Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice.

Wow. That's... disturbing, to say the least. If there is no rule of law, how does one decide what is just or fair? Who is the arbiter?

More importantly, how exaclty, is stealing the Crimea justice?

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice.

Wow. That's... disturbing, to say the least. If there is no rule of law, how does one decide what is just or fair? Who is the arbiter?

More importantly, how exaclty, is stealing the Crimea justice?

Because it feels like justice. It's all about how it feels. It's like "truthiness".

 Ketara wrote:
Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.

The fact his wife was next in line after James also helped.

 Ketara wrote:
[...]Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.

Huh. Reminds me of a certain Eastern European country.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
[...]Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.

Huh. Reminds me of a certain Eastern European country.

With regards to Ukraine, the ratio of Russian nationals to Ukrainian in their little mob squads is somewhat more one sided. I read somewhere that for every over-patriotic Eastern Ukrainian, there are about ten Russian nationals, many with military experience. I don't know how accurate that is, but it would not surprise me.

Having said that, general sentiment over there is anti-Kiev enough, and Russia has only sent in such token forces unofficially, that even now I'd hesitate to call it an invasion. If the Kiev administration had been legal at the time things had kicked off, with a firm grip on power, Russia's token forces would have been clubbed to death much like baby seal facing a Canadian on a Greenpeace site.

Hypothetical question: If a government is no longer in a state of being due to being violently removed, does a nation still exist to invade?

At the time everything kicked off, the Kiev administration did not even control the military, let alone the tax gathering apparatus or police forces. They were a faction with the potential for government, as opposed to an actual government. Unlike say, Nigeria or Syria (Or indeed, James above), which still have the original governments engulfed in a civil war, Yanukovych's government had completely ceased to exist, and no faction had yet succeeded it, in legality or in actuality.

Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.

I think a better analogy would be saying that PRC sent a token force into Chinatown in San Francisco to quell riots in the area. The rest of the world, and especially the rest of the US would certainly see it as an invasion, regardless of intent.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.

I think a better analogy would be saying that PRC sent a token force into Chinatown in San Francisco to quell riots in the area. The rest of the world, and especially the rest of the US would certainly see it as an invasion, regardless of intent.

And also annex San Francisco into the PRC for the good of America.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.

Ketara's by no means defending Russia.

He's just pointing out that the situations nowhere near as black and white as you think it is.

That's the great thing about borders. They're like some kind of clearly defined line you don't cross.

 Ketara wrote:

Hypothetical question: If a government is no longer in a state of being due to being violently removed, does a nation still exist to invade?

Under international law, the answer is yes, surprisingly. The state of a nation's internal political situation is not factored in determining if a country has been invaded by a foreign power or not.

The US Invasion of Somalia is an example of this.

To be blunt, it's a very flimsy pretext for a land grab. Particularly when spouting that old chestnut about defending an ethnic minority.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.

Pardon? I'm not justifying anything, I was merely musing about political/international definitions. Ukraine is almost irrelevant to the hypothetical.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:That's the great thing about borders. They're like some kind of clearly defined line you don't cross.

Borders are defined, drawn, and redrawn across most of Europe all the time. Most of the nations have yet to meet their first century in their current incarnation. Britain did an excellent job of demonstrating how 'borders' are vastly mutable when they broke up their Empire.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Hypothetical question: If a government is no longer in a state of being due to being violently removed, does a nation still exist to invade?

Under international law, the answer is yes, surprisingly. The state of a nation's internal political situation is not factored in determining if a country has been invaded by a foreign power or not.

The US Invasion of Somalia is an example of this.

To be blunt, it's a very flimsy pretext for a land grab. Particularly when spouting that old chestnut about defending an ethnic minority.

Which international law is that? (genuinely curious) Is it the UN? And is the definition of a 'nation' directly linked to the previous incarnation of government, however bad it might be?

If so, where does that leave IS? They're half invaders, half locals. But they don't originate from the government of any neighbouring country. The same for Boko Haram in Nigeria. But if the Government has ceased to have effective control over a territory, and a local faction is backed by a foreign power and has taken control (for example, Russia and the Trans-Dniester right now), does that count as an invasion yet?

On the flip side of the coin, if a nation breaks up, consolidates into a number of different countries, and then half of those break up and re-consolidate within a short timespan, is it invasion when one of the previous territories that was part of the same nation invades a neighbouring one? After all, most of the inhabitants remember being the same country. What differentiates that from a prolonged civil war?

