Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014) [Archive] - Page 3

carl

03-21-2014, 10:11 PM

Curmudgeon:

The interest the US has in this is in preventing the invasion and acquisition through force of a country's territory by an aggressive police state or by anybody else. Given the situation in the world today with Red China feeling peckish and various jihadis openly proclaiming they want to set up caliphates whenever and wherever they can I figure it is important to demonstrate that we look with disfavor upon this kind of thing.

No historical situation is directly analogous to what happened in the past but rather than Sudetenland, I look toward the occupation of the Rhineland. That was the first big failure of nerve.

Oh I don't know if military action isn't a quick go to option. I think it is if Ivan moves into the rest of Ukraine. Unconventional Warfare is military action and wouldn't require a single US soldier to set foot in Ukraine.

We have the money to pay for increased military expenditure. It is well within the capacity of the economy to handle that. Do we have the will? I don't know.

If it is a choice between the F-22 and the A-10, all you have to do is look at the history of air warfare since 1910 or so. When you do your first impulse will be to get on the phone to the Coca Cola Bottling Company and tell them to head over to the A-10 bases and pick up their scrap aluminum cheap, especially in this situation. The very first task of an air force is to keep enemy aircraft off your back. The F-22 can do that. The A-10 can't.

I get tired of hearing how war weary the Americans are. I think that is nonsense. What we are tired of are losing efforts, efforts that are conducted so incompetently as to be stupid and border on criminally negligent. That is what we are tired of. The Americans aren't the cognoscenti inside the beltway and in the media. They have convinced themselves that the rest of us have no heart. They are wrong. They should look in the mirror.

Dayuhan

03-21-2014, 10:21 PM

Right now we are ill prepared. The EU is dependent on Russia for energy. That is not going to change.

Actually that can change, though not instantly... if the Europeans are willing to invest time and money in changing it.

TheCurmudgeon

03-21-2014, 10:44 PM

Actually that can change, though not instantly... if the Europeans are willing to invest time and money in changing it.

But that just feeds into the idea that this is not a fight we are going to win today, and not alone.

If we have finally realized that Russia under Putin, or his progeny, pose a threat to its neighbors, then we need to develop a long term plan to isolate Russia.

We are not going to win by a few sanctions, but we can determine vulnerabilities. We must also not push to fast. Like the old Russian Bear himself, who took Crimea, but not all of the Ukraine (yet), we must take small steps that are not, in and of themselves, enough to "poke the bear", but sufficient to weaken him in the long run.

carl

03-21-2014, 10:51 PM

We are not going to win by a few sanctions, but we can determine vulnerabilities. We must also not push to fast. Like the old Russian Bear himself, who took Crimea, but not all of the Ukraine (yet), we must take small steps that are not, in and of themselves, enough to "poke the bear", but sufficient to weaken him in the long run.

If we are afraid to poke the bear, we've lost. Going with that puts everything in his hands because he is the one who determines what is a discernible poke or not. This bear ain't no grizzly in the prime of life. This is a sickly weak thing with a mean glint in its eye and it is looking to feed. We let it and it will get stronger.

TheCurmudgeon

03-22-2014, 12:13 AM

If we are afraid to poke the bear, we've lost. Going with that puts everything in his hands because he is the one who determines what is a discernible poke or not. This bear ain't no grizzly in the prime of life. This is a sickly weak thing with a mean glint in its eye and it is looking to feed. We let it and it will get stronger.

I am not afraid to poke the bear, I just want to do it when and where it serves my purpose. Because it is not just the bear I have to consider.

Right now the EU is tied to Russia by a Natural Gas pipeline that they are dependent on. That is an oversimplification, but it is not inaccurate. We are not strengthening alliances by pushing too fast now.

This is a marathon, not a sprint. Lets set the conditions. Because I don't just want to poke the bear, I want to chain him to a stake and let the pit bulls loose on him. That will take some time, but it can be done.

Besides, the last time we went head to head the Soviet Union was an economy unto itself. Economic sanctions were not really an option. Which also means that Putin is not well versed in their capabilities. They might be much more potent than expected, but they will not contain the bear. For that we will need fences, and they are not in place yet.

carl

03-22-2014, 12:23 AM

I am not afraid to poke the bear, I just want to do it when and where it serves my purpose. Because it is not just the bear I have to consider.

Right now the EU is tied to Russia by a Natural Gas pipeline that they are dependent on. That is an oversimplification, but it is not inaccurate. We are not strengthening alliances by pushing to fast now.

This is a marathon, not a sprint. Lets set the conditions. Because I don't just want to poke the bear, I want to chain him to a stake and let the pit bulls loose on him. That will take some time, but it can be done.

Besides, the last time we went head to head the Soviet Union was an economy unto itself. Economic sanctions were not really an option. Which also means that Putin is not well versed in their capabilities. They might be much more potent than expected, but they will not contain the bear. For that we will need fences, and they are not in place yet.

Nicely said.

TheCurmudgeon

03-22-2014, 12:38 AM

Curmudgeon:If it is a choice between the F-22 and the A-10, all you have to do is look at the history of air warfare since 1910 or so. When you do your first impulse will be to get on the phone to the Coca Cola Bottling Company and tell them to head over to the A-10 bases and pick up their scrap aluminum cheap, especially in this situation. The very first task of an air force is to keep enemy aircraft off your back. The F-22 can do that. The A-10 can't.

But we have the capability to control the sky with existing aircraft. We don't need something new. The A-10 is a long range tank killer. Like a Longbow, but with more range and speed. That is why I like it. An F22 can't provide that kind of capability, at least not at the same price. And price matters.

I get tired of hearing how war weary the Americans are. I think that is nonsense. What we are tired of are losing efforts, efforts that are conducted so incompetently as to be stupid and border on criminally negligent. That is what we are tired of. The Americans aren't the cognoscenti inside the beltway and in the media. They have convinced themselves that the rest of us have no heart. They are wrong. They should look in the mirror.

I think you are wrong. Even when we are winning, we lose interest. If the US public had actually been taxed to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan we would have been out five years ago. We like to brag, but we will not sacrifice our nice car, vacations, and blinge to pay for those bragging rights. The Russian threat is not at our front door, they are not even on our block. The extreme right wing are protectionist. I will take bets no one is going to push this to open conflict ... except SEN McCain.

JMA

03-22-2014, 06:54 AM

If we have finally realized that Russia under Putin, or his progeny, pose a threat to its neighbors, then we need to develop a long term plan to isolate Russia.

What we are experiencing right now is the result of a massive and probably unprecedented miscalculation.

Russia has been stiring for years which has escaped the attention and action of US administrations (not saying the intel people missed it but the politicians and senior military went to sleep at the wheel).

Germany miscalculated by embracing a level of dependency on energy imports from Russia (as did other EU countries).

The mess has now to be cleaned up.

Again there will be no consequences for those who led the US and the EU into this mess.

We just need to hope that few lives of good young men will be lost in the process.

JMA

03-22-2014, 07:12 AM

From the Blog an open letter:

Open Letter to President Obama (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/open-letter-to-president-obama)

OUTLAW 09

03-22-2014, 07:39 AM

TC wrote the following--"This is a marathon, not a sprint"

I would step back and call it a walk because Putin is going to be there for awhile yet.

Putin outside of the Crimea has gained what?

1. isolation from the prestigious organizations that he himself strived to join in order to add to the allure of greater Russia
2. he has in effect done something the Europeans have not been able to do themselves---discuss openly their dependence of his oil and gas and has pushed them to find rather fast new sources and to share among themselves
3. he will inadvertently push the US Army and DoD away from COIN finally and back to force on force for the next 15 years
4. Russia will take a serious economical hit and delay even further their own internal development
5. finally Russian oligarchs understand they an be reached out to and touched as much of their wealth is stole, ripped off black money from the Russian population
6. Crimea will economically spiral down
7. we will modernize our outdated nuclear weapons and nuclear forces
8. we will be forced if not already to reexamine our soft power concepts and single dependence on diplomacy
9. strangely both US political parties now have a "common enemy"
10. along side NATO the EU will start it's own military force creation in addition to what it already has as the OCSE is being blocked by Russia as a tool for EU external politics
11. he has driven the Ukraine closer not further away from the EU and the West
12. and more critically he has been shown that economically Russian is not a superpower

And the list will go on and on---

So really what has he achieved outside of the illusion of recreating the old dream of a greater Soviet Union?

So now he is attempting to slow down the changing US/EU attitudes, thinking, and military changes that he started IMO as he understands in fact he has started round two of the Cold War and he fully understands Russia lost the first round due to economics which is now staring him again in the
face. He is not a fool as he fully understands that the former Soviet Union while a nuclear power, while a political and military power literally collapsed as an economical power even with oil and gas.

If one watched --not sure what is being shown in the States--the two or three video footages of Putin in his Security Council meeting and at another location he looks tired ---he definitely does not have the look of a "winner" that he had during his Duma appearance.

The move against the Rossija Bank by the counter threat finance guys put a real damper of his "winner" looks---that was a serious shot at his politics regardless of what US pundits make of the WH sanction moves.

A few more of those shots targeting other banks is enough to actually tip the Russian economy as it is not the economy of pre 2009.

The move against the Rossija Bank was a WH move that both surprised me and tends to make me finally think "they get it" and the much criticized threat of "having a cost" was in fact well thought through.

JMA

03-22-2014, 08:43 AM

The question has to be asked... what is the aim?

It appears that the US and the EU have rolled over on the matter of Crimean sovereignty in that the annexation (call it what you will) by Russia has been accepted.

Does not matter about banks this and banks that it does not remove the fact that the Russians have made another step forward and the opposition (if you can call it that) from the US and EU has failed to prevent it.

So what do we have? A US and EU who would be happy if Russia - for the moment at least - stopped trying to push beyond Crimea, they can keep Crimea?

