Russia invasion of Ukraine

[Yu Ominae]

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ixty-years-ago

Wilson Center suggests the following based on declassified Soviet files on Crimea:

1. To celebrate "unification of Ukraine with Russia" based on treaty signed in 1654.

2. Natural outgrowth of Ukraine and Crimea being transferred to Ukraine was based on common economies/close agricultural and economic ties.

[Nachtwandler]

Crimea had a lot of ethnical Russian citizens which were probably fine with region switching to Russia. Though, it is questionable as the region suffered economical crisis after. The problem is that Crimean Ukrainians and local indigenous population (Crimean tatars) were against it. In fact a lot of tatars are volunteered to Ukrainian army. People call it Khruchov's mistake because Crimea was majority Russian by that time and continues to be to some extent. During USSR period it was irrelevant if Ukraine or Russia controlled it. But it started to matter after USSR collapsed as it has a Black see fleet naval base. The issue is that while it is in Russian hands it poses the danger not just to Ukraine but to other nearby countries from the strategic point of view.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

For instance, it may well be that Russia has legitimate concerns about NATO getting too close to comfort

Let's give some perspective to it.What putin was (and is) very worried about it about rose revolutions happening aka democratic goverments being implemented in what he considers "russia sphere of influence", because sooner or later inside russiapeople will understand that said countries are wealthier and happier because they have the freedom autocratic governments do not grant. Having NATO protect said democracies (as in, Ukraine joining the alliance after the war) is what he really fears, but it is false to say that NATO would launch an attack on russia and putin knows it.

Originally Posted by TheForsaken

You can just google it yourself, you know?

Yes, it's true.
Crimea became part of the Russian Empire in 1783, and then part of the Soviet Union.
In 1954, Khrushchev transferred it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

In 1521 Spain conquered the Aztec empire and created the New Spain territories. In 1821 the war for the independence of Mexico started. We are talking about three centuries under the rule of a foreign empire. Spain also tried to take back what their considered to be their territories, but failed.

Ukraine was under an external empire rule for a little more than two centuries and we are past the age of empires, but vlad "crybaby" putin does not want to get the memo and will make life miserable for everybody and feels great about doing so.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by Nachtwandler

Crimea had a lot of ethnical Russian citizens which were probably fine with region switching to Russia. Though, it is questionable as the region suffered economical crisis after. The problem is that Crimean Ukrainians and local indigenous population (Crimean tatars) were against it. In fact a lot of tatars are volunteered to Ukrainian army. People call it Khruchov's mistake because Crimea was majority Russian by that time and continues to be to some extent. During USSR period it was irrelevant if Ukraine or Russia controlled it. But it started to matter after USSR collapsed as it has a Black see fleet naval base. The issue is that while it is in Russian hands it poses the danger not just to Ukraine but to other nearby countries from the strategic point of view.

In your opinion, would it be weird for someone who was born outside of Europe (South Africa) to refer to the whole ordeal as Khrushchev's mistake in the context of proposing a peace deal? Because I'd understand if someone living in Russia or Ukraine (with Pro-Russia leanings) would say that. I cannot understand why someone in the West would.

[Nachtwandler]

I cannot say what people outside of former USSR think. It can be called "mistake" in context that Crimea was heavily russified and that it caused a lot of tension because of russian naval base later. But during that time it was a logicl decision to give the land to the part of USSR affilated with it teritorialy. But it would not change the outcome much as Crimea was just one of the Putins goals here out of the bunch.

[Ithekro]

So what are the chances of Ukraine taking Crimea and being able to keep it under international law?

How much will Putin attempt to "salt the earth" when forced to abandon his annexed lands?

Will there be a new February revolution or the like as the Russians get upset with Moscow?

[Sheba]

Elon Musk is throwing a monkey wrench at Ukraine's war effort with his Starlink shenanigans tho.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Elon Musk is throwing a monkey wrench at Ukraine's war effort with his Starlink shenanigans tho.

By SpaceX not providing Starlink coverage on Russian controlled land?

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

A surprise that all that is still only like 0.002 Twitters. (I'm not really convinced you were earnestly expecting a serious reply.)

Even if Musk's personal wealth was SpaceX's asset to use (it's not) do you think it is unreasonable to for them to ask for financial assistance to cover the maintenance and operational costs of a foreign nation's satellite communication infrastructure during a time of conflict?

[Guardian Enzo]

ROFL, the guy admitted openly that money had nothing to do with it, he was doing it out of antipathy towards Ukraine (the helping Putin part is implied but unmistakable).