Unfortunately, there seem to be many shades of grey here (if not quite 50). I have a sneaky feeling that with most things in international politics, there is no definitive answer.

 Ketara wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.

Pardon? I'm not justifying anything, I was merely musing about political/international definitions. Ukraine is almost irrelevant to the hypothetical.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:That's the great thing about borders. They're like some kind of clearly defined line you don't cross.

Borders are defined, drawn, and redrawn across most of Europe all the time. Most of the nations have yet to meet their first century in their current incarnation. Britain did an excellent job of demonstrating how 'borders' are vastly mutable when they broke up their Empire.

What kind of logic is that? So borders where redrawn at some other time in Europe so its ok for Ukraine's to be redrawn now? Must I point out that Ukraine does not wish to have its borders redrawn they were fine with them. It's such a flimsy argument that I can only think your real reasoning that it is ok for them to be violated is that it is Russia doing it. That is why I take issue with your statement it is ok to violate Ukraine's borders if it is only a "token" force. Please define a "token" force. I would say the Ukraine's borders, like most countries, exist for the explicit reason to be a line where they do not wish foreign troops to cross without their permission no matter how "token".

Previously in this thread you blamed Russia's invasion all on Poroshenko. I'm sorry Ketara, but the Russia's invasion and military actions are actually completely the responsibility of Putin.

Finally, if Russia's actions are so noble and understandable why won't they admit to their military invasion and inferences? Even to their own people.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

What kind of logic is that? So borders where redrawn at some other time in Europe so its ok for Ukraine's to be redrawn now?

'Okay'? I'm sorry, but the concept of 'ok' isn't one I'm generally familiar with in this sort of context. Is that a moral objection? If so, a quantification of your standpoint would be appropriate here. Debating with ambiguous counter-statements without substance/definition rarely leads anywhere good.

Must I point out that Ukraine does not wish to have its borders redrawn they were fine with them.

The concept I'm currently interested in exploring is whether or not a nation continues to exist separately from its government after the cessation/elimination of that government. In a feudal system, you could tie the government to the monarchy/bloodline, and so perpetuate it beyond the termination of the immediate ruler/heir. If a government has been overthrown however, but no replacement set up (think Russia's civil war between the whites and reds, or unified Korea), at what point does the 'nation' cease to exist? If the Whites and Reds had split Russia down the middle, had peace for ten years, and then had the whites invade the reds, would it truly be an invasion?

I have no real viewpoint on this interesting debate of concepts as things stand, which is why I'm mooting it for discussion.

It's such a flimsy argument that I can only think your real reasoning that it is ok for them to be violated is that it is Russia doing it. That is why I take issue with your statement it is ok to violate Ukraine's borders if it is only a "token" force.

In the Spanish civil war, a large number of ideologically motivated fighters from various countries descended into the fray, and we're seeing something similar in Syria right now. It would be foolish to claim Britain was at war with Spain/Syria because a number of British citizens engage in the fighting.

I suppose intent would be a good initial way of measuring things, primarily whether or not a government has actively planned to send designated military forces across your borders. But even then, is the word 'invasion' appropriate? India/Pakistan regularly have small incursions/skirmishes over their borders, yet it would be foolish to term those 'invasions'. It's quite a loaded, yet ambiguous word when one comes to consider it.

Please define a "token" force. I would say the Ukraine's borders, like most countries, exist for the explicit reason to be a line where they do not wish foreign troops to cross without their permission no matter how "token".

That's one of the key concepts I'm exploring here, whether or not 'Ukraine' actually existed at the point of 'incursion' (for want of a better phrase). This is of course, completely separate from the Kiev administrations original claim to be a successor government from Yanukovych, a whole other can of worms in and of itself.

Previously in this thread you blamed Russia's invasion all on Poroshenko. I'm sorry Ketara, but the Russia's invasion and military actions are actually completely the responsibility of Putin.

Quotes please? I recall noting the game of cat and mouse between them, and being wryly amused when Poroshenko played his cards wrong. I might even have said that some of Putin's countermoves were logical causative results of some of Proshenko's. I don't recall taking sides though after the point Poroshenko was elected.

Finally, if Russia's actions are so noble and understandable why won't they admit to their military invasion and inferences? Even to their own people.

Because 'invasion' is clearly an inaccurate term here, and because Russia has no desire to absorb the territory mentioned (or they would have done so already).

They did absorb Crimea.

Yes, of course a nation can still exist without a government. If you were to ask the Ukrainians themselves if they were a nation during that time they would say they are.