TC wrote the following--"This is a marathon, not a sprint"

I would step back and call it a walk because Putin is going to be there for awhile yet.

Putin outside of the Crimea has gained what?

[snip]

carl

03-22-2014, 02:46 PM

But we have the capability to control the sky with existing aircraft. We don't need something new. The A-10 is a long range tank killer. Like a Longbow, but with more range and speed. That is why I like it. An F22 can't provide that kind of capability, at least not at the same price. And price matters.

If you mean by existing airplanes the F-22, you are right to a limited extent. We only have about 180 of the things and the last one rolled off the line in 2009 I believe. The production line is closed and has been for years. That is a big thing in major league air fighting because you will lose airplanes that have to be replaced. With no production line you can't do it.

Obviously the F-22 can't be an A-10 because it wasn't designed to be an A-10. But it could at least harry some tanks. The A-10 can't do anything air to air. Nothing. You lose air to air superiority and your A-10s are gone.

We forget how important we air superiority is because we have had it mostly our own way since 1944 and completely our own way since the early 80s. That result was because of a lot of hard work and money expended. The airplanes, the tools, that allowed that didn't come about by accident.

One thing that should be remembered is the current fleet, excepting a very few aircraft is old, very old. A-10s avg age over 32 years. F-15C avg age over 29 years. Old airplanes break a lot and are hard to keep in the sky. Gates canceled further production of the F-22 in favor of the little light bomber that never will, the F-35, and now the Russians are making trouble and the J-20 is on sked. This is a topic for another thread but the US military is looking at big big trouble in airplanes in the next decade and two.

http://www.uswarplanes.net/f15.html

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20131002/NEWS04/310020026/Readiness-declines-aging-overworked-fleet

I think you are wrong. Even when we are winning, we lose interest. If the US public had actually been taxed to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan we would have been out five years ago. We like to brag, but we will not sacrifice our nice car, vacations, and blinge to pay for those bragging rights. The Russian threat is not at our front door, they are not even on our block. The extreme right wing are protectionist. I will take bets no one is going to push this to open conflict ... except SEN McCain.

A lot of military guys express that. I think it is wrong and (forgive me God for I am about to get in trouble) soreheaded. In my opinion the flyover people are eager to help and will sacrifice, do whatever it takes; but they have to be asked, we are waiting to be asked. We always have been. Look at all the little things that people do spontaneously, the care packages addressed to whomever, the letters to anybody, the airline people who try to honor soldiers on their own. We are ready and will be. But the leadership class asks us to do nothing.

That is the problem, the leadership class. The guys who brought us cooperation with the Pak Army/ISI for a decade. The guys who dither and dither and like JMA says, never have to pay a price for their lethal folly.

carl

03-22-2014, 02:53 PM

Outlaw 09:

Your list is convincing if, IF we keep up the scare so to speak. If all those things go back to the way they were in a year he will have lost nothing.

We will see how we do. Maybe Angela will channel Maggie and tell Barry not to go wobbly on her or maybe Barry and Angela will tell each other how there are no good choices and we will just have to grow up and accept things that won't be so bad anyway.

We can hope.

JMA

03-22-2014, 03:07 PM

The extreme right wing are protectionist. I will take bets no one is going to push this to open conflict ... except SEN McCain.

This is the second ill-informed comment about McCain made recently.

I am too far from internal US politics to get emotional about it all.

McCain however is getting a bum wrap here.

Go back to the 2008 election campaign:

John McCain - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/experts/world/john-mccain/b662#20)

U.S. Policy toward Russia

Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has called for a new approach to what he called a "revanchist" Russia. McCain said in a September 2008 presidential debate that Russia has "become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government." In a November 2007 Foreign Affairs article, McCain advocated Russian exclusion from the G-8, and said the West should send a message to Russia that NATO "is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom." He also said the United States should promote democracy in Russia.

In an October 2007 Republican debate, McCain expressed support for President Bush's plan to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. "I don't care what [Putin's] objections are to it," he said.

McCain called Russia's March 2008 election a sign that Russia has taken "yet another step away from democracy." He also said it was "a tragedy of history" that the Russian people were "again deprived of the opportunity to choose their leaders in a free and open contest."

In August 2008, McCain condemned Russia's military operations in Georgia, and said Russia should "immediately and unconditionally" withdraw from the region. He also emphasized the need for a "truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia."

If you had listened to him back then things may well be different today and there would probably not be this crisis today.

carl

03-22-2014, 03:39 PM

The extreme right wing are protectionist.

I think you mean isolationist.

('Extreme' this or that is almost meaningless. It is just a focus group tested word appended to anybody or thing not liked and intended to discredit.)

OUTLAW 09

03-22-2014, 04:47 PM

This was quoted over on War on the Rocks and fits to Putin's argument of why he is legally right to take Crimea.

“One should remember the instruction of Comrade Stalin, that there are such periods, such times in the life of society and our individual lives, when laws turn out to be obsolete and we have to put them aside.”

These two items from Interfax today are actually quite interesting as we have talked about them here as well.

19:30

Ukrainian border service shuts exit from Crimea - Crimea officials

After the Ukraine left the CIS they can now place customs of Russian products twice---once on the Russian border and again on the Crimea border shows the Ukraine is now tightening up their crossing points and surprised the Russians with the move otherwise Interfax would not be mentioning it.

19:05

Crimea has ample supply of drinking water - Russian ministry

Somehow they failed to mention just how much of it comes from the Ukraine---surprised they mentioned this as it is a center of gravity issue for the long term stability of the Crimea unless Russia moves into the southern portion of the Ukraine to secure supplies.

OUTLAW 09

03-22-2014, 05:59 PM

One the better disinformation attempts by the Russian Foreign Ministry in the last couple of days.

“One should remember the instruction of Comrade Stalin, that there are such periods, such times in the life of society and our individual lives, when laws turn out to be obsolete and we have to put them aside.”

It is interesting to watch how Russia is spinning everything to grant legal status to their annexation of the Crimea---they are attempting to “sell” to their population and the world that the current OCSE mission to the Ukraine that they “approved” is only in the Ukraine to seal the “new political-legal realities” ie the Ukraine now exists without the Crimea.

Shortly after the Russian Foreign Ministry released theirs statement via Interfax the German Foreign Ministry immediately called it in polite diplomatic terms as being “basically misleading (alluding between the lines as not being true)”.

("Die Erklärung des russischen Außenministeriums ist diesbezüglich irreführend.")

Interfax:
12:17
MOSCOW HOPES THAT OSCE MISSION'S WORK WILL HELP OVERCOME INTERNAL UKRAINIAN CRISIS, STOP RAMPANT NATIONALISTIC BANDITRY - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY
12:15
OSCE MISSION'S MANDATE IN UKRAINE REFLECTS NEW POLITICAL-LEGAL REALITIES, DOES NOT APPLY TO CRIMEA AND SEVASTOPOL, WHICH ARE NOW PART OF RUSSIA - FOREIGN MINISTRY

JMA

03-22-2014, 06:37 PM

“One should remember the instruction of Comrade Stalin, that there are such periods, such times in the life of society and our individual lives, when laws turn out to be obsolete and we have to put them aside.”

This must be for domestic consumption. Even then who do they think gives a .... what 'comrade' stalin said?

TheCurmudgeon

03-22-2014, 06:53 PM

I think you mean isolationist.

('Extreme' this or that is almost meaningless. It is just a focus group tested word appended to anybody or thing not liked and intended to discredit.)

You are correct, I meant Isolationist ... and I will simplify my "extreme"comment by stating the TEA party and the Libertarians. Both see our defense and foriegn aide expenditures as extreme and unnecessary.

I try to get a comment in between other commitments and sometimes it shows.

carl

03-22-2014, 07:00 PM

You are correct, I meant Isolationist ... and I will simplify my "extreme"comment by stating the TEA party and the Libertarians. Both see our defense and foriegn aide expenditures as extreme and unnecessary.

I try to get a comment in between other commitments and sometimes it shows.

Have you ever been to a tea party rally?

Viewing foreign aid as not needed is probably the most common view of foreign aid in the US, not the province of any particular group.

I think your view of anything under tea party is quite skewed. The primary focus is domestic, making sure the Constitution is followed closely. There isn't much talk about military at all. When there is, since most of that group hold Reagan up high, it is too support a strong military.

You gotta get out of range of the dark side of the Force and move farther away from the beltway, or at least wear a garlic garland or something.

TheCurmudgeon

03-22-2014, 07:11 PM

One thing that should be remembered is the current fleet, excepting a very few aircraft is old, very old. A-10s avg age over 32 years. F-15C avg age over 29 years. Old airplanes break a lot and are hard to keep in the sky. Gates canceled further production of the F-22 in favor of the little light bomber that never will, the F-35, and now the Russians are making trouble and the J-20 is on sked. This is a topic for another thread but the US military is looking at big big trouble in airplanes in the next decade and two.

But if the F-15C is still a adequate, if not superior plane, why not just run another production of them with upgraded avionics and weapons. Why spend billions developing another manned jet when the future of air-power is probably in autonomous drones that can maneuver in ways that would kill a human pilot. But you are correct, this is for another thread

A lot of military guys express that. I think it is wrong and (forgive me God for I am about to get in trouble) soreheaded. In my opinion the flyover people are eager to help and will sacrifice, do whatever it takes; but they have to be asked, we are waiting to be asked. We always have been. Look at all the little things that people do spontaneously, the care packages addressed to whomever, the letters to anybody, the airline people who try to honor soldiers on their own. We are ready and will be. But the leadership class asks us to do nothing.

That is the problem, the leadership class. The guys who brought us cooperation with the Pak Army/ISI for a decade. The guys who dither and dither and like JMA says, never have to pay a price for their lethal folly.

