View Full Version : Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)
Pages :
1
[
2]
3
4
5
6
7
8
Some videos and thoughts form Ukraine.
1. Finnish military mag's "Suome sotilas" comment about Krimea parliament attack. Author suspects taht according to weapons list it's GRU.
http://www.suomensotilas.fi/fi/artikkelit/krimin-parlamenttitalon-valtaus-erikoisjoukkojen-tyt
2. Ukrainan special unit in the morning of 20.02. Street Institutskaja near Maidan.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OgynH-7Is
3. Video from other side. Same day, same street, only minutes later. This is my speculation according to chronology of events.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JVc1hzi_r_Q
4. Russian blogger tries to prove that new Russian SOC is in Krimea. With the help of Russian Facebook.
http://dm-dobriy.livejournal.com/175247.html
5. From what unit are Russian "Tigers" in Krimea.
http://irek-murtazin.livejournal.com/1149525.html
mirhond
03-08-2014, 04:14 AM
to carl
Your judgement is clouded by strong emotions against something I don't care, sorry for bothering you.
Carl and Firn,
The point is that with or without Russian intervention, Ukraine would still be facing this same economic dilemma. And the problem isn't is "West better than East?" Because that's a false dichtonomy. Ukraine's integration into the Washington Concensus will unleash a very painful program on the Ukrainian people that will benefit a few small class of investors and financiers. Whatever his motivations and faults, Yanukovych rejected this program. His government was in an impossible situation given the immense pressure from both Washington and Moscow. A considerable of the portion of the population is in favor of this course of action - another considerable portion is in favor of achieving the status of a Russian protectate. The narrative of a spontaneous freedom-thirsty pro-West Ukrainian revolution is a myth.
You just took the words from my mouth! (Anyway, it'd take me several hours to put the words and thoughts into the right shape, no thanks to my inferior English) :)
Mike, these Russian citizens living in Ukraine, are they Russian expats or Ukrainians of Russian origin?
I have heard that the Russians are dishing out passports to prove these people are Russian citizens? This to justify their invasion.
If this is so then you can't be a Russian or a Ukrainian at the same time... if dual citizenship is allowed then the national parliament can - quickly - push a new law through making it impossible for Russian citizens and passport holders to also be citizens of the Ukraine.
Russian citizens would then be required to apply for residence permits and work permits to live and work in the Ukraine. Pretty standard requirements for citizens of another country.
Well, I dare say the current international borders of the Ukraine is of Russian/Soviet origin origin, same rule applies to population. There are hundreds of thousands pensionaries in Ukraine who are not Ukranian, not Russian, but actually Soviet, some of them were smart enough to keep the Russian citisenship in order to have a larger pension.
Those who are still in the workforce may have dual identities and dual heritage but one passport - Ukrainean, because AFAIK, dual citizenship with Ukraine isn't allowed. They are often work seasonally in Russia on unskilled jobs, and I hardly can imagine a situation when Russian residents would seek jobs in Ukraine, usually it's directly opposite.
But we have dual citizenship with Tajikistan - the major source of slave labor. Russian capital just dont need that much Ukrainians running around, because they are Russian-speaking, culturally close and harder to exploit. I'd like to gun down all of this capitalists for greater justice, but my sentiment is irrelevant :)
ps. Is anyone here ever mentioned "Shrugging off the Soviet legacy for good?" If yes, this person must be happy - now Russia is doing it right away by reshaping Soviet borders and kicking ass of may be not too friendly but historically and culturally close nation.
AdamG
03-08-2014, 05:01 AM
OSINT in action.
On Monday, a freelancer photographer called Steve Back snapped a photograph of a document being carried cavalierly in the open by British officials entering Downing Street. The document was a list of suggested countermoves by Westminster to play against the Kremlin for Russia’s recent invasion of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea. Some of the items tracked with what other European and American counterparts were thinking. Let’s not fuel up the NATO jets quite just yet; let’s send a monitoring team from the UN and/or OSCE to Crimea (Robert Serry, a UN envoy was nearly kidnapped earlier this week by armed gunmen in Simferopol); let’s draw up financial and energy contingency plans to help the embryonic new government in Kiev. But one item stuck out above the rest: “Not support, for now, trade sanctions… or close London’s financial centre to Russians.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/07/britain-s-kgb-sugar-daddy.html
Yes, it is known how the British and the Germans have been ethically, morally and financially compromised in their dealings Russia and the criminals who direct the affairs of that state. It is assumed that the story of France is much the same.
It is more interesting to learn how the US has been either caught asleep at the wheel or sucked into similar dealings as the Europeans have. All will no doubt be revealed in due course.
OSINT in action.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/07/britain-s-kgb-sugar-daddy.html
Is anyone here ever mentioned "Shrugging off the Soviet legacy for good?" If yes, this person must be happy - now Russia is doing it right away by reshaping Soviet borders and kicking ass of may be not too friendly but historically and culturally close nation.
Yes, though there were many warning signs after the collapse of communism Russia was allowed to evolve into a criminal state. We now see the result of appeasement as the criminals flex their nationalistic muscles.
Former EU COM delegation head Michael Emerson has published couple interesting papers about Ukraine. Maybe Firn can comment the economical aspects of those association agreements and DCFTA. Emerson says that it all started as trade war and for deescalation all sides must solve that issue.
http://www.ceps.be/ceps/dld/8820/pdf
http://www.ceps.be/ceps/dld/8973/pdf
Ukraine is really devided country as those graphics in previous pages have showed. Here is surevey about EU AA/DCFTA and Customs union.
http://www.dw.de/ukrainian-support-for-eu-association-agreement-declines/a-17189085
Next "interesting" place will be Moldova (where Russia has same kind of levers like in Ukraine) and their EU AA agreement.
http://www.cepolicy.org/news/eu-accession-support-drops-among-moldovans
One more interesting poll.
Integration with Russia into a single state is supported by 12% of respondents in Ukraine, and during recent years this number has decreased from 20% to 9%, but after Maidan – increased by 3%. The main part of supporters of this idea of unification with Russia is in the East (26%) and South (19%), while the smallest part is in the Center (5%) and West (1%) of Ukraine. By regions majority of integration with Russia in one state is in Crimea (41%), Donetsk district (33%), Lugansk district (24%), Odessa district (24%), Zaporizhzhya (17%) and Kharkiv (15%) districts, but even there support to the current status of relations with Russia - as two independent and friendly states – prevails
http://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=news&id=237&page=1
davidbfpo
03-08-2014, 07:39 PM
I have quickly read the SWJ exchanges on the Crimea, plus today's interview, but the writing of Professor John Schindler IMHO is always worth reading:http://20committee.com/2014/03/07/understanding-the-crimea-crisis/
Leaving aside the diplomatic reaction, the reluctance in Europe, especially the UK, to respond with any economic / financial sanctions makes one wonder if NATO can move beyond the symbolic. John's column today:http://20committee.com/2014/03/08/deterring-putin-part-i/
jmm99
03-09-2014, 12:22 AM
The events in the next few weeks will evidence whether EU-NATO can be "reinvigorated" as Schindler suggests in today's blog, Deterring Putin, Part I (http://20committee.com/2014/03/08/deterring-putin-part-i/). His article from yesterday, Understanding the Crimea Crisis (http://20committee.com/2014/03/07/understanding-the-crimea-crisis/), is more interesting for a number of reasons.
The first is:
As I write, the Ukrainian region of Crimea is being absorbed by Russia, more or less openly. This represents a blatant challenge to the post-1991 European order, make no mistake, and so far Vladimir Putin is winning. After a sudden increase in Russian military personnel on the sensitive peninsula, more than 6,000 troops, mostly Special Operations Forces (SOF), Moscow has pulled out all the stops in waging what I have termed Special War (http://20committee.com/2013/09/20/the-coming-age-of-special-war/): provocations, espionage, black and white propaganda, and the use of deniable SOF, often under false flag. None of this is new to the Russians, indeed it’s second-nature to the Kremlin, and Crimea today can best be viewed as one huge operation by Moscow’s powerful military intelligence, the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), which controls not just defense espionage matters but SOF too, what the Russians term SPETSNAZ.
One should then read Schindler's, The Coming Age of Special War (http://20committee.com/2013/09/20/the-coming-age-of-special-war/) (September 20, 2013); and also his reference to Wiki's Active Measures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures), as one facet of the SW diamond. What he says is not new (he doesn't claim it is); and can be found in these samplings of the literature: Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare (http://www.terrorism.com/documents/unrestricted.pdf); Beaufre - e.g., Introduction to Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/INTRODUCTION-PARTICULAR-REFERENCE-ECONOMICS-DIPLOMACY/dp/B000XRD1ME) and Deterrence and Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/Deterrence-Strategy-Andre-Beaufre/dp/B005BKFXE2); Liddell-Hart, Strategy: the indirect approach (http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Basil-Henry-Liddell-Hart/dp/B0007HHK4A); and Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-The-Logic-War-Peace/dp/0674839951).
Schindler's conclusion is pessimistic on US capability to enter the SW lists:
Special war works when competently handled. It’s very cheap compared to any conventional military operations, and if executed properly it offers states a degree of plausible deniability while achieving state interests without fighting. The United States at present is not ready – organizationally, legally, politically, or culturally – to compete in special war. But getting proficient in special war will soon not be a choice, but a necessity. We’re already losing at it, whether we realize it or not, and the current trajectory is worrying. Over 2,500 years ago Sun Tzu, an early advocate of special war, argued that the acme of skill is not winning battles, rather subduing your enemy without actually fighting. It’s about time the Pentagon caught on.
--------------------------------
The second point is EU-NATO (laid out in more detail in today's article linked in the opening paragraph), whose direction (up or down) will be determined by its actions and/or inactions in the near future. Schindler may be right about what the US and EU nations will do to deter Putin; but I'll wait until the check is in the mailbox.
--------------------------------
The third point includes the USG foreign affairs mindset (which goes beyond this event, in matters large and small), which often stumbles over its own feet (links to two other Schindler articles, link1 (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/forever-bosnia-5095) and link2 (http://20committee.com/2013/01/16/the-lessons-of-mali/); the first being about my "buddy" Samantha Power); and, as proponents of more delicate matters:
... they have quite literally nothing to say when old-school conventional threats emerge and enemies – yes, enemies: not rivals or merely misunderstood would-be partners – emerge from the darkness with conquest and killing on their minds.
but also, the third point goes to the urbane Worldview held by many people in the US (people from EU states can judge whether it applies to their countries or not):
In the present-day West, it’s commonplace to have a laugh at Vladimir Putin’s weirdly macho (and more than a little homoerotic) posturings, and I’ve done it too – how not, among the panoply of martial arts, bears, and countless shirtless adventures before the cameras? Yet in Russia they love this stuff, without a laugh-track. They are not yet as post-modern as we are, and they find reassurance in an old-school leader who talks about – and more importantly demonstrates – strength in a dangerous world.
To these folks of refined delicacy, "Suvarov's" love of the infantry spade would be too remote to seriously contemplate:
The spade is not only a tool and a measure. It is also a guarantee of the steadfastness of the infantry in the most difficult situations. If the infantry have a few hours to dig themselves in, it could take years to get them out of their holes and trenches, whatever modern weapons are used against them.
...
This is a book (http://slava.khersoncity.com/download/books/suvorov/specnaz_eng01.php) about people who throw spades and about soldiers who work with spades more surely and more accurately than they do with spoons at a table. They do, of course, have other weapons besides their spades.
One should ask himself, Am I an Athenian or a Spartan in Thucydidean terms ?
Regards
Mike
Mike:
I don't understand the Athenian vs Spartan reference.
jmm99
03-09-2014, 03:05 AM
A good question. First, let me first answer it in my own terms. A long, long time ago (a bit more than 60 years), I had the opportunity to do a lot of reading - and a mother who was willing to supply the books and teach the kid.
Since my interest ran to military history, I soon got into Athenians, Spartans, Persians and Macedonians. I came to realize that art, academics, historians, philosophers, etc., were mostly on the Athenian side - and that they were not bad in a fight either. So, as I recall, the Athenians seemed my path at first.
The Spartans were not bad in a fight either (a rank understatement); but they were a remote, rural bunch far removed from the more refined Athenians, who were as likely to classify the Spartans not as "Greeks", but as "Barbarians". Moreover, one could not easily judge the Spartans on words alone; they certainly were not verbose, and so "laconic". They tended to be blunt; without lofty rhetoric about their philosophical virtues, which was so much a staple of Athenian rhetoric.
As time went on in their war, the Athenians found it necessary to "refine" their philosophical virtues (such as "justice") to apply to reality - especially as the Athenian military position worsened. The Melian Dialogue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue) is a traditional example of what I came to consider Athenian doubletalk.
My end choice (way back when) was to vote for being a non-bull$hitting Spartan - and not an Athenian hypocrite; that choice being based on the high school and college level history texts I was reading then (Thucydides came much later).
Any number of academic references to what I consider Athenian hypocrisy could be cited. I rather like this short (7 pdf pages) 1998 paper by Seth Delong, The Price of Power: Honor and Self-Interest in Thucydidean Realism (http://www.hri.org/por/Summer98/story4.html).
He sources and sums up the dichotomy between earlier Athenian lofty rhetoric and later Athenian actions:
..."In times of peace and prosperity cities and individuals alike follow higher standards, because they are not forced into a situation where they have to do what they do not want to do." ... (3.82)
...
"To fit in with the change of events words too had to change their meanings. What used to be described as thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member." ... (3.82)
...
"Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. . . Here they were deterred neither by the claims of justice nor by the interests of the state; their one standard was the pleasure of their own party at that particular moment."[10] ... (3.82)
...
"... there was a general deterioration of character throughout the Greek world. The simple way of looking at things, which is so much the mark of a noble nature, war regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist." ... (3.83)
At this point honor, virtue (arete), and all the noble ideals of Athenian democracy evaporated from firm social institutions into thin air. This is exactly what happened and it was this loss Thucydides lamented more than anything else. As one scholar asserted, "The humane side of Thucydides is centered primarily around his notion of an ethical community as a high human achievement, and he deplores the outcome of Athenian realism as a destruction of this achievement." Forde, Steven. International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism. International Studies Quarterly, June 1995. pg. 154.
The dissolution of honor was reflected both on the individual and interstate levels. Early in The History, in the first book, the Athenian envoys to Sparta describe why the Athenians sought to maintain their hegemony, even though the Persians had ceased to pose any foreseeable threat to the Greek city-states. The envoys state on behalf of the Athenians that they would not appease Sparta by dismantling the empire since "security, honor and self-interest" prevented them from doing so. (1.76)
They still considered their empire to be honorable because they treated their colonies as a stern, albeit protective father would treat his sons. Though unnecessary, their paternalistic treatment was allegedly honorable and humane, since Athens was so powerful that it could easily rule with an iron fist instead. But it did not and this is precisely what spurs the envoys to declare "we are worthy of our power." (1.76)
They go on to boast:
"Those who really deserve praise are the people who, while human enough to enjoy power, nevertheless pay more attention to justice than they are compelled to do by their situation. . . No one bothers to inquire why this reproach is not made against other imperial Powers, who treat their subjects much more harshly than we do; the fact being, of course, that where force can be used there is no need to bring in the law." (1.77)
What is so significant about this passage is that the Athenians obviously prided themselves on their sense of honor and the imperial consequent of that sense, namely, treating the colonies more humanely and justly than they had to. Later, however, as the ominous eclipse of raw power covers the sun of the once noble empire, the Athenians completely change their motives for maintaining their imperial position. In contrast to the motives of the Athenians at Sparta the Athenian representatives at Melos openly and unflinchingly asserted that justice and honor have absolutely no place in the calculus of a foreign policy.
Towards the end of the war the Athenians proposed to the inhabitants the island of Melos that they accept their role as a subject colony else they would be destroyed. The Melians appealed to the gods and abstract notions of justice and honor in order to protect themselves against the might of the Athenians. After the Melians finally declared they would not voluntarily succumb to Athenians domination the Athenians promptly killed the male citizens and sold the women and children into slavery. (Delong comment)
Power became so glorified as an end in itself that the Athenians could declare to the Melians:
"the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept. You seem to forget that if one follows one's self-interest one wants to be safe, whereas the path of justice and honour involves one in danger. Do not be led astray by a false sense of honour - a thing which often brings men to ruin..." (5.89, 5.107, 5.111)
How strikingly different from the Athenian assertion of their honour and "worthiness" as a noble empire just seventeen years ago at Sparta!
No doubt that the Spartans, besides conventional tactics and a willingness to die to the last man, would lie, cheat and steal in order to defeat an enemy. But, the enemy knew, or should have known that. The Spartans also were less than admirable in their treatment of the Helots (perhaps short-sighted when one compares the Romans' treatment of co-operative Italians).
What did the Spartans do in response to Athens' initial demand ? They went to war based on the logic of Sthenelaidas:
"The long speech of the Athenians I do not pretend to understand. They said a good deal in praise of themselves, but nowhere denied that they are injuring our allies and Peloponnese. And yet if they behaved well against the Mede then, but ill towards us now, they deserve double punishment for having ceased to be good and for having become bad.
We meanwhile are the same then and now, and shall not, if we are wise, disregard the wrongs of our allies, or put off till to-morrow the duty of assisting those who must suffer to-day.
Others have much money and ships and horses, but we have good allies whom we must not give up to the Athenians, nor by lawsuits and words decide the matter, as it is anything but in word that we are harmed, but render instant and powerful help.
And let us not be told that it is fitting for us to deliberate under injustice; long deliberation is rather fitting for those who have injustice in contemplation.
Vote therefore, Lacedaemonians, for war, as the honour of Sparta demands, and neither allow the further aggrandizement of Athens, nor betray our allies to ruin, but with the gods let us advance against the aggressors." (1.86)
After Sparta finally won the long war, it restored Melos to the Melian survivors - thus, as the Athenian said: "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."
Regards
Mike
PS: I classify the USGs of the "New World Order" (Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama) as "Athenian" - the Beltway is "Athenian". Beware the "Athenians" and their "Sicilian Campaigns".
Voting fraud secured pro-Russian majority in Crimean parliament (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Voting-fraud-secured-pro-russian-majority-in-Crimean-parliament-7496130.html#.Uxy81fmwbYX)
I think this is a pretty interesting article as "Aftenposten’s correspondent interviewed a dozen members of the regional assembly, and talked to a number of central players and eyewitnesses. The conclusion is that the people’s will is far from deciding events in the Crimea. "
If one looks at how the events unfolded the Crimea (rump) parliament only called for Russian 'help' after Russian troops had already infiltrated and invaded. Under huge pressure, armed Russian gunmen only a minority was present when the voted.
Too few present
Rules require that at least 51 representatives be present in order to hold a qualified vote. The new goverment says 61 members of parliament took part. Aftenposten’s research shows, however, that only 36 were present.
- The system which registers who voted, and what we voted for or against, shows I did cast a vote. But I was not there. Neither were a large majority of my colleagues, says Sumulidi. Representative Irina Klyuyeva also participated in the vote, according to the official records, but she was not present either.
- I didn’t want to go, because I knew what was going to happen. Only pro-Russia representatives were present, and they numbered far below 50. In other words, a legal vote was not possible, she tells Aftenposten.
Those informations fill in some detail into the story of Russian aggression to make the processes and events of the invasions clearer. In at least another article I read how a Crimean parliamentarian considered pro-Urkainian was denied entry into the house. The big story does of course not change, but the case against the aggressor only becomes clearer.
This BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26486289) does also fit into the pictures on the streets, with pro-Soviet/Russia crowds being generally considerably older then the pro-Ukraine ones. It is of course difficult ot know the average age of the Russian 'tourists'.
@kaur: I will try to look at it if time permits.
I'm just wondering why John Schindler didn't suggest in his post about Special war Mitrokhin's book "The World Was Going Our Way". He has mentioned this book before, but Ukraine topic is just like case from 21. century. This time you can follow influencing activites in internet and cable tv, that where missing back then. For example http://rt.com/politics/intelligence-orders-influencing-social-619/
Book http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Was-Going-Our/dp/B0017HSXXQ
To continue topic " Deterring Putin, Part I" i'd like to suggest this paper.
http://www.ifri.org/downloads/pp40morgan.pd
Firn, this kind of voting is nothing new in Uraine :)
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9o2j0WmxQvs
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kEIYjcjELdU
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cG4VtDuBqBw
And in Russia too.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XctKOIpYNCE
davidbfpo
03-09-2014, 09:17 PM
I noted on Twitter a report that General Michael Flynn had stated there was strategic warning, oddly few have noted this.
From his interview with NPR, a good section was on Mr Snowden. It starts with:
I think for easily seven to ten days leading up to the Russian troops as we see them now in Crimea, we were providing very solid reporting on what I would describe as just strategic warning, where we move from one level of sort of a condition of warning, which I would just describe for the audience as sort of moderate, to one where we believe things are imminent. And we did that about a week prior to the events that unfolded really last Friday.
Shortly afterwards:
Well, I mean obviously the things that we' re watching in the Crimea, some of the naval activities, you know, up around the key bases — we saw, you know, we see some of what has been referred to as an exercise inside of Russia and we are paying very close attention to any additional activities of some of their key military forces that they do have, particularly in the southern military district that is in that region that we are all concerned about right now. So — there is a lot of activity. What we are trying to pay attention to is: are they being true to their word about it's an exercise versus something else.
Link:http://www.npr.org/2014/03/07/287037148/transcript-interview-with-lt-gen-michael-flynn
One of the odder, possible signs I spotted was the arrival in the Black Sea of a Russian Navy amphibious transport - from the Baltic Fleet - which has now unloaded a number of heavy trucks etc.
TheCurmudgeon
03-09-2014, 10:21 PM
One should then read Schindler's, The Coming Age of Special War (http://20committee.com/2013/09/20/the-coming-age-of-special-war/) (September 20, 2013); and also his reference to Wiki's Active Measures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures), as one facet of the SW diamond. What he says is not new (he doesn't claim it is); and can be found in these samplings of the literature: Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare (http://www.terrorism.com/documents/unrestricted.pdf); Beaufre - e.g., Introduction to Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/INTRODUCTION-PARTICULAR-REFERENCE-ECONOMICS-DIPLOMACY/dp/B000XRD1ME) and Deterrence and Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/Deterrence-Strategy-Andre-Beaufre/dp/B005BKFXE2); Liddell-Hart, Strategy: the indirect approach (http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Basil-Henry-Liddell-Hart/dp/B0007HHK4A); and Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-The-Logic-War-Peace/dp/0674839951).
I read this and, again, did not see anything new. We conducted Special War all over South America in the 70's and 80's. So I don't think that what Schindler discusses is anything new (and you clearly state that he does not claim that).
First, I must say that what is going on the the Crimea is not Special War as defined by Schindler. A key component seems to be deny-ability, something I don't think the Russian's care about. They are playing a different card (or cards). Domestically, this is a mission to protect ethnic Russians with a not so subtle subtext of restoring Russia to its former imperial glory. That card also plays to the Chinese, who did much the same in Tibet. To Westerners, who have a different perspective on legitimacy in international action, they will play the R2P and the "will of the people".
There are two ways to respond. The first the "instant gratification" option - fight fire with fire. Move everything the US has into the area and threaten to start blowing things up unless they withdraw and allow in a UN Peacekeeping Force based on the numerous violations of international law (I always have to giggle when I use that term "international law"). We could probably do that except that, the reality is that we cannot support it logistically without diverting resources from Afghanistan. Luckily, bunch of that supply line is already in place. Politically, we must have the will and the funding to do this. Reality here is that, it would bankrupt us to begin another large scale military operation when when we have yet to pay for the last two and no one is in the mode to raise taxes. Plus, it won't be us who feels the pinch immediately. It will be the EU who will have its Natural Gas cut off. At least we are headed into spring.
The second option is the "slow as steady" option of economic sanctions. They do work, but only over the long haul and only if you are willing to stick to them. They also have to be universal, something we were able to do with Iran but are unlikely to be able to do with Russia.
Where does that leave us ... heck, I don't know. I am thinking it is going to have to be a little of both. Rebuild NATO along with sanctions. I don't think we are going remove the Russians from the Crimea. I do think we can establish the conditions to deal with Putin the next time he acts.
I do agree with Schindler that the US has created an expensive military of limited utility. We can do a big war better than anyone else, but that is of little use when our enemy know that so they avoid big wars. So we end up paying way too much for a military that is not flexible enough to provide what we need.
OK, I have ranted enough. I will return this string back to the professionals.
"the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."
Exactly, now we wait to see if Russia has misculculated (on the extent of her power) or not.
jmm99
03-10-2014, 06:29 PM
with a much smaller US component than the EU-NATO states are used to. None of this should surprise anyone - and I'll posit that no one is too surprised.
From an American standpoint, the wall's been written for the last 2 years - of which, the following are typical:
US will pull two brigades from Europe by end-2014 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hctvcTgpjfrRYNDvTHHw2hLAXkOg?docId=CNG.99f20 6b869282f2fe1dbd014880ce01c.361) (AFP; Jan 27, 2012):
WASHINGTON — The United States plans to complete the withdrawal of two of its four army brigades stationed in Europe in 2014, the Army chief of staff General Ray Odierno said Friday.
"We will decrease our European footprint by two heavy brigade combat teams, with the first one coming out of Europe in 2013" and the second in 2014, Odierno told reporters.
The two units are "heavy brigade combat teams" that will not be re-stationed in the United States, in line with plans announced this week to streamline the number of active duty forces, he said.
...
Each of the heavy brigade combat teams includes 3,800 troops, a spokesman for the army's European command told AFP. In addition to the 7,600 soldiers heading home, nearly 20,000 of their relatives will also be repatriated.
Moving ahead more than a year to Rapid Response Force Relies on Permanent U.S. Base in Europe (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/17/rapid-response-force-relies-on-permanent-u-s-base-in-europe/) (by Brian Slattery; October 17, 2013):
The U.S. Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (BCT) recently established an Army Contingency Response Force—a rapidly deployable company-size unit—to respond to crises in Europe and Northern Africa within a day.
...
The 173rd BCT is one of a dwindling number of permanently based U.S. brigades in Europe, which the Obama Administration and some in Congress have tried to remove, decrying them as wasteful Cold War relics. Two of the four BCTs have already been deactivated and removed from Europe. The justification given by the Obama Administration is that the BCTs will be replaced by a rotational battalion based in the U.S., a tiny force compared to one BCT, let alone two. This is not a legitimate substitute. ...
and finally from late last month, Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42493.pdf) (CRS, Andrew Feickert, Specialist in Military Ground Forces; February 28, 2014):
Summary
On January 26, 2012, senior DOD leadership unveiled a new defense strategy based on a review of potential future security challenges, current defense strategy, and budgetary constraints. ...
As part of the Administration’s original proposal, two armored brigade combat teams (ABCTs) in Europe were to be eliminated out of a total of eight BCTs that would be cut from Active Army force structure. The Army had originally stated that it might cut more than eight BCTs from the Army’s current 44 Active BCTs. Army end-strength would go from 570,000 in 2010 to 490,000 by the end of 2017. As part of this reduction, the Army would no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, protracted stability operations but would continue to be a full-spectrum force capable of addressing a wide range of national security challenges. The Army National Guard and Army Reserves were not targeted for significant cuts. ...
The cuts in fact turned out larger, with three brigades scuppered on the Euro front (two down, one to go) says the Pentagon (CRS, pp.11-13):
On March 1, 2013, DOD announced a series of force structure changes for the U.S. Army in Europe from the period 2013 through 2016. The text of the news release is as follows:
DOD Announces U.S. Army in Europe Force Structure Changes
The Department of Defense announced today that Germany-based elements of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team will relocate within Germany and to Italy in summer 2013.
A total of four battalions will be relocated. Two battalions will relocate from Germany to Italy; the brigade’s headquarters and one infantry battalion will relocate from Caserma Ederle in Vicenza, Italy, to the Army’s new facility in Del Din (formerly known as Dal Molin) in Vicenza. The other two battalions will relocate from Schweinfurt and Bamberg, Germany, to Grafenwoehr, Germany.
In addition to the previously announced inactivation of V Corps Headquarters and the 170th and 172nd Infantry Brigades, the disposition of 2,500 enabling forces are provided as follows:
In 2012:
170th Infantry Brigade, Smith Barracks, Baumholder, Germany – Inactivated
...
In 2013:
...
172nd Infantry Brigade, Grafenwoehr, Germany – Inactivates
...
In 2014:
Headquarters, 18th Engineer Brigade, Conn Barracks, Schweinfurt, Germany – Inactivates ... [followed by a list of engineer, signals and military police units].
While part of this RIF belongs to budget deficits, it also belongs to a shift in US foreign policy which spans at least the four last presidencies (Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama). That shift was popularized by the "Pacific Pivot"; but that pivot has been going on for at least a century. One must also take into account that the US has had four major campaigns since WWII (counting Gulf I and OIF as one) - all Asian ground wars. The lack of US success in those efforts suggests that we Yanks should limit our Pacific pivots to sea-air battles and island hopping.
Writing somewhat along these lines, we find Ondrejcsak, The United State´s Strategic Shift Towards the Pacific – Continuity and Change (http://cenaa.org/analysis/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Ondrejcsak_final-1.pdf), (in Majer, M. – Ondrejcsak, R. – Tarasovic, V. (eds.): "Panorama of global security environment 2012", Bratislava: CENAA, pp. 25-41; 2012):
Abstract:
The goal of this paper is to analyze the global-scale trend of American strategic shift towards the Pacific and East Asia. This development will be one of crucial trends of international relations in the foreseeable future which will have a determining effect on the global security environment.
While immediately following the release of new U.S. Strategic Guidance in January 2012 it was referred to in the media and discussions as “something new,” in fact it is quite to the contrary. The most important driving forces and reason of this change started to emerge at least 2-3 decades ago.
The realization in the old continent came late due to “Eurocentric worldview” that was temporarily overwhelmed by events in her neighborhood and by the US engagement in Europe´s conflicts (wars in South-Eastern Europe as a most prominent example), but the rest of the globe realized it a long time ago.
Moreover, Obama administration´s steps toward Pacific and East Asia are to a large extent based on changes initiated or realized by previous administrations, particularly that of G.W. Bush. From that point of view Obama´s “Pacific shift” is a combination of both continuity and new elements based on long-term historical/strategic trends. On the whole, we are witnessing more of an evolution than revolution in US strategic positioning.
...
Historic and strategic trends
The United States possesses simultaneously both an Atlantic and a Pacific vector of its global strategy. The primacy of the Atlantic vector in foreign policy and strategy – with European allies as most important partners in world affairs – was based on “Europe first” tenet made during the WWII. That decision was based on strategic assessment that Germany represents a more serious strategic threat than Japan as well as on United Kingdom´s special relationship as the US most important ally. The emergence of the Soviet center of power, which decisively focused on Europe during the Cold War as well as in the post-War strategic environment, extended that strategic approach. Because of that primacy, the Atlantic vector secured its dominant position for half century in American foreign and security policy and strategies.
The collapse of the USSR and the diminished strategic rivalry in Europe, as well as the dramatic current self-demilitarization of European allies, compounded with American disappointment with them ‒ are among the most prominent sources of current trends. The financial austerity which has a decisive impact on the US military budget is also putting significant pressure on the prioritization of sources. We also have to take into consideration the non-existing multilateral regional security mechanisms in East Asia, and the inherited instability this causes.
As the central player of current world order, the United States has to react to the ongoing trends if wants to maintain its position. While the relative power of other-than-Western centers is rising, the United States still possesses sufficient capabilities as well as the will of its leaders to remain the main centre of power for decades to come. ... The US will not share the “destiny of the Netherlands” (by Paul Kennedy) – that once was the world´s leading power, and now is a small European state without decisive influence on global affairs – despite the rise of other centers of power.
Once upon a time (when the Pentagon confidently spoke of fighting 2-1/2 major wars), the US could be confidently expected by the EU-NATO states to back up its NATO "obligations" - regardless of its engagements elsewhere (e.g., in Vietnam). Such expectations today are delusional - or perhaps, the mental state could be called "excessive hopefulness".
Regards
Mike
TheCurmudgeon
03-10-2014, 06:46 PM
I am trying not to pull this thread off target, but I have to scream out loud sometimes...
As part of this reduction, the Army would no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, protracted stability operations but would continue to be a full-spectrum force capable of addressing a wide range of national security challenges. The Army National Guard and Army Reserves were not targeted for significant cuts
Prior to our entanglements in Southeast Asia, the Army managed to conduct a moderate scale, protracted stability operations in the Balkans without dipping deeply into the Active forces. They turned the mission over the Guard. This was the ideal mission for the guard since, being a protracted operation over a static territory, it lent itself to the type of long term planning of rotational units that Reserve forces are ideal for. I laugh evertime I see that statement in bold above because the Active Army was never reorganized to conduct large-scale protracted stability operations. It just adjusted the FEBA to the edge of the wire and conducted search and destroy missions.
On the other hand, Active forces, which need to be called up on a moment’s notice, should be forward stationed IF your intent is to be a worldwide power (as opposed to only concerning yourself with homeland defense). This is particularly true of the Army since it is slow to move if not placed somewhere that is close to the fight. For example, you would never keep the forces needed to defend Korea at Fort Lewis. Since we are moving to regionally aligned forces, maybe they should be regionally placed as well.
@kaur: Yes, in general the voting does not go as smoothly as in more Western countries, but I doubt that masked, foreign known un-known gunmen controlling the place is all that common. As the sources say they denied access to the large majority which was against the seperation and impressed the more strongly Pro-Russia forces into supporting the mini-party of the current leader (http://time.com/19097/putin-crimea-russia-ukraine-aksyonov/).
It is not clear whether the parliament was seized that day on his orders. On the one hand, the masked gunmen identified themselves as members of Crimea’s “self-defense forces,” all of which are, according to Aksyonov, directly under his control. On the other, he claims the seizure of the buildings was done “spontaneously” by a mysterious group of fighters. “We only knew that these were Russian nationalist forces,” he tells TIME in an interview Sunday. “These were people who share our Russian ideology. So if they wanted to kill someone, they would have killed the nightwatchmen who were inside.”
Instead, they let the guards go, sealed the doors and only allowed the lawmakers whom Aksyonov invited to enter the building. Various media accounts have disputed whether he was able to gather a quorum of 50 of his peers before the session convened that day, and some Crimean legislators who were registered as present have said they did not come near the building. In any case, those who did arrive could hardly have voted their conscience while pro-Russian gunmen stood in the wings with rocket launchers. Both of the votes held that day were unanimous. The first appointed Aksyonov, a rookie statesman with less than four years experience as a local parliamentarian, as the new Prime Minister of Crimea. The second vote called for a referendum on the peninsula’s secession from Ukraine.
Some interesting details (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/crimea-relies-on-mainland-ukraine-for-water-electricity-gas-339051.html) about the Crimean economy, or it's dependence on the Ukrainian mainland. It is good to see that the author picked up an issue about I wrote more the a week ago. (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=152953&postcount=97) While I got the water and electricity pretty right, I was wrong about the natural gas 'imports'. The gas fields around the Crimea allow it to cover it's need all but in winter.
Crimea relies on the rest of Ukraine for 80-85 percent of the water that it consumes, 82 percent of electricity and 35 percent of gas, according to Mykhailo Honchar, a leading energy analyst at Kyiv-based think tank Strategy XXI. Access to these vital resources will loom prominently amid diplomatic discussions this week ahead of the so-called referendum.