Belgium had no government for almost a year a while ago but that doesn't mean everyone can go invade them now or disrespect their borders.

If America fails to pass a budget and their government shuts down Canada can not just swoop in and say Detroit is ours now. In many ways the government is the least important part of a nation.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

If America fails to pass a budget and their government shuts down Canada can not just swoop in and say Detroit is ours now. In many ways the government is the least important part of a nation.

But at the same time, if Canada decides it wants Detroit, and the US says, "no, you cant have it", there's really only one way of getting Detroit, and that is through military force, in which the US has 3 options.

1. They fight back, and militarily keep Detroit.
2. They don't fight back, and Detroit becomes Canadian (so long, Detroit, you're probably better off there )
3. Appeal to the international community, and maintain Detroit through diplomatic means.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

If America fails to pass a budget and their government shuts down Canada can not just swoop in and say Detroit is ours now. In many ways the government is the least important part of a nation.

But at the same time, if Canada decides it wants Detroit, and the US says, "no, you cant have it", there's really only one way of getting Detroit, and that is through military force, in which the US has 3 options.

1. They fight back, and militarily keep Detroit.
2. They don't fight back, and Detroit becomes Canadian (so long, Detroit, you're probably better off there )
3. Appeal to the international community, and maintain Detroit through diplomatic means.

Obviously I'm being preposterous. ....nobody really wants Detroit....

 Ketara wrote:

Which international law is that? (genuinely curious) Is it the UN? And is the definition of a 'nation' directly linked to the previous incarnation of government, however bad it might be?

While not specifying as an invasion, the hague Convention and article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention lay it out.


Hague art 42:
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.


4th Geneva Convention, Article 2:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.


Basically, any time you march into a territory not your own, you're considered an occupying force, regardless of what you call it, or if they welcome you with open arms, as long as you have no legal claim over the territory in question. It doesn't matter if the government there can put up resistance or not.



1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78)

See, I can spot about five linguistic issues with that definition without even trying. It doesn't nail down my hypotheticals, rather, it just makes it more complicated.

I might bounce it around the war studies department, see if I can get another definition.

 Ketara wrote:
See, I can spot about five linguistic issues with that definition without even trying. It doesn't nail down my hypotheticals, rather, it just makes it more complicated.

I might bounce it around the war studies department, see if I can get another definition.

You'll have fun. Just to make your head spin more, the original language of Hague was not English.

Red Cross gives a nice little summery of what is and is not allowed under what's generally known as the Law of Occupation:

ICRC wrote:

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.

The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

Cultural property must be respected.

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).

Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

Noticed this on the BBC site today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30414955
Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
By David Stern BBC News, Kiev

Ever since Ukraine's February revolution, the Kremlin has characterised the new leaders in Kiev as a "fascist junta" made up of neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, set on persecuting, if not eradicating, the Russian-speaking population.

This is demonstrably false. Far-right parties failed to pass a 5% percent barrier to enter parliament, although if they had banded together, and not split their vote, they would have probably slipped past the threshold.

Only one government minister has links to nationalist parties - though he is in no way a neo-Nazi or fascist. And the speaker of parliament, Volodymyr Groysman, is Jewish. He has the third most powerful position in the country after the president and prime minister.

But Ukrainian officials and many in the media err to the other extreme. They claim that Ukrainian politics are completely fascist-free. This, too, is plain wrong.

As a result, the question of the presence of the far-right in Ukraine remains a highly sensitive issue, one which top officials and the media shy away from. No-one wants to provide fuel to the Russian propaganda machine.

Mr Poroshenko (R) was pictured on his website clasping Serhiy Korotkykh on the shoulder

But this blanket denial also has its dangers, since it allows the ultra-nationalists to fly under the radar. Many Ukrainians are unaware that they exist, or even what a neo-Nazi or fascist actually is, or what they stand for.
Controversial 'patriot'

This hyper-sensitivity and stonewalling were on full display after President Petro Poroshenko presented a Ukrainian passport to someone who, according to human rights activists, is a "Belarusian neo-Nazi".

The Ukrainian leader handed out medals on 5 December to fighters who had tenaciously defended the main airport in the eastern region of Donetsk from being taken over by Russian-backed separatists.

Among the recipients was Serhiy Korotkykh, a Belarusian national, to whom Mr Poroshenko awarded Ukrainian citizenship, praising his "courageous and selfless service".

The president's website showed a photo of Mr Poroshenko patting the shoulder of the Belarusian, who was clad in military fatigues.