My reason for thinking this has to do with me research on political legitimacy and human values. American's are generally individualists who are not bound by any obligation to the common good - in their minds the government serves the people, the people do not serve the government. So, without a direct threat to them (like 9/11) they are not apt to support a war footing. Because this value based individualist attitude is almost religious, intervention in the affairs of another country to support democratic revolutions - fellow individualists - is the one thing they will support. If the neo-cold-war is couched in those terms they MAY support it, but I doubt it at the moment.

Also, this has little to do with the leadership. That is another fallacy individualists like to believe in, that people follow leaders. They do, but only if leaders demonstrate the values the people find important. SEN McCain would be a great president if we were afraid and inclined more towards communal values. He embodies those values with his time as a POW never breaking and his years of service. But that is not what the people want now. So I don't think you will get any leader to take us to war now.

carl

03-22-2014, 07:47 PM

But if the F-15C is still a adequate, if not superior plane, why not just run another production of them with upgraded avionics and weapons. Why spend billions developing another manned jet when the future of air-power is probably in autonomous drones that can maneuver in ways that would kill a human pilot. But you are correct, this is for another thread

You had better be a darn good judge of what the other guy can do and how things will shake out when the balloon goes up if adequate is all that will satisfy you. The F-15C may or may not be adequate against the newest Sukhois, we don't know. It won't be adequate against the J-20. You want to have something you know will be superior. That is what prompted the development of the F-15 in the first place, determination to field something that would be very superior. And it was...then.

Why not go back a few years and keep the F-22 line open and add about 200 to the fleet? All that would have entailed were production costs. All the R&D was already spent. But we didn't. And now we are in trouble.

Drones. Curmudgeon, you gotta get away from the Beltway. Drones are radio controlled airplanes. No matter how you gussy it up that is what they are. A radio signal gets to the computer via an antenna and away it goes. Now are you gonna bet your life and my life and those 21 year old NASCAR fans that only our radio signals are going to go to that drone's computer? I'm not. Until you can guarantee that and until you can guarantee that drone can look out the window and then reference a map to see where it is when the GPS goes down, there will be a need for men in the airplanes.

My reason for thinking this has to do with me research on political legitimacy and human values. American's are generally individualists who are not bound by any obligation to the common good - in their minds the government serves the people, the people do not serve the government. So, without a direct threat to them (like 9/11) they are not apt to support a war footing. Because this value based individualist attitude is almost religious, intervention in the affairs of another country to support democratic revolutions - fellow individualists - is the one thing they will support. If the neo-cold-war is couched in those terms they MAY support it, but I doubt it at the moment.

You missed something that Toqueville did not. Yanks are joiners. Yanks have a great affinity for cooperation without the need for external direction. Individuals have right that God gave them and those can't be taken away but we also recognize that we all have to cooperate. A good thing to look at in that respect are traffic laws and compliance. If people didn't yield for the common good you would have Kinshasa.

You have fundamentally misapprehended the character of your countrymen if you think Americans are not bound by an obligation to the common good. And this statement "...in their minds the government serves the people, the people do not serve the government" is a little scary if I get the implication right.

Also, this has little to do with the leadership. That is another fallacy individualists like to believe in, that people follow leaders. They do, but only if leaders demonstrate the values the people find important. SEN McCain would be a great president if we were afraid and inclined more towards communal values. He embodies those values with his time as a POW never breaking and his years of service. But that is not what the people want now. So I don't think you will get any leader to take us to war now.

No, you're wrong. People follow leaders in an organization. We have organized ourselves into a representative republic. We have delegated the authority to lead in overseas endeavours to others. If they don't, we have to wait until the next election. You have almost certainly been in a unit with a spineless do nothing leader. You didn't take over, you put up with it until another, better leader took over or you left the outfit.

davidbfpo

03-22-2014, 08:17 PM

The headline and sub-title:
Ukraine's unlikeliest funeral: the only two foes to die in Russia's Crimea takeover are mourned together

Tributes to Ukrainian soldier and pro-Russian self-defence volunteer killed on opposite sides of same bloody incident

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10716412/Ukraines-unlikeliest-funeral-the-only-two-foes-to-die-in-Russias-Crimea-takeover-are-mourned-together.html

OUTLAW 09

03-22-2014, 08:20 PM

kaur-----if you want a really good current photo of spetnaz with their equipment and weapons--this is a good one---seems that they are using about 10-12 man teams similar to the US Army SF.

http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-674283-galleryV9-knhc.jpg

JMA

03-22-2014, 08:45 PM

Also, this has little to do with the leadership. That is another fallacy individualists like to believe in, that people follow leaders. They do, but only if leaders demonstrate the values the people find important. SEN McCain would be a great president if we were afraid and inclined more towards communal values. He embodies those values with his time as a POW never breaking and his years of service. But that is not what the people want now. So I don't think you will get any leader to take us to war now.

With respect you are ducking the issue.

The issue is that McCain - and later Romney - got the Russian threat right while Obama mocked them as cold war relics. The bottom line is Obama was wrong and rather than hold him to account you are fudging the issue.

Very poor political spin about someone 'to take us to war now.'

The point is simple McCain read the Russians correctly and Obama failed. Try to live with this.

If there is going to be a war it is because Obama misread the situation and opened the door for Russia to make a move (this started with Bush of course in Georgia). Agreed though if there is to be a war get rid of Obama/Biden and get some competence into the WH (and maybe purge the senior military leadership at the same time).

OUTLAW 09

03-22-2014, 09:16 PM

There have been reports coming out of the US about concerns on the ongoing Russian military exercises along the Ukrainian border--but always accompanying the reports is the alluded to comments that they do not appear to be massing for an actual invasion because the necessary supplies needed for a large operation are apparently not being seen by US intelligence.

This cropped up today in the German media quoting Scandinavian intelligence sources who cannot be called raving warmongers stated that the Russian Army has built up substantial military supplies that would be needed for an actual invasion operation along the Ukrainian border ---equipment and supplies that are not needed normally for a field exercise-- and that in their opinion all necessary units and supplies needed for a full scale move into the Ukraine would be in place by this Sunday. The Scandinavians have also stated that the field exercises were in fact invasion practice runs towards the West ie the Ukraine.

Interesting ---who is correct ---reports out of the US--yes there are exercises, but no apparent move towards actual invasion or the Scandinavians who say everything is in place with units, equipment and needed operational supplies effective tomorrow?

"Eine Invasion Richtung Westen hatten russische Militaers seit Tagen in einem Manver geuebt. Skandinavier, die keineswegs zu den Scharfmachern mit Blick auf Russland gehoeren, berichteten von Geheimdiensterkenntnissen, wonach Russland Nachschub fuer eine groessre Offensive an der Grenze bereitstelle. Fuer ein Manoever braucht man die nicht. Bis Sonntag sei der Aufmarsch abgeschlossen."

carl

03-22-2014, 10:00 PM

Interesting ---who is correct ---reports out of the US--yes there are exercises, but no apparent move towards actual invasion or the Scandinavians who say everything is in place with units, equipment and needed operational supplies effective tomorrow?

If you are going to answer that question some other questions need to be asked first. Who is closer and probably have superior human sources? Who is subject to the baleful influence of White House and corrupt US military multi-star spinmeisters and who is not?

I put more faith in the Scandinavians.

TheCurmudgeon

03-22-2014, 11:23 PM

You missed something that Toqueville did not. Yanks are joiners. Yanks have a great affinity for cooperation without the need for external direction. Individuals have right that God gave them and those can't be taken away but we also recognize that we all have to cooperate. A good thing to look at in that respect are traffic laws and compliance. If people didn't yield for the common good you would have Kinshasa.

You have fundamentally misapprehended the character of your countrymen if you think Americans are not bound by an obligation to the common good. And this statement "...in their minds the government serves the people, the people do not serve the government" is a little scary if I get the implication right.

The Yanks that Tocqueville observed bear little resemblance to the Americans of today. I would suspect that his appraisal of Americans would be significantly different if he saw us today. Birth control, legalized abortion, gay marriage, all things that exist now that did not then. Just in the last 50 years, since the transition from the Greatest generation, Americans have changed their view on what government is and should do. Lets look at the common good. Taxation supports the common good, but Americans don't want to pay taxes. We make a joke out of cheating on them. No one will support an obligation of civil duty (one year working for the good of the nation), let alone a draft.

Further, we continue to base our political science on moral philosophy rather than modern psychology. We look to Hobbes and Tocqueville for the nature of American Democracy when they lived in a world most American's to today would find repulsive. But more important they based their philosophy on the world as they saw it. If one looks to modern psychology you will find a different explanation for why things are as they are. But this too, is for another thread.

No, you're wrong. People follow leaders in an organization. We have organized ourselves into a representative republic. We have delegated the authority to lead in overseas endeavours to others. If they don't, we have to wait until the next election. You have almost certainly been in a unit with a spineless do nothing leader. You didn't take over, you put up with it until another, better leader took over or you left the outfit.

I don't disagree that people follow leaders, but they follow leaders who they think believe in the same things they do, ones with the same values, ones who they see as legitimate. Hitler came to power because Germany was rejecting the republic and longed for a past where they were a dominant force in Europe. Putin is riding a similar wave. Democracy promised much but did not deliver. Russians remember the illusion of the past when they were a superpower. These are both repudiations of the individualist ideal and movement to the communal ideal.

A leader can provide direction for an organization, but in most cases, he cannot long take them where they don't want to go. That is even more true in a democratic government.

kaur

03-23-2014, 12:01 AM

Thanks Outlaw for the pic. Here is the video how council of ministers of Crimea was attacked 27.02 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr1wxqt_3So

Compare the gear.

OUTLAW 09

03-23-2014, 07:15 AM

kaur---size of the team is the important point---again ten.

OUTLAW 09

03-23-2014, 07:27 AM

One of the main arguments by Russia has been that NATO is on their doorstep and they feel betrayed that has occurred.

It has become a Russian mantra since Crimea and it came through in a number of US pundits as well in their remarks on Crimea--that the Crimea is a sphere of influence thing--I guess is one repeats it enough times even disinformation becomes real.

