Where Have All the Russian Trolls Gone?

[xyz]

They cut off their borscht ration and they all starved to death.

Yeah, it does seem that they are somewhat out of money for silly trolling operations. Or maybe they are redeploying to somewhere else besides an obscure political forum.

 

[JoeB131]

It is not about what the Russians in the Donbas want. It is about the price what Ukraine can pay to reclaim these territories.

Ukraine won't recognize any occupied lands as a part of Russia. But at some point the costs of an active war may be deemed too high. Actually, we have almost come to this point.

Reclaiming Kharkiv region and the western part of Kherson region. And then the active fighting should be stopped. After that, reforming the country, developing military on NATO standards, integration into the EU.

Why should they do that? It seems right now that the Russians are collapsing under their own weight. What seems just as likely is that the Russians will withdraw in a face-saving manner, and maybe Putin will be encouraged to retire.

Unfortunately, if the Ukraine wins this thing, I fully expect the Russians in the Donbass to be ethnically cleansed like the Serbs were in Croatia and Kosovo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unfortunately, if the Ukraine wins this thing, I fully expect the Russians in the Donbass to be ethnically cleansed

That'd be a shame.
It's not like they could move to the largest country in the world.

 

[ESay]

Why should they do that? It seems right now that the Russians are collapsing under their own weight. What seems just as likely is that the Russians will withdraw in a face-saving manner, and maybe Putin will be encouraged to retire

1. This war isn't going on without a trace for Ukraine. Ruined economy, infrastructure, thousands of lost lives.

2. Vulnerability of civil infrastructure. Not that Russian strikes against civil infrastructure or residential areas would be something new, but as recent strikes on power plants showed (when 5 regions were cut off from the grid) it has a serious potential for escalation.

3. As Russian-held territories in Ukraine shrinking, they can concentrate more troops in one direction and organise more effective defence there.

Unfortunately, if the Ukraine wins this thing, I fully expect the Russians in the Donbass to be ethnically cleansed like the Serbs were in Croatia and Kosovo

Exactly. Ukraine doesn't need these two heavily pro-Russian regions with their never ending demands for a special status. Either the Croatian scenario or giving them up. Joining them as they are is planting a delayed action mine under the state.

 

[rightwinger]

As Russian-held territories in Ukraine shrinking, they can concentrate more troops in one direction and organise more effective defence there.

Another name for retreat

 

[ESay]

Another name for retreat

Yes, it is retreat. The time will show what consequences it will have.

 

[para bellum]

Yes, it is retreat. The time will show what consequences it will have.

If Ukraine stops the offensive at the banks of the Donets and Dnipro rivers, that's a textbook victory. Those are natural defensive positions and the perfect spot to launch the Spring offensive. The AFU can use the winter pause to regenerate and re-equip, and continue to train and build out the reserves and logistics.

The Russian position in Kherson is untenable and will collapse just like they did in Izium. They just can't supply 20K forces on the west bank of the Dnipro with pontoon barges, especially since the AFU can target them at will.

The Russians have already moved their artillery to the other side of the river and pulled their defensive line back about 10km. The AFU is getting closer to Kherson every day.

The losses claimed on Russian media appear to be greatly exaggerated, the head of the Military hospital in Mykolaiv said they were seeing 15-30 wounded soldiers a day, which was about the same as before the southern offensive began.

 

[rightwinger]

If Ukraine stops the offensive at the banks of the Donets and Dnipro rivers, that's a textbook victory. Those are natural defensive positions and the perfect spot to launch the Spring offensive. The AFU can use the winter pause to regenerate and re-equip, and continue to train and build out the reserves and logistics.

The Russian position in Kherson is untenable and will collapse just like they did in Izium. They just can't supply 20K forces on the west bank of the Dnipro with pontoon barges, especially since the AFU can target them at will.

The Russians have already moved their artillery to the other side of the river and pulled their defensive line back about 10km. The AFU is getting closer to Kherson every day.