....
“And Crimea doesn’t have its own supply of coal and oil products to speak of,” said Honchar.
The infrastructure between the occupied Crimea and Russia sustained didn't transport most of the goods and must be highly strained already by the military built-up. Critical nodes will be the the ferry service(s) in the Kerch straight and the ports, mostly Sevastopol. As far as I could tell goods still flow through the the land-bridges with Ukraine, but the checkpoints manned by self-declared milita and the increasingly sorry state of the security and rule of law must have taken it's toll. Needless to say for Ukraine it would be easy to stop the traffic there completely.
In general I think it was a pretty smart, likely lucky non-decision, not to cut the occupied territories off at once. This has allowed the seperatists to cut themselves into their own flesh by their actions and checkpoints.
Economically, Crimea cannot survive on its own without money from Kyiv. It requires some $700 million in financial assistance from the state to meet its annual expense budget. Vesti daily reported on March 11 that Crimea would need an estimated $5 billion in investments to integrate its economy and infrastructure with Russia. But for the time being, it remains reliant on Ukraine.
There is little doubt that the Crimea contains a relative high amount of retirees, among them a disproportional number of ethnic Russians which tend to be older then the overall populations. This is certainly one of the reasons why the Crimea takes more from the Ukraine then it pays in.
The unpaid supporters of the Russian invasion tend to be both old and ethnic Russians. Cutting off the pensions after the illegal 'referendum' will hit them hard, but allow the Russians to step in forcefully. The question is if this matters, and likely the Urkaine is better off by shutting off payments sometimes after it, if the situation does not change much. The same goes for the electricity, easy to do and it hits hard.
The author did not mention the demand shock in tourism. I saw it earlier as one of the biggest problems for the Crimean economy, as one of the two big pillars looks like it will crumble. The Kyiv Post (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/russian-soldiers-may-be-the-only-tourists-in-crimea-this-year-338716.html) had interesting recent numbers on that.
Overall the seperatists have certainly already inflicted massive damage on the occupied territory. Kviev can easily add to it greatly. Russia will likely pour in billions but there are of course many elements of an economy which can not be fixed in the short term. Plus with 'Goblin' the (ex?-)criminal leading a regime one can count on an greatly increased amount of curruption and missmanagement. The other occupied lands locked in 'frozen conflicts' by Russian are not exactly shiny examples of wide-spread economic growth and rule of law...
jmm99
03-11-2014, 06:14 PM
Kaur:
HT; your link to Morgan, Dancing with the Bear: Managing Escalation in a Conflict with Russia (http://www.ifri.org/downloads/pp40morgan.pdf) (IFRI Proliferation Papers, No. 40, Winter 2012), is interesting theory. Of course, in the area of nuclear escalation and deterrence, everything is theory because the only practitioner has been the US (a point made more than once by the Soviets during the Cold War) - and, in 1945, Japan was not in a position to escalate !
Morgan (from RAND) sums himself:
"Escalation", the tendency of belligerents to increase the force or breadth of their attacks to gain advantage or avoid defeat, is not a new phenomenon. Systematic thought about how to manage it, however, did not crystallize until the Cold War and the invention of nuclear weapons. Given the limitations identified in these Cold War approaches to escalation and the profound changes that have affected the strategic environment, a new framework for thinking and managing escalation against nuclear adversaries is needed. It should lead to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of escalation: its dynamics, forms, and the motives that drive it.
This paper attempts to fill a gap in the current strategic literature, and explores the challenges that NATO would face in managing escalation in a military conflict with a major nuclear power such as the Russian Federation. Escalation management is about keeping wars limited. In a war against Russia, Western leaders would need to weigh their interests in the issue at stake and adjust their war aims and efforts accordingly. They could secure success only if it is defined and pursued in ways that ultimately allow for compromise and do not threaten the survival of the Russian state or its leaders.
Morgan et al did a RAND study, Dangerous Thresholds - Managing Escalation in the 21st Century (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG614.pdf) (2008):
Escalation is a natural tendency in any form of human competition. When such competition entails military confrontation or war, the pressure to escalate can become intense due to the potential cost of losing contests of deadly force. Cold War–era thinking about escalation focused on the dynamics of bipolar, superpower confrontation and strategies to control it. Today's security environment, however, demands that the United States be prepared for a host of escalatory threats involving not only long-standing nuclear powers, but also new, lesser nuclear powers and irregular adversaries, such as insurgent groups and terrorists.
This examination of escalation dynamics and approaches to escalation management draws on historical examples from World War I to the struggle against global Jihad. It reveals that, to manage the risks of escalatory chain reactions in future conflicts, military and political leaders will need to understand and dampen the mechanisms of deliberate, accidental, and inadvertent escalation.
Informing the analysis are the results of two modified Delphi exercises, which focused on a potential conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan and a potential conflict between states and non-state actors in the event of a collapse of Pakistan's government.
Along the way, Morgan has also considered the "escalation ladder" in hypothetical conflicts with Iran and North Korea. See "Conclusion" to 2012 monograph (pp. 47-50 pdf), bringing all together:
All of this suggests that effective threshold management will be crucially important in an armed conflict with any of the aforementioned states. Western leaders will need to assess the balance of interests and identify each side’s critical thresholds. They will need to illuminate these thresholds to opponents in ways that deter deliberate escalation and reduce the risks of inadvertent escalation. They will need to manage their forces firmly to avoid escalatory accidents, and they will need to calmly evaluate and respond to the accidents that will inevitably occur over the course of the war. Most of all, they will need to restrain their objectives and settle for limited gains, which will most likely amount to defeating the opponent’s aggression in ways that simply preserve the status quo.
Thankfully, the world has never witnessed a major conventional war between nuclear-armed adversaries, much less one in which nuclear weapons were exchanged. Studies late in the Cold War raised serious doubts whether the latter could be kept limited, or even prosecuted in a coherent manner, given the massive disruptions in communications and physical, mental, and emotional dislocations that would occur at multiple levels of command once nuclear weapons began detonating on each side. Although a handful of analysts continued to lobby for counterforce, nuclear war-fighting strategies to the very end of the era, the ranks of those who accepted Kahn’s thesis that nuclear wars could be fought and won had by then grown exceedingly thin in the West and were substantially diminished in the East. The near consensus was that any nuclear war would likely be uncontrollable, resulting in consequences so tragic that victory, however defined, would be pyrrhic.
The implication of such a conclusion is that for any escalation management framework to be viable, it must inform strategy making while the conflict is well below the nuclear threshold. Further, it must face up to the uncertainties inherent in war – the lack of perfect information and perfect control; the subjectivity of perception; the inevitable miscalculations that result from incompetence, fear, and fatigue; and the general unpredictability of human behavior – and offer realistic approaches for managing these factors to the extent they are manageable. Cold War-era approaches to escalation management failed to meet those criteria. As a result, decision makers on both sides of the East-West divide abandoned them and relied instead on conflict avoidance.
- to be cont. -
jmm99
03-11-2014, 07:14 PM
All that (in Part 1) recalls the differing viewpoints of Herman Kahn and Hugh Everett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III). Kahn popularized his "escalation ladder" and other thermonuclear war concepts in a number of books. See John Wohlstetter's Herman Kahn: Public Nuclear Strategy 50 Years Later - A Compendium of Highlights from Herman Kahn’s Works on Nuclear Strategy (http://www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/842/kahnpublicnuclearstrategywohlstetter.pdf) (Hudson Institute, September 2010), a brief survey (29 pp.) of four of Kahn's books:
On Thermonuclear War (1960) ...
Thinking About the Unthinkable (1962) ...
On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios (1965) ...
Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980s (1984, posth.)
and Herman Kahn: Applying His Nuclear Strategy Precepts Today (http://www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/843/wohlstetterkahnprecepts.pdf) (Hudson Institute, October 2010, 17pp.).
Hugh Everett was far more pessimistic than Kahn; and wrote very little (most still classified) about his involvement in WSEG (which, via WSEG Staff Study No. 46, informed the 1961 Kennedy-McNamara Flexible Response Policy (http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/kennedyjf/viii/32073.htm)) - from Everett's Wiki:
... Everett was invited to join the Pentagon's newly-forming Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG), managed by the Institute for Defense Analyses. ... In 1957, he became director of the WSEG's Department of Physical and Mathematical Sciences. After a brief intermission ..., Everett returned to WSEG and recommenced his research, much of which, but by no means all, remains classified. He worked on various studies ... [e.g., Hugh Everett III and George E. Pugh, "The Distribution and Effects of Fallout in Large Nuclear-Weapon Campaigns", in Biological and Environment Effects of Nuclear War, Hearings Before the Special Sub-Committee on Radiation of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, June 22–26, 1959, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.
...
Of those studies, Linus Pauling said: [They] permit us to make an estimate of the casualties of such a war. This estimate is that sixty days after the day on which the war was waged, 720 million of the 800 million people in these countries would be dead, sixty million would be alive but severely injured, and there would be twenty million other survivors. The fate of the living is suggested by the following statement ...: 'Finally, it must be pointed out that the total casualties at sixty days may not be indicative of the ultimate casualties. Such delayed effects as the disorganization of society, disruption of communications, extinction of livestock, genetic damage, and the slow development of radiation poisoning from the ingestion of radioactive materials may significantly increase the ultimate toll.' ..."
Regardless of whether one leans toward Kahn or Everett, one finds no certainty in the "nuclear escalatory ladder". Kahn himself recognized that and more (from Wohlstetter, Oct 2010):
NUCLEAR TABOO
Allied powers in the West have long stressed the “firebreak” between conventional and nuclear use. Some emerging powers show no signs of recognizing this. Kahn did, and warned that consequences of crossing the nuclear line again and thus ending the taboo carry unpredictable, potentially horrific dangers.
Kahn stressed the value of the nuclear taboo:
That other “easily recognizable limitations” exist is clear; but it remains true that once war has started no other line of demarcation is at once so clear, so sanctified by convention, so ratified by emotion, so low on the scale of violence, and—perhaps most important of all—so easily defined and understood as the line between not using and using nuclear weapons.[32]
On weakening the nuclear threshold:
Nevertheless, I believe that two or three uses of nuclear weapons would weaken the nuclear threshold, at least to a degree where it would no longer be a strong barrier to additional uses of nuclear weapons in intense or vital disputes. There would ensue a gradual or precipitate erosion of the current belief—or sentiment—that the use of nuclear weapons is exceptional or immoral. The feared uncontrolled escalation would be rather more likely to occur at the second, third or later use of nuclear weapons than as a consequence of first use.[33]
...
On the difficulty of restoring the tradition and custom of nonuse after nuclear use:
More important, in a world in which there is no legislature to set new rules, and the only method of changing rules is through a complex and unreliable systems-bargaining process, each side should—other things being equal—be anxious to preserve whatever thresholds there are. This is a counsel of prudence, but a serious one: it is not often possible to restore traditions, customs or conventions that have been shattered. Once they are gone, or weakened, the world may be “permanently” worse off.[35]
32 OE, p. 95.
33 OE, p. 98. Strategists call “first‐strike” starting nuclear war from scratch; “first-use” escalates an ongoing conventional conflict, as America did in 1945.
...
35 OE, p. 133.
OE = Kahn, On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios (http://www.amazon.com/Escalation-Metaphors-Scenarios-Herman-Kahn/dp/0313251630) (1965)
That brings us back to the topics of "Special War" and "Limited War". Morgan cites Strachan, Are European Armed Forces Only Able to Wage Limited War? (http://www.ifri.org/downloads/hewstrachanpe22011.pdf) (2011), in one of his footnotes:
Abstract: For a long time, Western armies were organized to fight total war. Since the end of the Cold War, they have been reduced, but have been engaged in conflicts requiring large deployments. European societies no longer know what type of war they have to conduct. Indeed the very concept of limited war and its instruments need to be rethought.
...
If the Cold War in Europe had become hot, it would not have been limited except in one respect: it would have been short. Armies became smaller because they were not expected to sustain resistance for more than a few weeks. Germany in particular ... wanted to keep the ladder of escalation to nuclear release short and steep. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) war games tended to end with a nuclear exchange within days.
Those less close to the inner German border, and particularly the United States, wanted the ladder to be longer and the process of ascent more gradual. Their interpretation of the strategy of "flexible responseʺ, adopted by NATO in 1967, stressed the initial use of conventional military capabilities as much as the final sanction of nuclear release.
...
With the end of the Cold War, and the removal of the immediate threat of a major war of self-defence within Europe, that hope – implicitly at least – has become even more fervent. ... They cannot command the man-power for ʺtotal war". The question that is more pressing is whether they can command the manpower for long wars of lower intensity.
...
At the heart of Europe’s problem is the lack of a unifying conception of war – a conception which can tie the armies of Europe and their parent societies into a common narrative. ... The European folk memory of war is still shaped by the Second World War, by "total warʺ. Two consequences follow.
The first is that armies exist only for purposes of direct national self-defence in what the English language no longer calls ʺtotal war", but "major warʺ or increasingly ʺexistential war". The corollary of a war for national survival should be an expectation that in such a war armies should be both conscripted and large, reflective of their parent societies in terms of their social composition and even more in values.
The second is the obverse of that position. Given the destructiveness for Europe of modern war, and particularly of the two world wars, war is not in fact a continuation of policy by other means. War represents the failure of policy, and so has no political utility.
Today Europe’s armies are designed less to fight and more for diplomatic leverage. Small contingents are a means by which a state pays its dues to the international community and to the multilateral organisations, principally the European Union, NATO and the United Nations, in which most modern, westernised and democratic nations invest their hopes of a stable international order.
This "tokenismʺ can extend to bilateral relations, particularly given the possible long-term need to call in aid from the United States. The real military strength of NATO lies with America, and by sending forces to Afghanistan other states are investing in a favour bank with the US if their security is threatened in the future. Alliances help keep armies small and serve to constrain the circumstances in which they may be used.
The question for NATO's future is exactly what account balance is now on deposit in the US "favour bank". Unless that account is very large (in relation to other "favour bank" accounts), EU-NATO should probably be planning on relying on its own resources to do whatever jobs it believes must be done.
Both sides of the pond might elect, re: "Special-Limited War", to learn how to eat soup with a knife (http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Eat-Soup-Knife-Counterinsurgency/dp/0226567702); or how to make toothpicks with a shovel (http://slava.khersoncity.com/download/books/suvorov/specnaz_eng01.php). The latter seems to me a more practical skill, but what do I know about practicality. ;)
Regards
Mike
The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine printed an article (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/die-stimmung-in-moskau-angesichts-von-putins-drohungen-12840602.html) from Svetlana Alexievich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alexievich), a noted belorussian author with partial Ukrainian roots. A good deal of her work was on aspects of WWII and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. I think the article does a fine job at painting the various different moods in this conflict.
---
What is at stake in Crimea? (http://www.voxeu.org/article/what-stake-crimea) is a mostly political piece on this site usually devoted to economic research. Earlier (http://www.voxeu.org/article/ukraine-emergency-economic-measures) they wrote about the emergency economic measures for Ukraine, which I missed.
Their call for a debt restructuring caught my eye:
One step is to bring in the IMF as well as other donors (EU, USA, etc.) to bridge the short-term gap in foreign currency reserves.
These funds are essential to avoid a drastic immediate fiscal contraction in the immediate future. They are necessary to enable authorities to inject capital into Ukrainian banks. The amount of required support is likely to be in tens of billions of dollars. Moreover, a restructuring of some of Ukrainian debt is necessary to avoid outright default.
1) Most of Ukraine’s external debt was accumulated under the previous corrupt regime.
2) The new leaders have little moral obligation to commit to reimburse that debt, and creditors have little moral standing to demand repayment: they knew who they lent to.
I think that USA has very good knowledge how Soviet Union /Russia manages their problems.
http://jmw.typepad.com/files/state-department---a-report-on-active-measures-and-propaganda.pdf
Today there are very few communist parties left, but there is new (appeared right after collapse of SU) lever in the CIS and Baltic states space - Russian compatriots. Russia used arms in Georgia and in Crimea because he felt that compatriots are in danger. As far as I do understand Russia is carrying out same kind of active measures that are listed in that paper. It is also deja vu, when I hear Russian side talking that in Ukraine there is battle between US and Russia (EU is just US proxy + Nuland's "#### EU"). The same motivation was used during Soviet adventures around the globe during Cold war (Mitrokihn's book). If you understand Russian, then here head of Crimean compatriots talks about US action. This statement was made 3 months ago.
http://vksors.org.ua/video/v-vseukrainskaya-konferenciya-organizacij-rossijskix-sootechestvennikov-video
Firn, i'm sure that Aksenov was brought to power through the same compatriots network.
AmericanPride
03-12-2014, 01:49 AM
Firn,
Just a quick comment about Ukraine's debt. According to this site (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/external-debt) and this site (http://www.indexmundi.com/ukraine/public_debt.html), Ukraine's debt was in decline until 2007 and has been increasing year over year ever since. The majority of the debt was accumulated between 2007 and 2009 as a result of the global recession and during the presidency of Yushchenko. Corruption appears to be a bipartisan activity in Ukraine.
mirhond
03-12-2014, 12:53 PM
If one looks at how the events unfolded the Crimea (rump) parliament only called for Russian 'help' after Russian troops had already infiltrated and invaded. Under huge pressure, armed Russian gunmen only a minority was present when the voted.
Those informations fill in some detail into the story of Russian aggression to make the processes and events of the invasions clearer. In at least another article I read how a Crimean parliamentarian considered pro-Urkainian was denied entry into the house. The big story does of course not change, but the case against the aggressor only becomes clearer.
So, there is no evidence which could possibly change your belief into "pro-Ukranian Crimea" and any piece of infirmation you stumble upon would just reinforce it? Confirmation bias as it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
So, there is no evidence which could possibly change your belief into "pro-Ukranian Crimea" and any piece of infirmation you stumble upon would just reinforce it? Confirmation bias as it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
:D I'm very aware of that sort of bias, this is why I generally go first for the facts before I comment and use to cast a very wide net, from Moskva to Washington in four languages. But please, if you have anything intelligent and meaningful to add, make your case by good, even some arguments. So far I have waited in vain...
Ukraine has the lowest energy efficiency worldwide a short paper (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/Schwaiger.pdf) claims:
Summary:
Ukraine has the lowest energy efficiency worldwide. While the industry sector is slowly going to improve, the communal services are still very inefficient and demand side management is not seriously taken into account yet. Reforms on the national level are slow, implementation and control is poor. Tariffs do not cover the real costs and with rising gas prices the subventions are growing on national and communal level. The biggest pressure is exerted on cities to quickly react on the challenges but there is a lack of knowledge, management capacity and financing capability. A German-Ukrainian technical assistance project implemented by GTZ will assist the
national Government and four pilot cities to develop implementation strategies for energy saving in the building sector in an international interdisciplinary team. Together with the Association of Energy Efficient Cities in Ukraine a learning city network will be established for knowledge exchange and dissemination of achievements.
Now a Russian might obviously see that cooperation as a cunning strategic move by a US proxy to undermine the economic relationship between the brother nations of Ukraine and Russia. :D
Many changes have happened in Ukraine since soviet economy and relevant ideology collapsed in 1991. However, the supply side oriented mentality fed for a long time by an artificial economy and created an according lifestyle taking no care on energy consumption is still alive in this country. While the industrial sector is slowly reducing its energy consumption and becoming more energy efficient, the communal services, predominantly heating, are still very inefficient. Outdated systems in poor condition and high losses due to insufficient maintenance as well as no possibility for heat adjustment are the main reasons for the bad performance.
On a more serious note it the results of those bad incentives set up by the high subventions, rooted partly in the SU, have been quite obvious and terrible. We discussed something similar concerning the situation in Saudi Arabia in the energy security thread. There is no doubt at all that those subventions have to come down a great deal in the long run but one has to be careful to avoid a big fallout in the short term. A far more energy efficient economy should considerably reduce the economic leverage of the Kremlin over Ukraine even if demand goes up overall due to economic development.
This presentation (http://www.vei.fi/files/pdf/691/REGIONAL_ENERGY1_Galetich.pdf) is quite interesting as it contains a lot of relatively recent data in sometimes great graphs about the current energy situation. Most projectations are for now best ignored.
PS: I just realized that it is a .fi address. Shocking, now even the Finns (in this case one of the Swedish minority), are in the subversing business united with Ukrainian elements.
So, there is no evidence which could possibly change your belief into "pro-Ukranian Crimea" and any piece of infirmation you stumble upon would just reinforce it? Confirmation bias as it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Mirhond:
If you guys are going to troll here as "Mirhond" work a little harder and have just one person do the trolling. When you switch off the quality of the written English and the sentence construction is wildly variable. Have a little respect for us and at least try to make it look good.
Analyze this.
Correspondence of US Army Attache Assistant in Kiev.
We have hacked e-mail correspondence of US Army Attache Assistant in Kiev Jason Gresh and a high ranking official from Ukrainian General Staff Igor Protsyk.
appears that they are planning to conduct a series of attacks on Ukrainian military bases in order to destabilize the situation in Ukraine.
Particularly, Jason Gresh writes to Igor Protsyk that it’s time to implement a plan that implies “causing problems to the transport hubs in the south-east of Ukraine in order to frame-up the neighbor. It will create favorable conditions for Pentagon to act”, says Jason Gresh.
In his turn, Protsyk writes to some Vasil and tells him to arrange an attack on an airbase of 25 aviation brigade of Ukrainian air force stationed in Melitopol.
This Vasil is responsible for arranging the details of the attack, gathering of the gunmen and providing them with a map of sites that are chosen to be attacked.
We strongly recommend everyone to look through these documents. There you will find all the details. (anon)
http://marina-yudenich.livejournal.com/1077483.html
kaur:
That is WWII stuff. It would be comical if there wasn't a chance that a lot of people will get killed.
If those letters are true, then something must be done with your military education system :). If this is fake, it reminds me this kind of activity.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol53no4/pdf/U-%20Boghardt-AIDS-Made%20in%20the%20USA-17Dec.pdf
Thanks for the links to 20committee site, that gave me hints about this clever method!
@kaur: Sadly I do not speak Russian. Not mastering on of the Slavic languages is something I regret, I really should have taken those Russian university courses. I got a bit into Slovak for personal reasons, but I didn't progress much.
@AmericanPride: Corruption is indeed a plague infesting the whole country throughout most layers. On the political one I'm pretty sure that within the black to white spectrum of that cancer the gray is a lot darker for the guy around the ex-president, but I obviously don't have the stats to prove it right now. Maybe apart from the amazingly expensive palasts he built.
Overall I would not be surprised if the new government does paint the picture of the Ukrainian economy in the grimmest of colours and puts the € billions needed even over the upper estimates. That might play well an secure as much billions of foreign loans as possible. The story of the only 6000 combat-ready soldiers seems to work in the same way.
This doesn't of course mean that both the economy and military aren't in a terrible mess.
@kaur again: This one does obviously fail Occam's Razor and plausibility. I mean the enemy has invaded and occupied a part of your guaranteed and undisputed territory and now there is suddendly the desperate need to trigger a conflict against that very invader by wild fabrications? :rolleyes:
If spread by the Kremlin it looks as much other stuff to be about further brain-washing the people back home. Poor guys.
On the political one I'm pretty sure that within the black to white spectrum of that cancer the gray is a lot darker for the guy around the ex-president...
Firn:
That is very finely written. I am officially jealous.
davidbfpo
03-13-2014, 06:48 PM
http://www.iiss.org/-/media/Images/Military%20Balance%20Blog/March%202014/Ukraine-Crimea-2014.jpg
On the link is a table of force strength and equipment (excl. naval assets):http://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalanceblog/blogsections/2014-3bea/march-f525/ukraine-graphic-c106?ec_as=FFE3B633D0FF42F49260DA63A360E839
IISS also have an article reviewing the military dimensions, now a week old:https://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalanceblog/blogsections/2014-3bea/march-f525/ukraine-military-0218
Quite early I wrote about the danger that the Ukrainian banks in the Crimea could run dry without a rapid reaction by the seperatists. We will see, but you know that there is no big confidence if you see scenes like that:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bim8X3fCAAAdCwY.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BimaV9kIUAAwdpP.jpg
It is quite a murky business, with rumours of a complete nationalization of the Crimean banks going around. What seems quite certain that the withdraw limits per person per day have been pushed down again. All this insecurity is of course bad for business and the economy.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BinZgWeIEAAG5JH.jpg:large
The big management problems, all that KGB stuff and the disregard for an economic fallout really seem to support the informations which indicated that only a small circle, mostly ex-KGB, was involved in the initial decision makings.
Just took a quick look at twitter:
Myroslava Petsa @myroslavapetsa 48 Min.
In Donetsk, pro-Russian thugs attacked pro-Ukrainian demonstrators. 1 killed, 10 hospitalized. Pic via @euromaidan pic.twitter.com/RW6PyftLOJ
Maxim Eristavi @MaximEristavi 2 Min.
2 confirmed deaths in Donetsk clashes tonight, 3 ppl are critically injured, up to 50 hurt - @no
vostidnua
We can of course not know the dynamics of the violence. I just hope that it isn't related to the concentration of Russian troops accross the Eastern border. Russian Russians playing agent provocateur would be nothing new and with all those Soviet playbooks in full force one can sadly rule out little...
davidbfpo
03-13-2014, 10:27 PM
Sadly there is some irony, possibly not the best adjective here, that the first post-Maidan death in the Ukraine is of a pro-Ukraine protestor in Donetsk, reportedly at the hands of a rival pro-Russian protest.
More on this commentary:http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-24-russia-mobilizes-near-the-border/
The video shows Russians with the accents of those from the Russian Federation, not Ukraine, attacking a group of pro-EuroMaidan activists. They shout “Russia! Russia!” and “Where is your Ukraine?!”. Using one of the worst insults in the region, they cry “Pederasts! Pederasts!” and then “On your knees! On your knees!” in a constant chant.
The EuroMaidan activists link arms in a tight circle and try to dodge flash grenades and mace spray, then riot police encircle them with arms linked, while a policeman radios a report that 10 people have been injured. The EuroMaidan demonstrators try to take cover near a bus that is already packed with people.
Somehow, the Russian rioters get around the riot police cordon, and start cracking heads with iron rods or bats.
1) In Italy the type of accent gives you good understanding where a guy comes from. This is of course more granular in you neighbourhood even if it is no longer as distinctive as in the past.* I don't know how precise this is in Russian, but it sounds very likely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_dialects) that it is possible to tell if somebody comes from longer across the border.
2) A (very) large amount of Russian provocateurs among the violent fits past patters with Russian passport holders coming as violent 'tourists' or for specatacular actoins and the overall 'KGB' approach of Putins circle.
3) In this case it looks like a planned violent counter-demostration, attacking a largely unprepared crowd. It is difficult to know to which extent this attack did 'just' get out of control.
All in all it is of course of great importance for the stability of the Urkaine to stop the large amount of violent provocateurs from entering the country. I guess that they arm themselves mostly with the help of seperatists, partly payed, forces within the country. It looks like that Putin wants to do it's own little maidans. His problem is of course once again that the protesters in Kyiv were overwhelmingly Ukrainian citiziens which came freely due to their own will. Poor Putin himself has to pay and bus in a large share of the 'Ukrainian' protestors from Russia.
*An somewhat fitting example in a violent context was the deep shock felt, still plain after fifty years, when a survivor of a German-led massacre in Italy heard one of the masked men insulting his victims in the accent of the neighbourhood.
mirhond
03-14-2014, 10:19 AM
Mirhond:
If you guys are going to troll here as "Mirhond" work a little harder and have just one person do the trolling. When you switch off the quality of the written English and the sentence construction is wildly variable. Have a little respect for us and at least try to make it look good.
Total and complete offtop
You made my day! It is the best compliment about my English i've ever heard in my entire life!:D
I can give you my Skype contact, so you can personally evaluate how crappy my spoken English is, written is just slightly better. Really, do it, send me a PM. Presupposing that you value your beliefs more than reality, I give a 15% a priori probability you'll do this.
Besides, I am not trolling, just plaing a legitimate role of devil's advocate.
ps. Sorry for offtop, the temptation was irresistible.
Interesting to see what happens in London today.
The US attempts to rally its 'friends' - the same ones Nuland referred to as: "F**k the EU"
Hard to see a face saving way out for the Russians.
I think the Ukrainians should repudiate the military use of facilities in Crimea treaty with Russia due to the invasion. That should stir it up nicely ;)
1) In Italy the type of accent gives you good understanding where a guy comes from. This is of course more granular in you neighbourhood even if it is no longer as distinctive as in the past.* I don't know how precise this is in Russian, but it sounds very likely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_dialects) that it is possible to tell if somebody comes from longer across the border.
2) A (very) large amount of Russian provocateurs among the violent fits past patters with Russian passport holders coming as violent 'tourists' or for specatacular actoins and the overall 'KGB' approach of Putins circle.
3) In this case it looks like a planned violent counter-demostration, attacking a largely unprepared crowd. It is difficult to know to which extent this attack did 'just' get out of control.
All in all it is of course of great importance for the stability of the Urkaine to stop the large amount of violent provocateurs from entering the country. I guess that they arm themselves mostly with the help of seperatists, partly payed, forces within the country. It looks like that Putin wants to do it's own little maidans. His problem is of course once again that the protesters in Kyiv were overwhelmingly Ukrainian citiziens which came freely due to their own will. Poor Putin himself has to pay and bus in a large share of the 'Ukrainian' protestors from Russia.
*An somewhat fitting example in a violent context was the deep shock felt, still plain after fifty years, when a survivor of a German-led massacre in Italy heard one of the masked men insulting his victims in the accent of the neighbourhood.
jmm99
03-14-2014, 12:03 PM
Here's a headline from the Washington Examiner, John Kerry: Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine (http://washingtonexaminer.com/john-kerry-russia-has-until-monday-to-reverse-course-in-ukraine/article/2545610) (by Susan Crabtree, MARCH 13, 2014):
Secretary of State John Kerry warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday if last-ditch talks over the weekend to resolve the crisis in Ukraine failed to persuade Moscow to soften its stance.
Kerry will travel to London for a Friday meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ahead of a Sunday referendum vote in the Crimea region to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.
U.S. and European officials argue that Moscow is orchestrating the referendum and waging an intimidation campaign with thousands of Russian troops controlling the region. If Russian-backed lawmakers in Crimea go through with the Sunday referendum, Kerry said the U.S. and its European allies will not recognize it as legitimate under international law.
The U.S. and Europe on Monday would then unite to impose sanctions on Russia, Kerry told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Thursday during a hearing on the State Department's budget. ...
Also, an interesting back and forth with Lindsay Graham (Kerry: "...“we have contingencies – we are talking through various options that may or may not be available.”).
Back to Mr Kerry's ultimatum, where the real sanctioning party is not the US (it doesn't have that much trade with Russia), but the EU which does - and which also will be the party taking the negative effects of the sanctions.
So, does Mr Kerry have all of his EU ducks lined up in a row for Monday, or is he wishful thinking and in effect bluffing ?
Regards
Mike
Back to Mr Kerry's ultimatum, where the real sanctioning party is not the US (it doesn't have that much trade with Russia), but the EU which does - and which also will be the party taking the negative effects of the sanctions.
So, does Mr Kerry have all of his EU ducks lined up in a row for Monday, or is he wishful thinking and in effect bluffing ?
Regards
Mike
There are two important points:
1) I'm pretty sure that the EU will step up the sanctions, especially after the words and actions of Merkel and her FM. Germany is the big country which will suffer the most from an sanctions battle, but from what I have gathered they know that Russia will suffer far more then they and the EU as a whole. The actions of Putin have been overall a couple of steps too far to just go ahead with the daily business. Of course we have to see.
2) For all the harder talk out of the US (republicans) the financial support from the USA to Ukraine has been far inferior to the EU. Yes I know that there should come 3? bn from the IMF, and I believe that the EU has a greater vested interest but the 1 bn is just a fraction of the EU up to 15 bn $. As Mike rightly pointed out the EU will bear the brunt of a sanction war so a more equally shared monetary burden would be rather welcome. Stabilizing and supporting Urkaine politically, financially and economically should have priority. The US gov can cheaply loan and lend money, and hopefully I won't have to write-off much.
More direct military support by armaments and more should not be ruled out but for now much help for Urkaine and tougher sanctions for Russia seems to be the right approach.
P.S: Personally I think that the pictures of the British documents showing that the wanted to keep the City as protected as possible should have resulted in an diplomatic cost.
More informations (http://www.interpretermag.com/lenta-to-our-dear-readers-from-your-dear-editorial-team/) about the way the Kremlin has icreasingly assumed control over the relevant media, translated by Pierre Vaux and orginially posted on Lentu.ru:
Today, the 12th of March, the owner of the Afisha-Rambler-SUP company, Aleksandr Mamut sacked the editor-in-chief of Lenta.ru, Galina Timchenko. Alexei Goreslavskiy, the deputy director-general for external communications, has been made the new editor-in-chief.
Unfortunately, this is not a staff reshuffle, so it needs some explanation. We believe that this reassignment represents direct pressure on the editorial office of Lenta.ru. The dismissal of an independent editor-in-chief, and the direct orchestration of the reassignment of someone from the Kremlin cabinet, is a violation of the law on media, which discusses the inadmissibility of censorship.
Over the last couple of years, the space for free journalism in Russia has shrunk dramatically. Some publications are directly controlled by the Kremlin, some through supervisors, and others by editors who are afraid of losing their jobs. Some media oulets have closed, others will be closing in the coming months. The disaster is not that we have nowhere to work. The disaster is that it looks like you have no more to read.
We certainly expected them to come for us.
We don’t believe this will last forever. In any case, you, our dear readers, should know about it.
We hope that we’ll meet again soon.
Your dear editors.
This has of course allowed the Kremlin to increasingly control what the great majority sees and hears and allows them to use massive propaganda to brainwash them. If you throw vast quantities of mud around the clock from all sides, something will stick.
On a different note the European political non-opponents seem to be in simplistic terms either on the far right or the far left. The first because they love to hate the EU and the second because the do the same with the USA.
mirhond
03-14-2014, 01:28 PM
@Firn
Sadly this is just the acceleration of a long term trend in which more and more power within Russia gets centralized and concentrated. The 'Russian Federation' seems increasingly to be so only in name.
Legalistic fallacy. New rules and regulations don't nessesarily mean the actual grouth of Putin's power and influence. He may exploit it or may not, lots of hidden variables behind this. Recent "dictatorship laws" didn't help Yanukovich to stay in power, as you remember.
You are right about "Federation" - this part of the term is meaningless, sad but true.
AmericanPride
03-14-2014, 01:34 PM
I'm skeptical about the efficacy and sustainability of any sanctions regime against Russia. Given the size of and structure of Russia's economy, sanctions are really small ball tactics at this point; and frankly, nobody thinks Crimea or Ukraine are worth risking torpedoing the global economy as it still slowly distances itself from the recession. Normalization of relations between Europe and Russia is a political necessity that will return in the near future. What this really demonstrates is that despite all the hype about soft power, smart power, et al, at the end of the day hard power is what creates facts on the ground and drives decision-making. Whatever the merit of Moscow's justifications and actions, there's no option of sufficient force to alter their course other than war.
Total and complete offtop
You made my day! It is the best compliment about my English i've ever heard in my entire life!:D
I can give you my Skype contact, so you can personally evaluate how crappy my spoken English is, written is just slightly better. Really, do it, send me a PM. Presupposing that you value your beliefs more than reality, I give a 15% a priori probability you'll do this.