Yesterdays OCSE meeting shot down the Russian NATO excuse in front of all OCSE members to heck and back.

Rasmussen pointedly asked the Russian OCSE Ambassador if in fact the Russians signed the 1999 OCSE ageements which in a single sentence stated that every signatory had the right with right emphasized to join whatever organization and or block they wanted to---Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and K'stan signed the agreements.

The implied emphasis was that everyone was free to do whatever they are a member of the OCSE thought best for their country as that was the implied understanding by NATO and the EU.

After a thoughtful moment on the Ambassador's part he then in typical Russian mindset fashion stated BUT no one was to interfere inside a country---which by the way upon reading the OCSE document it does not state that anywhere.

So did he in fact violate his own statement when Russia moved into the Crimea and has Russian constantly served up disinformation on the "right of every OCSE member to join whatever group/block they want to" ie either the EU or in fact NATO or even rejoin Russia.

Rasmussen also pointedly asked is it OK for then Georgia to join NATO---answer we will have to think about that---implied by Rasmussen---yes they can based on OCSE Russian signed agreements as they signed the agreements.

A remarkable exchange between NATO and a Russian Ambassador and it goes to the previous Stalin comment I have posted.

This is exactly what Russia is doing---following Stalin to the bitter end even if in the 21st century--meaning pick and choose what you want and do not want to argue your case even if you signed the documents---that is the lesson that the US/WH does not understand and that is not a neocon thinking point of view ---it is Russian reality at its' best and it has been since the Czarist days.

“One should remember the instruction of Comrade Stalin, that there are such periods, such times in the life of society and our individual lives, when laws turn out to be obsolete and we have to put them aside.”

So is Stalin implying that their signed OCSE agreements have no bearing which if one looks at what Russia/Putin is currently doing one might in fact then assume we are truly in Cold War version 2---by the way they have never come into compliance with the last series of OCSE agreements--even during the Bush years. Now add in the recent violation of the INF on their newly developed land launched nuclear cruise missile.

When we entered into a 13 year old war and totally lost focus on anything other than jihadi's---the Russians did not.

So the question that the US/NATO/EU and the WH should be asking---can anything that Russia utters actually be trusted ie Syria, Iran, NK, invasion of the Ukraine proper?

And why since their own actions tell a different story?

JMA

03-23-2014, 09:46 AM

From the Blog an open letter:

Open Letter to President Obama (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/open-letter-to-president-obama)

For the record I posted the following response on the blog in response to comments from 'liberals and leftists'.

by Mark Adams | March 23, 2014 - 4:36am

Watching the discussions on Ukraine here (SWC) and elsewhere it appears it is being driven in the US by local party political / ideological positions. This is regrettable but probably what Putin anticipated.

Those responding to the invasion of Crimea and its annexation by Russia would be forgiven for thinking was a pretty serious matter.

What to do about it?

From far away it appears that the 'left wing' of US politics - democrats and liberals - are happy to let Crimea go and the message to Russia is - take one small bite at a time with suitable periods in between - and we will let you do what you want as we don't care / don't have the stomach for a confrontation over this.

While the 'right wing' the Republicans are saying - we told you so (which they did, McCian, Palin, Romney) - and the leftists (Democrats and liberals) screwed it up now the US and the EU have a crisis to deal with.

It is intellectuallly immature to start pointing fingers those who are putting their hands up to provide a solution to a problem of the Obama administaration's making.

The Ukrainians (and others) are still to learn the sad truth that 'with a friend / ally like the US who needs enemies'.

In the meantime someone has to fix the mess created by the Obama administration... and it is not going to be the Obama / Biden circus.

Dayuhan

03-23-2014, 11:37 AM

In the meantime someone has to fix the mess created by the Obama administration

"Created by the Obama administration" seems a conclusion that would require some supporting evidence or logic. The Obama administration's handling of the situation can certainly be criticized, as can the reactions on the European side, but it seems a bit of a stretch to accuse the Obama administration of creating the situation.

OUTLAW 09

03-23-2014, 03:12 PM

Dayuhan ---this goes a little to what JMA is alluding to even though I do not necessarily blame it only this WH---it goes back to a large degree the Bush years "who looked Putin in the eyes"........

What worries me and it goes to this WH is a distinct lack of clarity in fully explaining the current Russia issue and it is just not the Crimea to the American population as a whole regardless of political views.

For way to long we as a country ignored Russian and Putin since 2000 as we literally chased the "bad guys" around the world and in the end it was a failure and a 4T USD loss.

For example--this WH dallied on calling out Russia for being in violation of the INF, for not being in compliance with the agreements they signed under the OCSE since 2001, they have not "leaked" to the US population that the Russian troop movements and supply operations on the Ukraine border are far more serious than they have stated just in the last four days (they only started leaking to the NYT today) and that it takes German intelligence leaks to indicate that the Russian AF was flying simulated air attack runs against the Koenigsberg area of Lithuania SINCE this last autumn on an almost daily basis, that Russian activities in the southern hemisphere has drastically picked up to a point of matching them from 30 years ago and the list goes on.

The same WH and the previous WH have failed to indicate to the American population that Russia is currently being managed by four separate organizations ie the Russian Security Services FSB/GRU/MoI, the oligarchs, the Army and especially the Russian Mob.

To understand the use of the Russian Mob ---here is a great link on Mob activities in the Ukraine;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/23/the-mob-and-the-mobs-in-eastern-ukraine.html

Also our own think tankers and pundits keep stating it is all about Russia needing a "sphere of influence" WHEN in fact it is about two things 1) keeping the Ukrainian street from igniting a similar trend in Moscow AND 2) more importantly is really is about reestablishing the former Soviet Union.

Take a map and draw in the Russian Federation then draw in the "Stans" that are under direct Russian influence, draw in Belarus which is under a former Communist who is a dictator and proRussian, then draw in the enclaves Russia has taken since 2008 in Georgia and Moldovia and Crimea and look at the pressure they are applying to the remaining Ukraine and the Baltics.

In order to exert military pressure from the breakaway enclave in and on Moldavia the Russian military needs a land route and it is only through the Ukraine that it is possible--BUT from the Crimea it is an easy run into Moldavia.

One is looking at the former Soviet Union all over again and this in the 21st century when the Cold War was suppose to be over.

So in formulating foreign policy just how does one go about it if in fact the American public is totally in the dark?

Do we have a strategy that reflects a clear end goal and what is to be achieved and or we just going to muddle through this over and over.

Putin does have a strategy and it is long term.

This I think is where JMA is coming from.

JMA

03-23-2014, 04:29 PM

I see you have met our man from the boonies.

His stock in trade is to nit pick what others post to create work for them in responding then repeats the same routine over again.

... and never posts anything of substance himself in case someone does the same to him.

It get old pretty quickly.

Dayuhan ---this goes a little to what JMA is alluding to even though I do not necessarily blame it only this WH---it goes back to a large degree the Bush years "who looked Putin in the eyes"........

What worries me and it goes to this WH is a distinct lack of clarity in fully explaining the current Russia issue and it is just not the Crimea to the American population as a whole regardless of political views.

For way to long we as a country ignored Russian and Putin since 2000 as we literally chased the "bad guys" around the world and in the end it was a failure and a 4T USD loss.

For example--this WH dallied on calling out Russia for being in violation of the INF, for not being in compliance with the agreements they signed under the OCSE since 2001, they have not "leaked" to the US population that the Russian troop movements and supply operations on the Ukraine border are far more serious than they have stated just in the last four days (they only started leaking to the NYT today) and that it takes German intelligence leaks to indicate that the Russian AF was flying simulated air attack runs against the Koenigsberg area of Lithuania SINCE this last autumn on an almost daily basis, that Russian activities in the southern hemisphere has drastically picked up to a point of matching them from 30 years ago and the list goes on.

The same WH and the previous WH have failed to indicate to the American population that Russia is currently being managed by four separate organizations ie the Russian Security Services FSB/GRU/MoI, the oligarchs, the Army and especially the Russian Mob.

To understand the use of the Russian Mob ---here is a great link on Mob activities in the Ukraine;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/23/the-mob-and-the-mobs-in-eastern-ukraine.html

Also our own think tankers and pundits keep stating it is all about Russia needing a "sphere of influence" WHEN in fact it is about two things 1) keeping the Ukrainian street from igniting a similar trend in Moscow AND 2) more importantly is really is about reestablishing the former Soviet Union.

Take a map and draw in the Russian Federation then draw in the "Stans" that are under direct Russian influence, draw in Belarus which is under a former Communist who is a dictator and proRussian, then draw in the enclaves Russia has taken since 2008 in Georgia and Moldovia and Crimea and look at the pressure they are applying to the remaining Ukraine and the Baltics.

In order to exert military pressure from the breakaway enclave in and on Moldavia the Russian military needs a land route and it is only through the Ukraine that it is possible--BUT from the Crimea it is an easy run into Moldavia.

One is looking at the former Soviet Union all over again and this in the 21st century when the Cold War was suppose to be over.

So in formulating foreign policy just how does one go about it if in fact the American public is totally in the dark?

Do we have a strategy that reflects a clear end goal and what is to be achieved and or we just going to muddle through this over and over.

Putin does have a strategy and it is long term.

This I think is where JMA is coming from.

brynoch

03-23-2014, 05:47 PM

Lets look at the common good. Taxation supports the common good, but Americans don't want to pay taxes. We make a joke out of cheating on them. No one will support an obligation of civil duty (one year working for the good of the nation), let alone a draft.

While not wholly relevant to the overall topic, I don't believe this is correct. I see many Americans searching for a cause to support and believe in. Unfortunately the public opportunities offered to them aren't very appealing for several reasons(public service or military) and the private options don't seem to offer a big enough tent to welcome diverse groups to a common goal.

