As Russian President Vladimir Putin's forces took over Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in early 2014, the interim Ukrainian government was debating whether or not to fight back against the "little green men" Russia had deployed. But the message from the Barack Obama administration was clear: avoid military confrontation with Moscow.

The White House's message to Kiev was advice, not an order, U.S. and Ukrainian officials have recently told us, and was based on a variety of factors. There was a lack of clarity about what Russia was really doing on the ground. The Ukrainian military was in no shape to confront the Russian Spetsnaz (special operations) forces that were swarming on the Crimean peninsula. Moreover, the Ukrainian government in Kiev was only an interim administration until the country would vote in elections a few months later. Ukrainian officials told us that other European governments sent Kiev a similar message.

But the main concern was Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As U.S. officials told us recently, the White House feared that if the Ukrainian military fought in Crimea, it would give Putin justification to launch greater military intervention in Ukraine, using similar logic to what Moscow employed in 2008 when Putin invaded large parts of Georgia in response to a pre-emptive attack by the Tbilisi government. Russian forces occupy two Georgian provinces to this day.

Looking back today, many experts and officials point to the decision not to stand and fight in Crimea as the beginning of a Ukraine policy based on the assumption that avoiding conflict with Moscow would temper Putin's aggression. But that was a miscalculation. Almost two years later, Crimea is all but forgotten, Russian-backed separatist forces are in control of two large Ukrainian provinces, and the shaky cease-fire between the two sides is in danger of collapsing.

"Part of the pattern we see in Russian behavior is to test and probe when not faced with pushback or opposition," said Damon Wilson, the vice president for programming at the Atlantic Council. "Russia's ambitions grow when they are not initially challenged. The way Crimea played out, Putin had a policy of deniability, there could have been a chance for Russia to walk away."

When Russian special operations forces, military units and intelligence officers seized Crimea, it surprised the U.S. government. Intelligence analysts had briefed Congress 24 hours before the stealth invasion, saying the Russian troop buildup on Ukraine's border was a bluff. Ukraine's government -- pieced together after President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev for Russia following civil unrest -- was in a state of crisis. The country was preparing for elections and its military was largely dilapidated and unprepared for war.

There was a debate inside the Kiev government as well. Some argued the nation should scramble its forces to Crimea to respond. As part of that process, the Ukrainian government asked Washington what military support the U.S. would provide. Without quick and substantial American assistance, Ukrainians knew, a military operation to defend Crimea could not have had much chance for success.

"I don't think the Ukrainian military was well prepared to manage the significant challenge of the major Russian military and stealth incursion on its territory," said Andrew Weiss, a Russia expert and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment, told us. This was also the view of many in the U.S. military and intelligence community at the time.

There was also the Putin factor. In the weeks and months before the Crimea operation, Russia's president was stirring up his own population about the threat Russian-speakers faced in Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics.

"They did face a trap," said the Atlantic Council's Wilson, who was the senior director for Europe at the National Security Council when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. "Any Ukrainian violent reaction to any of these unknown Russian speakers would have played into the narrative that Putin already created, that Ukraine's actions threaten Russian lives and he would have pretext to say he was sending Russian forces to save threatened Russians."

The White House declined to comment on any internal communications with the Ukrainian government. A senior administration official told us that the U.S. does not recognize Russia's occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, and pointed to a series of sanctions the U.S. and Europe have placed on Russia since the Ukraine crisis began.

"We remain committed to maintaining pressure on Russia to fulfill its commitments under the Minsk agreements and restore Ukraine's territorial integrity, including Crimea," the senior administration official said.

Ever since the annexation of Crimea in March, 2014, there have been a group of senior officials inside the administration who have been advocating unsuccessfully for Obama to approve lethal aid to the Ukrainian military. These officials have reportedly included Secretary of State John Kerry, his top Europe official, Victoria Nuland, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and General Philip Breedlove, the supreme allied commander for NATO.

Obama has told lawmakers in private meetings that his decision not to arm the Ukrainians was in part due to a desire to avoid direct military confrontation with Russia, one Republican lawmaker who met with Obama on the subject told us. The U.S. has pledged a significant amount of non-lethal aid to the Ukrainian military, but delivery of that aid has often been delayed. Meanwhile, Russian direct military involvement in Eastern Ukraine has continued at a high level.

Even former Obama administration Russia officials acknowledge that Ukraine's decision last year to cede Crimea to Moscow, while making sense at the time, has also resulted in more aggression by Putin.

"Would a devastating defeat in Crimea serve the interest of the interim government? Probably not," said Michael McFaul, who served as ambassador to Russia under Obama and is now a scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. But nonetheless, McFaul said, the ease with which Putin was able to take Crimea likely influenced his decision to expand Russia's campaign in eastern Ukraine: "I think Putin was surprised at how easy Crimea went and therefore when somebody said let's see what else we can do, he decided to gamble.”