Serhiy Korotkykh was among the fighters surrounded inside the wreck of Donetsk airport terminal

Experts who follow the far right have strongly objected to President Poroshenko's decision.

They say Mr Korotkykh was a member of the far-right Russian National Unity party and also a founding member of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Society (NSS) in Russia.

According to Ukrainian academic Anton Shekhovtsov, the NSS's main goal "is to prepare for a race war".

Mr Shekhovtsov said the Belarusian had been charged for involvement in a bombing in central Moscow in 2007, and was detained in 2013 in the Belarusian capital Minsk for allegedly stabbing an anti-fascist activist. He was later released for lack of evidence.

Even though the details involved accusations rather than facts, if true they were damning, said human rights activist Halya Coynash.

Top Ukrainian officials then rejected as defamatory any claims that Mr Korotkykh had neo-Nazi ties.

"Counter-intelligence has no information that could prevent him from receiving Ukrainian citizenship," said Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, the head of Ukraine's security services.

Nevertheless, the fact is, neo-Nazis are indeed a fixture in Ukraine's new political landscape, albeit in small numbers.
Azov Battalion

As Mr Korotkykh's case demonstrates, the ultra-nationalists have proven to be effective and dedicated fighters in the brutal war in the east against Russian-backed separatists and Russian forces, whose numbers also include a large contingent from Russia's far right.

As a result, they have achieved a level of acceptance, even though most Ukrainians are unfamiliar with their actual beliefs.

The volunteer Azov Battalion is a case in point.

The Azov battalion seems to enjoy the support of several top officials

Run by the extremist Patriot of Ukraine organisation, which considers Jews and other minorities "sub-human" and calls for a white, Christian crusade against them, it sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia: a modified Wolf's Hook, a black sun (or "Hakensonne") and the title Black Corps, which was used by the Waffen SS.

Azov is just one of more than 50 volunteer groups fighting in the east, the vast majority of which are not extremist, yet it seems to enjoy special backing from some top officials:

Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and his deputy Anton Gerashchenko actively supported the parliament candidacy of Andriy Biletsky, the Azov and Patriot of Ukraine commander
Vadim Troyan, another top Azov official and Patriot of Ukraine member, was recently named police chief for the Kiev region
Mr Korotkykh is also an Azov member

Ukraine's media has been noticeably silent on this subject.

Recently, prominent newspaper and online publication Left Bank published an extensive interview with Mr Troyan, in which the journalists asked no questions at all about his neo-Nazi past or political views.

And after the Unian news agency reported the presidential ceremony under the headline, "Poroshenko awarded Belarusian neo-Nazi with Ukrainian passport", it was soon replaced with an article that air-brushed out the accusations of extremism.

Unian's editors have declined to comment on the two pieces.

There are significant risks to this silence. Experts say the Azov Battalion, which has been widely reported on in the West, has damaged Ukraine's image and bolsters Russia's information campaign.

And although Ukraine is emphatically not run by fascists, far-right extremists seem to be making inroads by other means, as in the country's police department.

Ukraine's public is grossly under-informed about this. The question is, why doesn't anyone want to tell them?

https://news.vice.com/article/theres-no-saving-russias-imploding-economy-from-the-worlds-hurt-feelings?utm_source=vicenewsfb

interesting read about the current status of russia economy, cant really quote well from my phone, if someone could copy/paste the text for the work blocked thatd be great.

chaos0xomega wrote:
https://news.vice.com/article/theres-no-saving-russias-imploding-economy-from-the-worlds-hurt-feelings?utm_source=vicenewsfb

interesting read about the current status of russia economy, cant really quote well from my phone, if someone could copy/paste the text for the work blocked thatd be great.

Sure thing

Today's 10 percent drop in the value of Russia's ruble is remarkable. Not as much for being the biggest one-day drop in Russia's currency since 1999, but for failing to faze much of anyone in Moscow.

There was no panic in the streets, and no lines outside banks and currency exchanges. But then again, Russians have been here before. Retailers know how to cope, pricing goods and services not in rubles, but in "conditional units" — shorthand for dollars or euros, the conversion rates of which are adjusted daily or even hourly. It's an old habit (and also an illegal one) that got Russians through the hyperinflation of the 1990s, and one that will get them through now.

Under pressure from the collapsing currency and plummeting oil prices, as well as from sanctions that have raised the cost of borrowing for everyone from ordinary consumers to natural gas giant Gazprom, Russia's economy is reeling. Inflation is now predicted to top 11 percent in the first quarter of next year, and the economy may contract by as much as 4.5 percent, according to the Russian Central Bank's own estimates. The government, meanwhile, announced plans to cut spending next year by 10 percent.