You can see the hunger for it in the initial support for the Tea Party, the Obama presidential campaign, the Occupy movements, support for veterans services, and private aid to domestic and foreign crisis among others.

You can also see the backlash against those institutions which initially attracted that support and then either failed to live up to the initial goals or subverted them.

I think Americans are hungry to do 'something' more than ever, I just don't think there is an appealing leader or organization out there which passes the general sniff test since the joiners have been burnt several times. It also doesn't help that in general Americans are divided into a red tribe blue tribe camp and our current political conversations don't allow acknowledgement of any of the other sides points or the availability of a third view.

AmericanPride

03-23-2014, 05:54 PM

One of the main arguments by Russia has been that NATO is on their doorstep and they feel betrayed that has occurred. It has become a Russian mantra since Crimea and it came through in a number of US pundits as well in their remarks on Crimea--that the Crimea is a sphere of influence thing--I guess is one repeats it enough times even disinformation becomes real.

This has been a prominent Russian position on NATO expansion for many years now; I cited a number of pre-Crimea Crisis documents from the Russian Foreign Ministry a few posts earlier. This has been a position either ignored or outright dismissed by Washington. During the 1990s and early 2000s, Russia had to accept the fact of NATO expansion. But that no longer appears to be the case. The chaos of the 1990s is over; Putin's nationalist-realism faction is firmly in control of the Russian state. Washington ignores this threat at it's own peril.

Also our own think tankers and pundits keep stating it is all about Russia needing a "sphere of influence" WHEN in fact it is about two things 1) keeping the Ukrainian street from igniting a similar trend in Moscow AND 2) more importantly is really is about reestablishing the former Soviet Union.

Take a map and draw in the Russian Federation then draw in the "Stans" that are under direct Russian influence, draw in Belarus which is under a former Communist who is a dictator and proRussian, then draw in the enclaves Russia has taken since 2008 in Georgia and Moldovia and Crimea and look at the pressure they are applying to the remaining Ukraine and the Baltics.

I agree with your first point, and preserving one's own political sovereignty seems an inalienable right under international law and norms. Is Washington to be in the business of provoking revolution in large, nuclear armed states? As to your second point, I think this is a tired cliche. First, great powers generally exert significant influence on the countries in their immediate surroundings; is Russia an exception to this practice? Second, all the states in the CIS/CSTO were part of the USSR; which, in turn, were also part of the Russian Empire. The Empire held these territories for many centuries as the world's largest multi-ethnic country. The combined years of these states' independence is probably less than the amount of time they spent as part of this empire. Sure, in politics, hypocrisy and deceit is standard, and frankly, Washington triumphed in the struggle of the Russian empire. But if we dismiss these historical relationships in intellectual discussions, we are only doing ourselves a disservice.

So in formulating foreign policy just how does one go about it if in fact the American public is totally in the dark?

That's been the practice of Washington foreign policy making for years. There are still people who believe Saddam Hussein's Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Do we have a strategy that reflects a clear end goal and what is to be achieved and or we just going to muddle through this over and over.

No - we stumble from one crisis to the next, pushing to maximize short term gains. We have an "end of history" approach to foreign policy making. And Crimea is clearly the rebirth of history.

OUTLAW 09

03-23-2014, 06:38 PM

American Pride---my response to your following sentence---"But if we dismiss these historical relationships in intellectual discussions, we are only doing ourselves a disservice."

What we currently have with Russia and the Crimea goes further back than just the Empire and we have I would say since about the late 1980s not talked about something we in international relations use to call "nationalism".

Whole books were written on the subject and hundreds of university/college classes were held on the topic from the 50s through to the early 80s.

"Nationalism" is a strange word and it is not often heard in our intellectual exchanges since the Wall came down--wonder why?

In order to understand currently Putin and his motives one must understand the depth of the belief in the current propaganda/disinformation that is originating from the Russian State/Russian oligarch owned mass media that is flooding over the Russian population 24/7.

Nationalism is an easy thing to turn on but extremely difficult to turn off.

Wikipedia: Russian nationalism is the nationalism that asserts that Russians are a nation and promotes the cultural unity of Russians. Russian nationalism has its roots in the 18th century. It was closely related to Pan-Slavism. There are a number of individuals and organizations in Russia today, consisting of both moderate and radical nationalists.

If one read the exchanges between NATO's Rasmussen and the Russian Ambassador in the OCSE Friday ---the Russian myth and it is a myth of NATO expansion was shot down because in the OCSE documents Russia signed in 1999 it contains a single sentence "allowing" all members of the OCSE to select the block or organization freely they wanted to join ie NATO/EU and yes even rejoin Russia.

So the constant bitching about NATO is just a smoke screen for something else---namely nationalism. By the way Russia, Ukraine, K'stan and Belarus all signed the 1999 OCSE agreements which the Ambassador was reminded of and he agreed that Russia has signed the agreement.

So is “wag the dog” a valid explanation of the Crimea and any future tactics that Putin uses in the reestablishing the old Soviet Union?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/23/putin-s-dream-of-empire-doesn-t-stop-at-crimea-or-even-ukraine.html

This article---excerpts below--- is extremely interesting to read as it goes to the heart of Russian “nationalism”.

Consider this widely shared Facebook post by a Moscow yuppie named Artem Nekrasov: “If Putin manages to annex Crimea and the southeast of Ukraine peacefully I personally forgive him everything: wild corruption, the lawlessness of officials, lack of any prospects in the economy, disorder in education and journalism and even the common stupefaction of the people....” The post is popular because, as polls show, it reflects the common mood in Russia. Putin’s approval rating is 75 percent since he announced the annexation of Crimea.

Roman Kokorev, a senior researcher in the International Law Department of the Russian Federation government, goes still further. “The next step is Moldova and all Ukraine!!!” he writes on Facebook. He wants all the old territories of the Soviet Union back; he wants Russian military power, once again, to reign supreme. He wants the Baltics and Finland and Poland and “Alaska will be returned,” he writes, “because all these lands are Russian.” (Sarah Palin, watch out.)

As journalist and political scientist Alexander Morozov writes in his widely-read essay “Conservative Revolution: Making Sense of Crimea,” Putin’s logic is no longer tied to those rational considerations of cooperation and economic interdependence on which the West puts so much faith. His is now a “revolutionary” mindset in which he and his followers are ready to sacrifice Western capital, risk having their assets frozen, and rely on “political myth”—a focus on heroism, sacrifice and martyrdom—to generate public support. There is no rational response to this. Those infected by the myth cannot imagine any other possibility for the future but success: “Crimea is ours!”

Stan

03-23-2014, 07:52 PM

Outlaw,
Interesting indeed ! Wondering when the rest of us will figure out just how difficult the logistics will be in these three tiny countries with almost no infrastructure. Thus far, nothing has happened (at least not here).

Having worked for both the Swedes and Swiss, it doesn't take long to figure out where their allegiance lies when the chips are down (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/after-crimea-sweden-flirts-with-joining-nato/284362/), or, when some "humanitarian op" requires financing to the tune of $5 to 10 grand per person :D

Much like our current administration, hype it up and beg for cash :rolleyes:

Regards, Stan

Interesting ---who is correct ---reports out of the US--yes there are exercises, but no apparent move towards actual invasion or the Scandinavians who say everything is in place with units, equipment and needed operational supplies effective tomorrow?

Firn

03-23-2014, 08:30 PM

@stan: There is something in this oldie song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pWcVxl9v6Y), minus the fighting, that reminds me of Putin and the Kremlin's propaganda machine...

@outlaw: Overall I stick to my line I established in the recent week that everything, yes everything coming out of the Kremlin and it's media has to be treated as propaganda and deceptio. I'm pretty sure that soon enough we will hear that Russia will strongly protest against any foreign meddling in his internal affairs in Crimea. :wry:

Supporting Ukraine in it's political and economic development and it's integration into the European landscape should IMHO be the long term Western goals, including EU membership, likely with some clever legal framing. A more capable military seems to be sadly also necessary. In the short term, getting strong financial aid, keeping the Russians military and provocateurs out of the rest of the country and getting free and fair elections with a proper change of power should be the biggest goals for Ukraine. It will be a very difficult path to walk on, especially if somebody keeps throwing rocks at you. Then again this somebody might really try to stop you dead.

OUTLAW 09

03-24-2014, 07:08 AM

American Pride---in support to the propaganda/disinformation effort to support the Russian "nationalism" are the agitation demos of the proRussians in eastern Ukraine.

If you check this particular photo that was supplied to the German media---you will notice a row of very quiet riot police not responding as they should be to the agitating proRussian crowd.

Then you notice just how many "photographers" are positioned exactly in the right place to photograph "any" "mistreatment" of the proRussians by the Ukrainian riot police.

And this is not "staged" for the Russian media in the motherland?

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/bilddonezk/9656660/1-format14.jpg

OUTLAW 09

03-24-2014, 07:15 AM

Notice how the Russians are at every turn trying to get legality for their Crimea move---the last sentence in this Interfax PR was bluntly answered by the German Ministry Foreign already on Saturday as being in another level of reality.

But at least the Russians keep trying in the Stalinist tradition of ignoring what they want and accepting another level of reality to give their message some reality.

"Russia counts on an objective and impartial work of the OSCE international monitors in Ukraine, which will help eliminate ultra-radical trends and achieve national accord, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a commentary posted on its website on Saturday."

"It also said that the mission mandate reflected the new political and legal realities and did not apply to Crimea and Sevastopol, which had become integral parts of Russia."

JMA

03-24-2014, 08:56 AM

From Stratfor:

Russia Examines Its Options for Responding to Ukraine (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russia-examines-its-options-responding-ukraine)

Worth a read.

davidbfpo

03-24-2014, 12:02 PM

Two BBC News vignettes from the Crimea. First 'The politics of water in Crimea', a short film report by what appears to be a local reporter and the snippet that a few days ago the sluices were opened to supply the Crimea, the water takes two weeks to arrive:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26683376

Second, 'Five ways Crimea is becoming Russian' which is puzzling:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26679240

I do wonder if we will see a population exit, notably of Ukrainians and maybe the Tatars. Given the assumed inter-marriage of Russian and Ukrainians this will not be easy. How will the new Russian Crimea treat those who retain Ukrainian passports let alone language?