Besides, I am not trolling, just plaing a legitimate role of devil's advocate.
ps. Sorry for offtop, the temptation was irresistible.
Glad to see you guys have upped your game and put one of your better guys on this as this and your next post show. I feel better now.
I'm skeptical about the efficacy and sustainability of any sanctions regime against Russia. Given the size of and structure of Russia's economy, sanctions are really small ball tactics at this point; and frankly, nobody thinks Crimea or Ukraine are worth risking torpedoing the global economy as it still slowly distances itself from the recession. Normalization of relations between Europe and Russia is a political necessity that will return in the near future. What this really demonstrates is that despite all the hype about soft power, smart power, et al, at the end of the day hard power is what creates facts on the ground and drives decision-making. Whatever the merit of Moscow's justifications and actions, there's no option of sufficient force to alter their course other than war.
I don't think the Poles will agree that it is isn't worth risking economic disruption if Russia moves into the Ukraine north of Crimea. They may just upset the group comity.
mirhond
03-14-2014, 02:36 PM
Glad to see you guys have upped your game and put one of your better guys on this as this and your next post show. I feel better now.
Well, I gave you a tool to verify your statement, you failed to use it. Here is another one - ask admins to check my IP. But I'am sure you are not going to use it, because you are happy with your belief in "misteriuos guys behind the user".
I have a scientific explanation - you just never met a non-native English user with huge gaps in grammar and syntax. Nice to meet you - I'am such kind of a person, I've never studied English properly, so I dont bother with this stuff. :p
Anyway, enjoy your confirmation bias and false beliefs.
ps. Video especially for you, "right people" beat and humiliate "wrong people"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=afrXa-qsLfo
pps. Communists are gone, enjoy your Nazism.
http://imageshack.com/a/img829/2858/uu6y.jpg
Mirhond:
Fascinating. No subtlety at all. Fascinating.
Communists are gone, enjoy your Nazism.
It's not an either or choice. Who needs either?
AmericanPride
03-14-2014, 04:07 PM
I don't think the Poles will agree that it is isn't worth risking economic disruption if Russia moves into the Ukraine north of Crimea. They may just upset the group comity.
Unfortunately, despite Poland's ascendence since the end of the Cold War, it still has not been able to overcome its historical geographic obstacle - namely, being caught between two much stronger centers of power in Central Europe and Moscow. Warsaw has nowhere to turn if Berlin, Paris, and London strike a deal with Moscow that does not satisfy Poland's legitimate security interests. And that's the dilemma created by accepting the entrance of Poland (and the Baltic states) into the EU and NATO.
You wouldn't know it from the various spokespeople and media in Washington and Europe, but the West has no choice but to negotiate. From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/europe/john-kerry-russia-ukraine-talks.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0):
The outlines of the sort of political settlement the United States is seeking emerged on Wednesday when President Obama and Ukraine’s interim prime minister, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, suggested that they would be willing to support expanded autonomy for Crimea if Russia were prepared to reverse its military intervention. Mr. Yatsenyuk also said his government would affirm an agreement that permits Russia to maintain a naval base there.
If Washington is in the stronger political position, why is it making concessions to Moscow? The sanctions exist to (1) posture for a better negotiating position, which is desperately needed and (2) signal to the various domestic audiences that action is being taken to save face. I don't think anyone seriously believes that the sanctions will compel Moscow to alter its course. As the 8th largest economy in the world, Russia is in a better position to resist sanctions but also to retailate as well than say, Serbia or Iraq.
American Pride:
Your comment about Poland and the Baltic States is interesting. First it seems the Poles are helpless. They may not agree. Second, and even more interesting, is your apparent opinion that the disadvantage of having Poland and the Baltic States in NATO is that it makes it harder to sell them out.
I guess will see if that siloviki kleptocracy that is Russia can weather what may be coming their way.
AmericanPride
03-14-2014, 05:12 PM
American Pride:
Your comment about Poland and the Baltic States is interesting. First it seems the Poles are helpless. They may not agree. Second, and even more interesting, is your apparent opinion that the disadvantage of having Poland and the Baltic States in NATO is that it makes it harder to sell them out.
I guess will see if that siloviki kleptocracy that is Russia can weather what may be coming their way.
Are the Poles "helpless"? No. But Poland is not exactly a superpower, either. Poland entered NATO to defend itself from Russia, but by doing so, it also put its security interests in the hand of Germany and France. Washington and Berlin can make an agreement with Moscow over Warsaw's objections - what recourse would Poland have if that were to occur? Could it leave the EU? Or suspend military cooperation with NATO? Absolutely not. That's the disadvantage for Poland entering into the EU and NATO. In realist IR and alliance theory, the utility of institutions and alliances like NATO are determined by their strongest members; i.e. the United States; and so the organization's interests largely reflect their interests. This is a disadvantage for Poland, which is clearly a weaker partner in the alliance, and politics is about trade-offs. The gain for Poland is the assurance of security, hence all the talk about "credibility" in Washington and elsewhere. So, the dilemma created by Polish membership is that Poland's security interests can be in direct contradiction with Berlin or Paris or Washington interest in avoiding or minimizing confrontation with Russia.
davidbfpo
03-14-2014, 05:24 PM
Mirhond,
Your photo of flags is rather curious. It appears - on a quick check - to date back to July 2011, not recently. One press report refer to:
Organizers filming historical film "Match" have created a realistic and historically true situation the occupation of Kiev and Kharkov German fascist invaders.
Link:http://tol-nabat.info/main/7013-oni-nashli-drug-druga-v-harkove-povesili-fashistskiy-flag-ryadom-s-zhelto-golubym.html
omarali50
03-14-2014, 05:34 PM
I wish there was a like button on the posts :)
I would like to "like" David's post.
mirhond
03-14-2014, 05:40 PM
Mirhond,
Your photo of flags is rather curious. It appears - on a quick check - to date back to July 2011, not recently.
*I'am busted! All is lost! Need evacuation!* :)
OK, its obviously staged photo, I put it here just to create more flame. Anyway, you can find real Nazi torch-light parade in Kiev on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skGOtMYUsfI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QsVVkA4Ywo
Fascinating. No subtlety at all. Fascinating.
Sorry, carl I dont get your point, please explain. May be you misunderstood what is happening on video?
Mirhond:
The language improves but the argument is still made with a wrecking ball. Fascinating.
davidbfpo
03-14-2014, 06:35 PM
That is the stark question Prof. John Schindler asks. The article has a long section by an ex-Ukrainian admiral:http://20committee.com/2014/03/14/the-coming-war-for-ukraine/
TheCurmudgeon
03-14-2014, 07:55 PM
If the Ukrainians truely believe that war is inevitable, why have they not invited in a NATO military presence? Is this because it would be seen as provacative by Russia or because NATO thinks that it is premature to become involved.
This is by no means a suggestion, it is a question of the thought process involved here.
Gallop (http://www.gallup.com/poll/167927/crisis-ukrainians-likely-nato-threat.aspx?utm_source=sitemap&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=crisis-ukrainians-likely-nato-threat) pole on Ukranian's thoughts on NATO.
davidbfpo
03-14-2014, 08:32 PM
In part:
If the Ukrainians truely believe that war is inevitable, why have they not invited in a NATO military presence? Is this because it would be seen as provacative by Russia or because NATO thinks that it is premature to become involved.
To date only the USA has deployed to Poland a F-16 squadron; which may have been a planned deployment before the crisis started.
Sadly no other NATO member has also deployed. I exclude the NATO AWACS patrolling, which is not even using bases in Poland.
I don't know why NATO has not moved, at least to the Baltic states and Poland. A military move into the Ukraine now I expect has not even been on the agenda.
Sending the EU's foreign envoy to Kiev, Baroness Ashton, is a diplomatic gesture. Why did the Ukrainian PM have to fly all the way to Washington DC? Could he not have been met half-way?
To date not much imagination on show, albeit on my limited reading.
TheCurmudgeon
03-14-2014, 08:46 PM
In part:
To date only the USA has deployed to Poland a F-16 squadron; which may have been a planned deployment before the crisis started.
Sadly no other NATO member has also deployed. I exclude the NATO AWACS patrolling, which is not even using bases in Poland.
...
To date not much imagination on show, albeit on my limited reading.
At a minimum I would have expected a carrier group and a Marine MEU to be moved somewhere close, either the Baltic or the Eastern Med.
The EU, Great Britain, and the U.S. pride ourselves on the belief that our military activities are always founded in some legal principle. So unless we are directly threatened, we probably cannot militarily affect things on the ground.
Polish troops could easily cross the border. If they were attacked by the Russians it would constitute and attack on NATO. That would seem to have a chilling affect on Putin, but his psychology may read it as a threat and cause him to escalate. It just seems like, while the Ukrainians are taking the threat seriously, no one else is.
It could be that we only get the news from one side, but I am a little confused by how the NATO military side of events is playing out .
AmericanPride
03-14-2014, 09:15 PM
To shed some light on Russian perspectives of Ukraine and NATO, from the Russian National Security Strategy (http://rustrans.wikidot.com/russia-s-national-security-strategy-to-2020):
A determining aspect of relations with NATO remains the fact that plans to extend the alliance's military infrastructure to Russia's borders, and attempts to endow NATO with global functions that go counter to norms of international law, are unacceptable to Russia. Russia is prepared to develop relations with NATO on the basis of equality and in the interests of strengthening the general security of the Euro-Atlantic region. The content and depth of these relations will be determined by the preparedness of the alliance to recognise Russia's legal interests when engaging in military-political planning, and to respect norms of international law; and likewise NATO's readiness to consider the further transformation of these relations...
That was written in 2009. In February of last year, Russia's 2013 Foreign Policy Concept (http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/76389FEC168189ED44257B2E0039B16D)stated:
Russia maintains a negative attitude towards NATO’s expansion and to the approaching of NATO military infrastructure to Russia’s borders in general as to actions that violate the principle of equal security and lead to the emergence of new dividing lines in Europe.
In regards to NATO, Andrew Monaghan at Chatham House had this to say about the 2013 document:
The alliance warrants a paragraph but the Russian view of the Euro-Atlantic community appears less positive even than in 2008 when Russia launched a series of proposals for the reform of the European security architecture. It argued at the time that Europe was not well served by one that aggravated old issues and was unable to address emerging problems. As a result, according to Russia, European security was divided, and a new summit and legally binding security treaty were necessary to remedy this situation. This illustrated a fundamental divergence in understandings of European security, since many in the Euro-Atlantic community instead saw Europe to be whole, free and at peace. Of late, these proposals have faded from attention in the West.
It is easy to be dismiss with skepticism many of the public remarks of the Russian government, particularly in regards to an appeal for the responsibility to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but removing the pretext reveals a more rational approach to the national security problems raised by the events in Ukraine. Moscow has a particular view of the situation in Europe and of its own security and it has long opposed NATO expansion (though at one point it was suggested, but not taking seriously, that Russia petition for membership in the alliance, which would resolve its security anxieties). I think the West made a mistake in underestimating (or ignoring) Russia's stated national interests. Carl may think Russia to be a third-rate power, but it remains the 8th largest economy, retains the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal, and one of the largest standing military forces in the world.
So I don't think Moscow will budge from Crimea or from pushing its interests in Ukraine. A more inclusive policy during the 1990s might have preempted the empowerment of the nationalist-realist faction embodied in Putin, but at least Putin is predictable. That said, we should be prepared to negotiate with Russia; not because Russia's actions are lawful or moral, but because given the relative power relationships, there's no other choice. Turning to what should be on the table in negotiations, the outlines cited in several posts above (reaffirming the Russian naval presence in Crimea and extended autonomy for Crimea) seem like safe starting points as extensions of the status quo, but given the occupation and escalation, Moscow appears positioned to be more assertive in its demands. We can probably expect political uncertainity in Ukraine for some time, even with contingent IMF loans, as new power brokers jockey for position. I think the real factor here is if Washington can match Moscow's political agitation in Ukraine now that we're in the end game.
OUTLAW 09
03-14-2014, 09:26 PM
Find it interesting that the leader of the Jewish community in Kiev stated recently that they have had no problems with neo right radicals and or neo Nazi's and that they the Jewish community Kiev were also fighting in the Maidan just as was the neo right.
Really thought the use of the fear of "Nazi's" had died with Stalin.
But I guess old habits of the KGB die hard.
AmericanPride
03-14-2014, 09:26 PM
At a minimum I would have expected a carrier group and a Marine MEU to be moved somewhere close, either the Baltic or the Eastern Med.
The EU, Great Britain, and the U.S. pride ourselves on the belief that our military activities are always founded in some legal principle. So unless we are directly threatened, we probably cannot militarily affect things on the ground.
Polish troops could easily cross the border. If they were attacked by the Russians it would constitute and attack on NATO. That would seem to have a chilling affect on Putin, but his psychology may read it as a threat and cause him to escalate. It just seems like, while the Ukrainians are taking the threat seriously, no one else is.
It could be that we only get the news from one side, but I am a little confused by how the NATO military side of events is playing out .
I don't think the US, Germany, and UK (1) expect further military conflict in Ukraine, or (2) desire to give any justification for conflict or escalation. There's plenty of money at stake for Western Europe, but Berlin, London, and Paris enjoy the advantage of not having direct borders with Moscow. Their security is not threatened so why escalate it? Germany and France been the firmest opponents to Ukrainian (and Georgian) membership in NATO for this very reason. Sanctions provide some minimal political leverage in the negotiations while also displaying resolve in the face of aggression without actually committing to a path of armed conflict.
Despite all the bluster, I think the Obama administration recognizes the futility of military force in this scenario. Neither the Black Sea or Baltic are ideal operating areas for US naval forces and the proximity to Russia significantly increases vulnerability to counter-attack. This would not signal to Moscow the same message it would send to the capital of a smaller power. Since the Russians already know that the US will not attack, such a gesture would be politically unhelpful and be quickly condemned and dismissed by Moscow as "escalation". Russia would respond in kind with maneuvers of its own, and call Washington's bluff since the Obama administration is not prepared to fight the Russians over Crimea. What then?
OUTLAW 09
03-14-2014, 09:40 PM
If one takes the Crimea as an example of the new Putin Doctrine ie one in the future can change any border based on language/ethnicity/culture using the Russian model.
There are approximately 365 hot spots (language/ethnicity/culture) where border changes can/could occur in Asia/Africa just as easily as the Crimea.
That is the significance of the Putin Doctrine for the 21st Century.
Economic sanctions will hit Russia hard as they are a two resource based economy, have a poorly developing internal economy that needs investment and new plants from the West, the Rubel has taken a massive hit and the stock market is at a 4 year low and will go lower after Monday as will the Rubel. So I am not sure who the KGB is trying to convince that it will hurt the West more---certainly not European economists who understand the Russia economy.
Gasprom has lost over 14B USD in wealth just in the last ten days and will also go lower which is one of their main cash cows.
If one takes the Crimea as an example of the new Putin Doctrine ie one in the future can change any border based on language/ethnicity/culture using the Russian model.
There are approximately 365 hot spots (language/ethnicity/culture) where border changes can/could occur in Asia/Africa just as easily as the Crimea.
That is the significance of the Putin Doctrine for the 21st Century.
How many of these involve current Russian Federation borders either for a territorial gain or a loss?
OUTLAW 09
03-15-2014, 07:25 AM
JMA--the Baltics, four districts on the Chinese border and if Belarus ever gets rid of their current dictator the whole country---maybe give or take seven. He could expand out the current Moldavian enclaves as well as the Georgian ones.
For those that like the I/O work being done by the KGB/FSB---check this US drone story and see how any holes it has---but hey when it is all the info one gets ---even the dumb believe.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-us-drohne-angeblich-ueber-der-krim-abgefangen-a-958757.html
OUTLAW 09
03-15-2014, 07:29 AM
Firn---the Russian Foreign Ministry claimed late last week they could hold up under sanctions as they had over 500B in foreign currencies---any evidence of that?
JMA--the Baltics, four districts on the Chinese border and if Belarus ever gets rid of their current dictator the whole country---maybe give or take seven. He could expand out the current Moldavian enclaves as well as the Georgian ones.
OK, thanks, but one needs to look at how long these ethnic Russians have been there. Here I am looking at the African example (which the Soviet Russians supported) where if you are a European it does not matter how long you have been there you are still a settler. It should be quite easy to work out the movements of ethnic Russians over the past few hundred years. They should then be invited to go 'home' to mother Russia or stay if the indigenous people allow them to but that land would never be Russian. Where there is a Russian dominant enclave one needs to look at the history to see if migration has played a role.
Are there areas of the Russian Fedration which have non-Russian majorities who could claim a need for independence? Here I talk Ingushetia, Chechnya, and Dagestan. How would the Putin doctrine apply to these three countries for example?
OUTLAW 09
03-15-2014, 03:12 PM
JMA---you bring up an interesting point---the SU after 1945 and under Stalin took a move to ensure in the new eastern bloc that Russian was the primary language thus they started "forced" immigration of ethnic Russians into areas that were not previously Russian ethnic areas--remember the SU at the height of the Cold War had over 136 primary different languages and as was English/French were the official languages in Africa during the colonial period so was Russian the official language. This was also true in say Poland, Hungary, the former Czechoslovakia.
In the Ukraine virtually all Ukrainians speak Russian.
In the "stans" one will find pockets of ethnic Russians as well.
IMO the Putin Doctrine is dangerous as he can on a wim change the definition---meaning today it is language/ethnicity/culture and tomorrow what raw resources Russia needs to survive on, or a perceived "threat".
IE a demonstrator is killed in the Donetsk and the Russian FM states we will move in to defend Russians if the Ukrainians cannot control their country.
They claimed he was Russian when in fact the was a proUkrainian member of a right wing party.
Now with the latest claim of capturing of a US drone over the Crimea (one could argue they were attacked by NATO)---a Hunter ---which they claimed was launched from Bavaria by the 66th MI Group which is actually stationed in Darmstadt.
****By the way the Hunter has only a range of 125 miles which if my geography is correct it could have never reached the Crimea much less loiter over it. Unless it was launched by the Navy.
The wim can be redefined to whenever he wants it to mean--that is the dangerous aspect of the Doctrine and it stands on its head the Westphalia Treaty in the 1700s and the respecting of territorial borders since the end of WW2.
This has nothing to do with "spheres of influence" ---it is all about annexation and rebuilding of the former SU pure and simple. Remember Putin served as a KGB officer in Dresden in the GDR during his cold war days. He never did like the breakup of the SU and was vocal about that in a number of recent interviews.
davidbfpo
03-15-2014, 03:27 PM
Prof. Schindler has tweeted a Russian platoon has conducted a helicopter landing near a natural gas extraction on one the narrow isthmus between the Crimea and the mainland, at Strilkove - in Ukrainian territory from Google Maps.
Location follow:https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Strilkove&ie=UTF-8&ei=_WAkU_P6HouRhQfvx4HgBA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ
Update via Reuters incursion defeated:http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/03/15/world/europe/15reuters-ukraine-crisis-repel.html?hp&_r=0
Official Ukrainian protest, which does not make it clear if incursion was defeated:http://mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/news/19559-zajava-mzs-ukrajini-u-zvjazku-z-visadkoju-15-bereznya-desantu-zbrojnih-sil-rf-v-khersonsykij-oblasti
davidbfpo
03-15-2014, 04:44 PM
Professor Christopher Clark, author of 'The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914', adds a commentary and a reminder that much of what is happening today has done so before:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/christopher-clark-on-parallels-between-1914-and-the-ukraine-crisis-a-958692.html
He ends:
The Ukrainian emergency is a reminder of how quickly events can undo the best-laid plans and produce unforeseen constellations. But all the key players in this drama appear to have grasped one thing: namely that the answers history gives to the questions of the present are multiple and conditional, not singular and absolute.
And this...
Sarah Palin predicted in 2008 that Putin would invade Ukraine if Obama was elected (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/sarah-palin-predicted-in-2008-that-putin-would-invade-ukraine-if-obama-was-elected-9167833.html)
I kid you not
McCain?
I don't follow McCain that well but I guess you missed this back in 2008:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4485974/john-mccain-talks-crimea
Pity all the 'smart guys' were not listening.
mirhond
03-15-2014, 07:41 PM
Mirhond:
No subtlety at all. ... The language improves but the argument is still made with a wrecking ball. Fascinating.
Another meaningless one-liner.
What fascinates you so much? What subtlety I must have? What are you talking about?
Bah, You are not going to explain anything to a "bad guy, mouthpiece of siloviki", do you?
Moral superiority over an opponent is such a pleasant feeling.. problem is, it can't help you to find out whether his claims are true or false.
Find it interesting that the leader of the Jewish community in Kiev stated recently that they have had no problems with neo right radicals and or neo Nazi's and that they the Jewish community Kiev were also fighting in the Maidan just as was the neo right.
Really thought the use of the fear of "Nazi's" had died with Stalin. But I guess old habits of the KGB die hard.
Provide a link please.
As far as I remember, Jews weren't the only victims of Nazis. They started small, if you forgot: Communists, socialists, fellow Sturmabteilung. Give Ukrainian Nazis a decent time and some credit and they wont disappoint you.
ps. KGB is irrelevant. Please, dont use the term for labeling anything you don't like.
OUTLAW 09
03-15-2014, 08:10 PM
mirhond---have been following some of your comments and I am not sure if you even understand your own comments.
The interview with the Kiev Jewish community leader' was carried in the Haaretz if that online Israeli newspaper is known to you. Also carried in several leading Jewish World Congress articles in the US.
Secondly. two days ago in the German n-TV news program there was a video released showing someone jumping over a wall and spraying neo Nazi slogans and insignia on the door of their building in the Crimea--the Jewish leader there kind of laughed and said it was proRussian supporters simply based on the single fact that the neo Nazi symbol that was drawn was drawn in reverse so he knew he was not from the right interesting is it not?
Or do you know any true Ukrainian neo Nazi's who would draw their symbol wrongly?
Lastly, I will use the term KGB always unless you honestly think the current FSB is totally different and they did not rehire all the former KGB officers---by the way was not Putin a KGB officer in Dresden the GDR and is it not a known fact that his inner circle are all full time FSB or former KGB ?
Am one of the few writers here who has a long history of dealing with the KGB/MfS in Berlin long before you were probably born.
So I have earned the right to use the term KGB in the correct manner and will continue to use it when it matches their former techniques and procedures even if it is 2014 and the FSB exists as the current sword and shield of the elite---use to be the Party.
mirhond
03-15-2014, 08:48 PM
mirhond---have been following some of your comments and I am not sure if you even understand your own comments.
The interview with the Kiev Jewish community leader' was carried in the Haaretz if that online Israeli newspaper is known to you. Also carried in several leading Jewish World Congress articles in the US.
Secondly. two days ago in the German n-TV news program there was a video released showing someone jumping over a wall and spraying neo Nazi slogans and insignia on the door of their building in the Crimea--the Jewish leader there kind of laughed and said it was proRussian supporters simply based on the single fact that the neo Nazi symbol that was drawn was drawn in reverse so he knew he was not from the right interesting is it not?
Or do you know any true Ukrainian neo Nazi's who would draw their symbol wrongly?
Lastly, I will use the term KGB always unless you honestly think the current FSB is totally different and they did not rehire all the former KGB officers---by the way was not Putin a KGB officer in Dresden the GDR and is it not a known fact that his inner circle are all full time FSB or former KGB ?
Am one of the few writers here who has a long history of dealing with the KGB/MfS in Berlin long before you were probably born.
So I have earned the right to use the term KGB in the correct manner and will continue to use it when it matches their former techniques and procedures even if it is 2014 and the FSB exists as the current sword and shield of the elite---use to be the Party.
I edit my posts a lot, believe me. It may be illegible, but not completely. :)
1. You presuppose that "Haaretz" is known to me. How can you be so sure? Besides, burden of proof lies on those who made a claim, but I've made your job and found something else
KIEV (EJP)---A rabbi in Kiev was assaulted Thursday in the street by two unidentified men in what appears to be an anti-Semitic attack.
Rabbi Hillel Cohen, who runs the Ukrainian branch of the Hatzalah emergency services organization, was knifed in his leg and back as the attackers called him a “Zyhd” (Jew), the derogatory Russian slur for Jew and other unclear words which he said sounded like Russian, his wife was quoted say saying. “This was clearly an anti-Semitic attack,’’ she said.
http://www.ejpress.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48400
Well, you are right, Jews are spared for now, as they say.
2. No, I'am not aquainted with any Ukrainian neo-Nazi, praize allah! \(^_^)/
3. I fail to see how KGB is connected to fear of Nazis.
4. Appeal to age and experience does not make false deduction true, it's just a common fallacy http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/
5. Stating the obvious, but irrelevant facts about Putin and his clique, also does not reinforce yoir claim (KGB somehow connected with fear of Nazis), sorry it's just not work this way.
ps. Picture to attract attention
http://imageshack.com/a/img31/784/83g9.jpg
translation:
Saving yourselves is separatism!
Carpathia - hands off our passengers!
Titanic is one and undivided!
davidbfpo
03-15-2014, 09:08 PM
A Polish report on the "incursion":
About the event informed the Ukrainian senior managers. Ukrainian operations forces helicopters allocated and elements of the battalion aeromobilnego (8 carriers BTR with landings). Russian landing "repulsed", which probably means that persuasion was sufficient to withdraw the attackers.
Link:http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/aktualnosci/news,2,6541,aktualnosci-z-europy,pierwsza-ukrainsko-rosyjska-
OUTLAW 09
03-15-2014, 09:26 PM
mirhond---so let's see;
1. you know no Ukrainian neo Nazi's? But the Russian Foreign Ministry and even Putin argues they exist or at least that was the reason given "protecting" Crimean Russians was it not? Was it not the reason given yesterday and today by the same Foreign Ministry that stated a proRussian was killed in demos in Donetsk by right wing radicals when in fact he was a right wing proUkrainian
2. so are you then assuming that there are no neo Nazi's and neo fascists since evidently those terms have not been used by anyone in the current Russian government-right or do you have examples of them not using those words?
3. all previously known facts about Putin as a former KGB officer is what irrelevant as well as what the current FSB is irrelevant in the large ongoing disinformation campaign which I will be more than willing to show you how it works when a specific article was lanced today
4. your example of the attacked Jew---was he attacked by a Russian swearing neo right wing Ukrainian or a Russian swearing Russian Ukrainian or a what "ethnic Russian speaking Russian from where Russia---so which was it?
5. glad to see you read Haaretz at least it is left wing and not neo nazi
6. age and experience tends to give one a far more balanced opinion vs those that are not so experienced and aged---that is not a fallacy but rather a simple fact of life especially when one speaks of the SU days---spent time in the SU in 1973 where were you?
7. so the constant comments coming out of Putin, the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian UN Ambassador and the Russian Foreign Minster concerning neo rightists, right wing radicals and yes the term Nazi is not something that was say common standard vocabulary for the Communist Party and yes even the KGB since Stalin's days?
8. so is it irrelevant that the same individuals above call the current Ukrainian government illegal and yet the current Crimean government rep (who originally had only four votes in the Crimean parliament) was "elected" legally when the representatives of the 40% of the other minorities in the Crimea were not allowed to vote and there were armed personnel inside the building doing what "protecting" them from neo Nazi's who were no where to be seen
9. so the use of the word terrorists by Russians means what, jihadi's, neo right radicals or neo Nazi's?
The Russians said they had seized the pumping station out of fears it would be targeted by “terrorists,” according to a Ukrainian Defense Ministry official who declined to be named. (What they are afraid of is the Ukrainians actually turning off the gas to the Crimea which they can do when everyone there becomes Russian not Ukrainians---why would they keep delivering gas they have to pay Gazprom for when Russia can provide the gas for free when annexed.)
So in the end you I suppose you support the annexation of the Crimea to Russia instead of say returning it the Tartars who were slaughtered in the gulags as they were accused of being Nazi's by Stalin and then "allowed" to return who also speak Russian, but have not been mentioned by Putin as the main reason for "protecting" ethnic Russians. So I guess in the end Putin and the Russian Foreign Ministry is what "racist" because Russian speaking Tartars are not what "real" Russians"?
Mirhond:
Two posts already today. But then it's Saturday. No school. Of course that's here in the States. Maybe in Russia they have school on Saturday. If they do I hope you aren't cutting class.
mirhond
03-15-2014, 10:49 PM
mirhond---so let's see;
1. you know no Ukrainian neo Nazi's? But the Russian Foreign Ministry and even Putin argues they exist or at least that was the reason given "protecting" Crimean Russians was it not? Was it not the reason given yesterday and today by the same Foreign Ministry that a proRussian was killed in demos in Donetsk by right wing radicals when in fact he was a right wing proUkrainian
2. so are you then assuming that there are no neo Nazi's and neo fascists since evidently those terms have not been used by anyone in the current Russian government?
3. all previously known facts about Putin as a former KGB officer is what irrelevant as well as what the current FSB is irrelevant in the large ongoing disinformation campaign which I will be more than willing to show you how it works when a specific article was lanced today
4. your example of the attacked Jew---was he attacked by a Russian swearing neo right wing Ukrainian or a Russian swearing Russian Ukrainian or a what "ethnic Russian speaking Russian from where Russia---so which was it?
5. glad to see you read Haaretz at least it is left wing and not neo nazi
6. age and experience tends to give one a far more balanced opinion vs those that are not so experienced and aged---that is not a fallacy but rather a simple fact of life especially when one speaks of the SU days---spent time in the SU in 1973 where were you?
7. so the constant comments coming out of Putin, the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian UN Ambassador and the Russian Foreign Minster concerning neo rightists, right wing radicals and yes the term Nazi is not something that was say common standard vocabulary for the Communist Party and yes even the KGB since Stalin's days?
8. so is it irrelevant that the same individuals above call the current Ukrainian government illegal and yet the current Crimean government rep (who originally had only four votes in the Crimean parliament) was "elected" legally when the representatives of the 40% of the other minorities in the Crimea were not allowed to vote and there were armed personnel inside the building doing what "protecting" them from neo Nazi's who wee no where to be seen
So in the end you I suppose you support the annexation of the Crimea to Russia instead of say returning it the Tartars who were slaughtered in the gulags as they were accused of being nazi's by Stalin and then "allowed" to return who also speak Russian but have not been mentioned by Putin as the main reason for "protecting" ethnic Russians.
1.,2. I can swear on every holy scriptures in the world that I personally do not now any neo-Nazi character, if that is your qiestion. Why should I? But I suppose you are asking whether am I familliar with all this propaganda in Russian media? No, thanks, I'am fed up with this bull$hit. All I know there are real neo-Nazis now gaining some political ground in Kiev.
3. Hey, you are evading the subject - you have to show how KGB/FSB/Putin is connected to fear of Nazis. I personally kinda nervous about the whole concept of Nazism because I've learned from history that these guys surely wont give me, Slavic Untermensch, a candy. Well, if you blame KGB/FSB/Putin for my petty fear - you are far far away from truth.
4. I don't know and I don't care.
5. Actually I know this paper, I just cant stand the temptation to show you the unprobable claim of yours. :rolleyes:
6. Сдается мне, что вы советский еврей, обиженный на "тюрьму народов". Понимаю, но не принимаю. Well, if "balanced opinion" means probabilistic opinion - you are right about age and experience, but beware! There is a Middle Ground Fallacy, which lures unprepared mind into a position equally away from Truth and False! :D
7. merges with 3. All these officials may be jerks, but dont blame them, blame history for widespread hatred, cherished in Russia, towards anything labeled "Nazism".
8. 60% is a majority, yes? Voila, "democracy" at work!
Crimea belonged to Tatars? Wow, you are digging deep into history. May be hand it back to Goths, or even Greeks. then? Anyway, I don't care - another adventure of Putin & Co. does not affect me much. Of cause I'd like to see "polite troops" invading Vologodskaya, Tul'skaya or Bryanskaya Oblast', or any other struggling and depressive region of Russia, bringing along order, security and money, but I'am not Putin's political advisor. This guy wont give a $hit, either.
9. In Russian term "terrorist" says nothing about political platform, in English, I suppose, too.
ps. Putin& Co stole my country and I wish all of them painful and gruesome death. Dixi.
@carl You are pathetic, really.
Mirhond:
That's what my basketball coach used to say about me. It is what my girlfriend says about me now.
You guys should get together and go back over all your posts so you can keep your stories straight. When you switch off writers it is probably too difficult match the quality of the writing and style, but it shouldn't be that hard to keep your positions consistent. Putin good in one post, Putin bad in another. Bad form boys, bad form.
mirhond
03-16-2014, 09:11 AM
Mirhond:
That's what my basketball coach used to say about me. It is what my girlfriend says about me now.
Well, they are right. But are not completely lost to rational thinking, at least you have a girlfriend, it means you can communicate :D Try to attack my argument, not my "multiple" personality.
ps. Enjoy the rule of "street law" in Kiev
http://imageshack.com/a/img138/1642/iqdr.jpg
I believe these Sturmabteilung/Nazi will fascinate you. (Armbands are the hint)
OUTLAW 09
03-16-2014, 10:33 AM
mirhond---noticed you failed to answer point four of my previous response after you yourself listed the quoted article concerning the attacked Jewish Ukrainian.
So again who was behind the attack on the individual ---Russian speaking Ukrainians, Russian speaking Russian Ukrainians or actual Russia speaking Russians from Russia? From what you posted one would think that you are Ukrainian proRussian or even live in Russia.
Secondly, you are right you have truly multiple personalities so which is your actual persona when you write---anyone can sit back and write anything but what is your actual opinion because from your writings I am not so sure you even know---writing words anyone can do?
Thirdly--you actually have no arguments to attack that I can see from the rambling comments and photos.
Lastly, when you list photos it does help to have the date/time stamp on the photo itself because from the world I come from without that the photo is propaganda and says nothing---nothing more nothing less. By the way red arm bands can be worn by Ukrainians, Russian Ukrainians and yes even the KGB so your comment means nothing.
See---from the photo I could argue that the individuals are Russians from imported Russian cities or they are Russian Ukrainians for that matter Ukrainians or even Poles. And when was the photo taken in 1995, 2004, 2007 or say 2014 and where was it taken, Kiev or Donetsk or for that matter in the Crimea or heaven forbid photographed in Russia as there is no identifying point to say where the photo was taken-heck it could have been staged in Hollywood for that matter--come on.
Heck from the photos it could have been even the Ukrainian riot police from say 2010 as it appears not to be a road checkpoint, in fact it looks like a search of an illegal construction site somewhere in Russia---what/where did you think it was?
mirhond---get real when you write---propaganda is cheap.
OUTLAW 09
03-16-2014, 11:24 AM
mirhond---do you ever really read your own quoted articles?
Again reread your own quoted article---no wonder you did not answer my point four. Ranting is easy --defending one's own views really hard to do well if they are not your views.
mirhond---by the way your style, mimicking poor English abilities, poor use of photos as an argument and not reading your own quoted article (mis use of quoted material)supporting in theory your view leads me to believe what ---KGB/FSB or GRU? Why---you failed to ask me to show you a very specific lanced KGB/FSB article from yesterday which is a perfect depiction of their I/O operations that are currently going on in support of Putin.
Ira Forman, the US special envoy on anti-Semitism, dismissed Russian President Putin's claims that Ukrainian revolutionaries were Jew-haters.
