdraw from the EU deal (which in turn resulted in massive protests).
Sure, Yanukovych wasn't going to join NATO
Ukrainians at the time may have been neutral on NATO but were clear about having closer ties with the EU.
04 Oct 22
@vivify saidThat's an exaggeration. Putin offered a better deal than the EU, at least economically. After the coup, the West gave its usual neoliberal type aid with austerity measures attached. Ukraine's economy collapsed; within a few years it had the lowest GDP per capita in Europe.
True. But he was going to enter into a deal with the EU, which drew Putin's ire. Crippling sanctions were threatened by Russia, which ultimately forced Yanukovych to withdraw from the EU deal (which in turn resulted in massive protests).
Ukrainians at the time may have been neutral on NATO but were clear about having closer ties with the EU.
04 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-trade/putin-warns-ukraine-against-implementing-eu-deal-letter-idUSKCN0HI1T820140923
That's an exaggeration.
Putin warns Ukraine against implementing EU deal
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said last week he had signed an order to curb Ukrainian exporters’ access to Russia.
Substantially raising Russian tariffs could mean 3 billion euros a year in lost business for Ukraine, which exports mainly steel, coal, chemicals and grains to Russia
That's not a "better deal" that's a threat.
04 Oct 22
@vivify saidWell, no, not really. Some Ukrainians were in favour of EU ties and some weren't. Here's Reuters (scarcely a pro-Russian source) commenting on the tug-of-war between the EU and Russia in late 2013.
Ukrainians at the time may have been neutral on NATO but were clear about having closer ties with the EU.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-special-report-idUSBRE9BI0DZ20131219
Public and private arm-twisting by Putin, including threats to Ukraine’s economy and Yanukovich’s political future, played a significant part. But the unwillingness of the EU and International Monetary Fund to be flexible in their demands of Ukraine also had an effect, making them less attractive partners.
For Ukraine, the ideal solution might have been simultaneous cooperation with the EU and with the Russian-led Eurasian Customs Union (i.e., without actually entering either). After all, Ukraine could then have taken full advantage of its geographical position (and in fact it had more markets to its east than to its west). However, both powers seem to have vetoed this compromise option.
There were indeed massive protests in Kiev and Western Ukrainian cities in 2013, but, as always, we have no reason to assume that the protesters represented the majority view. The occurence of protests demonstrates that the protesters feel particularly strongly about an issue, not that they represent majority opinion. The mechanism we have for determining how a majority feels is an election.
04 Oct 22
3 edits
@teinosuke saidThis article doesn't comment on how Ukrainian citizens felt about the EU deal; it only details what factors personally influenced Yanukovych. For example, it mentions the EU criticizing him for jailing his political rival.
Well, no, not really. Some Ukrainians were in favour of EU ties and some weren't. Here's Reuters (scarcely a pro-Russian source) commenting on the tug-of-war between the EU and Russia in late 2013.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-special-report-idUSBRE9BI0DZ20131219
[i]Public and private arm-twisting by Putin, including threats to Ukraine’s econ ...[text shortened]... present majority opinion. The mechanism we have for determining how a majority feels is an election.
Your link doesn't support a case either way for what the Ukrainian public thought. Most publications indicate that the Ukrainian majority was in favor of the EU deal.
04 Oct 22
@vivify saidCloser economic ties to the EU meant less reliance on Russian customers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-trade/putin-warns-ukraine-against-implementing-eu-deal-letter-idUSKCN0HI1T820140923
Putin warns Ukraine against implementing EU deal
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said last week he had signed an order to curb Ukrainian exporters’ access to Russia.
Substantially raising Russian tariffs could mean ...[text shortened]... nly steel, coal, chemicals and grains to Russia
That's not a "better deal" that's a threat.
Those displeased by the decision to pass on the EU agreement should have let their preference be known at the ballot box rather than a coup.
04 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidThen you negotiate. Not threaten economic turmoil.
Closer economic ties to the EU meant less reliance on Russian customers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Those displeased by the decision to pass on the EU agreement should have let their preference be known at the ballot box rather than a coup.
Massive demonstrations were held letting their preference be known. The "coup" didn't happen until after Yanukovych's bloody crackdown of those protests.
04 Oct 22
@vivify saidEither choice had negative consequences to trade with the other side. it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Then you negotiate. Not threaten economic turmoil.
Those displeased by the decision to pass on the EU agreement should have let their preference be known at the ballot box rather than a coup.
Massive demonstrations were held letting their preference be known. The "coup" didn't happen until after Yanukovych's bloody crackdown of those protests.
The coup occurred after a political deal had already been struck between the President and the three largest opposition parties for reforms and early elections.
04 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidThat's irrelevant to Russia threatening to inflict economic ruin.
Either choice had negative consequences to trade with the other side. it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
04 Oct 22
@vivify saidHardly. Both sides threatened negative economic consequences if Ukraine didn't do what they wanted. This was inherent in either choice.
That's irrelevant to Russia threatening to inflict economic ruin.
04 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidYou're deliberately using non-specific terms like "do what they wanted" because you know one is clearly worse than the other.
Hardly. Both sides threatened negative economic consequences if Ukraine didn't do what they wanted. This was inherent in either choice.
Russia threatened to ruin the country's economy just for partnering with the EU. The West spoke out against Yanukovych's violent attacks on protesters as well as criticized him for jailing is political opponent.
Not comparable in the least.
04 Oct 22
1 edit
@vivify saidYou can't be simple minded enough to believe that the West didn't exert economic pressure on Ukraine to OK the deal.
You're deliberately using non-specific terms like "do what they wanted" because you know one is clearly worse than the other.
Russia threatened to ruin the country's economy just for partnering with the EU. The West spoke out against Yanukovych's violent attacks on protesters as well as criticized him for jailing is political opponent.
Not comparable in the least.
Or maybe you can be.
Russia's "threat" was to stop giving Ukraine preferential treatment.