The losses claimed on Russian media appear to be greatly exaggerated, the head of the Military hospital in Mykolaiv said they were seeing 15-30 wounded soldiers a day, which was about the same as before the southern offensive began.

Russian forces are going to have a hard, cold Winter. A Russian Valley Forge
Putin will struggle to provide basic food, clothing and heat.
I don’t think he cares, but the soldiers do

 

[ESay]

If Ukraine stops the offensive at the banks of the Donets and Dnipro rivers, that's a textbook victory. Those are natural defensive positions and the perfect spot to launch the Spring offensive. The AFU can use the winter pause to regenerate and re-equip, and continue to train and build out the reserves and logistics.

The Russian position in Kherson is untenable and will collapse just like they did in Izium. They just can't supply 20K forces on the west bank of the Dnipro with pontoon barges, especially since the AFU can target them at will.

The Russians have already moved their artillery to the other side of the river and pulled their defensive line back about 10km. The AFU is getting closer to Kherson every day.

The losses claimed on Russian media appear to be greatly exaggerated, the head of the Military hospital in Mykolaiv said they were seeing 15-30 wounded soldiers a day, which was about the same as before the southern offensive began.

The time will show. I am not sure though that the government really plans to take back the Donbas and Crimea by force. The question isn't only about military loses (though this is a main question too).

The question is what to do with population of these regions. Ukraine doesn't need these regions in their present form. For me it is pretty obvious that those who changed their citizenship from Ukrainian to Russian one should move to Russia.

I am prefer my own plan. Liberating Kharkiv oblast (almost done), taking back the Dnieper western riverbank in Kherson oblast and halt the active fighting.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The time will show. I am not sure though that the government really plans to take back the Donbas and Crimea by force. The question isn't only about military loses (though this is a main question too).

The question is what to do with population of these regions. Ukraine doesn't need these regions in their present form. For me it is pretty obvious that those who changed their citizenship from Ukrainian to Russian one should move to Russia.

I am prefer my own plan. Liberating Kharkiv oblast (almost done), taking back the Dnieper western riverbank in Kherson oblast and halt the active fighting.

Interesting comments! I agree there is, and will be, a pressing need to stop the fighting and begin negotiating at some reasonably defensible and politically realistic time and location. Given the new victories of Ukrainians (with Western aid) and their growing elan, and the remarkable Russian state/military incompetence/corruption, Ukrainian leaders seem increasingly to expect to take back all of Crimea and Donbas.

This war — even with Ukrainian victory — can set the stage for many decades of fighting, even end in nuclear war, or on the other hand can lead to Putin’s quick exit or even the collapse of the Russian Federation (which most Western democrats would gleefully celebrate). It can also lead to any combination of these.

It is important, in my view, for the West to show a bit of restraint in this apparent victory. My reasons are complex, and you too seem to have a sense of the dangers here.

Crimea may indeed one day choose via peaceful means to become independent of Russia, or part of a greater Ukraine, but if it is taken by force now by a Ukrainian state completely economically and militarily dependent on NATO and the U.S. — the excitement of the moment can hide immense future problems.

It should be noted, though this is not necessarily determining any more than the fact that before Maidan Crimea was legally a part of Ukraine, that most Crimeans are Russian culturally / linguistically and already in 2014 happily voted to re-join Russia.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Interesting comments! I agree there is, and will be, a pressing need to stop the fighting and begin negotiating at some reasonably defensible and politically realistic time and location. Given the new victories of Ukrainians (with Western aid) and their growing elan, and the remarkable Russian state/military incompetence/corruption, Ukrainian leaders seem increasingly to expect to take back all of Crimea and Donbas.

This war — even with Ukrainian victory — can set the stage for many decades of fighting, even end in nuclear war, or on the other hand can lead to Putin’s quick exit or even the collapse of the Russian Federation (which most Western democrats would gleefully celebrate). It can also lead to any combination of these.