Firn

03-24-2014, 12:22 PM

Good catch about the water channel. I'm pretty sure that the Ukrainian government will decide to cut it's subventions on water delivery and will find out that it has to charge higher prices to be able to deliver the services to it's costumers. In the end the NCC seems to be in a deplorable state and in dire need of large investments...

From what I have read there are lots of divisions inside families, young and old, friends and couples across ethnic, political and linguistic borders which seemed hardly relevant a couple of weeks ago. Significant emigration should mostly come from the young and educated, further depressing the private sector and accelerating the demographic trend downwards. Lots of unkowns so far. This will be smart to monitor.

-----------------

Russia's Online-Comment Propaganda Army (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/russias-online-comment-propaganda-army/280432/) is an older article in the Atlantic by the Russian author Olga Khazan. The part from the St. Petersburg Times is especially interesting considering the current propaganda offensive and possibly some recent activities at the SWC:

To my question about a technical task—what exactly should be written in the comments—a young guy, a coordinator, told me, briefly and clearly, that they were having busy days at the moment and that yesterday they all wrote in support of [Moscow acting mayor Sergei] Sobyanin, while ‘today we #### on Navalny,’” she wrote on her VKontakte [ed: a Russian social network] page.

According to Lvova, each commenter was to write no less than 100 comments a day, while people in the other room were to write four postings a day, which then went to the other employees whose job was to post them on social networks as widely as possible.

Employees at the company, located at 131 Lakhtinsky Prospekt, were paid 1,180 rubles ($36.50) for a full 8-hour day and received a free lunch, Lvova wrote.

At least that part of the war seems to come rather cheap for the Russians...

OUTLAW 09

03-24-2014, 12:42 PM

Firn---the Russians (the Minister President Medwedew) now want to do an international conference on how to secure the future energy and water supplies for the Crimea since 80% of the electricity, 85% of the water and a large amount of gas comes from the Ukraine.

Interfax:
15:06 Russia prepares additional resources in case of power cuts in Crimea - Kozak
14:50 Temirgaliyev: Crimea to stop being dependent on Ukrainian electricity in 45 days

The real focus is to get international respect and legality for the Crimea any way possible--but still it is interesting the center of gravity seems to have hit the Russians as it seems they did not do their globalization studies before moving in. But again their propaganda is saying they can replace the electricity in 45 days so why the need of an international conference?

They are now talking about subsidizing airline tickets to the Crimea probably trying to get Russian tourists to replace the 1M Ukrainian tourists per year---yet another cost for supporting the enclave.

"Der russische Ministerprsident Dmitri Medwedew fordert internationale Verhandlungen, um die Energie- und Wasserversorgung der Krim sicherzustellen. "Wir muessen den besten Weg fuer die Energieversorgnung auf der Halbinsel finden", forderte der Ministerprsident. Die Krim ist bislang von Lieferungen aus der Ukraine abhaengig. Sie erhalte bislang rund 80 Prozent des Stroms, 85 Prozent des Wassers und groe Mengen an Gas aus der Ukraine, sagte Medwedew."

Firn

03-24-2014, 01:45 PM

Firn---the Russians (the Minister President Medwedew) now want to do an international conference on how to secure the future energy and water supplies for the Crimea since 80% of the electricity, 85% of the water and a large amount of gas comes from the Ukraine.

Interfax:
15:06 Russia prepares additional resources in case of power cuts in Crimea - Kozak
14:50 Temirgaliyev: Crimea to stop being dependent on Ukrainian electricity in 45 days

The real focus is to get international respect and legality for the Crimea any way possible--but still it is interesting the center of gravity seems to have hit the Russians as it seems they did not do their globalization studies before moving in. But again their propaganda is saying they can replace the electricity in 45 days so why the need of an international conference?

They are now talking about subsidizing airline tickets to the Crimea probably trying to get Russian tourists to replace the 1M Ukrainian tourists per year---yet another cost for supporting the enclave.

It really fits increasingly nicely together with earlier reports about Putin and his innerst circle initiating the whole invasion without getting little information from non-ex-KGB folk.

Last time I checked the Crimea had between 5-6 million tourists per year, roughly 70% of those from Ukraine and only 25% from Russia. So we are talking about 3,5-4 million Ukrainian tourists which have to be replaced, not one. Then again if the Russian leadership has said otherwise, it must be true...

We will see how much of those will stay away and how much the Russian money and maybe patriotism brings in as a replacment in the short and long run.

OUTLAW 09

03-24-2014, 03:58 PM

Who says the Putin doctrine of annexing territory based on Russian ethnicity/language/was not opening a can of worms in a nice funny comical way.

From the Moscow Times today:

Russia's annexation of Crimea following a referendum has prompted calls from such distant places as Alaska and the Gaza Strip to hold votes on their own absorption by Russia.

A petition calling for Alaska to secede from the U.S. and join Russia gathered more than 12,000 signatures on the White House website by early Monday morning, just a few days after it was posted by an unidentified local resident.

Entitled "Alaska back to Russia," the petition cites the travels of 18th-century Russian explorers to Alaska, which was a Russian colony until the U.S. bought it in 1867 for a mere $7.2 million, or $120 million adjusted for inflation. The petition must attract 100,000 signatures by April 20 to be reviewed by President Barack Obama's administration.

In the Middle East, the Russian-language version of a Palestinian website run by Hamas said that Russian speakers in the Gaza Strip planned to hold a referendum on their territory join Russia, though no confirmation by Hamas leaders of any such plans were reported.

An activist supposedly involved in the referendum movement, and identified only by her initial "N," cited Moscow's statements about its readiness to protect Russian citizens in any part of the world, Palestine-info.ru website reported.

Joining Russia would provide Gaza with "modern weapons — even nuclear ones cannot be ruled out," the woman was quoted as saying.

Palestine-info said the number of Russian citizens living in Gaza is about 50,000, most of them Russian women who married Palestinian men, though Voice of Russia cited Russian media reports as saying that the actual number was less than 400 people.

Stan

03-24-2014, 04:25 PM

Outlaw,

Great posts !

Would however appreciate the links vs a bit of German text. Some of us speak German and the rest can google it. But, providing the links allows us all to see the direction of the articles.

Germany is a key player herein, but the reader also needs to be aware of Germany's role and the spin that is put on these media articles.

Kind of where you come in !

Thanks, Stan

"Der russische Ministerprsident Dmitri Medwedew fordert internationale Verhandlungen, um die Energie- und Wasserversorgung der Krim sicherzustellen. "Wir muessen den besten Weg fuer die Energieversorgnung auf der Halbinsel finden", forderte der Ministerprsident. Die Krim ist bislang von Lieferungen aus der Ukraine abhaengig. Sie erhalte bislang rund 80 Prozent des Stroms, 85 Prozent des Wassers und groe Mengen an Gas aus der Ukraine, sagte Medwedew."

Firn

03-24-2014, 05:54 PM

The costs are secondary (http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2014-03/ukraine-schaeuble-g7-krim), says the German MoF Wolfgang Schaeuble.

"Hier geht es darum, dass die internationale Rechtsordnung eingehalten werden muss", sagte der CDU-Politiker am Sonntagabend im ZDF. Mit Blick auf die Sanktionen gegen Russland und Hilfen fr die Ukraine fuegte er hinzu: "Ob uns das wirtschaftlich und finanziell etwas kostet, ist zweitrangig."

He is clearly talking about financial and economic costs, which are moved backwards by the importance of upholding international law. Personally I fear that the although everybody is talking about quick help the IMF process could be too slow and too demanding in the short run. There have to be parallel processes, with some money becoming available for Ukraine right now, without any strings. But I wrote about that weeks ago.

Firn

03-24-2014, 06:06 PM

Rosen Plevneliev (http://derstandard.at/1395362823629/Bulgarischer-Praesident-Putins-Game-Changer), the Bulgarian president in an Austrian interview. He speaks German, a lot about energy btw.

Stan

03-24-2014, 06:16 PM

Pandora's box is opened ?

"We are demanding a referendum on returning Yuzovka to its original bosom — Great Britain! (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/mock-proposal-calls-for-british-city-donetsk-to-secede-from-ukraine-join-uk/496705.html)" it said.

The local Donbass.ua news website reported that more than 7,000 people had supported the proposal by Sunday, with an online poll showing about 61 percent of respondents favored accession to Britain, and another 16 percent favored "broad regional autonomy" with English as an official language.

OUTLAW 09

03-24-2014, 06:56 PM

Firn---the German finance Minister indicated today that he will support the Ukraine regardless of the cost to the Germany economy---he feels that is it extremely important to do so.

Firn

03-25-2014, 08:04 PM

More information (http://www.profil.at/articles/1413/980/373711/krim-beobachter-fpoe-abgeordnete-moskauer-agenturen) about the Austrian right-wingers which visited the Crimea to 'observe' the 'referendum'. Nothing surprising really apart form the fact that there exists some kind of extremist platform where states can pretty much buy an European facade. Dear Gudenus party comrade Moelzer has in the mean time compared the EU to the Third Reich (http://www.timesofisrael.com/austrian-politician-assailed-for-eu-third-reich-comparison/) and warned that Europe is turning into a 'conglomerate of negroes'. I would love for how much that bunch of ****** sells itself....

Firn

03-25-2014, 08:26 PM

Russia is a 'regional power' (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/obama-says-russia-is-regional-power-not-americas-top-geopolitical-foe/) says Obama, who invaded Ukraine out of weakness and not of strenght. I actually agree pretty much with what he said there, maybe he should have added 'with lots of nuclear weapons', but overall there are valid arguments to back him up.