"We have no indication that what President Putin has been saying about anti-Semitism has been a true reflection of what's happening on the ground," he said.
Ukraine is home of around 200,000 Jews and many are reported to have actively supported the revolution.
Putin has said that Russia's biggest concern was "the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev".
However, earlier this week, a leading Ukrainian rabbi said he saw no sign of hostility toward Jews from nationalists involved in last month's uprising but was cautious on whether there could be a rise in anti-Semitic threats.
Moshe Reuven Azman, a Chief Rabbi in Ukraine, told a press conference he was not aware of newanti-Semitic acts since Yanukovich's fall and had not heard anti-Jewish statements from leaders of extreme-right parties. He cautioned against speculation on the issue being "exploited" for political ends.
"There's no big, general Ukrainian problem," Azman said, playing down some instances of Jews being attacked in the street and the firebombing of a provincial synagogue during the past few months of protests. He contrasted post-Soviet Ukraine's tolerance with "official anti-Semitism" in Soviet times.
Of newly prominent movements like the paramilitary Right Sector, active in fighting police last month, he said: "I make a distinction between nationalism and Nazism. With nationalism, you love your own people. Nazism is when you hate others.
OUTLAW 09
03-16-2014, 11:56 AM
Firn---does not pulling your funds back to your own country actually short and long cut into your money as money especially large amounts are generally designed to earn more money not sit in a bank inside Russia---and then to pay demands-- costs more as you then need to pay transfer fees out of Russia so in effect the cost of doing business generally rockets for large amounts.
Also have you seen any movement of funds out of their sovereign funds?
Europe is waiting for the Rubel/their stock market blood bath tomorrow--maybe that is why a lot came home as well.
The move by the Russia Army to secure a pumping station tells me they are highly concerned the Ukraine will turn off the gas to the Crimea which is largely dependent on deliveries from the Ukraine.
OUTLAW 09
03-16-2014, 12:29 PM
mirhond---you failed to answer my question on the use of the term Nazi by the SU Communist Party, KGB/FSB/GRU and Putin as it seems to me to be still alive and well all these years after Stalin's death.
Check out this social media official Crimea sign using the term Nazi's ---so come on mirhond who do you work for?
https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/445152704772722688/photo/1
OUTLAW 09
03-16-2014, 03:51 PM
mirhond---check this form of democratic ballot stuffing by the "legal" Crimean government.
Right out of the KGB/FSB playbook and I guess it supports Putin's many statements of misbehaving Ukrainians threatening poor ethnic Russians.
Thousand of pre-stamped ballots which just need to be counted---you do not need voters. No wonder that 99.9% will be achieved even with a voting blockade by 40% of minorities..
Now with the upcoming Ukrainian new governmental elections the proRussia party will be short 1.5M voters
https://twitter.com/MannfredNikolai/status/444889858801016832/photo/1/large
mirhond
03-16-2014, 05:17 PM
@OUTLAW 09
mirhond---noticed you failed to answer point four of my previous response after you yourself listed the quoted article concerning the attacked Jewish Ukrainian.
So again who was behind the attack on the individual ---Russian speaking Ukrainians, Russian speaking Russian Ukrainians or actual Russia speaking Russians from Russia? From what you posted one would think that you are Ukrainian proRussian or even live in Russia.
You don't pay too much attention while reading, do you?
here is my answer from previous post
4. I don't know and I don't care.
Secondly, you are right you have truly multiple personalities so which is your actual persona when you write
Aww, another admirer of my magnificient multyperson, how sweet!
Why---you failed to ask me to show you a very specific lanced KGB/FSB article from yesterday which is a perfect depiction of their I/O operations that are currently going on in support of Putin.
Why should I ask? I owe you nothing. But if you insist, OK, please give me a link on your article.
Thirdly--you actually have no arguments to attack that I can see from the rambling comments and photos.
Really? Not even a single argument? Well, I think now its a Straw Man Fallacy, but OK, I'll do your job again:
So, Putin just spared two million people from civil war?
You may try to falsify this argument, for instance.
Lastly, when you list photos it does help to have the date/time stamp on the photo itself because from the world I come from without that the photo is propaganda and says nothing---nothing more nothing less. By the way red arm bands can be worn by Ukrainians, Russian Ukrainians and yes even the KGB so your comment means nothing.
Guys on the photo wear armbands of "Right Sector" - now legal Sturmabteilung.
You have had a traumatic experience with KGB, I suppose. Tough luck and pity that you still bear this burden. Can't help you with imaginary KGB agents stalking you everewhere.
-you failed to answer my question on the use of the term Nazi by the SU Communist Party, KGB/FSB/GRU and Putin as it seems to me to be still alive and well all these years after Stalin's death.
Careless reading again?
here is my answer from previous post
you have to show how KGB/FSB/Putin is connected to fear of Nazis. I personally kinda nervous about the whole concept of Nazism because I've learned from history that these guys surely wont give me, Slavic Untermensch, a candy. Well, if you blame KGB/FSB/Putin for my petty fear - you are far far away from truth.
Of newly prominent movements like the paramilitary Right Sector, active in fighting police last month, he said: "I make a distinction between nationalism and Nazism. With nationalism, you love your own people. Nazism is when you hate others.
O, sancta simplicitas! You belive everything these Sturmabteilung-wannabe say? OK, Right Sector is eclectic and not fiercely nationalistic, but they are not alone, there is Nazi-wannabe "Svoboda" running around. Lets make a glance at theirs documents http://www.svoboda.org.ua/dopysy/dopysy/013214/
Націоналізм як політична ідеологія означає вищу цінність нації як вічної кровно-духовної спільноти. Сьогодні український націоналізм постає у формі соціального націоналізму та ставить собі за мету соціальну та національну революцію в Україні, докорінну зміну політичного, економічного, етичного ладу. Соціал-націоналізм вимагає демонтажу ліберального режиму антинаціональної окупації, ліквідації олігархічного капіталізму, знищення етичної системи антинародного егоїзму та декадансу. Натомість соціал-націоналізм збудує націократичний політичний режим, соціально-справедливу та підпорядковану волі нації економіку, а також запровадить нову революційну націоналістичну етику.
Translation: I apologise in advance for for inconveniences ;)
Nationalism as political ideology means the utmost value of the nation as eternal cohesion in blood and spirit. Current Ukrainian nationalism is a form of social nationalism and it's goal is a national revolution in Ukraine and complete transformation of political, economic and ethic fabric of society.
Social nationalism means deconstruction of antinational liberal occupational regime, elimination of oligarchical capitalism and cessation of antinational ethical egoism and decadance. Instead, social nationalism will bring nation-oriented political regime, just and controlled economy andnew revolutionary nationalistic ethic.
Sounds familiar, isn't it? Well, you may say I'am playing a Hitler Card, yes I do, but in this case its not a fallacy.
There are TONS of food there, but I'am exausted. Take the trouble of finding it yourself.
@Firn
I asked the same poster twice for sources and arguments to make his case but he didn't deliver.
If you explain what case exactly I must deliver, I'll try.
If you want me to bring MOAR bull$it from Russian media for you to righteuosly squish it - I'll not do that.
If you want some alternative opinion from Russian and Ukrainian-speaking sources - I can do that, but think twice whether you really want it.
upd. Another video with kawaii Hitlerjugend from Western Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go4Wwjuzm-s
Translation from 2:12
"One Language, one Nation, one Fatherland - this is Ukraine!" "Hang the Muscowite!"
Again sounds familliar? "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" well, they have no decent Furher yet, but as i've said before, give them some time and money and they'll not dissapoint you.
jmm99
03-16-2014, 06:01 PM
They're going to multiply on you:
http://th02.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2013/040/6/5/mirhond_batch_1_by_pandonation-d5ucmx4.png
Regards
Mike
davidbfpo
03-16-2014, 06:19 PM
A background article, that starts with:
Western media are widely reporting that self-declared Crimean leader Sergei Aksyonov was an organised crime boss in the 1990s, with the nickname ‘Goblin.’ The link between crime and politics in Crimea seems to have caught Western media off guard, and yet abundant evidence of such links has been available for a long time from a variety of sources, including US diplomatic cables.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/taras-kuzio/crime-and-politics-in-crimea-Aksyonov-Goblin-Wikileaks-Cables
mirhond
03-16-2014, 06:51 PM
Check out this social media official Crimea sign using the term Nazi's ---so come on mirhond who do you work for?
check this form of democratic ballot stuffing by the "legal" Crimean government. ...Thousand of pre-stamped ballots which just need to be counted
1. I have checked, and already answered - we have knee-jerk negative reaction on anything labeled as Fascism/Nazism, consider it a backdoor to Soviet collective uncousiousness. I fail to understand why you so surprised. You haven't heard about WWII may be?
2. You use some kind of alternative logic? By Zeus, how you deducted that all these ballots are pre-stumped? From the one ballot sticked to a batch of ballots? May gods have mercy on you. I f you don't understand I'll explain - the presence of ONE pre-stumped ballot sticked to the batch of ballots does not NESSESARILY means that ALL ballots in a batch are pre-stumped. Is it so hard to understand?
@jmm99 I see the ranks of admirers of my magnificient multiperson are growing. Will I get minions and servants or even a personalised mural on the site homepage? :D
Firn---does not pulling your funds back to your own country actually short and long cut into your money as money especially large amounts are generally designed to earn more money not sit in a bank inside Russia---and then to pay demands-- costs more as you then need to pay transfer fees out of Russia so in effect the cost of doing business generally rockets for large amounts.
Also have you seen any movement of funds out of their sovereign funds?
Europe is waiting for the Rubel/their stock market blood bath tomorrow--maybe that is why a lot came home as well.
You make a key point. One of the most basic fundamentals is the trade-off between liquidity and return. The potential danger of a asset freeze and possibly the Russian state's demand for foreign currency has likely caused the capital pull. Under crisis conditions liquidity becomes king as the bank might get squeezed from two sides. Freezing a banks asset can bust it pretty quickly.
Overall the decision of those Russia companies makes it of course harder for them to do business in Europe and the US. Even without sanctions their integration into the Western capital markets looks threatened.
P.S: An interesting follow-up would be to see what happens to the two international subsidaries of Sberbank. Will they have enough liquidity and equity to handle themselves in a potentially hostile environment?
Even without sanctions I would understand a costumer to turn up rather sooner then later to shift out his deposits....
jmm99
03-16-2014, 10:00 PM
if you're a good girl, I give you this:
http://polizeros.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/potemkinvil.jpg
If you're a bad girl, I give you Detroit. :eek:
Regards
Mike
OUTLAW 09
03-16-2014, 10:02 PM
mirhond---your English has vastly improved now try German--- reference the use by Communists, Putin, and the KGB of the term fascists or some Communists even interchange the term with say Nazi.
Der Vorwurf des Faschismus gehrt zur klassischen russischen Propaganda. So rechtfertigt Moskau seit Jahrzehnten seine Militraktionen wie nun auch in der Ukraine.
So mirhond living like the days of say 1973 with rancid butter sold to you by the EU, using a steel pick to see which loaf of bread was as hard as a rock, cold apartments heated with even poorer brown coal, and waiting in line for hours only to be told that what ever it was is gone and now going back to that is what Progress?
So the Crimea and the dreams of the old SU are worth what--rancid butter come on mirhond this is the 21st century not the 1919 Revolution days.
So it appears you are basically agreeing below that is better to suffer conditions that might make Russians enjoy living in say Zambia which based on your comments has a better standard of living unless one is an oligarch, or a member of the Russian Mafia a former Communist or Putin.
"Poor us.
You are still deliberately ignoring the fact that we have lived with ####ed-up economy for 15 years. Almost everyone out there understand that all this burgeous pleasantries are temporary, almost everyone either have Plan B if things become hairy, or just don't care about future. We are tempered with endless economic fails, inferior governance and suffocating aura of lies. Even the food, water and electricity rationing won't destroy this system."
What will destroy the system as you mentioned is in fact just why Putin made his moves in the Ukraine---namely "the Street".
And if your English is as good as I know it is then you understand the term "the Street".
Let's see---a Ukraine taught Communism for say 45 years, a Ukraine that answered to the KGB for 45 years, a Ukraine that has the same oligarch system as Russia has, a Ukraine where the last President was hand picked by Russia/Putin and a Ukraine that was being bleed economically dry for Russia DID WHAT ---it kicked out a corrupt dictator and surprised WHO in the end--- Putin.
mirhond ---I forgot it was the last Ukrainian President was it not who packed his trucks full of money and fled like a what? to Russia did he not? Noticed you failed to mention that Putin in a recent comment even critiqued him as a poor leader did he not?
Ranting, raving and filling paper with words does not make a writer---- is an old Russian saying---the KGB saying is that it makes one a terrorist.
But then I know you know the KGB/FSB well do you not?
Come on dude get real.
AmericanPride
03-17-2014, 05:52 AM
And while Washington and Brussels debate sanctions and protest in the United Nations, Moscow continues with its plan to secure Crimea from Ukraine. Russia is not going to budge. Russia's decisive and rapid use of hard power overcame many years and millions of dollars of soft power invested by the United States. With the political situation in the country, is Ukraine any more likely to join NATO or the EU as it was before the fall of Yanukovych's government? I doubt it. And now the country is facing economic crisis and a significant military threat to its territorial integrity. Though I'm skeptical, this event should encourage us to reexamine the basic assumptions of our foreign policy.
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 06:27 AM
mirhond---I know you know this old Stalin/KGB saying;
"One person is a demonstration, Two people a riot and Three people a revolution"
So will the long line at your bank exchanging Rubels for USDs/Euros today be a demonstration, a riot or a revolution? What Progress?
By the way you forgot to mention that those that have a red banner on their arms could also be the old Guard Soviet auxiliary police---so they could have been communists right as their was nothing else in the photo to identify.
Have enjoyed your KGB propaganda---keep sending the articles and photos and your comments as it is easier to indicate where one is misleading.
Enjoy the waiting in line at your bank for the coming weeks--
And while Washington and Brussels debate sanctions and protest in the United Nations, Moscow continues with its plan to secure Crimea from Ukraine. Russia is not going to budge. Russia's decisive and rapid use of hard power overcame many years and millions of dollars of soft power invested by the United States. With the political situation in the country, is Ukraine any more likely to join NATO or the EU as it was before the fall of Yanukovych's government? I doubt it. And now the country is facing economic crisis and a significant military threat to its territorial integrity. Though I'm skeptical, this event should encourage us to reexamine the basic assumptions of our foreign policy.
Maybe. I think the more important question is if Ukraine and Poland are going to reexamine theirs.
Mirhond, me fine young fellows. I've only been gone a few hours and I see you have given up. You've gone from trying to convince us to simple name calling and bluster. Come on guy, you let a bunch of old men beat you. You gotta do better than that. I know that defending the siloviki is an almost impossible task but you can do better. Come on boys! Give it a go.
Again Americans. Now with their 2 UAV shot down in Crimea. All news in Russian. Sorry. Newsru finds info from Rosteh site, who blames Warsonline, which cites Anaga (who has heard about this site? Like Indian Patriot newspaper in the AIDS case?).
Newsru http://www.newsru.com/world/14mar2014/nopilotnik.html
Rosteh http://rostec.ru/news/4416
http://warsonline.info/ukraine/amerikanskiy-bespilotnik-mq-5b-perechvachen-v-nebe-nad-krimom.html
http://www.anaga.ru/sbit-mq-5b.html
Warsonline cites also to Crimean News. Local self defence forces (cover name for Russian units) and police unit Berkut saw first UAV and destroyed it.
http://warsonline.info/ukraine/nad-krimskim-perekopom-sbiti-dva-
http://komtv.org/21582-v-krymu-sbili-amerikanskij-bespilotnik/
Americans deny all.
http://www.ibtimes.com/pentagon-russian-reports-us-drone-intercepted-over-crimea-are-false-156157
mirhond
03-17-2014, 10:03 AM
if you're a good girl, I give you this:
Regards
Mike
Aww, Potyomkin's willage, thanks. Provided that you are good at history, I suppose you use the term ironically, because Potyomkin's willages were actual willages, not just empty carcasses with fancy frontfaces, and the term itself was invented to frame Potyomkin.
@OUTLAW 09
So mirhond living like the days of say 1973 with rancid butter sold to you by the EU, using a steel pick to see which loaf of bread was as hard as a rock, cold apartments heated with even poorer brown coal, and waiting in line for hours only to be told that what ever it was is gone and now going back to that is what Progress?
Slippery Slope Fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
None of these terrrible things happened, yet.
What will destroy the system as you mentioned is in fact just why Putin made his moves in the Ukraine---namely "the Street".
I prefer marxist term "masses", besides "the Street" is useless against Putin &Co. I participated in 2011 winter protests, so when I came closer to a line of internal security troops, I discovered some dead-eyed guys who will spray the crowd with automatic gunfire without second thought. So, I'am quit. That's why "The Street" has nothing to do with current regime. Old-skool popular revolution has.
So it appears you are basically agreeing below that is better to suffer conditions that might make Russians enjoy living in say Zambia
I can't say for every Russian, but I, personally, would rather be mizerable, opressed but alive than free but dead.
Let's see---a Ukraine taught Communism for say 45 years
I've just made a historical discover! As far as I know, Ukraine was de-facto part of USSR from the wery beginning at 1922.
Ranting, raving and filling paper with words does not make a writer---- is an old Russian saying---the KGB saying is that it makes one a terrorist.
Ad Hominem Fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Again, try to attack my argument, not my personality.
Enjoy the waiting in line at your bank for the coming weeks--
Appeal to Consequence of Belief Fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html
Besides, my bank account is empty, I live from paycheck to paycheck, I have it in cash and I always pay cash. Banking may go to hell :p
I know you know this old Stalin/KGB saying;
"One person is a demonstration, Two people a riot and Three people a revolution"
No, never heard this. Provide a source, please.
By the way you forgot to mention that those that have a red banner on their arms could also be the old Guard Soviet auxiliary police
Who have a red banner?:eek: Are you talking about the photo with Sturmabteilung or about the video with Hitlerjugend? If I missed something, please, correct me.
carl, do you even understand what fallacy is? You are the native English-speaker, you must know the term.
Please, read the http://www.fallacyfiles.org/whatarff.html it will discipline your mind, improve your thinking, reasoning and arguing skills. Or start from fighting cognitive biaseshttp://www.overcomingbias.com/about at least you will be aware of it. Learn from Firn - his statements usually probabilistic, it means he is a good rationalist.
Mirhond,
How long do you think people should have lived in an area - such as Crimea - before they can vote in such a referendum?
mirhond
03-17-2014, 10:30 AM
Mirhond,
How long do you think people should have lived in an area - such as Crimea - before they can vote in such a referendum?
I have no idea, too much hidden variables. What's the common practice? Provided that a person has a legal residential status - no less than five years, I believe.
OK, sounds good.
Now should that person be a citizen of that country or can any passport holder from a neighbouring country arrive and vote?
I have no idea, too much hidden variables. What's the common practice? Provided that a person has a legal residential status - no less than five years, I believe.
mirhond
03-17-2014, 10:53 AM
OK, sounds good.
Now should that person be a citizen of that country or can any passport holder from a neighbouring country arrive and vote?
Who's passport holder at the first plase in this particular case? Non-resident, tourist, visitor? Or a compatriot who just lives abroad for a long time? Give a narrow definition, please.
1600 GMT: While Russia is presenting the referendum today as a move to save the region from neo-Nazis, a large number of the ‘independent observers’ spotted monitoring the vote today come from Europe’s extreme right.
A sample of the far right figures here includes:
Bela Kovacs – a Hungarian MEP for the neo-Nazi Jobbik party.
Aymeric Chauprade – a nationalist, pro-Russian political theorist and member of France’s far-right Front National, whose leader, Marine Le Pen has supported Russia’s stance on Ukraine and condemned “extremists” in the Maidan movement.
Frank Creyelman – a Belgian MEP for the far-right Vlaams Belang party (formerly Vlaams Blok).
Ewald Johann Stadler – an MEP in the late Jörg Haider’s Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (Alliance for the Future of Austria).
Luc Michel – active with various neo-nazi groups in Belgium and is a supporter of Eduard Limonov’s National Bolshevik party.
Others include communists or those with nostalgic sympathies for the Soviet Union such as Angourakis and Al-Sabty, or those with extremely close ties to United Russia such as Johan Bäckman. Bäckman is a finish Finnish political activist who has been involved with pro-Russian actions in both Finland and Estonia, including involvement with Nashi activity.
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-27-referendum-day/
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 11:53 AM
mirhond---if you did not know this common former Communist saying then you were born what after say 1995---even your parents still know it---come on dude---it is still the internal saying for the KGB/MoI riot police today in Moscow in the 21st century
I know you know this old Stalin/KGB saying;
"One person is a demonstration, Two people a riot and Three people a revolution"
Secondly, you are right if you were born after say 1995 you would have never seen the red arm bans of the soviet auxiliary police who were communist party members.
Cannot fault you for not knowing what you do not know but then again you seen to not be so well informed of what is going on inside of your own country.
Dayuhan
03-17-2014, 11:56 AM
Give a narrow definition, please.
Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 12:02 PM
kaur---the UAV shoot down reports are manufactured KGB/FSB disinformation for several reasons;
The UAV named by the Russian private electronic warfare company Rostec indicated that it was a Hunter UAV which is a larger version of the Shadow which allows for great loiter time---using their own designation the following are questions they did not answer.
1. just what is a Russian private company doing working in the Crimea together with Russian troops
2. the range of the Hunter is 125 miles and even with a strong tail wind out of Bavaria where they claimed it was launched it would have not even come close to be over the Crimea
3. the US Army unit mentioned is based in Darmstadt and has no Hunters assigned to it
4. the Hunter could have been launched by a US Navy ship but there is only one destroy in the immediate area of the Crimea and it carries no Hunters
5. if this UAV is jammed as Rostec claimed and receives no ground signal it goes into a recovery loiter mode which is pre programed prior to start for another area other than what it is flying over then if jammed it goes into the recover to loiter area mode---if it then runs out of fuel during loiter mode a parachute deploys lowering it to the ground.
So all in all the story has no legs and is a blatant misinformation effort by the KGB/FSB.
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 12:10 PM
kaur---you bring up a good point about the observers---many were from EU communist/left parties even out of Germany and a lot were neo rightist/separatists and neo Nazi's WHY would be the question after the Russian FM, the Foreign Ministry, and Putin and the Russian propaganda machine beats up daily on Ukrainian because they are neo radials/right wing Nazi's.
Answer is rather simple but overlooked--they come from parties that are seen as separatists in their own countries thus lending credibility to the separatists in the Crimea----sometime communists and Putin is one never seem to change the color of their beliefs.
If one looks at a circle of violence going from right to left at some point on that circle both cross each other in their desires (to take over the State by discrediting it) and wants then they move on to violence both left and right.
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 01:25 PM
mirhond---now tell me the former KGB/Putin does not "rule" Russia and Putin does not have a KGB "history" and do not tell me his inner circle is not KGB.
18 Sep 2007
Siloviki take reins in post-oligarchy era
Russia's "siloviki" - the network of former and current state-security officers - maintain an unprecedented level of control over political and economic life, and are likely to consolidate that power in the upcoming elections. From RFE/RL.
By Victor Yasmann for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hubbub surrounding Russia's upcoming Duma elections in December and the March 2008 presidential election swung into high gear this month, but the key question is not whether the country will take a new direction but rather how will the status quo, the existing arrangement of political forces, be maintained.
Virtually all key positions in Russian political life - in government and the economy - are controlled by the so-called "siloviki," a blanket term to describe the network of former and current state-security officers with personal ties to the Soviet-era KGB and its successor agencies.
The unexpected replacement of former Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov by former Federal Financial Monitoring Service Director Viktor Zubkov is the latest consolidation of this group's grip on power in Russia. Although Zubkov is not an intelligence officer by background, he has become one de facto during his years at the Financial Monitoring Service, and he has intimate knowledge of where the country's legal and illegal assets are to be found.
The core of the siloviki group, led by former KGB officer and Federal Security Service (FSB) Director Vladimir Putin himself, comprises about 6,000 security-service alumni who entered the corridors of power during Putin's first term. Now, as Putin's second term winds down, their clout is virtually unassailable. Their locus of power is in the presidential administration: deputy chief of staff Igor Sechin cut his teeth in the KGB's First Main Directorate, which oversaw foreign intelligence operations and has since been transformed into the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). Fellow deputy chief of staff Viktor Ivanov worked for the KGB's main successor organization, the FSB, which is responsible for counterintelligence operations.
mirhond
03-17-2014, 01:29 PM
Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized
OK, got it. So, back toJMA question, citizen can vote on referendum, while non-citizen can not.
@OUTLAW 09
mirhond---if you did not know this common former Communist saying then you were born what after say 1995---even your parents still know it---come on dude---it is still the internal saying for the KGB/MoI riot police today in Moscow in the 21st century
Wishful Thinking Fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html
Your claim about my age or knowledge may not NESSESARILY be true just because you believe its true.
I'am actually 1978 born, but I've never heard that saying. I could even send you a copy of my ID, but it won't change your belief - you already labelled me as "KGB agent". I think it would even reinforce your false belief, because "KGB agent" may have a handful of fake IDs.
Secondly, you are right if you were born after say 1995 you would have never seen the red arm bans of the soviet auxiliary police who were communist party members.
Cannot fault you for not knowing what you do not know but then again you seen to not be so well informed of what is going on inside of your own country.
So tell me, O, Well-Informed user, what is a soviet auxiliary police with red armbands, whom I've never seen in my childhood? And provide a link, please. May be you mean "druzhinniki" volunteers? Well, yes, those guys did wear red armbands. But I fail to see how are those long-extinct species from distant past connected with modern Ukrainian Sturmabteilug which has a easily distinctive black and red armbands with "правий сектор" insignia?
mirhond---now tell me the former KGB/Putin does not "rule" Russia and Putin does not have a KGB "history" and do not tell me his inner circle is not KGB.
Well, that's just another rethological fallacy, though I'am not sure of what kind. You really think I would state the outright and blatant lie so that you'll vigorously attack and dismiss it? I'am a KGB agent, after all, you can't expect I'd do such a stupid thing ^_^
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 01:37 PM
mirhond---can you explain to us just how it is "possible" that while Russia condemns neo Nazi's and radical right wingers in the Ukraine the following neo Nazi's and radical right wingers participated in "democratic" elections in the Crimea---just how did they get on when Russia "stopped" all traffic from the Ukraine entering into the Crimea out of "fear" of terror attacks by the Ukrainian neo Nazi's.
Seems like you all have double standards when it fits your argument does it not?
Come on dude get a better argument and stop ranting and raving as most seven year olds have on any given day better arguments .
1600 GMT: While Russia is presenting the referendum today as a move to save the region from neo-Nazis, a large number of the ‘independent observers’ spotted monitoring the vote today come from Europe’s extreme right.
A sample of the far right figures here includes:
Bela Kovacs – a Hungarian MEP for the neo-Nazi Jobbik party.
Aymeric Chauprade – a nationalist, pro-Russian political theorist and member of France’s far-right Front National, whose leader, Marine Le Pen has supported Russia’s stance on Ukraine and condemned “extremists” in the Maidan movement.
Frank Creyelman – a Belgian MEP for the far-right Vlaams Belang party (formerly Vlaams Blok).
Ewald Johann Stadler – an MEP in the late Jörg Haider’s Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (Alliance for the Future of Austria).
Luc Michel – active with various neo-nazi groups in Belgium and is a supporter of Eduard Limonov’s National Bolshevik party.
Hope they did not "infect" the democratic people of the Crimea with their views while they were there.
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 01:51 PM
mirhond---come on man---born in 1978 and how old by 1995 when the Red Army withdrew from the GDR what 17/18 and you never heard of that saying--where were you in the SU---in Minsk or Moscow? Know you had to have been in the Communist Youth Movement and still you did not hear the saying?
That is like Rostec recently stating they downed an American drone which they identified as a Hunter over the Crimea which was launched from Barvaria. By the way the photo they showed is similar to your photo (it showed a drone carrying missiles) and the Hunter does not carry missiles.
This is what I meant by using photos and only portions out of quoted articles "that allude" to your arguments--- any information can be used in any way---just depends on the person creating the "story" and how he "wants" to "sell" the story--much like you do.
If you "bought" that story (since the Hunter has a range of only 125miles) then I will be more than happy to sell you the TV tower here in Berlin Mitte.
It is kind of like you baiting against neo Nazi's in the Ukraine, but then cheering them on in the Crimea as "election observers" of a "democratic election".
You did I suppose not see the CCN video footage of an individual dropping TWO ballots into the electoral boxes---guess that was what "Crimean democracy" at work.
Come on get real---double street driving is really hard sometimes.
Outlaw, that Anaga site says that about UAV-s that during first days of March, US brigade was dispatched to Ukrainian city Kirovograd. From that location UAV's are monitoring Crimea and Russian administrative districts bordering Ukraine.
В первых числах марта бригада была перебазирована в украинский Кировоград, откуда её беспилотники совершают разведывательные полёты над Крымом и над приграничными с Украиной российскими областями.
http://www.anaga.ru/sbit-mq-5b.html
Russians have used this kind of observers also in Abhazia. If someone can read Russian, then here is little overview http://www.apsny.ge/analytics/1315245909.php
About Ukraine 1 more article in Russian http://noborders.org.ua/ru/sfery-deyatelnosti/ksenofobyya/za-porochaschej-ukraynu-kampanyej-stoyt-razvetvlennaya-prorossyjskaya-set/
Last comment in English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Mirhond:
Ok, you guys are doing better now. For the last several posts you've had a good English writer doing the posts. That is important on this site. When you guys go over to a college age site the 'I'm a poor speaker of English' bit will get you some sympathy, but not around here. Old guys don't fall for that so easy.
But you are still making some errors more suited to a college age site. For example, you claim to have participated in some demonstrations. Again, college age girls will swoon over that, 'Oh, he's so dreamy.'. But here we figure it's just a barroom brag. We just nod our heads and say 'Yea right.'
Next, mix things up a little. Lately you've been trotting out one 'fallacy' after another. It reads like your lead guy gave your best English writer a list of 'fallacies' to emphasize. Or barring that, 'fallacy' was the last chapter you studied on one of your classes. You're seeing zebras. (extra points if you get that reference.)
So all in all, you are doing a little better. But still not good enough. Remember you have a tradition and reputation to uphold. Here in the West we are conditioned to think of you guys as Moscow Centre, Karla, the guys who ran Kim Philby, the Walker ring and all that. We haven't been associating you with lazy and clumsy. Come on man! You can do better. Vlad and the other siloviki are counting on you!
Art by Moscow artist Budaev.
mirhond
03-17-2014, 03:09 PM
mirhond---can you explain to us just how it is "possible" that while Russia condemns neo Nazi's and radical right wingers in the Ukraine the following neo Nazi's and radical right wingers participated in "democratic" elections in the Crimea---just how did they get on when Russia "stopped" all traffic from the Ukraine entering into the Crimea out of "fear" of terror attacks by the Ukrainian neo Nazi's.
Seems like you all have double standards when it fits your argument does it not?
Double standarts is completly OK in Politics, as you know. Well, if you don't know this - it's bad for you, you might be greatly disappointed with reality.
May be you still believe in ethic and moral standarts in politics?
Anyway, I'd be grateful if you at least try to falsify my arguments and disprove evidences which I posted here.
While Russia is presenting the referendum today as a move to save the region from neo-Nazis, a large number of the ‘independent observers’ spotted monitoring the vote today come from Europe’s extreme right.
A sample of the far right figures here includes:
OK, you spotted a dozen of bad guys, but what about other observers? Are they also extreme right or left or pro-Russian or in other way unreliable? If no, well, it's a spotlight fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spotlight_fallacy
Lately you've been trotting out one 'fallacy' after another.
@carl I have to. What else can I do to prevent you from throwing one fallaciuos argument after another? Besides, if you'll start reading stuff and getting smarter I'll consider my mission accomplished :rolleyes: It's your compatriots, best Western minds wright all that wonderful articles and books about rationality - will you dismiss it just because some anonimous bad guy uses it? I hope you not.
You're seeing zebras. (extra points if you get that reference.) Nope, I didn't. Could you explain?
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 03:31 PM
mirhond---what argument?---the only one you seem to throw out is the Nazi argument that all of the Ukraine are Nazi's---and yet you refuse to respond to the question on just why you accept Nazi's in the Crimea but when they are in the Ukraine you flip out.
Cut out the sidestep in your double standards comment---it was just sidestepping--you simply did not answer a rather direct question did you not?
Come on man ---get one argument at least correct and do not try to create an argument that really is not one by trying to impress yourself.
1. you still have not stated why you accept Nazi's in the Crimea---strange double standard for a country that claims that it was a "mistreated Russian population at the hands of Ukrainian Nazi's" that triggered this whole problem
2. you use a newspaper article to quote the "mistreatment of Ukrainian Jews" when the article said the opposite and yet you persist in only taking "selected" sentences that you perceive supports your view and YET overlook the entire article---GO back and reread your own article.
3. you claim to be Russian yet know no political sayings that would reflect you even understand your own society and its development or yet grew up in that society---maybe you are just apolitical which does happen these days and is OK
4. you provide a photo that yet anyone could have created--as it is not dated which happens with most digital cameras these days-did you see the leg protection worn by one of the pictured men--- was exactly that worn by the Burkat----you did see that right?
5. for every article you find I can show you an article written by a number of individuals many of whom were Ukrainian Afghanistan veterans stating that there have been over 21 reports of Russian Spetnaz personnel inside the Ukraine---from your own great research you did see those reports correct?
So come on mirhond get real---restate each argument in a coherent fashion, and provide then your evidence tied to each of your so called arguments point by point using 1, then 2, then 3 because right now you are all over the map my friend.
EXAMPLE:---You beat up on Ukrainian neo Nazi's but then when confronted with "evidence" as you call it which some of us would call reality then you shift your response and sidestep---come on mirhond stay with one argument and then counter what you get as a response back otherwise one would call what you are doing as misinformation nothing more nothing less my friend. The sentence that started with "Are they also extreme..... is a great example of how you suddenly change directions when confronted with a counter point to your initial argument.
Is that what they taught you in debate/journalism/military classes?
"OK, you spotted a dozen of bad guys, but what about other observers? Are they also extreme right or left or pro-Russian or in other way unreliable? If no, well, it's a spotlight fallacy".
"Anyway, I'd be grateful if you at least try to falsify my arguments and disprove evidences which I posted here."
Mirhond:
It's too soon to give you a grade for today. I'll check back at the end of the day. A hint though, disconnected sentences and open ended rhetorical questions do well in the college lounges.
One thing you are doing well at though is leading the discussion away from what the siloviki state is actually doing and what we should be doing in response. So good on you for that.
No extra points for you if you don't know what seeing zebras means.
@kaur: Only a little snippet about the 'international observer' Fabrizio Bertot, the Italian guy on that all-star list. From Il Quotidiano Piemontese (http://www.quotidianopiemontese.it/2012/05/22/il-comune-di-rivarolo-canavese-sciolto-dal-governo-per-mafia/#.):
Il comune di Rivarolo Canavese stato sciolto per mafia. Il Consiglio dei Ministri ha approvato lo scioglimento del Consiglio comunale del comune, dopo la relazione del ministro dellInterno ai sensi della normativa antimafia. Nei documenti dellinchiesta Minotauro risultava che il sindaco Fabrizio Bertot, candidato alle Europee nel 2009 e alcuni esponenti delle ndrine locali si fossero accordati per raccogliere voti e farlo eleggere. Lo scioglimento di Rivarolo arriva pochi mesi dopo quello disposto dal Viminale per il comune di Leini. La Commissione Antimafia al lavoro anche a proposito del comune di Chivasso per cui ha chiesto una proroga dei tempi di indagine che scadr a luglio.