The Obama administration, led on this issue by Kerry, is still pursuing a reboot of U.S.-Russia relations. After a long period of coolness, Kerry's visit to Putin in Sochi in May was the start of a broad effort to seek U.S.-Russian cooperation on a range of issues including the Syrian civil war. For the White House, the Ukraine crisis is one problem in a broader strategic relationship between two world powers.

But for the Ukrainians, Russia's continued military intervention in their country is an existential issue, and they are pleading for more help. While many Ukrainians agreed in early 2014 that fighting back against Russia was too risky, that calculation has now changed. The Ukrainian military is fighting Russian forces elsewhere, and Putin is again using the threat of further intervention to scare off more support from the West. If help doesn't come, Putin may conclude he won't pay a price for meddling even further.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The thing I hate most about that kind of propaganda articles, is how it pretends that this fething war is not a civil war and how it talks about "the Ukrainians" as if they all share the same opinion about this, rather than the entire country being torn apart over support or dissaproval of the new Kiev government. But in the West, it is all about this fictional Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and Russia is the cause for all of Ukraine's problems.

It would have been better if the Maidan regime had tried to fight back. At least the war would have been over quickly then.

"... the quantity of pro-Kremlin trolling on this topic … which has been documented extensively since 2012 as a real and insidious threat to online communities of idea and debate, has rendered commenting on these articles all but meaningless, and a worthless exercise in futility and frustration for anyone not already being mind-controlled by the Kremlin."

 CptJake wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The thing I hate most about that kind of propaganda articles, is how it pretends that this fething war is not a civil war and how it talks about "the Ukrainians" as if they all share the same opinion about this, rather than the entire country being torn apart over support or dissaproval of the new Kiev government. But in the West, it is all about this fictional Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and Russia is the cause for all of Ukraine's problems.

It would have been better if the Maidan regime had tried to fight back. At least the war would have been over quickly then.

"... the quantity of pro-Kremlin trolling on this topic … which has been documented extensively since 2012 as a real and insidious threat to online communities of idea and debate, has rendered commenting on these articles all but meaningless, and a worthless exercise in futility and frustration for anyone not already being mind-controlled by the Kremlin."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/04/pro-russia-trolls-ukraine-guardian-online

 Tyran wrote:

Oh look, Russia has mind control rays.

 CptJake wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The thing I hate most about that kind of propaganda articles, is how it pretends that this fething war is not a civil war and how it talks about "the Ukrainians" as if they all share the same opinion about this, rather than the entire country being torn apart over support or dissaproval of the new Kiev government. But in the West, it is all about this fictional Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and Russia is the cause for all of Ukraine's problems.

It would have been better if the Maidan regime had tried to fight back. At least the war would have been over quickly then.

"... the quantity of pro-Kremlin trolling on this topic … which has been documented extensively since 2012 as a real and insidious threat to online communities of idea and debate, has rendered commenting on these articles all but meaningless, and a worthless exercise in futility and frustration for anyone not already being mind-controlled by the Kremlin."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/04/pro-russia-trolls-ukraine-guardian-online

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Oh look, Russia has mind control rays.

You don't need mind control rays when you have a populace who eats up the kind of quality propaganda that the Kremlin puts out.

 CptJake wrote:
Or at least has been duped by the pro Russian trolls.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Keep on telling yourself that it's because of "Western propaganda" and not because of your established posting history(3111 posts, 1334 [43%] of which are in the Off Topic forum--with fifteen pages worth of posts being in this thread alone)

The continuing insistence you have that this is strictly a Ukrainian civil war with absolutely no Russian interference is what makes people think you're a pro-Russian troll.

pgmason wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/18/trolls-putin-russia-savchuk

Perhaps we have a couple of employees of this organisation here.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Keep on telling yourself that it's because of "Western propaganda" and not because of your established posting history(3111 posts, 1334 [43%] of which are in the Off Topic forum--with fifteen pages worth of posts being in this thread alone)

The continuing insistence you have that this is strictly a Ukrainian civil war with absolutely no Russian interference is what makes people think you're a pro-Russian troll.

I joined up before the crisis even started, because I like 40k, not for the OT.

But I was born and grew up in Crimea, so this whole crisis is very close to me.

] I even have family fighting in this war. I don't think any of you has.

It is only natural that I became so active in a thread about something that is very important to me. And through this thread, I also discovered the fun that is OT, and now OT is my favourite subsection of Dakka. Anyways, if a civil war broke out wherever you grew up and a thread got started about it on Dakka, I am sure you'd be active in that as well.

Also, if you had ever bothered to actually read the posts I made, you would have noticed that I never denied Russian interference in Ukraine. It is just that in Western media, Russia's role in the crisis is ridiculously inflated and the fact that the war in Ukraine is much more of a civil war rather than a Russian invasion is constantly downplayed or conveniently ignored.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yes, the idea that Iron Captain is somehow a professional troll on the Kremlin's payroll is idiotic to the point of it being a conspiracy theory.