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

So what are the chances of Ukraine taking Crimea and being able to keep it under international law?

AFAIK Crimea is Ukrainian under international law and they will have no doubt enough missiles to prevent any stunts from "the second army in the world, no more!"

How much will Putin attempt to "salt the earth" when forced to abandon his annexed lands?

You mean, besides reducing main cities to ruble, littering the landscape with land mines, destroying basic infrastructure (including but not limited to bridges)? I bet putin has a suggestion box for more ideas in any meeting he assists.

Will there be a new February revolution or the like as the Russians get upset with Moscow?

You can bet. You can also bet all the atrocities committed in Ukraine by the FSB will be also perpetrated in russia against anyone (and their families) who attempt anything remotely looking like insurrection.

[Yu Ominae]

https://twitter.com/dim0kq/status/1580827171903635456

A Ukrainian speaks about Starlink and mentioned that volunteers like him have paid up front for them and the subscription.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Even if Musk's personal wealth was SpaceX's asset to use (it's not) do you think it is unreasonable to for them to ask for financial assistance to cover the maintenance and operational costs of a foreign nation's satellite communication infrastructure during a time of conflict?

I still think you can't be serious.

This is a high-stakes negotiation tactic. It's leveraging the fact that the Ukrainian military has gotten dependent on Starlink so SpaceX is pressing their advantage by quoting their costs at the highest commercial rate and making a sort of soft-threat that they'll withdraw if the bill isn't paid. Meanwhile, Musk makes non-serious "jokes" on Twitter because he desperately wants to be a teenage edgelord. There are tons of other ways both SpaceX and Musk could have handled any legitimate concerns they may have about the cost of the on-going war effort that didn't end up like this.

Besides, if Musk and SpaceX agreed to do this thing without any sort of idea of the cost, any plan for recovering the true costs over the long term, or any sort of contract with expectations between parties, why should the government bail them out? Whatever may have prompted it, this is still a business decision they made, even if utterly foolish. They certainly got massive PR benefits out of the whole situation, and they are literally "battle-testing" their infrastructure, so they could easily write down any excess costs as a marketing or R&D expense. (Several videogames have larger marketing budgets than the entire quoted cost of the operation so far.) It's not like Starlink was ever a money-making venture before and that this is suddenly what is causing it to lose money, plus it's not like this is all expense without cost recovery either. (If they are routinely selling both the devices and service at a loss to gain marketshare, that was never a sustainable business model to begin with.) If all this means Musk has to dig into his personal fortune slightly to pay for his and/or his company's lack of business planning, why shouldn't he be the one to do it? (If the argument is that doing this is a public good and that's why the public should pay for it, then should this instead be public infrastructure, or operated under government supervision/control? I assume that's not what they want...)

Sooner or later, I have to imagine the government will call their bluff. At the very least, people will remember this the next time a contract opportunity comes around or is up for renegotiation. Government-business partnerships are based on predictability and trust, and this move erodes both. The general impression I get is that Musk and his companies believe they are so far in front of the competition that they are untouchable, so they don't need to care about perception since people need them. I personally think some of their technological advancements/innovations are neat. But this advantage does not last forever.

So, as usual, this is not a simple "both sides" issue. Even if Musk and SpaceX had legitimate concerns, they didn't have to go about it in this way, and that's what is most "unreasonable" (but, also, not surprising).

[Yu Ominae]

CBS coverage on the Russians already in Ukraine.

Although not all Georgians are pleased by this and it reminded them of what Russia did back then.

[Sheba]

Musk went back on his decision and resume net support of Ukraine. Guess the FBI showed him how Epstein died.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Musk went back on his decision and resume net support of Ukraine. Guess the FBI showed him how Epstein died.

I mean it's probably simpler than that. For all that Musk crowed about this entire thing being charity from him, the United States Government was paying a lot of money to get the Starlink Terminals sent to Ukraine. It's entirely possible that while Musk thought of this entire thing as a vanity/PR project he could drop at any time, but the actual contract his company made with the US government might say entirely different things. This is potentially less Musk being threatened by CIA spooks and more being threatened by US government lawyers.

[Ithekro]

The most threatening thing would be the IRS.

[Guardian Enzo]

Musk violated the Logan Act with his snuggling with Putin. If the feds choose to prosecute he could be in big trouble.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

This is a high-stakes negotiation tactic.

It is a high stakes situation for SpaceX if they are indeed burning tens of millions a month providing Ukraine with satellite communication.