Basically the dear Fabrizio Bertot, who was major of Rivarolo Canavese worked togheter with local heads of the 'Nrangheta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Ndrangheta) to collect votes for his 2009 campaign to become a deputy of the European parliament. The whole village council with him as major was thrown out in 2012 'per mafia' and put under direct political control. That is a rare feat in Northern Italy were the various 'mafia' clans had difficulties to get themselves established. He is unsurprisingly a party member of our small criminal clown who had regular sex with various underaged prostitutes. :rolleyes:
So after having bought votes with the help of the local mob to get himself elected he helped now the local seperatists lead by 'Goblin' an (ex)-criminal to 'observe' an illegal referendum. Maybe he had some tips to give on how to buy votes and likely took some money for his brave efforts...
He might need some money to win the reelection to keep his parliamentary immunity for now. The prefettura has already taken the first steps (http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2013/11/23/incandidabilita-aperto-procedimento-contro-europarlamentare-pd-il-suo-comune-sciolto-per-mafia/786694/) in the case against him. Let's hope that the Italian justice moves much faster then usual to first deny his entry and then to throw him into the place where he belongs.
Another explanation for his help in the Crimea might be the hope that he gets political asylum in Russia after suffering from the prosecution of fascist bandits in Italia for his heoric efforts for the freedom of Crimea...
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 03:53 PM
kaur---reference the newspaper article;
1. first of all no US intelligence brigade which is what the first reporting called it ie 66 MI Group has been moved anyway outside of Germany--that is not how the US Army works---you would have seen reporting out of Germany indicating the movement of a brigade .
By the way a brigade is approximately anywhere from 2500 to 4000 individuals and you certainly would have had Ukrainian reporting if that many Americans had showed up.
2. again the only photo depicted in the article was one of a flying UAV/drone when in fact Restec claimed to actually have downed it---if one has it then show it which they did not which makes it a false flag misinformation attempt by the KGB/FSB
3. when Restec quoted the actual designation of the UAV/drone (it was what we call the Hunter--by the way the Hunter is actually assigned to a Division not a brigade another mistake in the article and showed the only photo (a flying drone) which depicted a drone with missiles-- the Hunter does not and has never carried missiles
If you look at misinformation it comes in three different flavors white, grey and black---this report is in the grey area is it attempts to mix truth with falsehoods. IE drone/missiles/US intelligence/moved to Ukraine to support neo Nazi's that illegally took over the government/threatening the Crimea.
All in order to prove to the Crimean's and Russians that see NATO and the US is causing the entire problem and thus are the core threat and are supporting as well all those neo Nazi's in the Ukraine who are "beating up and mistreating our loyal Russian brothers who need protection".
In some aspects this is the same technique that mirhond who has been blogging here is using. First setting an argument, then shifting when challenged and then resetting the initial argument when it was responded to---always moving the argument and supporting evidence is one element of a misinformation campaign all the while still trying to make it sound like neo Nazi's were the cause for everything.
jmm99
03-17-2014, 04:08 PM
I participated in 2011 winter protests, so when I came closer to a line of internal security troops, I discovered some dead-eyed guys who will spray the crowd with automatic gunfire without second thought. So, I'am quit.
Once upon a time in the West ...
http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/flowerpower.jpg
Admittedly, we suck at the Art of Coercion (http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Coercion-Accumulation-Management/dp/023170240X).
Regards
Mike
Firn and Outlaw, thanks for comments.
Couple more observers.
Zhdanok became politically active in the late 1980s, at first a member of the Popular Front, she soon became one of the leaders of the Interfront, a political organization opposing Latvia's independence from the Soviet Union and market reforms. Prior to that, she taught mathematics at the University of Latvia, where she received her doctorate in mathematics in 1992. In 1989, she was elected to the Riga city Soviet, and in 1990, to the Supreme Soviet of the Latvian SSR. Zhdanok was also active with the Communist Party of Latvia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatjana_%C5%BDdanoka
Bckman
Nashi protests in Helsinki[edit]
Bckman arranged the "Nashi-protest" on 23 March 2009. The handful of demonstrators were the focus of attention for about 40 representatives of the media.[38]
In March 2009 Bckman as part of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee arranged a series of protests in Helsinki attended by activists of Russian Nashi, Night Watch, against what they called the opening [of] a new anti-Russian front of information warfare on the territory of Finland by [the] Estonian embassy. Also Abdullah Tammi and his followers from the prospective Finnish Islamic Party participated. The protests were aimed against seminars, against a book about the Soviet occupation of Estonia, and against films presented by the Estonian embassy in Finland, especially the film Soviet Story by Edvins Snore.[38] In media commentaries for Swedish, Finnish and Russian press, television and radio, Bckman claimed that the Soviet Union did not occupy Estonia, and belittled the significance of the Soviet deportations from Estonia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_B%C3%A4ckman
95% vote in Crimea for becoming part of the siloviki state. Putin and the boys aren't even trying to make it look good anymore, it's just a straight up power play.
AdamG
03-17-2014, 05:12 PM
Has Putin begun undoing the collapse of the Soviet Union, much like Stalin did to undo the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?
Many Americans have trouble understanding modern Russia or leader Vladimir Putin. That’s in good part because they have little or no understanding of Russia’s history or geopolitics.
“The Soviets Union will return” I wrote in 1991 after the collapse of the USSR deprived the Russian imperium of a third of its territory, almost half its people and much of its world power.
A similar disaster for Russia occurred in 1918 at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Defeated by the German-Austrian-Bulgarian-Turkish Central Powers in World War I and racked by revolution, Lenin’s new Bolshevik regime bowed to German demands to hand over the Baltic states and allow Ukraine to become independent.
As soon as Josef Stalin consolidated power, he began undoing the Brest-Litovsk surrender. The Baltic states, Ukraine, the southern Caucasus and parts of “Greater Romania” were reoccupied. Half of Poland again fell under Russian control. Stalin restored his nation to its pre-war 1914 borders, killing millions in the process.
http://www.unz.com/emargolis/another-anschluss-in-crimea/
AdamG
03-17-2014, 05:17 PM
Mirhond:
It's too soon to give you a grade for today. I'll check back at the end of the day. A hint though, disconnected sentences and open ended rhetorical questions do well in the college lounges.
One thing you are doing well at though is leading the discussion away from what the siloviki state is actually doing and what we should be doing in response. So good on you for that.
No extra points for you if you don't know what seeing zebras means.
Russian Web Brigade? Tee hee.
"The web brigades(Russian: Веб-бригады )[1] are alleged astroturfing groups linked to the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. They are purported to be teams of commentators that participate in political blogs and Internet forums to promote disinformation and prevent free discussions of undesirable subjects"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
AdamG
03-17-2014, 05:24 PM
Not that the US doesn't practice "Wag The Dog" (from the USS Maine to Kosovo), but here's a take on the Russian spin.
Getting the real story of what is going on in Ukraine is hard enough. And the Russian media seems intent on making it even harder.
With Russian forces controlling Crimea and with Moscow contemplating further military action in Ukraine, Russian media and leading political figures have been shrill in their denunciations of "fascists" in Kyiv and their claims of anti-Semitic incidents, of attacks on ethnic Russians in the eastern reaches of Ukraine, and of floods of beleaguered refugees streaming across the border into Russia.
But much of this information is demonstrably false, emerging from unsourced media reports, then making its way into the statements of Russian politicians, and even into Western media reports. Events are echoing the 1997 U.S. film "Wag the Dog," in which spin-doctors use the media to whip up support for a nonexistent war.
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-big-lie-ukraine/25286568.html
See also
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=153647#post153647
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 05:44 PM
Adam---you make a point that I made over on the blog side--this is not about a sphere of influence---this is a doctrine meaning he will take back any state that he can claim has Russian citizens residing in ---ie the Baltics, Hungary, eastern portion of Poland and expand deeper into Moldavia and Georgia and to a degree if one expanded the doctrine I guess it could in theory be even Berlin since there is a sizable group here as well.
Many Americans do not get it as it has been relatively peaceful in Europe since 1995 and the Cold War only a memory.
He has openly stated his hatred of the dissolving of the old SU, his inner circle is former and active KGB/FSB and he himself was a COL in Dresden GDR---do not for a moment think he is a dove and a peacenik.
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 05:52 PM
mirhond---since you seem to think photos are evidence here is a link from the Crimea today that shows the same shin guards being wore by Russian military personnel that seem to be shown in the photo you used for neo Nazi's in the Ukraine.
Also worn by the Burkat---so were they really Nazi's or really Russians or what the heck maybe Chinese?
https://twitter.com/sia_vlasova/status/445524601850716161/photo/1
So now give me an argument that counters the shin guards being worn in both photos since you are into arguments and evidence.
By the way mirhond the same photo proves the entire Russian government and Putin blatantly lied that there were NO Russian military in the Crimea--come on now mirhond DISPROVE this photo. Seems the civilian defense groups got a new set of uniforms did they not?
Hope you saved your USDs and Euros.
Outlaw 09:
And the key to combating them is stressing their economy like you and Firn have been saying. Those guys are not good at making things, not good at economies. We can do it. We'll see if we have the nerve. Putin and the boys do have nerve.
mirhond
03-17-2014, 05:59 PM
the only one you seem to throw out is the Nazi argument that all of the Ukraine are Nazi's---and yet you refuse to respond to the question on just why you accept Nazi's in the Crimea but when they are in the Ukraine you flip out.
1. Straw Man Fallacy again. Show me the exact quotation where I call all Ukrainian Nazis.
2. From what premiss you deducted that I accepted "Nazi's in the Crimea"?
Cut out the sidestep in your double standards comment---it was just sidestepping--you simply did not answer a rather direct question did you not?
OK, you are right, it was a sidestep. So, your question is
how it is "possible" that while Russia condemns neo Nazi's and radical right wingers in the Ukraine the following neo Nazi's and radical right wingers participated in "democratic" elections in the Crimea, right?
Well, its just happened. How? By will of the political leaders. You may question the reality, but it is here. Your question is rethoric. Is my answer satisfactory? Besides, why you didn't just asked "why" it's happened?
Come on man ---get one argument at least correct.
I already gave you one.
So, Putin just spared two million people from civil war?
You may try to falsify this argument, for instance. And don't ask me to reword this claim, so that you can easily attack it, I'am not going to make your job so easy :) (I myself see the flaw in that claim, why you, "old and expiriensed man" fail to see it?)
you use a newspaper article to quote the "mistreatment of Ukrainian Jews" when the article said the opposite and yet you persist in only taking "selected" sentences that you perceive supports your view and YET overlook the entire article---GO back and reread your own article.
OK, you caught me, I was manipulating the context.
you claim to be Russian yet know no political sayings that would reflect you even understand your own society and its development or yet grew up in that society---maybe you are just apolitical which does happen these days and is OK
1. By Gods, why I OUGHT to know THAT particular saying from the days of yore?
2. What kind of alternative logic you use again to to deduct my cluelesness in current affairs from my ignorance of particular saying? :eek:
you provide a photo that yet anyone could have created--as it is not dated which happens with most digital cameras these days-did you see the leg protection worn by one of the pictured men--- was exactly that worn by the Burkat----you did see that right?
1.I'll give you a hint - you may SWITCH OFF that feature on camera :wry:
2. Obviously that guy got leg gear from dead body of Berkut, or bought it in the shop. Why don't you ask where is he got his armband?
for every article you find I can show you an article written by a number of individuals many of whom were Ukrainian Afghanistan veterans stating that there have been over 21 reports of Russian Spetnaz personnel inside the Ukraine---from your own great research you did see those reports correct?
OK, provide at least one link, non-partisan and bull$hit-free.
EXAMPLE:---You beat up on Ukrainian neo Nazi's but then when confronted with "evidence" as you call it which some of us would call reality then you shift your response and sidestep---come on mirhond stay with one argument and then counter what you get as a response back otherwise one would call what you are doing as misinformation nothing more nothing less my friend. The sentence that started with "Are they also extreme..... is a great example of how you suddenly change directions when confronted with a counter point to your initial argument.
I lost your point. Example of what? What "evidence" are you talking about? from what I sidestepped?
Give a link or quotation, as I do every time I post anything, have some quotation discipline.
Is that what they taught you in debate/journalism/military classes?
"OK, you spotted a dozen of bad guys, but what about other observers? Are they also extreme right or left or pro-Russian or in other way unreliable? If no, well, it's a spotlight fallacy".
"Anyway, I'd be grateful if you at least try to falsify my arguments and disprove evidences which I posted here."
1. Who are "they"? No I'am self educated, thanks to Eliezer Yudkovski and Paul Graham.
2. What part of my answer you don't like and consider sidestepping? Please explain. You posted a list with a dosen right/Nazi international observers - OK, I trust you blindly, they are the "bad guys", then I asked you about other observers - for no answer. So, which rule prohibits me from asking a clarification question and why is it sidestepping?
upd. Enjoy another video:
Ukrainian BMD rolling over pro-Russian civilians somewhere around Doneztk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3c2e-8ooqk
Disclaimer: nobody got killed or hurt, just a little psycological damage. May be it's because none of those common folks wants to be a dead hero.
Speaking of stressing them, how about this, only half unserious.
You can tell how a country is doing by which way the mail order brides flow. They do not flow into Russia. So this is what we do. We offer a green card and $20,000 to any educated Russian woman who wants to come over here. The Euro Union nations can do a similar thing. We will win two ways. First we get some good people who want to make their lives better and the Russian demographic problem will be exacerbated. We could expand the program by offering the same thing to any Russian with say a doctorate or doctorate level experience in any of the hard sciences or engineering professions.
That should stimulate the bidding in the Kremlin.
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 06:17 PM
mirhond---come on guy WHAT Burkat was killed? WHAT shop did the person purchase it in? By the way if one is after true evidence then you leave the date/time on the picture and yes so even now place the GPS location on them---so this particular one had none of the above so it is pure propaganda the core question is why did you use it?
Get real and stop the lousy sidestepping---all of your response have been misinformation nothing more nothing less.
Answer examples to your two comments;
1. Straw Man Fallacy again. Show me the exact quotation where I call all Ukrainian Nazis.
Your used the news article on the mistreatment of Ukrainian Jews---the alluding too is the point you were pushing or was it not?
2. From what premiss you deducted that I accepted "Nazi's in the Crimea"?
Did not see you condemn the neo Nazi observers for even being "invited" by what the "democratic" Crimea ---check my comments below to an American saying that fits this.
mirhond---will now end responding to you as I have learned what I needed to from you and your style of misinformation as it was /is something I had not seen before so it was an interesting learning session.
Secondly, if you continue in these blogs you need to fully understand a few American sayings:
1. "when someone does not respond to a specific comment then in fact that is a response"---you failed to respond to 14 directly focused comments
2. then there is the really old American saying---"Fish or cut bait"
And several others ---3. "popping smoke" or the derivative 4. "tango down"
You need to know and understand these old American sayings.
mirhond
03-17-2014, 06:23 PM
Speaking of stressing them, how about this, only half unserious.
We offer a green card and $20,000 to any educated Russian woman who wants to come over here. The Euro Union nations can do a similar thing. We will win two ways. First we get some good people who want to make their lives better and the Russian demographic problem will be exacerbated. We could expand the program by offering the same thing to any Russian with say a doctorate or doctorate level experience in any of the hard sciences or engineering professions.
Good idea from the first glance, but in the long run, when virtually all who are already considering to migrate, leave the country, Putin&Co will get society dominated with die-hard supporters. When they finally figure out that their cause is lost, the'll nuke you, and I'am only half unseriuos.
@OUTLAW 09
WHAT Burkat was killed? WHAT shop did the person purchase it in?
(Berkut, not burkat, memorize it already). Hey, jumping to conclusions is your trait, not mine :) I just made a wild guess. Besides, there is no need to kill a man to get his stuff, just knock him down. Such gear is available in any sports shop, i think.
mirhond---since you seem to think photos are evidence here is a link from the Crimea today that shows the same shin guards being wore by Russian military personnel that seem to be shown in the photo you used for neo Nazi's in the Ukraine. Also worn by the Burkat---so were they really Nazi's or really Russians or what the heck maybe Chinese?
So now give me an argument that counters the shin guards being worn in both photos since you are into arguments and evidence.
By the way mirhond the same photo proves the entire Russian government and Putin blatantly lied that there were NO Russian military in the Crimea--come on now mirhond DISPROVE this photo. Seems the civilian defense groups got a new set of uniforms did they not?
1. Yes, they do wear the same gear - so where is the contradiction to what I wrote about fair booty or sports shop?
2. Yes, entire Russian government and Putin blatantly lied, I'am not surprised, you know... You want me to state a blatant lie too? No, i'll not, KGB agent is always honest, he can not lie :D
Your used the news article on the mistreatment of Ukrainian Jews---the alluding too is the point you were pushing
Blah-blah-blah.. Where is the exact quotation?
Did not see you condemn the neo Nazi observers for even being "invited" by what the "democratic" Crimea.
Well, I've read it here, right from your post. And why I OUGHT to condemn them? They are few, I know nothing about their actual political beliefs, while Ukrainian Nazis are very verbal and loud with "Hung the Muscowite!" slogan.
The old Russian saying that ranting/raving and filling pages just with words is not a writer.
Nope, never heard this one in this particular wording - provide a link, please.
All you are espousing is misinformation and a utter waste of time so either state what your concrete argument is or move on.
No, I'am quite happy with exchanging $hitballs here, also a get some training in written English, so I don't consider it is a waste of time. :) I've already stated my arguments, but you are ignoring or twisting it, so I believe you just like to argue for the sake of argument. Well, it's an old and legitimate sport, and I rarely tire of it.
Mirhond:
Stand by son, you'll get your grade when the day is done.
OUTLAW 09
03-17-2014, 07:27 PM
mirhond---really wanted to disengage from your rambling misinformation but this particular use of a video by you goes to the heart of the current KGB/FSB/GRU misinformation campaign against both the Ukraine and the West.
Here is your video link---now tell the readers here WHAT really occurred with the video that you evidently are claiming is the running over of proRussian Ukrainians---ARE you sure you want to stand by that "comment".
upd. Enjoy another video:
Ukrainian BMD rolling over pro-Russian civilians somewhere around Doneztk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3c2e-8ooqk
So during Ukrainian called military exercises a long armored convoy stops and WHO appears out of nowhere---proRussians but one is not so sure from the Russian that they are not really from Russia as they vehicle license plates are not shown--NOW who is doing the filming--definitely not the Army? If my dialects are good they are from Russia as the border is not far from this particular point in the road.
ANYWAY the convoy wants to move on after their stop--- it then depicts at about 0515 into the video Ukrainian soldiers trying to surround the vehicle in order to keep civilians from being hit by the vehicle AND THEN what someone decides to thrown himself on the ground in front of the moving vehicle.
MIRHOND---he threw himself rather gently onto the ground in front of the vehicle and then he was pulled out of the way by the soldiers.
ONE might say he was a agent provocateur for the constantly filming camera. Actually in the US if one did exactly the same thing they would be arrested by the police so what is the problem as I thought Putin was all for the rule of law?
The only thing I would fault the Ukrainian Army on is they do not have ground guides as we are required to have--BUT they did use soldiers to PROTECT the civilians around the vehicle.
COME on mirhond is this the best the KGB/FSB/GRU has to throw on Russian TV for the homefront, Donetsk, and the Crimea?
MAYBE this is why Putin seems to be lying when he says "loyal Russian are being mistreated".
You truly need to get better at your misinformation videos---second rate attempt at grey propaganda.
A TIP for your use of videos turn off the noise and strictly watch the video footage then the true story really becomes apparent which is opposite of what you alluded to-you will understand far more when the voices are filtered out--then try to build you narrative just using the pictures which did not work with this video=== as it did not work with the photo you tried to use previously.
By the way your English has gotten bad again what happen to the previous responder-- his was better than yours.
Have a great week in Moscow----and hang onto to your rubles.
davidbfpo
03-17-2014, 08:46 PM
I too have watched Mirhond's post link:
Enjoy another video:
Ukrainian BMD rolling over pro-Russian civilians somewhere around Doneztk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3c2e-8ooqk
My question would be simple. Would the Russian Army tolerate such obstruction, whilst on official movement?
I couldn't follow the language nor the full sequence. The plainclothes official, whose ID card was shown, appeared to be making his point and towards the end soldiers were deployed to get the convoy moving safely.
Firn---in comments yesterday by a former Russian Finance Minister the Russian budget this year was targeting a growth rate of 3.5% and if sanctions are imposed he is saying the growth rate may in fact be 0% and the Crimea costs were not factored in and approved for this year.
Average Russian taxpayer will be carrying the Crimea burden for years to come.
He indicated that there is talk of 80-90M USD per month in just support to keep the Crimea running and the Crimean's felt that with joining Russia their individual salaries would be going to Russian levels (was posted on placards around the cities) which is also not in the budget that was approved so he is estimating an annual cost of 20B USD per year just to do a steady state.
His comment was interesting---the EU understands our economy better than we do.
I can't comment on such details and he certainly knows more about the Russian economy then I will ever do. Still it is important to look at the basics.
Right now the private sector rests on two pillars, tourism and agriculture. The public sector is rather large, partly due to the relative high number of retirees caused by the outflow of the (mostly ethnic Russian) youth and the attractive Crimean (think Florida) status and climate.
With tourism facing a massive demand shock, bar miracles worked by Russian-sponsored incentives and 'patriotic' feelings and agriculture living on Ukrianian goodwill there will be many losers in the private sector. Now the Russian government can most easily (and costly) increase demand by pumping in Rubles by various means. Raises of public salaries and pensions, subventions and public works might be on the table but all that money has to come in from Russia as the Crimea was a net receiver of transfers even before.
Given the poor track record of corruption and bad capital allocation in Russia and the terrible one it those 'frozen regions' I fear that in the long run many of the sky-high expectations of those who voted Russia will land hard. There will be some spillover into the private sector, but I doubt that the productivity will raise anywhere near the 'Russian wages', which should raise labour costs greatly and make some economic activities unattractive. All in all Russia will pay a high direct price for the Crimea and mght still come up short of the expectations of many...
----
Stepping back I think that the 'center of gravity' of the Ukraine is the political willpower of the West, while the one of the Crimea is the economic strenght of Russia...
Dayuhan
03-17-2014, 10:22 PM
And the key to combating them is stressing their economy like you and Firn have been saying. Those guys are not good at making things, not good at economies. We can do it. We'll see if we have the nerve. Putin and the boys do have nerve.
That would depend on who you mean by "we". If "we" is the US and Europe acting together, yes. If "we" is the US alone, no: our economy is not sufficiently connected to that of Russia to inflict enough pain.
Sanctions of course hurt both sides, and it's a question of who's willing to take the pain longest. In this case Russia would certainly have more pain, but Putin may be betting that Russians have a higher pain tolerance than, say, Germans, and fewer and less effective ways to force their government to end the pain. He may or may not be right. We'll see.
davidbfpo
03-17-2014, 10:22 PM
Moving to the north for a moment, two developments and I use the headline only. Seems to be a "balance" of sorts and a reminder that vigilance works both ways.
Norway’s new Arctic giant spyship
Link:http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2014/03/norways-new-arctic-giant-spyship-17-03
Moving 3000 intelligence officers to Finnish border
Link:http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2014/03/moving-3000-intelligence-officers-finnish-border-14-03
The website has other points of interest.
Does not look good.
Majorities of voters in the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine believe there is no candidate running for the presidential election planned for May 25, whom they trust with a vote to represent their interests. With two months still to go, the outcome of the poll is therefore already decided – it will be regarded by southern and eastern Ukrainians as a forced choice; an illegitimate result; and an outcome which cannot be relied on to protect the interests of the southerners and easterners.
According to voter polling by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, there are still large blocs of undecided voters or refuseniks in the south and east who may be persuaded to vote. The appointments of the steelmill oligarchs, Sergei Taruta and Igor Kolomoisky, as governors of the Donetsk and Dniepropetrovsk regions has been interpreted as an attempt by officials in Kiev to achieve this with cash and promises of job and pension benefits. But new poll evidence suggests that no amount of money can buy votes for the US-approved candidates — Vitali Klitschko, Petro Poroshenko, or Oleg Tyagnibok. The same can be said for the Russian-approved candidacy of Yulia Tymoshenko.
http://johnhelmer.net/?p=10376
jmm99
03-18-2014, 01:15 AM
USAToday, Obama imposes sanctions on 7 Russians after Crimea vote (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/17/white-house-sanctions-russia-officials-ukraine/6518417/) (17 Mar 2014):
WASHINGTON — President Obama announced Monday that he is leveling new sanctions against seven Russian officials the White House says have contributed to the crisis in Ukraine.
Obama announced the sanctions one day after the Crimean region of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to join Russia in a referendum that the U.S. and western allies vowed not to recognize.
In comments at the White House to formally announce the sanctions, Obama said he believes there is still a diplomatic solution to end the crisis. At the same time, he warned that if Russia continues to interfere with Ukraine's sovereignty he stands ready to push for even tougher sanctions.
"We are imposing sanctions on specific individuals for undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity and government of Ukraine," Obama said."We are making it clear that there are consequences for their actions."
The high-level government officials named by the White House are: Vladislav Surkov, Sergey Glazyev, Leonid Slutsky, Andrei Klishas, Valentina Matviyenko, Dmitry Rogozin, and Yelena Mizulina.
...
In addition, the Treasury Department announced it is imposing sanctions against former Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych, former Ukrainian presidential chief of staff Viktor Medvedchuk as well as Crimea-based separatist leaders Sergey Aksyonov and Vladimir Konstantinov. Those officials were being targeted under an executive order that Obama signed earlier this month.
...
The White House announcement came after the European Union announced on Monday travel bans and asset freezes on 21 people for their involvement in the Ukraine crisis. The EU is not expected to announce the individuals who are being cited until Tuesday, but Obama administration officials believe there is some overlap in the U.S. and EU lists. ...
Seriously, is this the vaunted first round of sanctions ?
What comes next in what appears to be an exercise in strategic persuasion in accord with the doctrine of gradualism ?
Regards
Mike
Mike:
That's the exact thing I thought when I heard about it, Operation Rolling Thunder. All those guys who died at the behest of fools. Sometimes it's good to be old, you can spot fools easier. But it's sad too because the fools never seem to stop coming.
By the way, that was a good story about your mother buying you books. My parents never said no about books either. Long ago.
jmm99
03-18-2014, 04:24 AM
One of my neighbors (way back then and more recently) graduated from Tech a year or two after I did, and went on to fly F-4s in the later stages of Rolling Thunder (which by then was a total shooting gallery - e.g., an amusement park for the NVA gunners and rocketeers); and later still in Linebacker I and II. The last two yielded positive tangible results.
Of course, the theoretical graduated escalation strategy sounds good - especially for those who are not willing to take and inflict substantial immediate casualties. It does offer the hope (not a very good strategy) that peace can be achieved before one mounts too many rings up the ladder.
Has a graduated escalation strategy worked in any war ? Serious question for someone who has actually studied it in depth. I haven't.
Regards
Mike
PS: My mother's philosophy was that one is rich if, besides having a roof over one's head and food on the table, one has soap, water and a library card - then it depended on the person in the use of those riches. My dad's contribution (besides the roof and food) was to buy me as much .22LR ammo as I wanted to shoot.
From an economic point of view it is important to look how the most similar 'independent' seperatist area, Abkhazia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia) is doing. In this case Russian forces have enabled the creation of a new entity, practically completely politically isolated apart from Russian support. It was a tourism magnet before the collapse of the SU, with splendid beaches, but it has only 1/8 of Crimeas population and Russian tanks can just drive over the border. The economic and political situation was of course more desperate and especially more violent and in this case Russia supports another ethnic group which is barely larger then the second ethnicity.
In 2010 the following EU paper (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/dsca/dv/dsca20100323_09/dsca20100323_09en.pdf) described the state of the economy:
B. ECONOMIC ASPECTS
1.Dependence on Russian financial aid and investment
Even though Abkhazia’s state budget has been steadily increasing over the past years, its dependence on Russia for budget support is as important as its reliance on Moscow’s military presence. In 2009, approximately 60 per cent (1.9 billion roubles, $65.5 million) of the state budget was direct support from Moscow. For 2010, the monetary figure will remain the same but fall in percentage terms, to 49 per cent (1.9 billion roubles, $63 million, out of a total budget of 3.875 billion roubles, $128.5 million). This includes both infrastructure projects and direct budget support. Russia also pays local pensions – many times larger than the Abkhazian gov-
ernment’s $17 monthly allocations – to Russian pass-
port holders, directly from its own budget.
Russia also accounts for 99 percent of Abkhazia’s “foreign investment” and is by far its largest trade partner. In 2008, (figures for 2009 are incomplete) Abkhazian exports totalled 890 million roubles, while imports were 6.2 billion, leaving a deficit of over 5 billion roubles ($165.8 million). Abkhazia mainly exports scrap metal, gravel, tea, tangerines, hazelnuts, wine and some flowers. In 2008 there was some trade with Turkey (metals, lumber exports and fuel imports) and Romania (fuel imports), but Abkhazian officials gave no amounts or monetary value. They estimated that 80 per cent of everything consumed in Abkhazia is imported from Russia.
The bit about the pensions to Russian passport owners out of the Russia budget is expecially interesting. Of course the Crimean pensions have been much higher and there should be a multiple of recipients. The balance of trade was even more amazing then I thought, roughly a relation of seven to one. On the other hand it is no surprise that Russia has to pay half of Abkhazias budget. If it was to do the same it could easily have to pay directly twenty times more.
I have to leave it there for now but there is some interesting stuff to add later.
I suggest we are witness to a watershed moment in history.
We are witnessing the demise the US as the preeminent world power.
Unlikely that Russia will be brought down to earth by even a joint US/EU series of measures.
A deeply poignant and sad moment.
Dayuhan
03-18-2014, 09:08 AM
Has there been a day in the last 5 decades that has not seen somebody, somewhere. proclaiming the demise of American power?
Pardon us if we fail to wail and rend our garments. If we did that every time we heard that our trade balance with China would be even worse than it already is.
mirhond
03-18-2014, 09:13 AM
2OUTLAW 09
If my dialects are good they are from Russia as the border is not far from this particular point in the road.
Nope, your "dialects" aren't good and you obviously do not know Russian, do you?
Your blatant rejection of everything you don't like is exellent, however.
OUTLAW 09
03-18-2014, 11:21 AM
mirhond---wow-- suddenly your English vastly improved---all that KGB/FSB/GRU training paid off did it not?
mirhond---Well formulated English sentences---finally after all the different versions of English we seen---how many were writing the responses as I counted with this one three?
Nope (like the fact you went American in this single word-definitely not Queens English), your "dialects" aren't good and you obviously do not know Russian, do you?
Your blatant rejection of everything you don't like is exellent (a misspell though) , however.
Your attempt to turn a rather mundane routine (a rather common civilian/military encounter during troop movements even in the US and say especially Germany) issue into an anti Ukrainian rant ie " the poor mistreated loyal to the Motherland Russians" need protection from the land of the "hordes" of Ukrainian Nazi's was another blatant disinformation gig was it not?---come on you can admit it.
Noticed you threw in no further photos, "evidence", articles, or disinfomation into this response.
By the way just how did the "poor mistreated loyal Russians wanting protection" know of the convoys whereabouts in time for them to drive to the specific point in the road and have a professional camera team available for an "accidental" filming of the alleged encounter of Ukrainian Russians being mistreated?
My Russian is as good as your English--of course we could shift to German -but I am sure you were not taught German- you allowed yourself to be provoked---not good my friend, not good.
Tango down--popping smoke on this conversation -----was enjoyable exchanging with the three of you.
Again save you rubels/dollars/euors "for the hard days are a'coming".
I have to leave it there for now but there is some interesting stuff to add later.
A more recent paper (http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/caucasus/georgia/224-abkhazia-the-long-road-to-reconciliation.pdf) on the Abkhazian economy:
B. Russian Financial Dependence
Abkhazia’s government is overwhelmingly dependent on Russia for budget and development funds. Since 2009 Moscow has provided about 1.9 billion roubles per year in direct budgetary support ($61-$67 million, depending on exchange fluctutions). In 2012, this amounted to 22 per cent of the official 8.6 billion rouble ($287 million) budget. But taking into account that Moscow allocated another 4.9 billion roubles ($163 million) that year as part of a “comprehensive aid plan” for infrastructure development, the actual subsidy for Abkhazia’s budget is at least 70 per cent. In addition, Moscow also hands out an estimated two billion roubles ($70 million) in pension payments for Abkhaz residents, most with Russian passports.
If we consider that example I think it is pretty likely that we see three major channels through which Russian money will flow into the Crimea:
1) Direct financial transfers to finance the Crimean speratist budget
2) Moscow-sponsered and cheaply financed infrastructure projects, mostly done by Russian companies
3) Direct transfers to retirees.
Only the first will be budgeted in, so as in the case of Abkhazia that portion alone would vastly underestimated the financial dependence.
The “[c]omprehensive aid plan for the socio-economic development of Abkhazia” is by far the biggest source of Russian funds – but also opaque and controversial Under it, Moscow orginally earmerked eleven billion ruble ($350 million) for frastructure projects in 2010-2012, including the rebuilding of roads, schools, government buildings and agriculture. Though many residents of Abkhazia say living standards have risen as Russian money has come in, some critics complain of a dependency syndrome, and both Abkhaz and Russian officials have alleged the funds have fuelled corruption. An opposition figure known for harsh opposition to the present Abkhaz leadership lamented: “Abkhazia’s economy is like a drug addict on Russian help. We want real help to support our economic development, not ‘façade’ assistance”.
The critical comments reflect my earlier concerns. The public sector will baloon compared to the private one, even if the multiplier will have partly a positive effect in some areas. Other parts of the private sector will be crowded out. This without taking even in consideraton the effect of the likely increased (up from bad) corruption and wrong investment allocation.
Italy's south encountered similar problems, but form a different basis and a different set of circumstances when forty to thirty years ago the state massively 'invested' into it. Ironically quite a few described it as 'drogato' by those public funds, which went mostly into the wrong hands and greatly increased in the long run the dependence on public spending. The gdp per capita rose for a short time to roughly 80% compared to the rest of the country but fell over the next twenty+ years to back to 60% or so...
To sum it up it the Crimean economy won't do well without getting very expensive for Russia, and in that case the long term growth doesn't look good either.
mirhond
03-18-2014, 01:43 PM
My Russian is as good as your English
Really? Prove it.
Докажи, иначе пиздобол и мудак. Напиши хоть фразу по-русски, а лучше целый пост, чтобы побольше сложноподчиненных предложений, условно-нереальных высказываний, хороших метафор и прочего грамматического и синтаксического матана.
Enjoy your beloved Sturmabteilung having some fun in Dnepropetrovsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6u-ZFL8uTEE
Back to Ukrainian matters.