Now the other question is if it was wise or not to state that so openly, but I certainly don't know. In general I prefer the 'speak softly, carry a big stick' approach, but then again I'm not familiar with the cunning maneuvers at the highest political level. :wry:

davidbfpo

03-26-2014, 12:35 AM

Over a week ago I posted this (Post 339), edited down:
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.

Thanks to a "lurker" familiar with the region CNOC owns and operates with its own national staff this facility. CNOC? Chinese National Oil Company, sometimes known as CNOOC - adding Overseas. I cannot readily confirm this, but they know the region from regular, long stays and investments.

Perhaps the Chinese aspect explains the rapid Russian exit?

Some 2011 background on the gas field:
Ukraine's state-run JSC Chornomornaftogaz has tripled daily production at the Strilkove gas field, to 30,000 cubic meters of gas, the company's press service has reported.

Link:http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/chornomornaftogaz-triples-production-at-offshore-strilkove-gas-field-on-azov-sea-shelf-3062

This Ukrainian company was based @ Simferopol, owing US$1 billion to its Ukrainian parent company (in February 2014) and was nationalised by the new Crimean state and then the PM announced:
the new owner of the company would be Gazprom

See Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chornomornaftogaz and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naftogaz

JMA

03-26-2014, 02:04 PM

Michael Gerson writes for the Washinton Post and his paragraph on Ukraine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-in-syria-the-united-states-is-learning-the-lessons-of-inaction/2014/03/24/fb688f8c-b387-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html) hits the nail on the head.

In the early 1990s, Ukraine briefly possessed the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, including about 1,900 strategic weapons, an inheritance from the Soviet crackup. In exchange for security assurances — specifically, a Russian promise to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” — the Ukrainian government turned over all its nuclear weapons to Russia in 1996. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is now a muddy scrap of paper stuck to Vladimir Putin’s boot. According to a Ukrainian legislator, there is now a “strong sentiment” in what remains of his country that this denuclearization was “a big mistake.”

OUTLAW 09

03-26-2014, 02:08 PM

In all of the discussions one has tended to forget that the Russian Army is now fully armed, manned and supplied in two Divisions worth and is still sitting where in theory "they are just conducting field training".

All the while both Putin and his Defense Ministry are claiming they are not "interested" in the Ukraine and or Moldavia and are not a threat to anyone. It was initially Putin who also stated that he had no interest in the Crimea and then moved one week later

If that were the case then has anyone heard the Russians indicate that the exercise is over and the troops are back in their barracks?

This is any interesting link that says if they go it is now to the mid May timeframe.

Again since Putin seems to think that the sanctions were just a slap on the wrist then he might have a go following the motto we have survived the first round better to get it over and then bunker in.

Interesting that the two German former Chancellors Schmidt and Schroeder seem to be fully supportive of Putin's move and blame basically the West---surprises me about Schmidt. Can understand Schroeder as he made personally a ton of money for himself with the South Stream pipeline.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/25/russia_s_window_of_opportunity_in_ukraine

davidbfpo

03-26-2014, 02:14 PM

From a "lurker" familiar with the region banks in the Ukraine are restricting bank withdrawals to the local equivalent of US$150, apparently the banks explain the government considers itself at "war".

They also mention that there is a distinct gap educationally between eastern and western Ukraine - with the majority Russian-speaking east being better educated. This was explained by the different local demand for education, the east being far more industrialized and since 1990 looking to export. The Ukraine is a major arms supplier, in the top five and in the city of Kharkov the state-owned tank factory remains the leading employer.

Has anyone noted what the Austrian stance is on this crisis, in particular on economic sanctions? Since 1990 Austrian investors have made significant investments in eastern Ukraine, accumulating local political influence in some cities.

Firn

03-26-2014, 02:26 PM

Firn

03-26-2014, 02:30 PM

In all of the discussions one has tended to forget that the Russian Army is now fully armed, manned and supplied in two Divisions worth and is still sitting where in theory "they are just conducting field training".

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/25/russia_s_window_of_opportunity_in_ukraine

That's a timely article, it is just so ostfrontesque to read stuff like:

The winter ... was mild with little snow, while the spring is early and warm. The soil is drying rapidly, meaning that it will soon be possible to move heavy vehicles off of highways and into fields in southern areas of Ukraine close to the Black and Azov Seas.

In any case the Ukrainians should not listen to the words of Putin but prepare for his potential deeds....

davidbfpo

03-26-2014, 04:37 PM

Professor John Schindler has two short commentaries. The first is contemporary and ends with:
The West will prevail in this Cold War too because Putin’s corruption-laden model for Russia is unsustainable in the long run. In terms of population and per capita GDP, Russia is more or less Mexico with nuclear weapons. We are not headed for a bipolar world again, but a multipolar one where Russia can be a dangerous spoiler. But NATO, with American leadership, needs to wake up. This time we must ensure that Russians are well aware that they lost—so they will come to terms with the Kremlin’s crimes, including against its own people, over the last hundred years. That alone will ensure this dreadful cycle does not repeat itself yet again.

Link:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/new-cold-war-russia-104954_Page2.html#ixzz2x5DC9SNx

The second uses history to remind us that states motives can include the unfashionable, except as he points out to the Poles and I'd wager a few others too. This ends with:
How Ukraine responds to this aggression will determine not just the next weeks and months, but how much Ukrainians in decades to come think their country is worth saving and recreating in the aftermath of war and occupation. Honor matters more here than dry theories of international relations or theoretical appeals to human rights. There are some things worth dying for. If you don’t think your country’s existence is one of them, you probably won’t have a country for long, at least if you live next to Russia.

Link:http://20committee.com/2014/03/25/honor-and-the-ukraine-crisis/

OUTLAW 09

03-26-2014, 05:42 PM

David---both good reads---the Professor is right about the failure of the Russian model---the Russian population just does see it yet as they have historically been taught since WW2 just to survive and be happy in surviving.

Some day there will be a great research book done on the Russian mob which has long supplanted the Italian mob in power/reach and the interaction between the mob and Russian oligarchs.

Stan

03-26-2014, 09:03 PM

Outlaw

I would advise you to take a closer look at the article of Yegor Gaidar, the collapse of the SU. I think that the Russian leadership is right to be nervous, if , and this is a big if, the political willpower in the EU is strong enough. Their picture of the Europeans, which has lots of truth in it, might be the reason why we see such disbelief about a big economic fallout, perhaps over gas.

Not to mention all the American tree huggers apposed to fracking :eek:

U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/us-seeks-to-reduce-ukraines-reliance-on-russia-for-natural-gas.html?_r=0)

Firn

03-26-2014, 11:02 PM

The 'fracking' impact on the GDP of the USA is indeed small, as we have discussed elsewhere. A commodity is a commodity tough and even if it costs relative little on the markets it's lack can still ruin more then your day. Think of a thirsty guy in the desert. Happily energy can be substituted especially so in the longer run.

----

I had just to laugh out when I read the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/03/26/world/europe/ap-eu-crimea-dark-and-dry.html?ref=world&_r=0) about 'Crimea besieged' by it's dependence on the mainland. Earlier (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=154026&postcount=579) we discussed how Ukraine would find out that it had to raise it's prices to more correct levels to be able to finance it's business and now:

"We have no intention of subsidizing citizens of the Russian Federation: the occupiers that have now deployed their armed contingents on temporarily occupied territory," Sobolev was cited as telling parliament this week by the UNIAN news agency.

Sobolev said that prices for gas and electricity in Crimea are priced four times below market cost and that water is provided at one-seventh of its real value.

Vladimir Omelchenko, an energy analyst at the respected Kiev-based Razumkov Center think tank, said Ukrainian companies will now charge prices that would bring a profit. He said it would be unrealistic to expect that Ukraine could win security guarantees from Moscow or persuade it to return the Ukrainian military equipment seized in Crimea.

It might even be the truth... :wry:

Firn

03-26-2014, 11:13 PM

Ukrainians should expect gas price hikes, subsidies for poorest citizens (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainians-should-expect-gas-price-hikes-subsidies-for-poorest-citizens-340995.html)

Perfectly reasonable and excellent in the long run, but not easy to pull off in the short term. This should create incentives to greatly reduced the consume of (Russian) gas and increase the energy effiency of the economy. Direct transfers to the poorest are of course necessary lest they freeze in winter. I hope for them that they succeed as smoothly as possible.

Ukraine will increase household prices for gas by 50 percent in May, and the utility companies will see a 40 percent raise as of July, newly appointed head of Naftogaz Ukraine Andriy Kobolev said on March 26.

The price hikes will be compensated through direct subsidies for the poor, and this mechanism was set up by the Cabinet on March 23, but it is yet to be made public, Kobolev said. He was appointed to the job on the same day.

But even despite the price hikes, which have been approved by the government in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, the Naftogaz budget deficit this year is expected to run up to Hr 80 billion, or 5.6 percent of the gross domestic product. The figure is based on the assumption that the hryvnia rate will balance around 10 to the dollar.

“This is a record number, and this is something we have to manage with along with the regulator,” Kobolev said.

Strong financial help could at least stop Hr's fall. The US could print an additional couple of $ Bn and the ECB eager to weaken the € could extent QE to Ukrainian assets. :D

Dayuhan

03-27-2014, 12:28 AM

This Interfax PR is showing all of a sudden Russian fears---namely that the EU could in fact draw gas from alternative sources until US gas came online coupled with green technologies will at some point replace Russian gas.

As a two raw resource country that is a nightmare long term.

The Russians somehow have not registered that the US has gained the edge as the leading gas producer for awhile to come---maybe that is why they are getting into fracking themselves.

This argument is getting way too much play, much of it from people who should know better. US gas exports are not going to rescue Europe.

It is true, and much said, that the US is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas production. It is also true that the US is... well, the America of natural gas consumption. Gas available for export is not a factor of production, it's a factor of production minus consumption.