In an effort to stop the bleeding, the Central Bank announced hours ago — in the middle of the night — that it would raise interest rates 650 basis points, to 17 percent from 10.5 percent. Words like "stunning," "drastic," and "emergency" are being used to describe the massive hike, and it's far from clear how markets will respond.

The fundamental problems with Russia's economy are well-known: over-reliance on oil, gas, and other resource exports; tremendous inefficiency compounded by creaking infrastructure corruption, red tape, and a lack of legal protection for property rights; and so on. But Russia's companies, currency, and debt are all fundamentally worth much more than they're trading for on global and, now, domestic markets.

The problem is, fundamentals don't move markets — sentiments do.

Some sentiments are fickle, like the ones that help people determine that the maker of Candy Crush is worth billions of dollars. But other sentiments are sticky, and that's particularly true of the hurt feelings that usually follow a default. Moscow knows that, having struggled mightily to overcome the disdain of capital markets after its 1998 default, and has kept admirably current on its financial obligations.

Instead, Moscow has defaulted on its political obligations. Just as Western businesses invested in Russia's remarkable post-1998 economic turnaround, so did Western governments — especially those in Europe — invest in a new relationship. Germany in particular poured tremendous political capital into building bridges with Moscow. So did Italy, France, and even some in the UK. While facilitating access for their corporations, political leaders thought they were also buying leverage and a degree of understanding. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and effectively occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Berlin and others convinced themselves that it was a blip, and that things would return to normal.

Post-Ukraine, however, politicians and investors in Europe — and, increasingly, in Russia itself — have now become convinced of the opposite. The Georgian and Ukrainian incursions today look to be the key data points, and good relations with the West to be the aberration. The bubble of Russian-European détente has burst.

But that's only half the problem. After Vladimir Putin said oil prices would soon stabilize, OPEC members said they would be happy to see prices fall still further. And when the Russian Central Bank raised interest rates 100 basis points last week, the ruble continued to plunge. While last night's rate hike was calculated to shock the ruble back to life, there is a growing sense that Moscow has lost its grip on economic management. The bubble of Kremlin competence has burst too.



That leaves ordinary Russians to do what they have almost always done: With no good way of changing their government's policies, with no way of appealing to leaders in Berlin or Washington or Riyadh, and with no faith in anything but their own ability to cope, they cope. And for the time being, at least, the West will likely write Russia out of the equation of global economic prosperity.

In a sense, these bursting bubbles free Putin to do as he sees fit, having been relieved of the expectations of his domestic masses and his foreign interlocutors. But they also diminish him. Leaders, after all, are a lot like currencies: only as powerful as people believe them to be — and when that belief evaporates, not worth very much at all.

So, does this mean that the New Russian Empire is over?

That report seems out of date. I've read others saying there is a bit of panic. Not full blown but people are trying to buy things like washing machines and other hardware because they fear their money will be worthless soon.

 Easy E wrote:
So, does this mean that the New Russian Empire is over?

Most reports I'm seeing indicate an economic collapse on the horizon. I really wonder if it was worth it for Russia.

To be fair, invading the Ukraine isn't what's bringing the Russian economy down. The price of oil is. The Saudis are throwing Putin under the bus, which I find funny for some strange reason.

I am kind of sad though. I was hoping that a resurgent Russia might convince the EU to develop some real military capability. I doubt it will happen now.

The Russians fighting a 'holy war' in Ukraine
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30518054

Since the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine eight months ago, the Kremlin has denied any direct involvement, including sending Russian troops. But there are Russian fighters on the ground who are proud to announce their presence - and to discuss their ideas of "holy war".

Even when the morning sun catches the gold domes of its Orthodox churches, the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, stronghold of the pro-Russian rebels, doesn't look much like Jerusalem. Trolley-buses trundle through the dirty snow, past belching chimneys and the slag-heaps from the coal-mines on the edge of town.

But through the smoke and grime, Pavel Rasta sees a sacred city - and he's fighting for it, Kalashnikov in hand, just like the Crusaders fought for the heart of Christendom centuries ago. He may be a financial manager - most recently working in a funeral parlour - who's never held a gun before in his life, but he sees himself as the modern version of a medieval knight, dedicated to chivalrous ideas of Christian purity and defending the defenceless.