Ukrainian National Guard scramble to protect the Gas Transit System, by the order of prime-minister Yatzenuk
http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/article/1001052?annId=1001053×tamp=1395003991000&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Meanwhile, leader of Right Sector Yarosh (who literally brought Yatzenuk to power) threatens to destroy Gas Transit System
http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1317328-d-yarosh-prigroziv-znischiti-gazoprovid-scho-yde-z-rosiyi
These guys really need to put their $hit together.
@davidbfpo
My question would be simple. Would the Russian Army tolerate such obstruction, whilst on official movement?
I suppose it will not, but I fail to see why it's relevant. I begin to suspect Tu Quoque Fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html. Don't use it, pretty please, carl and OUTLAW09 are already doing their best :)
Reasonable question is: Why civilians are so nervous about this on duty movement?
Rex Brynen
03-18-2014, 01:53 PM
A quick round up of commercial/hobby wargames on the crisis in the Ukraine (current or fictional): http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/gaming-the-crisis-in-the-ukraine/
OUTLAW 09
03-18-2014, 02:34 PM
mirhond---and just why would I respond to your request to write everything in Russian when 1) this is a English speaking/writing site and that insults other non Russian reading/speaking readers and 2) you have just insulted my writing abilities with your Russian comment and request.
Come on mirhond now you are going into insults is that all you can do? By the way your Russian is far better than your English--not sure your English teachers would be proud of your abilities.
Enjoy the rest of the week---
mirhond
03-18-2014, 02:35 PM
@OUTLAW 09
mirhond---and just why would I respond to your request to write everything in Russian when 1) this is a English speaking/writing site and that insults other readers and 2) you have insulted my writing abilities with your Russian comment and request.
1.Nonsence. Wright me a PM then. If no - пошел на х%й.
2. Yeah-yeah, praize Google Translate..
I've insulted you? well, you may cry a little, or even insult me.
davidbfpo
03-18-2014, 03:17 PM
Mirhond,
I asked a simple question:
My question would be simple. Would the Russian Army tolerate such obstruction, whilst on official movement?
You replied just:
I suppose it will not, but I fail to see why it's relevant.
Then you referred to an unknown website which gave some guidance on asking questions, which did not help me. Ah well.
The relevance of the short film clip is that in this crisis legitimacy is a prominent issue. That is why you used it to illustrate your point about some in the Ukraine disputing the troop movement and the "running over" of a protester as how harsh the new government was.
If you cannot see the relevance of my question having given us the footage, well that is your problem, not mine.
mirhond
03-18-2014, 04:04 PM
Mirhond,
The relevance of the short film clip is that in this crisis legitimacy is a prominent issue. That is why you used it to illustrate your point about some in the Ukraine disputing the troop movement and the "running over" of a protester as how harsh the new government was.
If you cannot see the relevance of my question having given us the footage, well that is your problem, not mine.
OK, stupid me.
Honestly, I dont think that new government has a power to be harsh. Right now Yatzenuk is trying to sweet-talk the South-East
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QvPLnhNJcZs
His major points are:
1. Ukraine is under pressure
2. governance will be decentralised, wide autonomy of regions will be implemented
3. Language law stays the same
4. Political, but not economicall association with EU, to soothe the fears of industrial East
5. Good relations with Russia, no NATO, "Ukraine strong" *countryball needed* :)
6. Parliamentary-presidential republic based on consensus of regions
7. Yanukovich - traitor and thief. Maidan rebelled against dictatorship and corruption
8. Disarmament of street warriors, they are welcome to National Guard
9. Reconsiliation and reconstruction of the country, patience and calm
10. Diversity of beliefs and values is good, East will not be low-level formatted.
If it is a reall political program, not just bull$hit to by some time - well, Ukraine has a good chance to recover and even prosper in a foreseeable future.
Mirhond(s):
Time for your daily grade.
You are still mixing up your writers, going from the bad English writer to the very good English writer. I told you why that doesn't work on this site but you still do it. Point off for you.
You are also sticking to the 'fallacy' game plan that you guys came up with a few days ago. I told you why that doesn't work either but you still do it. Another point off for you. I do have some sympathy for you on that one though. Both the Germans and the Afghans commented on how the Russians would stick to a briefed plan even if was obvious to one and all that is wasn't working. I read of one reporter who was traveling with a Muj Toyota convoy in the 80s and they saw some Russian helos working over a village just a few klicks away. The reporter told the Afghans the helo pilots must be able to see them asked why they didn't attack an obvious Muj supply column. The Afghan replied that yes the Russian pilots did see them but they had been briefed to hit that village and that was what they were going to do no matter how many Muj supply columns they saw. I guess things haven't changed much.
You guys apparently got concerned that people weren't paying as much attention to you as you wanted so you started cluttering up the place with pictures of cats. That shows a lack of patience. A little bit desperate. Another point off for you.
You are sticking with the 'Nazi' slogans, repeated and repeated. That won't work around here, but that's what you were told to do so do it you will. Another point off.
Your primary problem is the same as it has been. You guys aren't adapting your message to your audience. Your approach would work with callow college kids, especially Ivy Leaguers, but the guys here have actually seen and done things, lots more than the college kids. You guys have to tailor you're message to the audience but you can't seem to make the transition. Those Russian helo pilots again I guess. Still, another point off for you.
So not so good in the last day. It is hard I know. The siloviki don't give you minions much to work with but you guys used to be good back in the old days. Geesh your Chekist ancestors used to run a good cover for Stalin of all people. You have to try harder. You're being lazy.
One thing you said though was quite revealing. This
Good idea from the first glance, but in the long run, when virtually all who are already considering to migrate, leave the country, Putin&Co will get society dominated with die-hard supporters. When they finally figure out that their cause is lost, the'll nuke you, and I'am only half unseriuos.
Fascinating. Fascinating in that it is a statement of the primary belief of the siloviki and their servants, the belief in and the genuflection before force, force over all other things. Nothing that surprises this audience of course, but it is surprising that you would be so up front with it.
jmm99
03-18-2014, 06:29 PM
... citing a few links that caught my eye last nite and today ...
First, two articles (from yesterday) taking initial looks at "sanctions" (whatever they might end up to be) and Germany; from Spiegal OI, Economic War with Russia: A High Price for German Business (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-to-play-central-but-expensive-role-in-sanctions-against-russia-a-959019.html):
The EU has imposed new sanctions to prevent Vladimir Putin from further escalating the crisis in Ukraine. Berlin has played a leading role in the punitive actions, despite protests from the German business community. There's no turning back for Merkel.
...
Germany has taken a leadership role in those efforts -- a role that Berlin has sought to claim for itself since the early days of the unrest in Kiev. At the beginning of the year, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier pledged that Germany would become more active in its foreign policy, and the current initiative is one manifestation of that aspiration.
But it is also becoming clear that those ambitions come with a price tag. Despite pressure from many European Union member states and the US, Steinmeier and Chancellor Angela Merkel initially managed to prevent swifter sanctions. They wanted to attempt to resolve the Crimean crisis through talks. The strategy ultimately failed because of Putin's intransigence.
...
In Berlin, all officials can do is guess at just how far Putin might be willing to go. Under the more optimistic assessment, the Russian president might offer a diplomatic olive branch following the annexation of Crimea to prevent a further escalation. However, high-ranking diplomats believe it is just as conceivable that Moscow might attempt to destabilize other regions like the Baltics or the Caucuses by using economic pressure or the presence of strong Russian minorities in countries in those places. It's a scenario for which the West still has no answer.
and from Motley Fool, A Sanctions War Is Bad News for Europe's Energy and Utility Majors (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/17/a-sanctions-war-is-bad-news-for-europes-energy-and.aspx):
As tensions between the West and Russia grow over the Crimean dispute, a series of harsh sanctions is expected to be imposed on Russia in the coming weeks. While most of the focus is on Russian government officials, it is also said to include travel bans for the well-connected CEOs of OAO Gazprom (NASDAQOTH: OGZPY) and OAO Rosneft.
Russian MPs aren't taking this lying down, and are threatening retaliatory sanctions against U.S. and European companies. The rest could well be a full-fledged sanction war, with t!t-for-tat sanctions spiralling out of control.
...
The bottom line
Neither BP nor Shell is facing a threat as near the immediacy or import as E.ON, whose very profitability might be at risk if things turn sour. BP's stock is a bargain on paper, with a P/E of around 6.5, though investors should keep a cautious eye on what happens with their Rosneft relations.
Shell's risk is even smaller, and it is well-positioned to take advantage of some other geopolitical situations, though with a price near its 52-week high, caution again is probably warranted, and panic selling on a sanctions war could provide a buying opportunity.
Gazprom remains the biggest bargain of the bunch, and even though it's the primary target of these sanctions, it is ironically in the least danger. Its gas empire is simply irreplaceable to the global economy, and with a P/E around 2 after the recent sell-off, it is just ridiculously cheap.
So, buy Gazprom !
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moving from economics to law ... My comment, when Ashley Deeks first wrote of the Ukraine and IL and she received the "Russian" response, was "So What". In short, IL doesn't matter very much in these cases - and the Cheka law departments do a much better job of agitprop co-ordination than we USAian amateurs might even dream of doing.
One might as well simply go to the bottom tag lines - BLUF (as viewed by the US): legal and legitimate (Panama); illegal but legitimate (Kosovo); illegal and illegitimate (Crimea). But then we have this classic line from Sergei Lavrov (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MicqZRnAkOg&feature=player_embedded): “If Kosovo is a special case, then Crimea is a special case; it’s just equally special.” (Youtube @ 10:00). Lest you think that I think that all of this is a bit farcical - yes, I do.
Our friend Jack Goldsmith from Lawfare appears to be leaning toward my direction, The Precedential Value of the Kosovo Non-Precedent Precedent for Crimea (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/the-precedential-value-of-the-kosovo-non-precedent-precedent-for-crimea/) (by Jack Goldsmith, March 17, 2014):
What to make of all this? There are many factual differences between Kosovo and Crimea, but I find it hard to argue that Kosovo is obviously lawful while Crimea is obviously unlawful. By choosing the “illegal and illegitimate” formulation and inviting the comparison to at least the Kosovo intervention, the European bigwigs seem to agree. International law drops out because both actions were illegal, leaving only a fight over “legitimacy,” which is even more in the eye of the beholder than legality.
One might add that the question of independence turns less on the legality or legitimacy of the independence claim, and more on the interests of the nations deciding whether to recognize, which are all that matter in the end.
One might also view these events as further evidence of my (somewhat obvious) claim (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/the-kosovo-precedent-for-syria-isnt-much-of-a-precedent/) [JMM: I, never to miss the obvious, agreed with Jack on Syria] that “the precedential value of an action under international law cannot be established at the time of the action, but rather is determined by how the action is interpreted and used in the future.”
Or one might go further and, perhaps after a glance (http://www.docexblog.com/2014/03/the-yanukovich-letter-is-russia-in.html) at the U.S. invasion of Panama (to take one of many possible examples), say that precedent (as well as non-precedent and non-precedent precedent) plays no consequential role in the use of force context. [emphasis added by JMM]
Jack's "glance" link is to DocEx's, The Yanukovych Letter: Is Russia in Ukraine Really Becoming the U.S. in Panama? (http://www.docexblog.com/2014/03/the-yanukovich-letter-is-russia-in.html) (4 Mar 2014) (snip to another analysis, by Eric Posner, pretty much agreeing with me in its point 2):
There are, of course, arguments that could arguably distinguish Panama from Ukraine that I will leave others to identify. I think in both cases, Eric Posner's succinct two-point analysis (http://ericposner.com/russias-military-intervention-in-ukraine-international-law-implications/) on Ukraine is on point: "1. Russia's military intervention in Ukraine violates international law" (as the U.N. General Assembly found the U.S. intervention in Panama did) and "2. No one is going to do anything about it." (As no one did with Panama in 1989).
DocEx is a project by Doug Cox (http://www.docexblog.com/p/docex.html), a law school librarian and former intel officer - which may have what you are looking for in the small wars intel arena.
Enough lunch for now.
Regards
Mike
OUTLAW 09
03-18-2014, 06:30 PM
mirhond----
1. you are not Russian as you cannot even remember the good old communist jokes even though you claim to be born in 1978 which made you what 17 in 1995 and you never did answer the direct statement that you were a Communist Youth member as most of your generation were in 1995---heck a Russian COL told me last July about the KGB saying that you cannot seem to remember and the last time I checked he was Russian
BY THE WAY------I AM TAKING UP YOUR VERY OWN SUGGESTION ---SEND A COPY OF YOUR RUSSIAN ID TO ACTUALLY PROVE YOU ARE IN FACT RUSSIAN ---REALLY EASY---I MEAN IF YOU CAN POST A LARGE CAT PHOTO YOUR SMALL ID FITTING IN THIS SPACE IS NO PROBLEM
2. your English is actually poor to slightly understandable at times---really where did you learn it?
3. you are seemingly in love with your own comments and I am not sure you can read your own written English since you seem to need photos to help your writing--actually an indication that you write poorly as photos take up more space so less words are needed in writing---just post a photo and one thus does not need to respond to direct questions---again an easy way to sidestep which you have admitted you often do in previous postings
4. for some strange reason you love the love "fallacy"---must be the way the English word sounds as it rolls off your tongue or maybe the way it is written--whatever---you definitely have a hang up with that word--not sure who came up with that idea for an argument
5. you are in love with Nazi's or at least with the word Nazi as you seem to not be able to shake them/or the word out of your mind--- but again since Stalin that has been a standard line from Communists when they cannot figure out what else to say or argue with---blame someone else is I guess a strategy
6. some how you got lost in WW2 and never seemed to recover--what is it with your generation?
Would suggest to others here to back out as this as this individual seems totally hung up on whatever he is hung up on---just a waste of time as he seems to not even understand himself much less the rest of the world.
OUTLAW 09
03-18-2014, 06:54 PM
mirhond---really did like the cat photo since it was wearing the same colors---red/white/blue as used in the US national flag=== Nice touch------you do have a sense of justice after all.
Did not know that Russia liked our colors so much they incorporated them into their national flag---they do say copying is the greatest form of flattery.
Very patriotic of you to post the US national colors during the new Cold War that Putin somehow managed to restart but hey he was KGB and is still dreaming of the "greater SU" although the new Russian colors do not quite match the old two colors of red and yellow.
This entire region, depending on age and level of naiveté, manages to come up with the same Bravo Sierra as either an excuse to leave their sovereign State, defend against one another, or vote for yet another referendum.
Been there, done that. Doesn't work :rolleyes:
The parties from left to right and center segregate themselves as Nazis and Russian despite the fact neither was ever in those camps.
When a 4th of Estonia wanted to join Russia however, the entire government decided that was not going to happen and the public supported that decision.
We all seem to have the right to self-destruction lately. Glad Im retired and freezing to death. :D
So, buy Gazprom !
Markets tend to be efficient even if from time to time they are subject to moody swings. In this case the very low P/E of Gazprom, indeed of the whole Russian stocks universe, begs the question of how much of that E does actually belong to you. That fat question mark explains much of the risk premium which Russian securities suffer...
A great thing about capitalism is that I'm not forced to buy Russian stocks, and can chose among an amazing amount of options, some of them which will hopefully give my a higher return in the long run. Much Russian capital has voted in similar fashion, fleeing from Russia to find a home in the West.
OUTLAW 09
03-18-2014, 07:56 PM
Stan---good points---do not freeze too much.
Stan---good points---do not freeze too much.
Well, two weeks of warm weather and we are now being pounded with snow :mad:
Nobody in their right mind would invade this country again :D
Firn,
Gazprom and that huge pipeline is pure German investment thanks to Gerhard Schröder. We are all hoping they will finally clear all the sea mines from the Baltic Sea while they lay pipe :)
Ken White said that - too similar for simple coincidence - a few years ago.
I was being kind in what I said because having watched the controlled implosion of the remnants of the British Empire and with it British influence I appreciate how painful the demise of the US as the leading world power must be to the majority of Americans.
With Ukraine, however, we now witness abject cowardice from the US and Britain.
Lets start here:
Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994 (http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484)
Quote 1:
The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The Joint Declaration by the Russian Federation and the United States of America of December 4, 2009 confirmed their commitment.
Quote 2:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
etc
Not worth the paper it was written on...
Has there been a day in the last 5 decades that has not seen somebody, somewhere. proclaiming the demise of American power?
Pardon us if we fail to wail and rend our garments. If we did that every time we heard that our trade balance with China would be even worse than it already is.
OUTLAW 09
03-18-2014, 09:17 PM
JMA--it has been all about the money===especially the UK which is the home of mega billions in black money from Russian oligarchs.
The US simply because there is no US military left in Europe---
Now I am learning something.
So if you are short of cash or risk losing deposits and don't have troops in the area you can just laugh off the agreement?
JMA--it has been all about the money===especially the UK which is the home of mega billions in black money from Russian oligarchs.
The US simply because there is no US military left in Europe---
jmm99
03-18-2014, 10:03 PM
The bottom line is Art. 6:
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
Those parties have consulted (last Friday) - commitment met.
Another "Agreement" - Art. 4 and Art. 5 of NATO:
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
As any rookie contract student should be able to tell you - these are illusory contracts; and were intended to be so from the gitgo.
Regards
Mike
jcustis
03-18-2014, 10:06 PM
Good points Mike. Just reality.
jcustis
03-18-2014, 10:06 PM
A Ukrainian Army element is escorting a press pool through a Ukraine/Crimea border area and comes across a pro-Russian militia element that has drifted across the border for some unknown reason.
The expected standoff escalates to a firefight, leaving seven militiamen dead and two Ukrainian soldiers wounded. The militia force falls back into Crimea and Ukrainian forces pursue.
A Russian SOF element hears the dustup and vectors to the area. The militiamen make visual and radio contact with the element, and break contact past its hasty position. The SOF unit suppresses the Ukrainian pursuit force, killing several.
In thr confusion, Ukrainian Army sources start reporting that a Russian unit has breached the border to attack a lightly-armed security unit. The entirety of Ukrainian military forces mobilize, with several formations making for the border at breakneck speed.
Russian forces move from high alert and begin occupying key terrain on the border. Cross-border firefights begin to flare up and a rifle company is lifted by heliborne means across the border to seize a road tunnel on the Ukrainian side, thereby cutting off that avenue of approach.
NATO shifts to emergency sessions and places forces on alert, but a consensus on a response is mired in uncertainty and worry. The US places various fighter and bomber squadrons on alert.
President Obama condems the outbreak of fighting and pledges that America will stand with Ukraine against "this blatant aggression."
Five minutes later, Putin addresses Russian TV, looks squarely into the camera and states that friends of Ukraine can only be enemies of Russia.
What happens across the next 24-96 hours?
How does it end?
The US, France, Germany and the UK have a combined GDP of about 24 trillion. Russia's is 2 point something. Yet we wring our hands and moan about all the things we can't do when we have twelve times the economic resources. What clowns we are. So sad. Unsuspecting 10 year olds are on a playground right now, ignorant that we are signing their death warrants by our inaction.
jcustis:
Nothing would happen. An unspoken premise is wrong in your scenario. No matter what Mr. Obama says, he will not stand by anybody, anytime. He knows it. Everybody knows it.
illusory maybe ... like the US behaving - verbally - as if anyone is still listening?
The bottom line is Art. 6:
Those parties have consulted (last Friday) - commitment met.
Another "Agreement" - Art. 4 and Art. 5 of NATO:
As any rookie contract student should be able to tell you - these are illusory contracts; and were intended to be so from the gitgo.
Regards
Mike
OUTLAW 09
03-18-2014, 10:39 PM
JMA---basically yes------
When the US decision makers in the last ten or so years decided to go to soft power ie diplomacy and away from military force they forgot that at times unless you are really super serious about economic warfare as a middle option in soft power then you are in a serious jam when you get called out as has Putin done.
At the beginning of this Germany pushed for talking and the none use of the military threat out of fear of it escalating---which in the end failed and it has escalated.
So now what do you have left to impress anyone with?
There is a possibility mentioned last night by a Russian businessman that if in fact the western banks limited and or shortened the lines of credit that the Russian companies literally live on then in a rather short fashion their economy would come to a stand still---right now Russian companies must service existing western bank debt due in April of over 206B and they are struggling to keep from declaring bankruptcy.
The Russia economy is struggling and may in fact have zero growth this year and is in a deep recession and it would not take much to tilt it over the edge and for all the bluster coming out of Moscow---they indeed know that.
But is the West truly willing to stand up for what they signed---really do not think so---this reminds of the slide into 1914 or even worse the "fake war" in 1939 when the UK/France had signed agreements defending Poland and what did they initially do?
I have talking about the failure of this concept of soft power over on the other side from the very beginning of this and called it exactly has it has happened.
Well, two weeks of warm weather and we are now being pounded with snow :mad:
Stan,
Are you sure you aren't in New England? ;)
We will see in a couple of years, maybe ten or more who has 'won' for the time being. Earlier in the thread I stated that Putin has got for now the Crimea but he might have lost the rest of Ukraine, and possibly a good part of the Russian economy. That depends largely on the European willpower although American help, especially financial one is highly welcomed.
Interestingly the NYT has a nice article about the 'economic miracle' (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/europe/south-ossetia-crimea.html?hp) of South Ossetia, which fits neatly with the papers I found about the great economic success of Abkhazia. Transnistrias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria) economic history does make the economic triumph of Russia's 'frozen occupations' complete. Note the debt level and the link to Gazprom&Co. They certainly put their earnings to good Samaritian use. :eek:
Expectations are now too sky-high in the Crimea, pumped up with propaganda and promises, promises and promises. Even with the best policies and vast help from Russia it will difficult to fulfill those dreams...
jmm99
03-19-2014, 01:22 AM
..."In times of peace and prosperity cities and individuals alike follow higher standards, because they are not forced into a situation where they have to do what they do not want to do." ... (3.82)
...
"To fit in with the change of events words too had to change their meanings. What used to be described as thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member." ... (3.82)
Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War (any Crawley trans. edition).
Words (the lofty rhetoric of politicians), whether written or oral, have no real meaning unless linked to acts. "By their acts, you shall know them."
Regards
Mike
OUTLAW 09
03-19-2014, 07:42 AM
JMM--nice news today in Europe--looks like the US is finding their thinking again ---there will be a large land maneuver with substantial US troops on the ground in the Baltics in the coming days---clear message is now what does it feel like when equals are across from each other.
Ukraine late last night informed Russia that if their companies are nationalized in the Crimea then Russian companies inside the Ukraine will become Ukrainian and that includes the Gazprom gas networks/steel mills/mines and banks.
Moldavian ex President stated yesterday that Russia should think twice about expanding his "protect the Russians" thinking towards them and that Moldavia is increasing their ground forces training and asking for NATO assistance in that training.
Words (the lofty rhetoric of politicians), whether written or oral, have no real meaning unless linked to acts. "By their acts, you shall know them."
Regards
Mike
Indeed and this goes for everybody involved. The political will of one guy has been revealed now we will see how things are on the other sides. It is very early times, we will see if.
If meaningful economic sanctions get put in place by Europe & Co and kept firm, time will not be on the side of the Russia economy. The big question is the 'if'.
P.S: There are a lot of guys saying that 'sanctions don't work'. They might not have caused the desired political change, but in cases like Iran and Iraq they have beeen pretty good at wrecking the economy. It should work at least decently at creating economic havoc in that large northern Gulf State.
OUTLAW 09
03-19-2014, 12:06 PM
Firn---think the reality of potentially damaging targeted sanctions ie bank lines of credit and specific products are starting to worry the Russian business elite.
Rossnefts' boss is in Japan and at first said sanctions they can live with/not an issue and then about four hours later during an interview basically the nerves came through and he indicated they will be hurt.
Think if comments coming out of DC this morning in Germany that the US is really ready to pull economic triggers regardless of what the US banks think is an encouraging sign that they see specific weak points as well.
Will really be interesting that when the glory/shine wears off for the Crimean's and they see that nothing really has changed and they will see that it has not changed---will they hit the streets as they did in the Maidann?
It has just dawned on the current Crimea leadership late yesterday in a few local comments that now all food etc must come via ships as the land routes are blocked and nothing has been organized---you will start to see shortages in about ten days since the Russian Army did not plan to support 2M people with the day to day basics.
It has just dawned on the current Crimea leadership late yesterday in a few local comments that now all food etc must come via ships as the land routes are blocked and nothing has been organized---you will start to see shortages in about ten days since the Russian Army did not plan to support 2M people with the day to day basics.
If there will be no to little international trade directly with the seperatist territory the capacity of the Russian ports in the area could also be a bottleneck apart from the more obvious Crimean ones.
The gravity model of trade flow (http://vi.unctad.org/tpa/web/docs/ch3.pdf) plus the very specific trade routes (no bridges to Russia), the (former) status as part of Ukraine and the general European flow of trade, explain why the stuff was moved as before of March 2014. The adjustment costs of almost completely cutting the current net of trade interactions and trying to weave them anew should be pretty impressive and mean no smooth ride for the economy...
This is just on top of the other, almost entirely negative shocks coming after it. I don't know how bad it will be but it seems pretty likely that it will be rather bad.
davidbfpo
03-19-2014, 01:53 PM
My visit to the Crimea was a few years ago, but Kerch was then hardly a busy port. In fact I cannot recall on one full day seeing a single ship arrive. The roads from Kerch into the peninsula are of limited capacity, being mainly two-track and slow. If there was a working railway I missed it, the only train we saw was the twice daily service to Kiev and the line into Sevastapol is single track.
My visit to the Crimea was a few years ago, but Kerch was then hardly a busy port. In fact I cannot recall on one full day seeing a single ship arrive. The roads from Kerch into the peninsula are of limited capacity, being mainly two-track and slow. If there was a working railway I missed it, the only train we saw was the twice daily service to Kiev and the line into Sevastapol is single track.
Good to read direct impressions. Sounds like it would be interesting to look a little bit deeper into that matter. Right now I can think of hardly any incentive which would have made the transport of goods from Russia over the Kerch straight more attractive then the trucking through the Ukrainian mainland.
Perhaps in a couple of days I will know more.
OUTLAW 09
03-19-2014, 03:19 PM
Off the subject---the Crimea Tartars refused to participate in the elections in the Crimea and yet the Crimea government rep stated it was 30%.
Putin claimed yesterday in his speech that their language/and they themselves would be protected.
One of their top community leaders who was pro Ukrainian "disappeared" two weeks ago and was found dead yesterday with his hands and head taped.
Check this article that came out today from Crimean reporting---now one sees just how Russians control everything--so much in protecting minorities:http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html
MOSCOW, March 18 (RIA Novosti) – Ukraine’s breakaway region of Crimea will ask Tatars to vacate part of the land where they now live in exchange for new territory elsewhere in the region, a top Crimean government official said Tuesday.
Crimean Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Temirgaliyev said in an interview with RIA Novosti on Tuesday the new government in Crimea, where residents voted Sunday to become part of Russia, wants to regularize the land unofficially taken over by Crimean Tatar squatters following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“We have asked the Crimean Tatars to vacate part of their land, which is required for social needs,” Temirgaliyev said. “But we are ready to allocate and legalize many other plots of land to ensure a normal life for the Crimean Tatars,” he said.
Temirgaliyev emphasized that members of the Tatar community could receive senior political positions in the new government, in an apparent move to ease ethnic tensions in the region.
“I think that Crimean Tatars will be well represented in the government and parliament,” he said.
The Crimean Tatars, a historic people of the region, were deported en masse to Central Asia by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin 70 years ago. Although many of them returned in the early 1990s, they were unable to reclaim the land they had possessed before their deportation.
Many Crimean Tatars have taken over unclaimed land as squatters by building houses, farms and mosques. Ukrainian authorities have in the past failed to settle the land disputes.
The Tatars, who make up 15 percent of Crimea’s population, remain amongst the staunchest supporters of the new government in Kiev that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych last month.
Crimea, a largely Russian-speaking autonomous republic within Ukraine, was part of Russia until it was gifted to Ukraine by Soviet leaders in 1954.
Putin signed a decree Monday recognizing Crimea as an independent state, following a referendum Sunday that saw voters on the peninsula overwhelmingly support secession and reunification with Russia.
Nearly 30 percent of Crimean Tatars voted in favor of reunification with Russia at Sunday’s referendum, Temirgaliyev said.
Now I am learning something.
So if you are short of cash or risk losing deposits and don't have troops in the area you can just laugh off the agreement?
Hey Mark !
I wished it could sound better than you just put it, but the reality is just like you put it (well, almost).
Funding is driven by State (http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/2013/212989.htm) and used by every Tom, Dick and Harry. We, the military can ask and justify all we want. But, no cash, no troops, no deal.
Reality (see link above).
Regards, Stan
jmm99
03-19-2014, 06:43 PM
should have been laughed off when it was (they were) made.
But, that is not the Athenian Way, is it ?
Regards
Mike
jmm99
03-19-2014, 07:17 PM
@Outlaw
JMM--nice news today in Europe--looks like the US is finding their thinking again ---there will be a large land maneuver with substantial US troops on the ground in the Baltics in the coming days---clear message is now what does it feel like when equals are across from each other.
I read VP Biden's lofty rhetoric as carried on the AP wire yesterday; e.g., Pushing back on Russia, Biden vows more sanctions (http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/18/6246986/vp-biden-us-weighs-rotating-forces.html) (by JOSH LEDERMAN,
Associated Press; Published: Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2014 - 10:04 am; Last Modified: Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2014 - 10:47 am) (emphasis added):
WARSAW, Poland -- Denouncing Russia's actions in Crimea as "nothing more than a land grab," Vice President Joe Biden warned Russia on Tuesday that the U.S. and Europe will impose further sanctions as Moscow moved to annex part of Ukraine.
With limited options, the United States was seeking ways to show it won't stand idly by as Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty for the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea to join Russia. So far, Putin has been undeterred by sanctions and visa bans levied by the U.S. and the European Union, and there's no U.S. appetite for military intervention.
"Russia has offered a variety of arguments to justify what is nothing more than a land grab, including what he said today," Biden said in Poland, which shares a border with both Russia and Ukraine. "But the world has seen through Russia's actions and has rejected the flawed logic behind those actions."
...
In a clear warning to Moscow not to test other nations along its border, Biden said the U.S. commitment to defending its NATO allies is "ironclad." He promised more sanctions would be coming, along with new NATO training and exercises that will take place in Poland.
The vice president said the U.S. was considering rotating American forces to the Baltic region as a step toward ensuring the collective defense of NATO allies. Those forces could conduct ground and naval exercises, plus engage in training missions.
Or, were you speaking of real acts (which I missed) vs. rhetoric (which I didn't miss, but should have) - such as orders having been cut for 44 maneuver battalions to deploy to the Eastern Front. Do we still have 44 maneuver battalions ? You probably remember them from 1964.
It appears to me that some choices (for good or bad; and each person will have his own opinion as to those choices) have been made as to "the front". A US "Two Front" effort was well deceased by 2009, when Jim Cartwright was laconically honest about it; e.g., Pentagon to Change Two-Front War-Fighting Strategy - Marine Gen. James Cartwright said the old two-war plan is extreme (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/07/29/pentagon-to-change-two-front-war-fighting-strategy) (by Paul Bedard, July 29, 2009, Washington Whispers):
The Pentagon's two-front war-fighting strategy is going the way of the battleship: to the junkyard. A recognition of shrinking budgets and the reality that World War II isn't likely to repeat itself, the emerging plan will be a big change for the military. Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, got the buzz rolling this month when he suggested that the developing plan would be to have the capability to fight smaller wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan and only one with a major "peer competitor" like China or Russia. The old two-war plan he dubbed an "extreme."
I'll wait for acts (by both sides, as Firn suggests).
Regards
Mike
Hey Mike,
Sounds a bit like saber rattling like we do every year in Korea under the guise of annual training.
The skies over the Baltic States have always had fighters from just about every NATO nation patrolling. Nothing new, just a ton of jet A1 :wry:
The Baltic States have and continue to invite and create a NATO base. Hasn't happened in spite of massive reconstruction projects.
Mr. Biden says those forces could conduct ground and naval exercises and engage in training missions.
Hmmm, we already do and have done so since 95 :confused:
Bravo Sierra !
Regards, Stan
Boy do I get tired of hearing about how limited the options for the US are.
Here are some from the top of my head, large numbers of which come from Firn and Outlaw 09.
1. Tell the Poles and the Czechs the missile defense system is back on.
2. Put an entire squadron of F-22s and supporting tankers in Poland next week, permanently. EF-18s too.
3. Rescind landing rights for any Russian airplanes in the US. Stop all flights originating in the US that go into Russia.
4. All visas for entry into the US for all Russians will be stopped. None will be renewed.
4a. Exception to above. Any Russian who has a doctorate in a hard science, engineering, has very extensive experience in those fields or is a physician, will get an automatic green card upon application for one and $40,000 to help them relocate in the US.
5. Start shipping as many ATGMs to the Ukraine as you can put on anything that floats or flies, even the Dragons if they are still around.
6. Do the same thing with any SA-18s we can get hold of. And do the same thing with any of the Libyan SA-24s that we may have picked up.
7. Tell Boeing no more spare parts for aircraft are to be shipped to Russia. Same thing for the engine and avionics makers.
8. Freeze all Russian assets in the US.
9. Put an obvious close tail on every single Russian naval vessel at sea every minute they are at sea.
10. We had better have some intel on how much money Putin himself has overseas and where it is for all the money we spend on intel. Publish it.
11. Tell the oil companies to bring all their guys in Russia home.
12. Tell the oil companies that if they want to apply for a LNG export terminal tomorrow, the approval will come next week.
13. We have M-1 tanks surplus to our needs, maybe Poland and Ukraine would like some.
And on and on. These are things that we can do on our own without the west Europeans. Firn would know of various financial things that we can do on our own. The point is there are a lot of things we can do, if the genii Athenians inside the beltway stop talking themselves into helplessness.
This is very worrying to me. We have three more years of this administration and if they don't stop shoveling they may dig a hole for us so deep we may not get out.
jmm99
03-19-2014, 09:30 PM
1. Any or all of the acts you suggest would be better than lofty rhetoric - if no acts are really intended, then our Beltway should STFU.
2. Your suggestions beg the question of which EU-NATO states are willing to step up to the military plate - are there any; and, if so, how far are they willing to go ?
3. To what extent does the US provide "matching assets" ? I'd suggest that the EU-NATO inputs into Iraq and Afghanistan would be good precedents for the % of US involvement (a secondary effort, as EU-NATO has been in our two wars) to a European crisis (where EU-NATO should take the lead, not the US). They've helped us out in the very recent past; we should help them to the same extent - reciprocity !
4. If EU-NATO is up to the task of confronting Putin-Ivanov, then it will gain its spurs - perhaps, it then could become the pre-eminent hegemonic power. If it is not up to that task (not taking on the task is the same thing) using primarily its own power and methods, then that is a good thing for Americans to know.
5. I'm willing to be patient and let the EU-NATO hand play out (as Firn suggests). I'd as soon not hear our politicians talk up all the bad things they are going to do to Vlad and his Russkies.
Regards
Mike
PS: here's one for you, Carl - a daymare - three more years + 8 of Billary !!
I also realize that patience is difficult in the face of headlines such as this, Calls to escalate Russia sanctions leave EU in a quandary (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-ukraine-crisis-eu-escalation-insight-idUSBREA2H1Q120140318) (by Luke Baker, BRUSSELS Mar 18, 2014):
(Reuters) - Mocked by Moscow, the European Union needs to impose far tougher sanctions over Crimea to make President Vladimir Putin sit up and pay attention, but its ability to agree them is limited - and consensus may not be achievable at all.