It's leveraging the fact that the Ukrainian military has gotten dependent on Starlink

Ukraine asked for Starlink because Russia heavily damaged their existing communication infrastructure early in the war.

so SpaceX is pressing their advantage by quoting their costs at the highest commercial rate and making a sort of soft-threat that they'll withdraw if the bill isn't paid.

Starlink's highest commercial rate is $5000 a month, there are ~20000 terminals in Ukraine according to the CNN article. Just the lost income from that monthly service fee would more than 5x the cost that Musk says SpaceX is currently paying.

Meanwhile, Musk makes non-serious "jokes" on Twitter because he desperately wants to be a teenage edgelord. There are tons of other ways both SpaceX and Musk could have handled any legitimate concerns they may have about the cost of the on-going war effort that didn't end up like this.

The public did not know about SpaceX's financial concerns until the CNN article. The letter that SpaceX sent asking for assistance predates the noise on twitter and Musk did not make a public show of asking for money.

Besides, if Musk and SpaceX agreed to do this thing without any sort of idea of the cost, any plan for recovering the true costs over the long term, or any sort of contract with expectations between parties, why should the government bail them out? Whatever may have prompted it, this is still a business decision they made, even if utterly foolish.

Again, Ukraine asked SpaceX for Starlink. SpaceX only intended to give 3 months of free service with the terminals they donated.

They certainly got massive PR benefits out of the whole situation, and they are literally "battle-testing" their infrastructure, so they could easily write down any excess costs as a marketing or R&D expense. (Several videogames have larger marketing budgets than the entire quoted cost of the operation so far.)

To give an example of the difference in scale between big title video games and satellite internet, the latest Halo game made more than a billion dollars in its first month.

It's not like Starlink was ever a money-making venture before and that this is suddenly what is causing it to lose money, plus it's not like this is all expense without cost recovery either. (If they are routinely selling both the devices and service at a loss to gain marketshare, that was never a sustainable business model to begin with.) If all this means Musk has to dig into his personal fortune slightly to pay for his and/or his company's lack of business planning, why shouldn't he be the one to do it? (If the argument is that doing this is a public good and that's why the public should pay for it, then should this instead be public infrastructure, or operated under government supervision/control? I assume that's not what they want...)

Yes this is why it is a 'high stakes' period for Starlink and SpaceX, the upfront costs of building anything in space are substantial and they eventually need several million users to break even. This is also why SpaceX is putting so much effort into their new super heavy lift rocket to bring down their costs of filling out and maintaining their constellation.

Sooner or later, I have to imagine the government will call their bluff. At the very least, people will remember this the next time a contract opportunity comes around or is up for renegotiation. Government-business partnerships are based on predictability and trust, and this move erodes both. The general impression I get is that Musk and his companies believe they are so far in front of the competition that they are untouchable, so they don't need to care about perception since people need them. I personally think some of their technological advancements/innovations are neat. But this advantage does not last forever.

Their lead will not last forever but for the time being they are potentially decades ahead of their competitors (who are currently developing contemporaries to SpaceX's previous generation rocket).

So, as usual, this is not a simple "both sides" issue. Even if Musk and SpaceX had legitimate concerns, they didn't have to go about it in this way, and that's what is most "unreasonable" (but, also, not surprising).

That's the thing, the 'way SpaceX went about it' was to privately ask for assistance after the war lasted (and will last) longer than SpaceX had intended to provide free service.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I mean it's probably simpler than that. For all that Musk crowed about this entire thing being charity from him, the United States Government was paying a lot of money to get the Starlink Terminals sent to Ukraine. It's entirely possible that while Musk thought of this entire thing as a vanity/PR project he could drop at any time, but the actual contract his company made with the US government might say entirely different things. This is potentially less Musk being threatened by CIA spooks and more being threatened by US government lawyers.

USAID paid $800,000 to ship 5000 Starlink terminals (of which only 1/4 of were paid for by USAID) to Ukraine.

SpaceX did not sign a contract with the US government to provide Ukraine with free Starlink, let alone indefinitely.

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

Musk violated the Logan Act with his snuggling with Putin. If the feds choose to prosecute he could be in big trouble.

No Musk has not conducted negotiations with either Ukraine or Russia as a false representative of the United States government.

[Yu Ominae]

Got reports that Lt. Col. Roman Malyk was found dead in Primorsky.

His death is being regarded as suspicious.

[Guardian Enzo]

Musk was in violation of the Logan Act merely by corresponding with Putin, which it’s been reliably asserted he did by third parties (and which he only started denying once his lawyers no doubt told him he was in real trouble).