And the defenceless, for him, are the citizens of eastern Ukraine, mainly Russian-speaking, who are under attack, as he sees it, by a ruthless Ukrainian government intent on wiping them out culturally, or even physically.

Pavel used Rasta as his name for blogging, before it became his nom de guerre

Pavel, from the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don - a tall man in his late 30s with a fashionably trimmed beard and a bookish air - is just one of hundreds, perhaps as many as 1,000, Russian volunteers fighting in Ukraine.

The conflict around the self-proclaimed separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk has now dragged on for eight months - with at least 4,600 killed, even by the most conservative, UN, estimate. Despite Kremlin denials, evidence from intelligence sources, and Russian human rights groups, suggests thousands of regular Russian troops have also been fighting there, alongside a larger number of local rebels. But men like Pavel say they aren't there under orders, or for money, but only for an idea, the idea of restoring a Russian empire. It would be Orthodox, like the empire of the tsars, including Ukraine and Belarus.

"Why do I say Donetsk is Jerusalem? Because what's happening here is a holy war of the Russian people for its own future, for its own ideals, for its children and its great country that 25 years ago was divided into pieces," Pavel says.

We're sitting on his narrow, squeaky bed in a barracks in Donetsk, our conversation interrupted periodically by the boom of shelling and the crackle of gunfire. Like the other Russians here, he says he's paid for much of his equipment and travel arrangements himself. Some kit and food comes from donations channelled through Russian nationalist organisations, while their weapons - in this unit, mostly rifles - are from the rebel military authorities, originally captured from Ukrainian forces or supplied by Russia.

Few Western journalists have been allowed to meet the volunteers before - revealing any Russian involvement in the war is sensitive - and some of his comrades in this unit of Russian and Ukrainian volunteers are nervous about our presence.

They're a mixed bunch: some are retired professional soldiers hardened by Russia's wars against the Chechen rebels, some former policemen - and possibly, secret service agents - who later went into business, some youngsters who've never even served in the army. And their cultural reference-points are bewilderingly eclectic. The image of Orthodox Crusaders sits uneasily with the emblem of the brigade they serve in - a skull-and-crossbones - and their motto: "The more enemies - the more honour."


Some are clearly driven partly by an existentialist quest to give meaning to their lives - it's no surprise to find Pavel's most recent reading is Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. But what seems to unite most of them is a belief that they're in Ukraine not to support a rebellion against the legitimate government there, but rather to defend Russia itself against sinister Western forces that want its total destruction.

"The Ukrainian authorities aren't responsible for starting this war," says a young volunteer from the outskirts of Moscow who wants to be known only by his military nickname Chernomor (Black Sea). "It's Britain, Europe and the West." He's a trained lawyer who served in the Interior Ministry forces, partly in Chechnya, and now he's left his new wife and baby son to fight, he says, for "freedom". That means freedom, in the first instance, for the Russian nation. Pavel is more apocalyptic. "Our efforts are saving the Russian state," he says. "Because if the war for Donetsk is lost, it will immediately cross the border and begin in Russia. Rostov, Moscow, Vladivostok will be in flames."

To many outsiders this looks like paranoia. But the idea that Russia - and the wider Orthodox, Slav world - are surrounded by steadily encroaching enemies has been a powerful current in Russian thought for at least 200 years. And the tradition of volunteers travelling to defend it also goes back a long way. In the late Nineteenth Century there were many real-life equivalents of Count Vronsky, the lover of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, who signs up after her suicide to protect fellow Slavs against the Turks in Serbia, and dies in the struggle. In the 1990s Russian volunteers - including some now fighting in Ukraine - took the same road, joining the Orthodox Serbs against the Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims in the Yugoslav wars.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting pod cast" Telling russians crimea isn't russian, is like telling texans the alamo's mexican".

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
To be fair, invading the Ukraine isn't what's bringing the Russian economy down. The price of oil is. The Saudis are throwing Putin under the bus, which I find funny for some strange reason.

I am kind of sad though. I was hoping that a resurgent Russia might convince the EU to develop some real military capability. I doubt it will happen now.

It's not helping. Also, the annexation of Crimea is now turning into the expensive prospect of supporting it.

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
To be fair, invading the Ukraine isn't what's bringing the Russian economy down. The price of oil is. The Saudis are throwing Putin under the bus, which I find funny for some strange reason.
.

The British too. North Sea Oil ceases to be viable below a certain price, and we're approaching that price fast. The bigger companies have already started laying people off around Edinburgh.

Good thing Scotland didn't go independent after all, eh wot?