...
Some EU foreign ministers quietly agree and are frustrated. They wanted harder-hitting sanctions, but EU restrictions have to be agreed unanimously, which means the measures are only as strong as the country with the deepest reservations will allow.
Austria is among the doubters. "Sanctions don't solve problems," said Chancellor Werner Faymann. "The solution can only be getting to negotiations." ... (much more "quandaries" in story)
OUTLAW 09
03-19-2014, 09:51 PM
JMM---story indicates a joint Army/Marine unit coming in for an exercise and training of Baltic troops.
Do not think it is just talk.
Interesting the way they are using the exercise excuse thus one level below a threat---knowing though how it will be interpreted.
This came in via the NYT: "A Ukrainian official also says the country will hold joint military exercises with the U.S. and Britain."
This is far deeper as the Russian military is matching if not expanding their reactions---they are flexing their muscles as a show of strength befitting a superpower---at least in their eyes and that makes this a far more complicated thing than just a "cold war" thing.
In some aspects they are showing us their complete rebuilding is finished and they can match us in ways we did not estimate they could as IMO intel wise we lost them in the last 12 years of chasing jihadi's.
There is more to Putin's physic makeup that they are paying attention to ---would really recommend reading the English or if one speaks Russian (that is better as it catches the reflections/intonations of the language) that gives a lot of insight to what triggered his actions.
That is what they are paying attention to-----IMO they initially misread him even if Bush claimed "he looked him in the eyes" ......
What worries me is the simple fact that the intel community both in the US and in Europe totally missed this thing as it was building---so much for Pearl Harbor and the creation of an intel team called Indications and Warnings.
jmm99
03-19-2014, 10:17 PM
JMM---story indicates a joint Army/Marine unit coming in for an exercise and training of Baltic troops.
Do not think it is just talk.
I won't; because without a link I don't know if it is anything at all.
Regards
Mike
Mike:
I don't quite understand your point 3.
I think we could do quite a lot without the EU and with only some NATO members, Poland, the Czechs, the Baltic countries and maybe some others who were occupied by the Red friends. They understand very wel what all this means.
If the EU and NATO as a whole get their act together, great; but we can do a whole lot of things in the meantime or without them altogether.
Of course, no matter what fine courses of action we can come up with, the final say is had by Mr. & Mrs. Obama, Valerie Jarret and their pulsilaminous but very concerned crew.
They used to say God took care of drunks and the United States. Maybe he hasn't run out of patience with drunks.
jmm99
03-19-2014, 10:36 PM
from Helsingin Sanomat, Putin knows the Finns well enough, but do any of us really know him? (http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/thisweek/02022000.html) (by Anu Nousiainen; first published in print 9.1.2000):
The memories differ a little on the precise date of the big match, but it was sometime early in 1994: in the indoor soccer hall at Turku's Impivaara, the two teams warmed up for the fixture between the Bishop's Boys and Petersburg City. A fairly motley crew of footballers of various ages, waistlines, and levels of fitness trotted out onto the artificial grass. The Petersburg side in particular looked somewhat less than professional in their borrowed shirts (mind you, they were borrowed from a Finnish league side) and several appeared to be playing in trainers. Someone even had a pair of jeans on.
The Bishop's Boys under their captain Archbishop John Vikstrom, who could have been a contender but for his vocation, were not out to thrash the opposition, and strolled to a leisurely and polite 2-1 victory over the visitors. And why are we talking football here? Simply because among the eleven Petersburg players was one Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Apparently he was one of the ones with proper soccer shoes. ... (much more in article)
and, Who remembers 2nd Secretary Ivanov? - The Russian First Deputy Prime Minister spent six years in Helsinki in the 1980s (https://www.hs.fi/english/article/Who+remembers+2nd+Secretary+Ivanov/1135226329183) (by Heikki Hellman; first published in print 1.4.2007):
...
In the 1980s, Sergei Ivanov lived in Helsinki, working under the title of a 3rd (and later 2nd) Secretary at the Soviet Embassy in the capital.
Over a period of nearly six years he thoroughly familiarised himself with Finland and met a great many Finnish politicians, businessmen, and university people.
For many Finns active at that time, he is simply Sergei. That old acquaintance of theirs who - before he acquired ministerial status some years ago - might call them up in their Moscow hotel room with a cheery: "Hi! It's Sergei."
Perhaps we ought to back up a little way and consider regarding Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov as a kind of "Finnish champion", too, on the strength of how much he knows about Finland and the Finns.
But what do the Finns know of him?
Who recalls Comrade Ivanov from those days?
The surprising thing is that while many remember Sergei Ivanov, there is very little to be said about him. ... (much more in story).
So, the extroverted cold fish and the introverted cold fish.
Regards
Mike
davidbfpo
03-19-2014, 10:58 PM
Via Twitter:
Scowcroft on Ru: "we assume we have to match them w belligerence." Let's show some creativity in our response
To date the options exercised seem half-hearted and without any clear explanation to the public here. The sanctions against individuals are pathetic, yes they signal opposition, but are nothing more than a public display.
Military options have their place, although deploying into the Ukraine now is un-wise. It must be a common NATO display and I've yet to see any such reporting.
Wider economic sanctions need to be creative, although some of Carl's options would be stark signs of "no more, the cost can get higher".
jmm99
03-19-2014, 10:58 PM
Point 3 ties in with Point 2 - they both have to do with EU-NATO capabilities and will to use those capabilities. Assuming (without any evidence I can present right now) that there is a coalition of the "able and willing", from the Baltic to the Black Sea, how far are they ready to go militarily ?
That's a strategic question - recall from Luttwak's Strategy the Cold War contradictions between what the Germans wanted and the US wanted. That was in many ways a US show. If one thinks that is still the case with 2014 Ukraine, one should disabuse oneself of that notion.
Going from that position on Point 2 (EU-NATO on board for military action, or a material part of it - say, your Eastern States) to Point 3, we do unto them as they have done to us in the recent past - Iraq and Afghanistan seem good precedents to me.
BUT, LET ME MAKE THIS CRYSTAL - the US would be a secondary player; and absent material European participation (on far higher levels than US), the US would not play in any military scenario. Not even one JSOC operator.
Regards
Mike
PS: From my "Calls to escalate" link:
At a small lunch held a few days before the first phase of sanctions was imposed on Monday, one EU ambassador cautioned against moving too quickly or aggressively on Moscow.
"We don't want to end up on an escalator where we don't know where it's going," he said, arguing that once you take the first step on sanctions, there are immediate calls for more substantial measures to increase the pressure.
"What do you do when sanctions run out?" he asked, leaving hanging the inference that the EU does not want - and could not afford - a more physical confrontation with Russia.
In the end, the ambassador's country joined the rest in unanimously agreeing the measures which were less tough than sanctions imposed by the United States.
"We have done what we said we could do, but, yes, the U.S. is from Mars, we are from Venus," said Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who wanted at least four more names on the EU list but was rebuffed by other member states.
"I would suggest that we are not overly enthusiastic when it comes to introducing sanctions, because we will pay for it."
If the Poles think we are from Mars and they from Venus, an "able and willing" military Eastern Coalition seems doubtful. Hell, yes, they'd all want US divisions (not just brigades, mind), so long as the US could guarantee there'd be no damages to their countries from war, etc., etc.
Mike:
I don't think there is any need for US military forces outside current NATO members . I don't think there is a need for any regular US ground forces in any of the front line NATO countries. They have plenty of guys who can fight and would be thrilled to have a crack at Ivan. There is a need for money, weapons and for the front line NATO countries, air cover. If Ivan goes into any part of the rest of Ukraine it may be an Unconventional Warfare jamboree. Those front line NATO nations and the Ukrainians have plenty of tough top flight guys who can handle everything in that country.
If the Poles don't act like Poles if Ivan keeps moving, I'll look for the sun to rise in the west, but they will need backup from us in the ways I've described.
jcustis
03-20-2014, 12:57 AM
What worries me is the simple fact that the intel community both in the US and in Europe totally missed this thing as it was building---so much for Pearl Harbor and the creation of an intel team called Indications and Warnings.
Don't blame the analysts. Russia missed it too at the outset, and it became a really bad situation for Putin. It's not as though there weren't EUCOM analysts who weren't watching and charting the course of things.
It just happened that Putin acted decisively and quickly, while we waited for the situation to develop. Facilitating democracy seems to be a wait-and-see enterprise for the US and other democracies. It is easy to outcycle that approach.
I work at a combatant command now, and trust me when I say this: folks know what is going on and what is about to happen. It's the politicians and cabinet principals who don't act in a timely manner.
jmm99
03-20-2014, 01:11 AM
just quid pro quo.
Up front, I'm not objecting to my and your sending US troops to bad places, where they will see worse situations, etc. In any event, they (not 10 yr old Ukrainian school children) are and will be my paramount priority; e.g., 278th ACR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/278th_Armored_Cavalry_Regiment) (two OIF tours; my dad's WWII unit, then 117th Inf.); 107th Engineer Combat Battalion (http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/eng/0107enbn.htm) (OIF & OEF tours; our local sappers).
If I had the say, I wouldn't do it, however, without very good reasons and without imposing conditions on "allies", "partners", etc. - which I've expressed. If you want the model, it's Jack Pershing.
Your hopes on this:
I don't think there is any need for US military forces outside current NATO members . I don't think there is a need for any regular US ground forces in any of the front line NATO countries. They have plenty of guys who can fight and would be thrilled to have a crack at Ivan. There is a need for money, weapons and for the front line NATO countries, air cover. If Ivan goes into any part of the rest of Ukraine it may be an Unconventional Warfare jamboree. Those front line NATO nations and the Ukrainians have plenty of tough top flight guys who can handle everything in that country.
If the Poles don't act like Poles if Ivan keeps moving, I'll look for the sun to rise in the west, but they will need backup from us in the ways I've described.
may or may not be justified by their future acts. Until they are, I'm not on your bandwagon.
Regards
Mike
jcustis:
What is about to happen next?
I can try anyway.
Mike:
I wasn't talking about 10 year old Ukainians. I was talking about 10 year old Americans.
There would be no need for either one of those units to go anywhere but Shopko. They fall under 'regular US ground forces'.
jcustis
03-20-2014, 01:20 AM
I don't work at EUCOM, so I dunno.:D
jmm99
03-20-2014, 02:55 AM
then we should be considering the risk to them of directly confronting Russia.
We did that, of course, during the Cold War. The last Cold War study on that was in 1990.
Nuclear Attack Planning Base - 1990 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/napb-90/)
Federal Emergency Management Agency
April 1987
The Nuclear Attack Planning Base 1990 was an official estimate of the potential physical effects of a Soviet nuclear attack on the population of the United States, including detailed county-by-county assessments of damage due to blast overpressure, fire and radiation.
A copy of the approximately 500 page publication, originally marked Limited Distribution and Not for Public Release, was released in April 2005 with the following caveat: "This publication was provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, for its academic and historical value only."
•Executive Summary
•Cover Page
•Front Matter, Table of Contents
•Part 1: Project Overview
•Part 2: Project Development
•Part 3: Risk Definitions (1.67 MB PDF file)
•Annex A: Direct Effects & Fire Risk, Statistics and Maps (4.2 MB PDF file)
•Annex B: Fallout Risk, Statistics and Maps (6.1 MB PDF file)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/napb-90/cover.jpg
Is the Ukraine worth a nuclear exchange now ? - a very good question to ask Americans, I'd say. While we're at it, what about Germany, UK and France ? Should we trade the Midwest for Italy ?
Of course, we get bellicose statements from Russian politicos - anyone have the link for the local Russian politician who a few days ago promised they would incinerate us. And, we have it from Mirhond Batch #1 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=153657&postcount=407):
Good idea from the first glance, but in the long run, when virtually all who are already considering to migrate, leave the country, Putin&Co will get society dominated with die-hard supporters. When they finally figure out that their cause is lost, the'll nuke you, and I'am only half unseriuos.
Actually, this "ultimate threat" by nutjob fanatics of the "use them or lose them" persuasion is not that "ultimate". If it seems the case, the only logical COA is to employ a massive first strike to cut down on the number of their missiles that can reply. That revisits the "ultimate" game of chicken, where the enemy shows up drunk and high, cuts his brake lines, lashes himself in the seat, lashes down the throttle and throws away the steering wheel. The obvious response is to kill the crazy SOB by any means feasible - breaking all the "rules" of that "game".
Not having been that impressed by the "Better Red than Dead" campaigns of the Cold War, that type of threat does not impress me now; but it is a risk that Americans should at least wrestle with in dealings with Russia - and China, for that matter.
Why you keep throwing this kind of bone to me:
There would be no need for either one of those units to go anywhere but Shopko ...
is beyond me - sending them into combat is not my problem - they didn't sign up to become mall ninjas.
Regards
Mike
Mike:
Ok, now that you got that off your chest.
One of these days we may have to do that, directly confront Russia; Poland after all is right next to Ukraine. To my mind, the best way to make sure that day does not come is to directly confront them economically now, if they don't go into the rest of Ukraine; and if they do contribute indirectly to the UW jamboree.
@jcustis: It seems that most politicians, also stuck in the 'proper' procedures, apart from Putin just could not believe that he was pulling this off. Then again a month ago Putin himself did likely not think that he would and could.
The demand of 'travel documents' and later visas for Russian citiziens seems to be mostly motivated by the experience with Russian provocateurs and infiltrators. Russia seems ready to respond in kind, with a couple of consequences:
a) Economic problems mostly for some Eastern oblasts with strong trade ties and trans-border commuters. The Russian oblasts nearby will also suffer, but likely considerably less so.
b) Another impuls pushing the two nations apart. The occupation of the Crimea and the increasingly strong integration into Europe proper are of course bigger factors.
c) Tourims in the Crimea should get hit even harder as those 70% percent will have even less incentives to go there.
Of course Putin might still invade some eastern oblasts, extemp the Crimea from travel restrictions and so forth but I think those points are rather probable.
The pretty likely exit from the CIS, the probable increase of the Crimean pensions on Russian levels are all interesting topics which will have to wait.
With Russia, as With China, Unnerved U.S. Allies Seek Reassurances (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/world/europe/another-set-of-wary-allies-seeks-us-reassurance.html?_r=0)
Of course China is watching developments in Ukraine closely. When will they move on their territorial claims in the South and East China Seas?
Weakness will be exploited.
OUTLAW 09
03-20-2014, 08:43 AM
JMM---reference the cold fish comments--what does one expect from a well trained KGB officer?
Never forget that this was his frame of reference for his future thinking and you saw that in his Duma speech.
It is that frame of reference that is the danger---the old glory of the SU and the superpower status that he feels Russia lost when the SU fell apart.
Check some of his comments since the breakup---then check two sentences in his speech directed towards the Germans specifically.
He said that the Germans should understand and allow Russia to reunite as a country as it was the Russians that allowed the Germans to reunite as a country.
This is an interesting point in past history that many Americans probably did not know---check what the responses were from the US/UK/France when the wall came down and the West Germans drove immediately to reunification.
The Western Allies actually drug their combined feet and found constant reasons to delay major face to face meetings and there is even some reports they wanted the Germans to go much slower---it was in fact the Russians that pushed the speed button.
NOW comes some of Putin's anger---the Russians assumed with German unification they would slowly back out of NATO and go a tad neutral and were angry that when the Allies left Berlin in 1994 they simply pulled back to their NATO bases in western Germany---the Soviet Army Germany pulled out in 1995 and went where---back to Russia and Germany stayed in NATO.
These are the small items that cropped up in his speech.
But in the end he was and still in his frame of reference a KGB officer.
OUTLAW 09
03-20-2014, 09:16 AM
jcustis---if in fact your comment alludes to EUCOM analysts knowing that it was coming and the warnings were not escalated in a way that let say initial comments coming out of the WH "warning" against this move to occur prior to the military movement evidently did not happen.
Surprises me as the military has always been able to leak in ways that motivate the politicians---but again nothing from the EUCOM came out as well.
The old Soviet Army was "watched" like a hawk in the old days for exactly this display of speed and it was felt that any Soviet Army attack would come out of a mobilization for an exercise and then shift in speed which is exactly what happen here on the ground and we still see it happening on the eastern side of the Ukraine as well as with their aerial exercises in NW Russia.
Granted it takes politicians longer to respond, but even the Europeans were caught off guard.
Yes Putin got surprised with the speed of the breakdown and breakup of the Moscow supported Ukrainian government but the Russian military decision to move into the Crimea requires either a preplanned maneuver plan or a little time to rev up---in this case I am tipping that it was preplanned and just pulled out of the filing cabinet.
My experience with the Russian staff planning processes and thought process does not lend itself to a quick hip pocket ad hoc operation another indicator of a preplanned event.
Still question why there was a disconnect between the military I&W and the decision makers---that was the purpose behind the creation of I&W---to have no disconnect--- and from your comment it seems to not have happened.
OUTLAW 09
03-20-2014, 10:47 AM
Firn---this is from today via German reporting and in German but basically says that the Russian government (Finance Minister Siluanow) will not support companies that are in financial difficulties as they did in 2008.
Why the comment---Russian business leaders were voicing their concerns about possible effects of the economic sanctions on them.
Strange is it not that the Putin government has to threaten their own business community in order to shut them up about complaining of possibly damage due to sanctions---does not fit the image Putin and Co. are trying to project create that they are not gong to be hurt by them.
So I guess what the sanctions will not hurt us-- but behind the scenes if you are with us and stay publicly quiet then we will inject cash and no one will be the wiser?
By the way did you read about the arrest several days ago of the richest Ukrainian oligarch who has close ties to Putin/Moscow---occurred when he was in Vienna at the behest of the US.
Also looks like the EU/US will reimplement the cold war industrial goods/products embargo list on key items that Russian imports/needs---will be talked about today at the EU meeting and will probably be released at the EU/US Obama meeting next week
"Die russische Regierung will Firmen in finanziellen Schwierigkeiten nicht untersttzen - anders als in der Finanzkrise 2008. Das gab Finanzminister Anton Siluanow bekannt. Hintergrund der Ankndigung: Russische Unternehmer hatten Bedenken ber die Auswirkungen moeglicher Sanktionen geaeussert."
Disregarding pretty much everything coming out of the Kremlin as deception and propagand and just looking at the deeds doesn't seem to be that stupid for now. I have invested yesterday a bit of time and read the Russian snapshot (http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Russia-Snapshot.pdf) of the World Bank from October 2013, which does look at the economy in a systematic fashion. Some neat figures (2,4,6,10) and facts (table 1).
This comment (http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-03/sahra-wagenknecht-krim-russland) in the german Zeit does reflect my views pretty well. The strange bunch which went to Crimea to 'observe' has been really a most amazing combination of extremist and partially criminal elements of European politics.
More about the visa issue:
"We should not be in a hurry with the introduction of a visa regime with Russia...," Yatseniuk's press service said, referring to comments the prime minister made in Brussels.
"Such an initiative by Ukraine is most unlikely to be effective in terms of influencing Russia," he said, adding that the measure could negatively affect Ukrainians living in the predominantly Russian-speaking east of the country.
I read that 3 million Ukrainian citziens are working in Russia, a number which does surprise me. Of course the wage differential should be rather large, less unemployment, little travel and labour restrictions, a long permeable border, most Ukrainians speak good Russians and so forth but I imagined the amount to be smaller. It would be interesting to know how many of those commute...
Perhaps they will ask 'only' for 'travel documents' without much ado, and push visas for now back. We will see.
OUTLAW 09
03-20-2014, 01:23 PM
Firn--Merkel's speech today in Parliament before she left for Brussels was a hardening in her tone---something new for her and I think in general German politics. She also indicated that if the talking with Putin does not go anywhere Germany is prepared to go to hard sanctions even if it hits them.
When she spoke of the coming G8 meetings she stated what G8? and no G8 meeting as long as the surrounding politics do not allow it.
They have stopped all military sales to Russia which included new vehicles and a 140M USD simulation enter the Russians were counting on to improve their C&C and the CA fire and move element which they are still in from the 50/60s.
The UK has stopped their military sales as well which was a lot and the French are delaying the two carriers for Russia and Russian just demanded penalties if they do not deliver the first one on time.
Not sure Russia calculated this quick of a total stop to military sales as it was a planned part of their military rebuilding efforts especially the naval vessels with French technology.
Reference Die Linke -- Zeit newspaper article---they were pushing to join in a future political coalition with the SPD and Greens (red, red, green) and with their fallback into cold war rhetoric and their matching of Putin's Crimea arguments they basically killed that notion for the coming years as being politically kind of in an isolation mode with their views. Die Linke is a holdover of the former GDR Communist Party as well the former West German CP and is while a minority relativity strong % wise in the former GDR.
At least Italy send only a 'ndrangheta buddy honestly interested in the money or Russian asylum. Germany came up with two useful ideological idiots who seem to really believe their drivel. :D
Bloomberg TV (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/does-europe-need-russian-gas-KITwFbWNTae29EBlkyZiGA.html?cmpid=yhoo) got a knowledgable interviewee, he pretty much confirmed what was mentioned earlier in the thread. The Russian budget and the trade facts were quite revealing even without in-depth knowledge.
Putins mate Schroeder sold himself dearly on North Stream, he must be a most popular man in the Baltics. :wry:
And yes Merkel sounded surprisingly tough and there has been some actions in the 'defense' business.
Firn--Merkel's speech today in Parliament before she left for Brussels was a hardening in her tone--- my emphasis
Surely we are a long way past the need for a change in tone but rather in need of some action?
But good for her and Germany for showing more balls than contained in the current White House.
Before the focus on gutlessness stays only on Obama we need to remember that George Bush's bottle went with the Georgia crisis back in 2008 which sent a message to Russia. The Russians can be forgiven for interpreting the continued US draw down of troops in Europe as a withdrawal to avoid confrontation.
Russia’s moves in Ukraine are ‘wake-up call,’ NATO’s Rasmussen says in speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russias-moves-in-ukraine-are-wake-up-call-natos-rasmussen-says-in-speech/2014/03/19/80560d7c-af88-11e3-9627-c65021d6d572_story.html)
“We live in a different world than we did less than a month ago,” Rasmussen said in a previously scheduled Brookings Institution speech that was adjusted to reflect a sudden crisis that he called Europe’s “gravest threat . . . since the end of the Cold War.”
No true... it is just that some were delusional.
Fire this guy... now.
OUTLAW 09
03-20-2014, 02:12 PM
JMA---IMO I view the US troop draw down as a not to subtle signal to Russia that the US was in fact no longer interested in the European area. If you look at the European NATO countries they have all gone to volunteers and reduced their size and military spending as "peace and stability had broken out" and although they did support in some ways in Iraq and AFG they were on a glide path of military reductions overall. Couple that with the US pulling out and couple that with a complete Russian military rebuild with new weapons and a professional army you have in effect the creation of a regional superpower that has nuclear weapons and that can indeed threaten all of Europe as the so called "unipolar" US was not in a position nor did it really want to play any longer the strong man in Europe so we are where we now are.
When the largest standing Army in Europe is now the Turkish Army then we are in real trouble.
If you notice there is nothing on the military card being played outside of proposed and or actual planned exercises-and talk--only the movement of aircraft which was responded by the Russian AF stepping up their activities---so really not much in the way of military card---all even including Germany have shut out a military response out of fear of triggering something that is uncontrolled breaking out.
This is historically the second time that the US has signaled to Russia ie the Soviet Union that US interests/intentions did not expand to specific areas.
If I recall ---not sure which major Allied Conference---believe it was Yalta then the US signaled that Korean was not in 'it's sphere of influence"---to which a startled Stalin asked twice for clarification.
Some say this in fact triggered the NK invasion as Stalin felt we were not interested in the outcome of Korea.
By taking troops, depots, material out of Europe we indirectly/inadvertently signaled basically the same thing.
Straight diplomacy alone ---and I am going out on a limb here has not achieved anything on any specific world political problem since 1999---if one looks hard it has been in combination with military force and or a tight set of economic sanctions.
So I am hard pressed to understand why this WH thought diplomacy was all one needed for soft power.
JMA---IMO I view the US troop draw down as a not to subtle signal to Russia that the US was in fact no longer interested in the European area.
Exactly
OUTLAW 09
03-20-2014, 02:59 PM
To all it is rather interesting to track Russian viewed news items on Interfax.com---------
Here is just a few interesting tidbits----
15:01 Moscow perplexed by OSCE/ODIHR's non-inclusion of its candidate in Afghanistan mission
Sometimes I am even surprised by what the Russians are thinking.
14:18 Russia against "higher ante" in Iran negotiations because of Ukraine events – diplomat
Again just what did they expect to happen?
13:23 Lukoil doubts domestic fuel delivery quota idea will be implemented
Sounds as if they are planning for actual sanctions and want to protect local fuel supplies.
12:51 RZD not much interested in Crimean ports - Yakunin
Now this goes to something Firm stated previously as well as did David.
OUTLAW 09
03-20-2014, 03:50 PM
I have been interested in understanding just why China has been so quiet on the Russian violation of national boundaries as that is the key corner stone of Chinese foreign policy since the 80s.
Maybe it has to do with China receiving over 690M USD in weapons exports from the Ukraine last year and maybe in supporting very quietly Russia they want to ensure those weapons continue to flow.
Does anyone have a view on just what the Ukraine was supplying China with in the way of weapons?
There is some chatter that both countries are slowly nudging closer together politically/militarily as a combined superpower against the US/EU ie in general anything western.
So again did the US underestimate badly both China and Russia in its soft power thinking?
AmericanPride
03-20-2014, 04:11 PM
So again did the US underestimate badly both China and Russia in its soft power thinking?
Absolutely. Even with the War on Terrorism, the last decade-plus has been spent idealizing "soft power" and "smart power" while second tier powers continued to build their military strength. When measured on military manpower, budget, and nuclear weapons, Russia is second only to the United States, and has about double the combined strength of France (#4), United Kingdom (#7), Germany (#19), Turkey (#23), and Poland (#29).Even while the Russian Armed Forces undergoes its transformation, it still maintains approximately 49% of the world's nuclear weapons to provide strategic cover for their military and political policies.
When the Yanukovych government collapsed, none of the NATO powers were in any position to unilaterally or collectively respond to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity. And I don't think it was even politically feasible, given the internal political dynamics of Ukraine as well as the hesistancy of NATO in the face of what would of course be a very strong Russian rebuke. Aside for "democracy promotion" in Kiev for many years, there were no other efforts to build a strong civil faction that could control the rest of the country or resist external threats. Ukraine is 25th in military strength on the account of its size, but not its quality, leaving it with about 3% of the military capabilities of Russia.
Given these facts, the outcome is a foregone conclusion and it was missed not because Putin is some evil mastermind but because we in the West failed to fully appreciate the entirity of the situation and to do basic long-term analysis.
So I am hard pressed to understand why this WH thought diplomacy was all one needed for soft power.
None of us here can, especially guys like you and JMA. You come from a different world than they do, a wholly different world. What you guys know to be true about the world because you've seen it and smelled it, they have never seen or even read about. If they did read about it they wouldn't believe it.
Our problem is Putin and the Red Chinese understand them perfectly.
AmericanPride
03-20-2014, 04:16 PM
Still question why there was a disconnect between the military I&W and the decision makers---that was the purpose behind the creation of I&W---to have no disconnect--- and from your comment it seems to not have happened.
Because Washington policy-makers live in a bubble, and so do the political parties as well as the political appointees and media that fawn over them. Washington is still living in the "end of history" and can't possibly fathom that there are credible and serious challengers to American power abroad; much less formulate any kind of long-term policy to deal with it. And this is certainly reflected in everything from Congress, defense acquisition, and foreign policy. It's comforting to think that the American global position is unassailable, but when this assumption is made on the basis of ideological principles, we leave ourselves vulnerable to surprises by the decisive actions of others.
A slightly different take on the matter, but not entirely uneconomical...
Clauswitz, Book 1, Chapter 2:
In like manner the conquest of the enemy's provinces is quite a different measure if the object is not the destruction of the enemy's army. In the latter case, the destruction of the army is the real effectual action, and the taking of the provinces only a consequence of it; to take them before the army had been defeated would always be looked upon only as a necessary evil. On the other hand, if our views are not directed upon the complete destruction of the enemy's force, and if we are sure that the enemy does not seek but fears to bring matters to a bloody decision, the taking possession of a weak or defenceless province is an advantage in itself, and if this advantage is of sufficient importance to make the enemy apprehensive about the general result, then it may also be regarded as a shorter road to peace.
But now we come upon a peculiar means of influencing the probability of the result without destroying the enemy's army, namely, upon the expeditions which have a direct connection with political views. If there are any enterprises which are particularly likely to break up the enemy's alliances or make them inoperative, to gain new alliances for ourselves, to raise political powers in our own favour, etc., etc., then it is easy to conceive how much these may increase the probability of success, and become a shorter way towards our aim than the routing of the enemy's army.
That describes pretty much the current situation. Russia wants of course peace now and de-escalation after having annexed unopposed a weak and defenseless province because it's politicians, lacking power and military means, (rightly) feared a bloody decision and an even worse outcome.
But a measuring of strength may be effected in cases where the opposing sides are very unequal by a mere comparative estimate. In such cases no fighting will take place, and the weaker will immediately give way.
If the object of a combat is not always the destruction of the enemy's forces therein engaged—and if its object can often be attained as well without the combat taking place at all, by merely making a resolve to fight, and by the circumstances to which that gives rise—then that explains how a whole campaign may be carried on with great activity without the actual combat playing any notable part in it.
That this may be so, military history proves by a hundred examples. How many of those cases had a bloodless decision which can be justified, that is, without involving a contradiction; and whether some of the celebrities who rose out of them would stand criticism we shall leave undecided, for all we have to do with the matter is to show the possibility of such a course of events in war.
We have only one means in war—the battle; but this means, by the infinite variety of ways in which it may be applied, leads us into all the different ways which the multiplicity of objects allows of, so that we seem to have gained nothing; but that is not the case, for from this unity of means proceeds a thread which assists the study of the subject, as it runs through the whole web of military activity, and holds it together.
I think this underlines that with a focus on the great conflicts in our history we tend to miss those 'bloodless' decisions* which military history (back then) 'proves by a hundred examples'. This does of course take nothing away from the fact that:
The combat is the single activity in war; in the combat the destruction of the enemy opposed to us is the means to the end; it is so even when the combat does not actually take place, because in that case there lies at the root of the decision the supposition at all events that this destruction is to be regarded as beyond doubt. It follows, therefore, that the destruction of the enemy's military force is the foundation-stone of all action in war, the great support of all combinations, which rest upon it like the arch on its abutments. All action, therefore, takes place on the supposition that if the solution by force of arms which lies at its foundation should be realised, it will be a favourable one. The decision by arms is, for all operations in war, great and small, what cash payment is in bill transactions. However remote from each other these relations, however seldom the realisation may take place, still it can never entirely fail to occur.
*Not all of them Small Wars, I would say.
AmericanPride
03-20-2014, 08:19 PM
I'm currently working on a quantitative assessment of national power (political, economic, and military) with an optional extended scale of science and social (soft power) dimensions. The intent is to capture the full breadth of a state's power. I've only included United Nations members. The methodology enables me to see what percentage of the global power pie that each state owns. These are the top five:
National Power
1. United States (16.23%)
2. China (7.47%)
3. Russian Federation (6.20%)
4. Japan (4.23%)
5. France (2.98%)
...
41. Ukraine (0.44%)
However, when looking at economics, the USA drops to #2 while Russia drops to #10. And when looking at military power, the USA and Russia occupy #1 and #2 respectively. Whereas the United States has 34.14% of the 'military pie', Russia has 15.27%. NATO military strength is 46.17% while CIS/CSTO is 15.75%.
So, a couple of insights bearing on this situation:
1) Russia is a 'great power' in the traditional realist sense. It is capable of exercising hard power on its neighbors. I suspect when I complete the extended scale, it's rank will decline on account of its underdeveloped 'soft power'.
2) Ukraine has no hope of defending itself alone against Russia.
3) NATO deterrence is only effective when the alliance operates in unison - the split positions diminishes NATO power. The combined military strength of NATO countries bordering Russia or Ukraine (Norway, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia) amount to 0.706%. That's hardly a credible threat to Russia. France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and the UK have 10.02% military strength compared to Russia's 15.27%. In other words, an effective military option is dependent on the United States, but as we know, the importance of Crimea and Ukraine varies between Washington, Berlin, and Warsaw.
OUTLAW 09
03-20-2014, 08:47 PM
For a country that claims it can resist the sanctions being levied against it this came up today on CNBC. Looks like the US understands the Russian economy (who has influence as an oligarch) better than Putin does. Maybe the NSA was right after all in pursuing their surveillance concepts overseas.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is calling on billionaires to pay taxes amid fears that a new wave of Western sanctions against the country over the annexation of Crimea may hit businessmen.
At a meeting Thursday with Russia's richest men in Moscow, Putin said businesses "ought to register on Russian territory and pay taxes in our motherland."
American Pride:
That is an interesting concept. I think it is useful only in a like vs like sense. What I mean is if you compared Pakistan to the US the US beats Pakistan on every measure, yet the Pak Army/ISI beat us in Afghanistan (or will have barring a miracle). If Ivan went into the rest of Ukraine and the US and frontline NATO states embarked upon an Unconventional Warfare campaign I don't think the Russian economy could handle that, especially combined with economic sanctions over a period of years.
I'm currently working on a quantitative assessment of national power (political, economic, and military) with an optional extended scale of science and social (soft power) dimensions. The intent is to capture the full breadth of a state's power.
I'd be interested to see what you use for assessing power and how you integrate the various elements to get an overall ranking.
I find interesting that you do not use the same factors of national power that the US uses --DIME vs. your PEM(SS).
I'd also like to point out that "power" rankings are often of little predictive value, as Ohio State and Cincinnati found out today in their NCAA Men's Hoops tourney games with Dayton and Harvard.
AmericanPride
03-20-2014, 11:48 PM
American Pride:
That is an interesting concept. I think it is useful only in a like vs like sense. What I mean is if you compared Pakistan to the US the US beats Pakistan on every measure, yet the Pak Army/ISI beat us in Afghanistan (or will have barring a miracle). If Ivan went into the rest of Ukraine and the US and frontline NATO states embarked upon an Unconventional Warfare campaign I don't think the Russian economy could handle that, especially combined with economic sanctions over a period of years.
Carl,
You bring up a good point. My intention is to measure capability for the purpose of providing an analytical context for understanding state actions and outcomes. Context, execution, the availability of information, position and posture, etc all influence outcomes. So of course while Iran, for example, may rank higher than Bulgaria, I don't realistically expect Iran to ever succesfully attack (or attack at all) Bulgaria.
I'd be interested to see what you use for assessing power and how you integrate the various elements to get an overall ranking.
The first version uses these factors:
Political - EIU's Stability Ratings, KOF Globalization Index
Economic - GDP, FOREX, Government Revenue
Military - Manpower, Budget, Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear Weapons
Scientific - Global Innovation Index, # of Patents, (# of Degree Holders and/or Universities)
Social - Social Progress Index, Human Development Index, Population
These are not the final factors I will be using in the model, since there are others I am considering adding and some of these listed may be subject to removal also. I'm also debating about how complex to make the model - the issue will be how much information is actually available.