It is important, in my view, for the West to show a bit of restraint in this apparent victory. My reasons are complex, and you too seem to have a sense of the dangers here.

Crimea may indeed one day choose via peaceful means to become independent of Russia, or part of a greater Ukraine, but if it is taken by force now by a Ukrainian state completely economically and militarily dependent on NATO and the U.S. — the excitement of the moment can hide immense future problems.

It should be noted, though this is not necessarily determining any more than the fact that before Maidan Crimea was legally a part of Ukraine, that most Crimeans are Russian culturally / linguistically and already in 2014 happily voted to re-join Russia.

Bullshit. Crimea had been recognized by Russia as part of Ukraine and was taken and held by force by Putin's Russia in 2014 and no honest person would argue that any vote held under Russian occupation was valid. The world is full of refugees who identify as Russian but reject the Russian government. There is no honest basis for presuming that Ukrainians who identify as cultural Russians would want to live under Putin's government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Interesting comments! I agree there is, and will be, a pressing need to stop the fighting and begin negotiating at some reasonably defensible and politically realistic time and location. Given the new victories of Ukrainians (with Western aid) and their growing elan, and the remarkable Russian state/military incompetence/corruption, Ukrainian leaders seem increasingly to expect to take back all of Crimea and Donbas.

This war — even with Ukrainian victory — can set the stage for many decades of fighting, even end in nuclear war, or on the other hand can lead to Putin’s quick exit or even the collapse of the Russian Federation (which most Western democrats would gleefully celebrate). It can also lead to any combination of these.

It is important, in my view, for the West to show a bit of restraint in this apparent victory. My reasons are complex, and you too seem to have a sense of the dangers here.

Crimea may indeed one day choose via peaceful means to become independent of Russia, or part of a greater Ukraine, but if it is taken by force now by a Ukrainian state completely economically and militarily dependent on NATO and the U.S. — the excitement of the moment can hide immense future problems.

It should be noted, though this is not necessarily determining any more than the fact that before Maidan Crimea was legally a part of Ukraine, that most Crimeans are Russian culturally / linguistically and already in 2014 happily voted to re-join Russia.

It should be noted, though this is not necessarily determining any more than the fact that before Maidan Crimea was legally a part of Ukraine, that most Crimeans are Russian culturally / linguistically and already in 2014 happily voted to re-join Russia.

Let them vote again, with real choices and international observers.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

It should be noted, though this is not necessarily determining any more than the fact that before Maidan Crimea was legally a part of Ukraine, that most Crimeans are Russian culturally / linguistically and already in 2014 happily voted to re-join Russia.

Let them vote again, with real choices and international observers.

One major problem with your suggestion is that NEITHER Ukraine nor Russia accept this position, and it is impractical at present. Something along these lines might one day be possible …

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Bullshit. Crimea had been recognized by Russia as part of Ukraine and was taken and held by force by Putin's Russia in 2014 and no honest person would argue that any vote held under Russian occupation was valid. The world is full of refugees who identify as Russian but reject the Russian government. There is no honest basis for presuming that Ukrainians who identify as cultural Russians would want to live under Putin's government.

The situation in Crimea when the secession referendum was held and there was a vote to join Russia was unique. Just affirming that it was “held by force” or “held under Russian guns,” that “there is no honest basis for presuming …” etc. proves nothing but that you have not researched the complex reality on the ground then and are accepting Western propaganda uncritically.

Rather than delve into details of the events then in Crimea, let’s look at larger indications of prevailing attitudes there…

The Ukrainian claim to Crimea was never based on strong historical or cultural ties, as was the case for Russia, but was contrariwise always very weak: Crimea was simply administratively given to Ukraine by the Communist USSR boss Khrushchev (whose wife was Ukrainian) in 1954 in order to win the support of Communist Ukrainian bosses for his power struggle in Moscow. The Ukrainian communist bosses were then an important integrated element of Soviet politburo politics. This “gift” to the Ukrainians was a serious accident of history that today has led to great confusion. In 1954 there were 3 Russians in Crimea for every Ukrainian. Of course Crimea has a much longer history as an Ottoman ally as well, and the Crimean Tatars suffered a terrible forced exile after WWII under Stalin.