The only thing Iron Captain is guilty of is bias. Understandable, given that he has a personal stake in this being Russian and coming from Crimea.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yes, the idea that Iron Captain is somehow a professional troll on the Kremlin's payroll is idiotic to the point of it being a conspiracy theory.

And yet, some stuff actually starts to line up neatly.
Not saying it's 100% "OMG WE'VE CRACKED THE CODE!" but really now, is it that difficult to believe considering the fact that this "troll factory" doesn't just generate content but also comment on it?

 LordofHats wrote:
While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Maybe. Maybe not.

But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

A Civil War is still a Civil War even with foreign entities backing the various sides.

Frankly Ukraine seems like its becoming a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Both sides have an agenda here.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.

Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".

After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Maybe. Maybe not.

But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

A Civil War is still a Civil War even with foreign entities backing the various sides.

A civil war is a civil war until you have those foreign entities not just "backing the various sides" but providing personnel for those sides.

Frankly Ukraine seems like its becoming a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Both sides have an agenda here.

But only one side has troops on the ground fighting and dying.

I'll let you figure out which one.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frankly Ukraine seems like its becoming a proxy war between Russia and NATO.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.

Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".

After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.

Wtf is it with this personal vendetta you have against him?

secret internet troll spy? Seriously?

As for "Western Propaganda". BOTH sides have propaganda regarding Ukraine - we're just more sophisticated at it.

We're providing training, funding, material and intelligence to the Kiev government. We might not be sending our own troops (because no western government could ever do that and hope to get re-elected) but we are very much involved.

 Manchu wrote:
There is a holdover leftist lobby in the US that will bend over backwards to apologize for anything Russia does, including rhetorical gymnastics to turn a story about Russian imperialism into a story about American imperialism.

And INB4 someone calls me a Kremlin Troll. B**** please. I don't watch or read any Russian media, not even Russia Today. The biggest influence on my opinion of Russia and Ukraine is the Mail On Sunday writer Peter Hitchens.

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frankly Ukraine seems like its becoming a proxy war between Russia and NATO.

Seems to me that a whole lot of roubles have been spent broadcasting this notion throughout the American media. Ukraine has been playing NATO and Russia off of each other for twenty years or more. As a matter of its own foreign policy, Ukraine was leaning further toward NATO and this alarmed Russia -- seeing Ukraine as a satellite vassal -- to the point of invasion.

There is a holdover leftist lobby in the US that will bend over backwards to apologize for anything Russia does, including rhetorical gymnastics to turn a story about Russian imperialism into a story about American imperialism.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.

Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".

After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.

Wtf is it with this personal vendetta you have against him?

secret internet troll spy? Seriously?

As for "Western Propaganda". BOTH sides have propaganda regarding Ukraine - we're just more sophisticated at it.

I understand that sarcasm isn't really easy to detect via the Internet, but dangit I thought that one would have been easy to pick up on..

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The biggest influence on my opinion of Russia and Ukraine is the Mail On Sunday writer Peter Hitchens.

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The biggest influence on my opinion of Russia and Ukraine is the Mail On Sunday writer Peter Hitchens.

Well that explains it. Hitchens believes Russia "naturally" dominates the Ukraine and has compared Russian interest in Ukraine to US interests in New Mexico and Souther California. Oddly, it is not lost on him that California and New Mexico are part of the US. Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc. In Hitchens's mind, Ukraine is a much a part of the Russian Empire as New Mexico is a part of the United States.

And he goes around telling other people they're out of touch!

 Manchu wrote:
Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Keep on telling yourself that it's because of "Western propaganda" and not because of your established posting history(3111 posts, 1334 [43%] of which are in the Off Topic forum--with fifteen pages worth of posts being in this thread alone)

The continuing insistence you have that this is strictly a Ukrainian civil war with absolutely no Russian interference is what makes people think you're a pro-Russian troll.

I joined up before the crisis even started, because I like 40k, not for the OT.

Actually?

Euromaidan protests began November 21st, 2013. You joined November 23rd, 2013.

Not saying you are a Russian troll, buuuuuut...we also had some threads discussing the Euromaidan protests and various political dissidence going on in Russia at the time.

 Kanluwen wrote:

But I was born and grew up in Crimea, so this whole crisis is very close to me.

It's funny that you're supposedly now 15(despite your first OT thread post being 12/25/2013 and to quote, you were "14"), living in(according to the flag you're posting from) the Netherlands...yet this whole crisis is "very close to you"?
I've lived in the same place my whole life and I don't have anywhere near as much of an attachment to it as you seem to have put on a place where you might have lived anywhere from 10-12 years(the timeframe where you would actually start to remember things to the point to have an emotional attachment begins at ages 3-5).

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh come on. Guy says he's "Half-Russian".

I can say I'm Half-Elvish and hail from Lothlorien, it doesn't make it true.