The reason why I chose not to use the DIME factors is because I want a quantitative rather than qualitiative measurement in order to measure each state in the same way.
EDIT: As to the methodology, each category has several factors (listed above). The score for each state is given as a percentage of the category that state owns; i.e. Russia owns 48.81% of the world's nuclear weapons. These factors are then averaged for the index of that category; and then those categories are all averaged together for the overall rating of the state.
Initially, I was going to rank each state in each category and then average all the rankings, but I think that approach was to disconnected from the quantitative factors I was using.
The first version uses these factors:
Political - EIU's Stability Ratings, KOF Globalization Index
Economic - GDP, FOREX, Government Revenue
Military - Manpower, Budget, Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear Weapons
Scientific - Global Innovation Index, # of Patents, (# of Degree Holders and/or Universities)
Social - Social Progress Index, Human Development Index, Population
These are not the final factors I will be using in the model, since there are others I am considering adding and some of these listed may be subject to removal also. I'm also debating about how complex to make the model - the issue will be how much information is actually available.
The reason why I chose not to use the DIME factors is because I want a quantitative rather than qualitiative measurement in order to measure each state in the same way.
EDIT: As to the methodology, each category has several factors (listed above). The score for each state is given as a percentage of the category that state owns; i.e. Russia owns 48.81% of the world's nuclear weapons. These factors are then averaged for the index of that category; and then those categories are all averaged together for the overall rating of the state.
Initially, I was going to rank each state in each category and then average all the rankings, but I think that approach was to disconnected from the quantitative factors I was using.
A couple of thoughts on a few of your factors:
Nuclear weapons have value only insofar as the will exists to use them and a delivery platform exists to get them where one wants/needs.
Why aircraft carriers; why not boomers and attack subs instead? Is this meant to be a measure of force projection capability?
In a previous century, battleships proved to be a rather useless measure of power as neither side (in WWI at least) seemed willing to risk them very much. And , as the War of 1812 showed, size isn't all that matters--the frigate based US Navy was qualitatively superior although numerically inferior--better seamanship was only one of the reasons for the disparity. The sheer number of British ships and American risk aversion were significant factors in the turn around of the naval campaign in the latter part of the War of 1812, probably more so than the number of 1st rate ships of the line that Britain had.
Another thing for your consideration. Intangible and immeasurable things play a part in determining power. As the short little Corsican allegedly said, "In battle, the moral is to the physical as three to one." Things like "home field advantage" count.
jmm99
03-21-2014, 05:21 AM
The original on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k) (60 sec. video).
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/07/nyregion/20111108-cityroom-schwartz/20111108-cityroom-schwartz-articleInline-v2.jpg
This week's Russian version, from Reuters, Russia can turn US to radioactive ash - Kremlin-backed journalist (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/16/ukraine-crisis-russia-kiselyov-idUSL6N0MD0P920140316) (by Lydia Kelly, Mar 16, 2014):
[Video here (http://www.smh.com.au/world/russia-can-turn-us-to-radioactive-ash-kremlinbacked-journalist-20140317-hvjl0.html)]
MOSCOW, March 16 (Reuters) - A Kremlin-backed journalist issued a stark warning to the United States about Moscow's nuclear capabilities on Sunday as the White House threatened sanctions over Crimea's referendum on union with Russia.
"Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," television presenter Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly current affairs show.
Behind him was a backdrop of a mushroom cloud following a nuclear blast.
Kiselyov was named by President Vladimir Putin in December as the head of a new state news agency whose task will be to portray Russia in the best possible light.
Yup, Mr Kiselyov certainly has a way with words and images - especially with Americans - to show Russia in its best possible light - how many lumens are there in a 50 megaton air burst ?
As Wm correctly points out:
Nuclear weapons have value only insofar as the will exists to use them and a delivery platform exists to get them where one wants/needs.
and that the sawed-off Corsican also had it right:
In battle, the moral is to the physical as three to one.
Mr Kiselyov and the two Chinese colonels have reminded us all that the future is as likely to be about unrestricted warfare as about anything else - which renders Article 2 of the UN Charter humorous at best and dangerous to non-aggressors at worst.
So, reaching back into history, a decade before 1964, we find the 1954 Jimmy Doolittle Report (bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Doolittle), Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Report,_1954), report (http://cryptome.org/cia-doolittle.pdf)):
pp.16-17
The second consideration is less tangible but equally important. It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and at whatever coat.
There are no rules in such a game. Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply. If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of "fair play" must be reconsidered.
1. What do you think the EU-NATO community would say about Doolittle's statement ?
2. What do you think the USG would say about Doolittle's statement ?
3. What do you say about Doolittle's statement ?
Next, another (more recent) historical piece for your consideration, The Security and Defense Agenda (Future of NATO) (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1581) (as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Brussels, Belgium, Friday, June 10, 2011); the whole speech is worth the short read, but here is the key point:
With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident.
Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance.
1. Did this speech (and similar speeches by Bob Gates' successors, cited in the article linked by Mark Adams on Rasmussen) give the EU-NATO community fair warning of a drastic shift in US involvement ?
2. What has the EU-NATO community done in response to those US warnings ?
Finally, a read for this situation is John LeCarre's The Looking Glass War (http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Glass-War-John-Carre/dp/0698102185), a very sad book because it shows that agencies cannot live in the past and expect to survive - snip from a review of the book:
A profound anatomy of moral deterioration, March 23, 2007
... For my part, it is the one book of Le Carre's that remained with me and troubled me the longest ...
...
The plot itself is simple: a small, practically defunct British spy agency with a mandate for military targets that has been lagging on aimlessly since WWII, gets one more shot at mounting an intelligence operation. WWII was their best of times, the source of their pride and nostalgia: since then, stripped from financing, backwards on technology, they are no more than a bureaucratic specter.
But the gods of warfare reward their zealots, and out of the blue, the agency is offered to retrieve some crucial information about military installations beyond the iron wall (I'll be stingy with details so as not to spoil too much). Everybody wakes up. As they do not have even a single operational agent (nor a radio, weapons, vehicles etc.), they must recruit one, hastily train and employ him; but they need to constantly lie to him, else he might realize how reduced they have become.
...
So much is Leiser involved in his new life, that his common sense does not reveal to him the amateur nature of the preparations. The radio technology he is expected to use is outdated, cumbersome and easy to intercept; there is no clear plan of action, really, except for getting him in; certainly no one gives serious thought how to get him out. The readers suspect this since a totally mundane assignment that Avery embarked on earlier, which was botched for lack of preparation and professionalism, is praised by his superiors as a success; so utterly afraid of facing their own incompetence they have lost that all-important ability of learning from mistakes.
The Circus, their rival agency where Smiley works, of course realizes this. Firmly in the grasp of Control, with Smiley as his lieutenant and sometimes conscience, the Circus observes and keeps its distance .... However, neither Control nor Smiley will deny the specter team the rope that they require to hang their own agent when everything, of course -- goes wrong.
In the present context, the US is still the Circus; without the US, EU-NATO is something of a "specter team" - although it doesn't have to be that way.
Thinking stuff.
Regards
Mike
OUTLAW 09
03-21-2014, 06:40 AM
JMM---reference the Gates comments---when a superpower uses the economic card as an argument in order to withdraw fully overlooks the concept of power projection that has been say for the last 500 years the corner stone of what countries perceive power projection to be.
We pulled out of Europe and it is in fact hidden between the lines in his comments---"since the fall of the wall there has been peace"--when one argues this way it does not sound so brutal to one's allies that 1) we do not have any more money ourselves and 2) we are now going to soft power ie diplomacy.
What this WH and for that matter the previous WH did not fully understand is that when one rejects the military power projection ability then one must be prepared to use the economic power card to it's fullest---why---with military projection you get the opposition's attention in a hurry as he then has to factor in the use of violence and how will it affect him.
With the economic card---it is much much slower and the opposition has to think hey I can hold out in this game and that is where Putin/Russia is at the moment.
Unless one is fully prepared to truly inflect pain via bank collapses and entire industrial stoppages which will as the world is totally netted via globalization --- the hurt will to a degree come back against you---but if the goal is not to use violence in order to achieve a political goal then the returning pain can be accepted.
The core problem to this is one's own business world and the workers in one's country which make up a vocal population if they are hurt---can they take the pain and that pain always at least in the West translates to lost elections and again Putin/Russia understands this as well.
OUTLAW 09
03-21-2014, 06:55 AM
These news ticker items out of Interfax.com this morning here in Europe indicates something that American Pride if I recall the thread correctly mentioned--Putin/Russia is trying desperately to reach out at any level and "convince" the West they want peace and de-escalation.
If one looks at the Interfax items yesterday two or three things come out 1) they first laughed about the sanctions, 2) then those on the second list started making startled statements, 3) the bank enclosure was a surprise and signaled to them other banks are going to be on the list and the Putin comments to his business group indicates money might just be an issue.
IMO Putin did not contemplate the speed that Russia was rejected out of virtually any international organization of importance to them ie G8, OCSE and virtually all military contact fully cut and it appears to them that now the West is in for the long haul which means for the Russian economy which is struggling itself pain will occur.
What surprised me actually was the capping of all mil to mil contacts which are actually important to the completion of the Russian Army's modernization as they cannot master the concept of shoot/move and the C&C for that which has been a big failure over the years and they were in the process of trying to learn it from us.
That seems to have gotten their undivided attention especially the delaying of the German simulation center which was a prestige object.
March 21, 2014
09:22
Russian defense minister and U.S. defense secretary discuss ways to ease Ukraine tensions (Part 2)
09:13
Russian and German foreign ministers discuss Ukraine events
09:09
Russian defense minister and U.S. defense secretary discuss ways to ease Ukraine tensions
These news ticker items out of Interfax.com this morning here in Europe indicates something that American Pride if I recall the thread correctly mentioned--Putin/Russia is trying desperately to reach out at any level and "convince" the West they want peace and de-escalation.
Well what is the US / EU aim in this?
Are they going to fall for the 'two steps forward, one step back' routine where Russia withdraws its troops from the eastern Ukraine border but 'keeps' Crimea?
Surely, a withdrawal from Crimea is not negotiable? Further the US / EU should support the repudiation by Ukraine of the agreemant with Russian over the use of Crimea for naval and other military purposes.
One can take it further from there to make the point to the Russians but somehow I don't think either the US or the EU have the stomach to face Russia down, once and for all, and put it back in its box.
China is watching... and learning
How you comment US last list of Russians? GRU head Sergun is there, but FSB and SVR heads are missing. Security Council head is also missing. Gazprom's head Miller and Rosneft's head Sechin are also missing. Spliting Politburo?
http://minchenko.ru/netcat_files/File/Big%20Government%20and%20the%20Politburo%202_0.pdf
Dayuhan
03-21-2014, 12:10 PM
Foreign Affairs ran a piece on sanctions today, interesting largely as an indication of where the US foreign policy elite is leaning:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141043/lee-s-wolosky/how-to-sanction-russia?sp_mid=45412106&sp_rid=c3RldmVyb2dlcnM0MkB5YWhvby5jb20S1
OUTLAW 09
03-21-2014, 12:13 PM
JMA---your question is at an interesting point in the development of the EU for a number of reasons.
1. Germany via Merkel and her FM have taken quasi lead in the EU---that leads to the division of labor between Germany and France with the UK providing hard rhetoric as a byline---meaning when the Germans do not want to destroy the back channels they have with Russia and an announcement against Russia occurs then it comes from France---when German wants a clear statement from both Germany and the EU then Merkel leads and her FM gets to the point. Last night for example--the Russians have been blocking a OCSE mission to send observers to doublecheck Russian complaints in the Ukraine but Russia has been blocking the mission with their veto--German FM stated bluntly Russia you have not one or two weeks to respond you have 24 hrs to respond or we will be sending a large contingent of the EU Bde officers as observers to together with civilians instead of the OCSE---Russia is now indicating they will approve--but again Russia was told Germany wants to see action not words within the next 24 hrs.
By the way the Germans are at the point of fully not trusting the Russians even with their long history and this is carrying into the EU---think actually Putin might have over reached in his belief the Germans would remain neutral towards his moves.
2. under German guidance the second round or freezes did in fact hit key Russians supporters of Putin
3. and this is important---Merkel realizes as do the Russians that the EU could not get their act together for a unified list on the actual sanctions and embargo if they have to move on it---so she found a middle ground which IMO is a perfect fit for the EU---each member is now analyzing their economy and each will come up with what each can do without a high level of reverse damage---this allows the weaker EU countries to specifically target something they can support and show their support and gives actually the EU a far bigger hammer as Russia must then deal with 28 different approaches/industrial areas that otherwise if unified would be easy to respond to
That is a major plus in getting the EU to act as a single voice and it is the first such time they have done this---actually all 28 leaders were very supportive of the decision.
OUTLAW 09
03-21-2014, 12:33 PM
Interfax is showing a brave press face but this stood out and is a result of the sanctions against what in theory was the 17th bank in Russia but it has far more impact than many thought---finally counter threat finance hit a home run in picking the correct bank to start with.
14:33 Companies from Gazprom groups to continue using Bank Rossiya services despite sanctions
The sanctions are starting a spiral that IMO Putin did not fully grasp since Russia is tied into the globalization thing.
1. Visa/MC has not only cut services to Rossiya they have also cut services to three other banks probably because they were tied financially into Rossiya
2. the Russian stock markets and Rubel are taking hits today that will if continued hurt the Russian economy in a direct fashion
3. Fitch and S&P have down graded Russia to a negative making it harder to get bank lines of credit and this is the point that can hurt Russian companies really quick as they tend to live on these lines
The sanctions are now forcing the Russian oligarchs to ditch many investments forcing them to keep their money firmly in Russia out of fear of it being frozen ---the next question then is --- will Putin then "tax" their investments if the financial side starts to hurt which he alluded to in their business meeting yesterday.
On top of this there was a German news article today indicating that the Russians are now struggling in figuring out how to continue to supply the basics to the Crimea as the new bridge and rail line Putin wants built can take years due to the poor substrata on the Straits.
With the Ukrainians leaving the CIS now all truck/train movements from Russia through the Ukraine to Crimea will be taxed at the Russian border and then taxed again at the Crimea border---someone is giving the Ukrainians sound business advice on how to run a customs system that generates cash from Russia supply movements--this was also not calculated by Putin. Thus the not to subtle Russian threat against Ukrainian businesses in Russia and Russia cancelling a Gazprom contract and demanding 16B in payments. It looks like Russian generated customs fees for the Ukraine will offset Russian demands in other places.
Also the Ukraine is not shutting off the electrical and water supplies to the Crimea they are just "raising" the per end customer rates to Russian levels since Russia is increasing Crimea pay--waiting for that to hit the Interfax.
OUTLAW 09
03-21-2014, 12:52 PM
Dayuhan---reference the FA article which was good but dated by events yesterday and today.
To quote FA "the dogs of financial war" have started barking and it was not against oil or gas but the Russian banking system---and that is where the Russian inherent weakness lays.
At least five different economic events are all ongoing just from the Rossiya bank being hit and it is reverberating still today.
Russian stock markets and rubel are falling and will continue to fall as the Russian elites see the expanded list of who has been now targeted by the EU/US.
Maybe the oil/gas issue is not going to even play as Russia needs the continuous inflow of hard currency vs EU ability to find workarounds --- the banking sector appears to now be the Achilles tendon.
Russia needs it's banks for capital flows and if that slows so slows their economy.
I think pretty much everybody agrees that for the time being the Crimea is lost to Ukraine. But history proves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5M), as also pointed out by Clausewitz, that stranger things have often happened and the situation might well change in the future.
There is in my opinion little doubt that for the West Russians center of gravity is it's economy, while for Russia it is the Westerns political willpower. Interestingly the EU+USA are roughly twenty times bigger in GDP terms the Russia, almost the same factor by which the Ukraine mainland dwarfs it's occupied territory. It would certainly be the supreme irony if Russias Crimean robbery would result in the long term loss of the Ukraine.
A lot of other questions arise for other countries in the EU/NATO and CIS. For example will we see an increase in military spending in Europe? Will Sweden and Finnland maybe join NATO? How will the Belorussian strongman react?
@Outlaw 09: I was a bit surprised just how much of a focus has been on Germany. I followed the Russian press through the Moscow time and Merkel as been called the 'whore' of Obama and Germany 'the strength of the EU' without not much would happen. I disagree on both, but there is some truth in the latter. The english-speaking media also point mostly to the importance of the German role.
That we hear nothing about Renzi and Italy is sadly obvious, perhaps the same goes for Spain, but there is also relative little about France and only some more about Britain. Even if the press likes to put things in simple terms the degree in which the importance of Germany was highlighted relative to other large nations is remarkable. Personally it seems that Germany rappresents pretty well the compromise or consensus opinion of the EU between the 'hard' Eastern members and the 'soft' South-Western ones.
From a political point of view it is important to point out the surprising degree of unity of the EU. It is also good that most have got the massage that Russia depends far more on Europe then the other way around.
I think now that the Crimea has been annexed a smart way to play the economic sanction game is to ratch them up over a long time to keep stirring up the insecurity in the financial markets which will harm Russia far more. As kaur pointed out, hitting a select group of Putins allies might be a good idea to divided the elite. Ideally capital flight should be encouraged to dry the Russian markets out, the Kremlins actions and words have certainly already driven out Western capital. Stopping selected Technological transfers by trade and foreign direct investment should also be high on the list, with military ones clearly being unacceptable (to you hear me Hollande?).
Dayuhan
03-21-2014, 01:56 PM
I have been interested in understanding just why China has been so quiet on the Russian violation of national boundaries as that is the key corner stone of Chinese foreign policy since the 80s.
The Chinese typically don't say a great deal on issues they perceive as being outside their sphere of geographic and economic interest. They've nothing to gain by taking sides. They are also in a somewhat contradictory position: opposition to intervention is their default position, but they are hardly in a position to denounce others for pushing and shoving along their borders or trying to recover "lost" territory. It's quite normal and predictable for them to be fairly quiet.
It is possible that China could see a strategic gain in tension between Russia and Europe. If Europe starts weaning itself from Russian gas and oil, the Russians will need another outlet. The Chinese are acutely aware of the vulnerability of their maritime energy supply routes and always interested in exploring land-based delivery options. I doubt they'd want to become dependent on Russia, but having options never hurts.
Maybe it has to do with China receiving over 690M USD in weapons exports from the Ukraine last year and maybe in supporting very quietly Russia they want to ensure those weapons continue to flow.
I expect the sales would go on even if China took an equivocal or even negative stance on Russian actions in the Ukraine. Russian arms manufacturers need the money.
There is some chatter that both countries are slowly nudging closer together politically/militarily as a combined superpower against the US/EU ie in general anything western.
Of course they will cooperate to the extent that both see benefit in it, but "combined superpower" seems way unlikely. There's a long history of mistrust there, and a number of natural points of conflict, notably the rapidly increasing Chinese investment and influence in Central Asia. Both Russia and China want control (or at least to be the dominant influence) in the energy-rich "'Stans". There's also some concern in Russia over the perception of rapidly increasing Chinese settlement, economic influence, and commercial domination in Eastern Siberia
So again did the US underestimate badly both China and Russia in its soft power thinking?
That's an easy conclusion, but not necessarily an accurate one, at least in the case of the Ukraine. The miscalculation that is getting less attention than it should has nothing to do with "soft vs hard" power. For some time now the West has been very much enamored of the "color revolution/Arab Spring" scenarios... those peaceful revolutions where the people rally, the armed forces switch sides, the autocrat runs away, and everybody gets to be happy until things go to $#!t, by which point the west is looking elsewhere. The fondness for these revolutions has reached the point where they have come to be seen as absolute good things, to be encouraged at every opportunity, at least where the autocrat is not one we like. What has been less actively recognized is the associated risks. Sometimes the armed forces don't switch sides and the autocrat doesn't leave, which gets you a civil war with few acceptable avenues for control or desirable end states. Sometimes the disorder of the revolution opens the door for a neighboring power to take a bite.
If what's happening in the Ukraine is part of a planned strategy of aggression and expansion, then you could argue that only thr threat of "hard power" will deter the next bite. There's still the question of whether this is part of such a strategy, or whether it's simply an act of opportunism. Would Putin have acted the same way if the Ukrainians had waited for the 2015 elections and simply voted the bastard out? In a lot of ways the revolution, much admired in the West at first, handed Putin an opportunity on a silver platter, and it's easy to see why he took it. The bear may not break into your house and eat your food, but if you don't cover the garbage he will stop by and make it his own.
Deterring the next bite may be less a matter of threatening "hard power" than of depriving the Russians of similar windows of opportunity. I suspect that lesson has already been learned: don't expect the Poles (for example) to hand Putin that kind of engraved invitation to make a move.
I view the US troop draw down as a not to subtle signal to Russia that the US was in fact no longer interested in the European area.
Why not view it as a suggestion to the Europeans that they need to be able to look after their own affairs, at least in their own neighborhood? Given the relative economic clout of the US, the EU, and Russia there is really no conceivable reason for the Europeans to be leaning on the US for protection, especially given the extent of US commitment elsewhere. If the Europeans have failed to step up and prepare, the lesson there is not that the US has to rush back and protect them, the lesson is that they need to put more effort into protecting themselves. Why should the US bleed its taxpayers to provide defense for people who have more than sufficient capacity to provide for their own security?
If you notice there is nothing on the military card being played outside of proposed and or actual planned exercises-and talk--only the movement of aircraft which was responded by the Russian AF stepping up their activities---so really not much in the way of military card---all even including Germany have shut out a military response out of fear of triggering something that is uncontrolled breaking out.
Has there ever been a time, post WW@, when you think the US or Europe would have taken an active military response to a Russian (or previously Soviet) power grab on their own borders? I don't think so. There's a long tradition of nuclear powers avoiding confrontation, especially when the matter of contention is in close proximity to one power. Even at the height of "hard power" politics, both sides have backed down in such cases... it's a dangerous road and nobody wants to walk down it. MAD remains in place.
So I am hard pressed to understand why this WH thought diplomacy was all one needed for soft power.
What were their options? They took office with an economic crisis in full swing, US military power wildly overcommitted to legacy wars that had little relevance to core US interests and an electorate with little or no interest in getting into further engagements, at least unless critical interests were directly threatened. Inevitably the priority had to be disengagement from those legacy wars and addressing the domestic economic issues: first things do come first. The lesson, if we want to take lessons, is not only that hard power (or at least the threat thereof) is sometimes needed, but that if you expend your hard power on unnecessary adventures and fail to keep the home front in order, you won't have the capacity to use hard power whether you want to or not.
TheCurmudgeon
03-21-2014, 01:58 PM
I apologize as I am a latecomer here, but after reading the last few pages of the thread I have a few observations:
1. What is our interest in these events? The Ukraine is not a NATO state nor have they asked for our protection, so our interest is not based on any security agreements. The Crimea is not of strategic interest to the United States we have no military interest there. Although the ghosts of the past are not far from our memory, the USSR is gone. The global workers revolution that Communism actively supported is no more. So at this point it would appear that our only interest in this Russian aggression is directed toward Putin himself and the ghosts of both Soviet expansionism and the failures of Europe to act against Hitler in 1938.
2. Since we have not been asked to the party, short of a declaration of war, military intervention in the Ukraine is off the table. That does not mean we don’t plan. For all we know the Ukrainians, realizing the ramifications of an open announcement of their intent to join NATO, are waiting until the situation calms down. However, military action cannot be the first option, for a multitude of reasons.
3. If we have determined that Putin is a threat that is not going away soon and are going to become interested in establishing a new Iron Curtain on the Polish border then we better figure out how to pay for it. The Soviet Union collapsed, in part, because it could no longer afford to support its military. We are very close to that. Without the political will to raise taxes to pay for it, our military will continue to shrink. We need to determine what it is we need and fund it. I have no problem moving two heavy brigades, a fighter wing or two, and a small naval presence, into Poland if they are willing to pay for housing them. I think we can redirect some of that military aid from Egypt to Poland, they could use the Tanks more than the Egyptians can. But others have to come to the table and we will have to make compromises elsewhere (dump the F22, keep the Warthog)
We have to realize that we can’t pay for and protect everything. If Putin is an real threat, as he appears to be, then we need to position ourselves to deal with him. Sanctions are definitely one part of this, but how does the “action-reaction-counteraction” play out. How will Putin spin the actions, what are his likely reactions, how will we deal with them? Perhaps we need to yield space for time and begin to prepare for the long haul. We cannot afford another military engagement now. After twelve years of war we have neither the money nor the public support. Putin knows this. He took advantage of it in Georgia and he did again now. At least this time this administration is taking some action, unlike Bush did. But we need to consider the likely reaction. If his political support starts to wane how will he react? What will he do to consolidate power? Do we really think he is just going to give in, or will he raise the stakes? This is not just the Crimea. We have to figure out how to contain Putin and how we are going to deal with him, not just now, but for the next 10-20 years.
If this is a game of Chess with the Russian Bear, then we have lost the first two opening gambits. Now we need to position ourselves to deal with our opponent. That may take many moves over many years to establish the conditions for checkmate. We are not there yet.
Dayuhan
03-21-2014, 02:09 PM
If we have determined that Putin is a threat that is not going away soon and are going to become interested in establishing a new Iron Curtain on the Polish border then we better figure out how to pay for it.
I agree with most of what you say here, but I would also emphasize that if Putin is a threat, he is a threat primarily to Europe. The EU has economic and technical capacity equal to that of the US. They are not children or dependents. Whatever decision is made on Europe's security future has to be made in close concert with Europeans, and Europeans need to be paying the bill and taking charge of their own efforts. Of course the US should offer support and assistance where it's needed and asked for, but expecting the US to take the lead role in assuring the security of Europe seems to me simply irrational.
TheCurmudgeon
03-21-2014, 02:21 PM
I agree with most of what you say here, but I would also emphasize that if Putin is a threat, he is a threat primarily to Europe. The EU has economic and technical capacity equal to that of the US. They are not children or dependents. Whatever decision is made on Europe's security future has to be made in close concert with Europeans, and Europeans need to be paying the bill and taking charge of their own efforts. Of course the US should offer support and assistance where it's needed and asked for, but expecting the US to take the lead role in assuring the security of Europe seems to me simply irrational.
I agree. As I said, others will have to come to the party. If they are not interested then we should not waste our time. I think the Poles will be interested. I am not sure they would want German's stationed within their borders, but they might accept an English contingent.
But, yes, there needs to be commitments in the form of funds, military troops and equipment, and political will.
Right now we are ill prepared. The EU is dependent on Russia for energy. That is not going to change. The chess board favors them, and Europe is on the front lines (again). They will either want to play, or we will have to step back and watch from a distance.
If Europe does not want to play so be it. Militarily, Russia can only threaten us directly via nuclear weapons. I suppose they could sink some of our ships on the open seas, but they cannot invade the US. We should seriously look at our offensive/defensive options. I am not sure Putin is crazy enough to use nukes, but he will certainly use third parties in his media to make the threats. He already has. We need to let him know that we are preparing to deal with that.
OUTLAW 09
03-21-2014, 02:32 PM
Firn---reference the Russian media responses to the Germans---there was something in the Putin speech in the Duma that was a clear signal to the Germans---you got reunification and we view the Crimea as reunification so support us.
There has been an underlying thread in the Interfax of woo is me you all do not understand us and your sanctions are illegal.
The Russians/Soviets have always had a strange relationship to what is or is not legal---meaning they will interpret one agreement they sign one way and then forget they signed it on another occasion depending on their strategic views of that day.
What is interesting is that they interpreted a statement by Bush senior (verbal) when asked if the US was going to push NATO to their borders and he answered no---there was nothing written and the US assumed with the fall of the SU it was no longer an issue and yet Putin keeps coming back to that verbal conversation as if it was written in stone.
What is also interesting with the EU/US sanctions is I am not so sure Putin knows how to respond and or has a way of responding that does not come back immediately and hits his economy---he cannot reach out to EU/US banks, he cannot freeze accounts he cannot stop visas as not wants to travel to Russian anyway and the list goes on so they make jokes about the sanctions---one thing I have learned with Russians if they shift to jokes then they are covering up a serious issue that they do not want to you assume it is an issue.
The Germans are interesting in that long term they had a vision of the Russians joining the EU in an expanded market which is why I think Putin was driving his own Russian version in the advance of a possible merger and the German FM has held the long term view that NATO should be slowly disengaged and a EU based form of seurity built with Russia joining in as well kind of a coast to coast thing which in the long run made sense for the coming years 22/23rd centuries which would have answered what the Germans viewed as the Russian "angst" issues.
That is why in some aspects the Germans are becoming the hard drivers of the EU in this response to Putin because they now feel Russia/Putin have not fully understood the 21st century and the globalization of Europe and they now view him as a existential threat to Germany and the eastern EU/NATO.
What many in American do not understand from the end of the WW2 especially in the area of Brandenburg where I live over 350K Germans were driven into seven different NKVD now KGB/FSB prisons because of alleged Nazi/Socialist/SDP/Union backgrounds---many were older men, there were a large number of women and children as well---Germans died literally in the thousands in these poorly run prisons.
Those that survived moved on in their lives, had to learn Russian, learned to survive in a GDR that was neither German, neither Democratic nor a Republic and had children---Merkel is a product of the GDR and she speaks Russian fluently.
So when she is not toeing the line that Putin assumed she would with his not to subtle comment on reunification that is where the comments are coming from---does not surprise me.
She is in her third tour as the German leader---first time she had the 2008 financial crisis, the second time the Euro crisis and now Putin and she has grown into the position--she is not loud nor a strong public speaker but you fully understand her when her tone and word usage changes and Putin has been hearing that the last couple of days---She is simply now Tee'd off that he is not listening.
OUTLAW 09
03-21-2014, 02:46 PM
Firn---who said the Russians/Putin are not scrambling after this last round of sanctions-- from Interfax----check the comments relating to banking/finance especially since their markets and Rubel were way off today
NOTE: First mentioning of Moldavia which is I think the next issue not eastern/southern Ukraine as does their ex President.
March 21, 2014
17:21
RUSSIA'S RESPONSE TO EXPANSION OF U.S. SANCTIONS LIST WILL BE TOUGH - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY
17:20
Rogozin advises McCain never say never regarding "spring break in Siberia"
17:15
Russia may go without borrowing abroad this year if need be - Siluanov
17:14
Central Bank: Russia needs private-sector plastic card payment processing center
17:12
Putin orders to transfer his salary to Rossiya bank (Part 3)
17:10
Talks with Moscow possible after troops pullout - Turchynov
17:10
Russian troops holding drills in Transdniestria
17:01
SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA MAY NEGATIVELY AFFECT VALUE OF RUSSIAN PAPER, RAISE BORROWING COSTS - SILUANOV
17:01
RUSSIA MAY GO WITHOUT FOREIGN LOANS, REDUCE SOME DOMESTIC BORROWING WHILE MAINTAINING CURRENT EXPORT INCOME IN 2014
AmericanPride
03-21-2014, 02:49 PM
A couple of thoughts on a few of your factors:
Nuclear weapons have value only insofar as the will exists to use them and a delivery platform exists to get them where one wants/needs.
Why aircraft carriers; why not boomers and attack subs instead? Is this meant to be a measure of force projection capability?
In a previous century, battleships proved to be a rather useless measure of power as neither side (in WWI at least) seemed willing to risk them very much. And , as the War of 1812 showed, size isn't all that matters--the frigate based US Navy was qualitatively superior although numerically inferior--better seamanship was only one of the reasons for the disparity. The sheer number of British ships and American risk aversion were significant factors in the turn around of the naval campaign in the latter part of the War of 1812, probably more so than the number of 1st rate ships of the line that Britain had.
Another thing for your consideration. Intangible and immeasurable things play a part in determining power. As the short little Corsican allegedly said, "In battle, the moral is to the physical as three to one." Things like "home field advantage" count.
Thanks for your feedback. As I stated, this is a work in progress. I still have to complete the extended 'soft power' scale, which I will look to how to measure the intangible as close as possible. I may convert some of the military factors into a composite index such as a collective nuclear capability (missiles, warheads, subs, etc) and naval power. I'm in my first year of my doctorate program, so this is a quasi-academic-personal project with no particular end-state in mind.
OUTLAW 09
03-21-2014, 05:14 PM
kaur---here is why the GRU was added to the sanctions list.
From today's Daily Beast:
One U.S. official said the U.S. military intelligence analysts suspect elements of the 45th Spetsnaz regiment of Russia’s military intelligence service known as the GRU were conducting the provocations in Ukraine. On Thursday the White House added Igor Sergun, the 57 year old chief of the GRU, along with 19 others to a list of Russian officials sanctioned for the invasion of Crimea.
“This is the use of deniable special operators under GRU control to create provocations and really these are quasi-deniable operations,” added John Schindler, a retired NSA counter-intelligence officer and specialist in Russian affairs who now teaches at the U.S. Naval War College.
Those guys?
http://www.bfmtv.com/video/bfmtv/international/crimee-hommes-armes-tirent-palais-gouvernement-soldats-russes-ne-bougent-pas-01-03-180828/
Segun knows how to move quickly. "Medal "Participant of Operation March-Shot Bosnia-Kosovo 12 June 1999"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Sergun
This event? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0UAq3SJX9Q
I think that Putin has achieved so far his objectives, with the first being perhaps indeed the most important:
1) The occupation of the Crimea and a 'correction' of history
2) Showing internal strenght and winning popular support*
3) Demostrating on the international stage that he can stand up to the West
It is pretty logical, as said before, that he now asks for de-escalation and basically peace because a long conflict can endanger quite probably number 2 and 3. Number 1 requires IMHO a pretty bad Crimean (Russian) economy, a decent Ukrainian one and a leadership change in the Kremlin, but who knows.
*It gives him also an easier time to crack down on internal 'traitors'.
@kaur: Good stuff, good stuff.
Firn---something that came out of the EU meeting yesterday night and I must thank Putin for it---the EU is starting the analysis on reducing Russian gas and oil purchases starting already in 2014.
They made that public enough for Russia to understand.
Putin got the EU to wake up and realize that if they shared their own gas/oil abilities across their individual borders which they can as they have built a massive distribution system since 2009 they could 1) reduce Russia purchases/dependency, and 2) actually reduce gas and oil prices for EU citizens across the board making it a win win thing.
Great that Putin is going to lower my yearly gas bill----
To be honest I don't know about your gas bill, but I think that the EU should indeed try hard to further integrate the NG network and the power grid. Perhaps additonal incentives to increase reserves make sense too as Russia lacks the economic stamina to stop the commodity flow for a longer period. There is a good case to link the Baltic states to the European pipelines. We discussed the challanges about the grid in more detail in the Energy security thread.
http://www.manicore.com/documentation/chiffres_energie_graph1.jpg
Primary energy consumption in Europe, wood excluded, in million tonnes oil equivalent, with the share of each energy. "new renewable" = biofuels, geothermal, wind, solar, biogas, waste, etc (all renewables except wood and hydro). The decline of the European supply has begun in 2006.
Source: BP Statistical Review, 2013
I think it is good to look at long trends. (BP should have made clear what definition and size of the EU they used throughout the graph). There is certainly still considerable scope in increasing the European energy efficiency. Outsourcing a good deal of the energy-intensive industry did also help, a process which was reaccelerated by the shale boom in the USA. European chemigiants like BASF will put their new production there. A quick look at the specific Ukrainian situation:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ukraine_energy_balance.png
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.