Concerning the “at Russian gunpoint” hastily-arranged 2014 referendums in Crimea… Russia’s Black Sea / Mediterranean fleet was at Sevastopol with thousands of troops and more special troops arrived, but Ukrainian administration and soldiers were equally numerous. The Crimeans were themselves overwhelmingly pro-Russian in 2014, which I will show.

The official EU connected “Election Observer” groups earlier confirmed President Victor Yanukovych’s 2010 election victory was “clean and fair.” But after Maidan overthrew the corrupt but “fairly elected” Yanukovych they absolutely refused to send observers or recognize the Crimea referendum votes in 2014.

I provide below information on respectable polling surveys that is taken from English-language Wikipedia on how Crimeans, who had always voted overwhelmingly against the Maidan parties and for the pro-Russian parties, felt about their referendum votes to leave Ukraine and join Russia in the period after Maidan.

***

From American Wikipedia:

Gallup conducted an immediate post-referendum survey of Ukraine and Crimea and published their results in April 2014. Gallup reported that, among the population of Crimea, 93.6% of ethnic Russians and 68.4% of ethnic Ukrainians believed the [2014] referendum result accurately represents the will of the Crimean people. Only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people.[39]

In May 2014, Washington, D.C., pollster Pew Research published results of a survey that encompassed Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia, in which it was reported that 88% of Crimeans believed the government of Kyiv should officially recognize the result of Crimea's referendum.[40]

Between December 12 and 25, 2014, Levada-Center carried out a survey of Crimea that was commissioned by John O'Loughlin, College Professor of Distinction and Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Gerard Toal (Gearóid Ó Tuathail), Professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech's National Capital Region campus. The results of that survey were published by Open Democracy in March, 2015, and reported that, overall, 84% of Crimeans felt the choice to secede from Ukraine and accede to Russia was "Absolutely the right decision", with the next-largest segment of respondents saying the decision to return to Russia was the "Generally right decision".

The survey commissioners, John O'Loughlin and Gerard Toal, wrote in their Open Democracy article that, while they felt that the referendum was "an illegal act under international law", their survey shows "It is also an act that enjoys the widespread support of the peninsula's inhabitants, with the important exception of its Crimean Tatar population" with "widespread support for Crimea's decision to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation one year ago". Their survey also reported that a majority of Crimean Tatars viewed Crimea's return to Russia as either the "Absolutely right decision" or the "Generally right decision".[41]

From January 16 – 22, 2015, Germany's GfK Group, with support from the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, followed-up their pre-referendum survey of Crimeans' voting intention with a post-referendum survey about how satisfied Crimeans are with the outcome of their referendum. GfK's post-referendum survey found that 82% of Crimeans "Fully endorse" Crimea's referendum and return to Russia, while another 11% "Mostly endorse" it.[42]

***

I add that the actual vote to join Russia was peaceful and to most Crimeans seemed the best way to avoid civil chaos and war back in 2014 … and until recently. Of course the official Ukrainian and Western position remains that Crimea “legally” belongs to Ukraine.

The U.S. government has said it does not believe attacks on Crimea are attacks on Russia, and therefore the missiles and tanks NATO provides Ukraine can be used to bring war there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The situation in Crimea when the succession referendum was held and there was a vote to join Russia was unique.

What were the choices on the referendum?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

What were the choices on the referendum?

“The referendum asked local populations whether they wanted to rejoin Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine.”

As I understand the situation, the 1992 Constitution had offered the Autonomous Republic of Crimea more autonomy than the nationalist government after Maidan was prepared to offer, or that existed in the immediate pre-Maidan period.

2014 Crimean status referendum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

​

 

[toomuchtime_]

The situation in Crimea when the secession referendum was held and there was a vote to join Russia was unique. Just affirming that it was “held by force” or “held under Russian guns,” that “there is no honest basis for presuming …” etc. proves nothing but that you have not researched the complex reality on the ground then and are accepting Western propaganda uncritically.

Rather than delve into details of the events then in Crimea, let’s look at larger indications of prevailing attitudes there…

The Ukrainian claim to Crimea was never based on strong historical or cultural ties, as was the case for Russia, but was contrariwise always very weak: Crimea was simply administratively given to Ukraine by the Communist USSR boss Khrushchev (whose wife was Ukrainian) in 1954 in order to win the support of Communist Ukrainian bosses for his power struggle in Moscow. The Ukrainian communist bosses were then an important integrated element of Soviet politburo politics. This “gift” to the Ukrainians was a serious accident of history that today has led to great confusion. In 1954 there were 3 Russians in Crimea for every Ukrainian. Of course Crimea has a much longer history as an Ottoman ally as well, and the Crimean Tatars suffered a terrible forced exile after WWII under Stalin.



Concerning the “at Russian gunpoint” hastily-arranged 2014 referendums in Crimea… Russia’s Black Sea / Mediterranean fleet was at Sevastopol with thousands of troops and more special troops arrived, but Ukrainian administration and soldiers were equally numerous. The Crimeans were themselves overwhelmingly pro-Russian in 2014, which I will show.

The official EU connected “Election Observer” groups earlier confirmed President Victor Yanukovych’s 2010 election victory was “clean and fair.” But after Maidan overthrew the corrupt but “fairly elected” Yanukovych they absolutely refused to send observers or recognize the Crimea referendum votes in 2014.

I provide below information on respectable polling surveys that is taken from English-language Wikipedia on how Crimeans, who had always voted overwhelmingly against the Maidan parties and for the pro-Russian parties, felt about their referendum votes to leave Ukraine and join Russia in the period after Maidan.

***

From American Wikipedia:

Gallup conducted an immediate post-referendum survey of Ukraine and Crimea and published their results in April 2014. Gallup reported that, among the population of Crimea, 93.6% of ethnic Russians and 68.4% of ethnic Ukrainians believed the [2014] referendum result accurately represents the will of the Crimean people. Only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people.[39]

In May 2014, Washington, D.C., pollster Pew Research published results of a survey that encompassed Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia, in which it was reported that 88% of Crimeans believed the government of Kyiv should officially recognize the result of Crimea's referendum.[40]

Between December 12 and 25, 2014, Levada-Center carried out a survey of Crimea that was commissioned by John O'Loughlin, College Professor of Distinction and Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Gerard Toal (Gearóid Ó Tuathail), Professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech's National Capital Region campus. The results of that survey were published by Open Democracy in March, 2015, and reported that, overall, 84% of Crimeans felt the choice to secede from Ukraine and accede to Russia was "Absolutely the right decision", with the next-largest segment of respondents saying the decision to return to Russia was the "Generally right decision".

The survey commissioners, John O'Loughlin and Gerard Toal, wrote in their Open Democracy article that, while they felt that the referendum was "an illegal act under international law", their survey shows "It is also an act that enjoys the widespread support of the peninsula's inhabitants, with the important exception of its Crimean Tatar population" with "widespread support for Crimea's decision to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation one year ago". Their survey also reported that a majority of Crimean Tatars viewed Crimea's return to Russia as either the "Absolutely right decision" or the "Generally right decision".[41]

From January 16 – 22, 2015, Germany's GfK Group, with support from the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, followed-up their pre-referendum survey of Crimeans' voting intention with a post-referendum survey about how satisfied Crimeans are with the outcome of their referendum. GfK's post-referendum survey found that 82% of Crimeans "Fully endorse" Crimea's referendum and return to Russia, while another 11% "Mostly endorse" it.[42]

***

I add that the actual vote to join Russia was peaceful and to most Crimeans seemed the best way to avoid civil chaos and war back in 2014 … and until recently. Of course the official Ukrainian and Western position remains that Crimea “legally” belongs to Ukraine.

The U.S. government has said it does not believe attacks on Crimea are attacks on Russia, and therefore the missiles and tanks NATO provides Ukraine can be used to bring war there.

Again, none of this provides any justification for the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Russian occupation of Crimea. In 1991 and 1994 the Russian government formally recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine and pledged to never violate Ukraine's border unless Ukraine attacked Russia. Whatever differences may exist among the various ethnicities in Crimea, they are internal Ukrainian issues and provide no justification of the Russian occupation. If Russia does not respect these agreements, there would be no rational basis for signing any other agreements with Russia, and the war and the sanctions will continue.

Perhaps some day after Russia has left Crimea completely, if the people of Crimea overwhelmingly want to leave Ukraine a referendum can be held under the auspices of the UN to determine a just resolution, and that should be sufficient for you if your concern is really for the people of Crimea.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“The referendum asked local populations whether they wanted to rejoin Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine.”

As I understand the situation, the 1992 Constitution had offered the Autonomous Republic of Crimea more autonomy than the nationalist government after Maidan was prepared to offer, or that existed in the immediate pre-Maidan period.

2014 Crimean status referendum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

​

The March 16 referendum's available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol as they were at the moment the referendum was held.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The truth is most wars, once they break out, tend to silence all opposition, as the media and population rally against the perceived enemy. It is also true that neither side here is talking about a peace settlement now (at the beginning at least Zelensky was, and Putin’s original retreats from Kiev may have made him consider negotiations too).

Both are seemingly now determined to duke it out to “final victory.” The Americans can finance the Ukrainian government almost permanently — the U.S. dollar is strong and the U.S. may actually emerge stronger economically, as its European junior partners suffer great blows.

Until the Ukraine “counter-offensive” results are definitively in, until the political effects of this winter’s energy crisis in Europe is clear, there will be no further talk of a ceasefire or peace. The dangerous proxy war nature of the conflict can escalate further, or remain deadlocked for years until one or both sides are exhausted.

It is a complete tragedy, on many levels, and even those of us who foresaw it and tried to stop the drift to war decades ago, are now sidelined and have little to offer concretely. Putin’s outrageous and failed total invasion strategy discredited him thoroughly with Ukrainians and of course in the West.

The invasion and war is also devastating Ukraine’s Russian-speaking East, which might not have happened had Putin’s attack been much more limited (and “successful”) from the start. Russia under Putin is becoming ever more brutalized and backward. With trade continuing with China and India, and the Ruble strong, Putin and his regime may survive everything. With Western aid, what’s left of Ukraine may also survive, but it is now, and will probably remain, a ruined, corrupt, hyper-nationalist and highly militarized country.

Ukraine would have been better off without its “Maidan Revolution” or subsequently with a Western-imposed re-unification with its Donbas region, allowing for autonomy (and Russian influence) there. But that was “the road not taken.”

Ukraine would have been far better off denying Russia the lease on Sevastopol Naval Base that gave Putin the excuse for his annexation of Crimea and his attempted annexation of Donbas and the rest of Ukraine.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Bullshit. Crimea had been recognized by Russia as part of Ukraine and was taken and held by force by Putin's Russia in 2014 and no honest person would argue that any vote held under Russian occupation was valid. The world is full of refugees who identify as Russian but reject the Russian government. There is no honest basis for presuming that Ukrainians who identify as cultural Russians would want to live under Putin's government.

The only reason Russia wants Donbas and Crimea is Sevastopol. Cancel the lease on the naval base and Russia will stop supporting the separationists. That should be Ukraine’s end game. Who says Russia needs a base on the Black Sea.