The US does have a glut of gas right now, but that is likely to be transient. The glut exists because US capacity to produce gas grew faster than US capacity to use gas. Gas makes a great substitute for oil, but it's not an instant substitute. You can run a car on CNG or LNG, but it requires an expensive conversion or a new car, and nobody will switch unless fueling infrastructure is in place: no matter how cheap gas is, you don't by a CNG powered car if there are no filling stations in your area. If a utility is running a half dozen oil powered plants, they can't just switch to gas because it is cheap. They have to build gas fired plants and decommission those oil plants, which is a large capital expenditure. If a homeowner has a furnace that runs on oil, same problem, on a much smaller scale.

If domestic gas stays cheap, people and companies will switch, over time, and US consumption will grow. Of course gas producers want to export right now, because world prices are higher than US prices. Whether that would be good for the US is another question altogether. In any event, the bottom line is that while the US may be able to export some gas at some point, it's not going to replace Russia in Europe's supply matrix.

The real impact of US gas production in world markets will be displacement. As the US becomes self sufficient in gas, the 45 billion cubic meters of gas that the US imported in 2012 will become available for other countries to buy. The other up and coming factor in world markets is Australia, which has gas and is investing in major export facilities. That will go to Asia of course, but it will leave Qatar looking for other export markets, and Europe is the obvious one. If sanctions ever come off Iran, you're looking at a potential global gas glut... for a while at least.

However - and it's a big however - Europe cannot simply switch from Russian gas to Qatari gas, or US gas. Russian gas is piped direct, the potential replacements will arrive as LNG, in tankers. Europe does not currently have the LNG terminal capacity to replace Russian gas with LNG imports. For Europe to wean itself from Russian gas, the constraint is not just finding the gas. Europe will need to make major and rapid investments in new LNG terminals and in linking those terminals to their current east-facing pipeline networks.

If Germany really wants to knock Gazprom stock down, they should announce plans for a major LNG import terminal.

Of course in the long run the Russians can always pipe gas to Asia... but that's a big capital expenditure as well, and a considerable technical challenge.

Fuchs

03-27-2014, 02:01 AM

@davidbfpo: The Austrians have been perhaps the most dovish from what I have seen. It is no surprise that the Firtash was arrested in Austria, this 'neutral' country has deeper economic and political ties with Russia then it's size might suggest. High living standards, calm political waters, a central location and formerly a strong privacy for your money even if you weren't a resident. A Switzerland light within the EU form that point of view.

That's not the reason.

Austria had elevated close economic ties with Eastern Europe to a kind of Grand Strategy. Its corporations were buying companies in Eastern Europe and operate them as subsidiaries. Its banks emphasized business with Eastern Europe very much.
Germany was busy with reunification - Austria was busy building relationships with Eastern Europe.
It's just not common knowledge because Austria is small, it was never a topic on the consumer brand level (more about financial markets and component suppliers), and whenever something goes wrong Austrians succeed to blame it on Germany anyway. ;)

Ulenspiegel

03-27-2014, 06:57 AM

That's not the reason.

It's just not common knowledge because Austria is small, it was never a topic on the consumer brand level (more about financial markets and component suppliers), and whenever something goes wrong Austrians succeed to blame it on Germany anyway. ;)

This was true before 2009, but now it is hard to find an anti-German headline in a Austrian newspaper, the last four years were boring. :-)

JMA

03-27-2014, 07:07 AM

Ah the gas issue.

Perhaps now we can return to the earlier defence of Germany's strategic decision to place reliance on energy from Russia.

A massive strategic error. Who was responsible and whose heads should roll?

This argument is getting way too much play, much of it from people who should know better. US gas exports are not going to rescue Europe.

It is true, and much said, that the US is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas production. It is also true that the US is... well, the America of natural gas consumption. Gas available for export is not a factor of production, it's a factor of production minus consumption.

snip

Firn

03-27-2014, 07:11 AM

This argument is getting way too much play, much of it from people who should know better. US gas exports are not going to rescue Europe.

...

The real impact of US gas production in world markets will be displacement. As the US becomes self sufficient in gas, the 45 billion cubic meters of gas that the US imported in 2012 will become available for other countries to buy. The other up and coming factor in world markets is Australia, which has gas and is investing in major export facilities. That will go to Asia of course, but it will leave Qatar looking for other export markets, and Europe is the obvious one. If sanctions ever come off Iran, you're looking at a potential global gas glut... for a while at least.

...

If Germany really wants to knock Gazprom stock down, they should announce plans for a major LNG import terminal.

Of course in the long run the Russians can always pipe gas to Asia... but that's a big capital expenditure as well, and a considerable technical challenge.

I think we agree (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=153923&postcount=526) that LNG terminals are just one element of reducing the European dependence on Russian energy. The costs may sound large but a drop in the European economy. As you mentioned the partial substitution from gas I would like to throw in the coal issue, which got remarkable little attention. Maybe because it is such a dirty or at least not so Co2 neutral secret. :D

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2012.10.23/coalexp.png

And it goes too...

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkLELEbiEwKUgm7DwSAPdQGhl_DkeBq PXYcTIECXqZeeAIEvTg

Overly simplified cheap shale gas substitutes coal in the US which pushes down coal prices in the US and due to ease of export worldwide. So the shale gas boom is already creating a considerable energy flow from the US to Europe, but indirectly as coal is much cheaper to transport oversea.

http://www.rohstoff-welt.de/bilder/upload/52464.gif

Ulenspiegel

03-27-2014, 07:20 AM

This argument is getting way too much play, much of it from people who should know better. US gas exports are not going to rescue Europe.

It is true, and much said, that the US is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas production. It is also true that the US is... well, the America of natural gas consumption. Gas available for export is not a factor of production, it's a factor of production minus consumption.

The US does have a glut of gas right now, but that is likely to be transient. The glut exists because US capacity to produce gas grew faster than US capacity to use gas. Gas makes a great substitute for oil, but it's not an instant substitute. You can run a car on CNG or LNG, but it requires an expensive conversion or a new car, and nobody will switch unless fueling infrastructure is in place: no matter how cheap gas is, you don't by a CNG powered car if there are no filling stations in your area. If a utility is running a half dozen oil powered plants, they can't just switch to gas because it is cheap. They have to build gas fired plants and decommission those oil plants, which is a large capital expenditure. If a homeowner has a furnace that runs on oil, same problem, on a much smaller scale.

If domestic gas stays cheap, people and companies will switch, over time, and US consumption will grow. Of course gas producers want to export right now, because world prices are higher than US prices. Whether that would be good for the US is another question altogether. In any event, the bottom line is that while the US may be able to export some gas at some point, it's not going to replace Russia in Europe's supply matrix.

The real impact of US gas production in world markets will be displacement. As the US becomes self sufficient in gas, the 45 billion cubic meters of gas that the US imported in 2012 will become available for other countries to buy. The other up and coming factor in world markets is Australia, which has gas and is investing in major export facilities. That will go to Asia of course, but it will leave Qatar looking for other export markets, and Europe is the obvious one. If sanctions ever come off Iran, you're looking at a potential global gas glut... for a while at least.

However - and it's a big however - Europe cannot simply switch from Russian gas to Qatari gas, or US gas. Russian gas is piped direct, the potential replacements will arrive as LNG, in tankers. Europe does not currently have the LNG terminal capacity to replace Russian gas with LNG imports. For Europe to wean itself from Russian gas, the constraint is not just finding the gas. Europe will need to make major and rapid investments in new LNG terminals and in linking those terminals to their current east-facing pipeline networks.

If Germany really wants to knock Gazprom stock down, they should announce plans for a major LNG import terminal.

Of course in the long run the Russians can always pipe gas to Asia... but that's a big capital expenditure as well, and a considerable technical challenge.

No, US gas will not peplace Russian gas, that is correct.

However, the current European LNG capacity is sufficient to replace Russian imports, the issues are that the volume of LNG on the global market is too small and that the NG distribution infrastructure in central Europe is not sufficient.

NG in Germany goes to 45% into industrial production (energy, precursor for bulk chemicals), around 45% is used for heating, only 10% for the generation of electricity.

The latter 10% can easily be substituted, this actually happened in the last two years. Our strategic weakness is the huge amont for heating, a cut off of the Russian deliveries in winter would very fast require the reassignment of industrial NG for haeting, leading to a damage of the German companies like BASF.

The best, i.e. cost efficient, strategy for Germany is IMHO to increase the refitting rate of buildings, goal should be the reductionof NG consumption by >2% per year, this would require arund 10-15 billion per year as credit (KfW). More wind power and PV would also help.

A gradual reduction of NG exports does not make any sense for Russia, a protracted low level economic war is the last Russia could afford, a short painful action would be better, like the destruction of a pipeline in Ukraine by "nationalists" in next winter with relatively large economic damage in Europe.

Some aspects of the US exports and European struation:

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2014/3/18/35636/8272

Firn

03-27-2014, 07:22 AM

That's not the reason.

Germany was busy with reunification - Austria was busy building relationships with Eastern Europe.

It's just not common knowledge because Austria is small, it was never a topic on the consumer brand level (more about financial markets and component suppliers), and whenever something goes wrong Austrians succeed to blame it on Germany anyway. ;)

Those are good reasons, but the high Austrian investments in the East are of course an important topic which gave them a big economic boost as we discussed before, even in this thread I think. I was close to link to the Annual Report (http://investor.rbinternational.com/fileadmin/ir/2012_FY/2013-04-10_2012_Annual_Report_RBI.pdf) of Raiffeisen Bank International, the Austrian stock which suffered perhaps the most in recent weeks, but didn't want to go too deeply. Page 14 shows the number of costumers, note especially Russia and Ukraine...

Of course this drive to the (South)East didn't always go well (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201304/20130425ATT65080/20130425ATT65080EN.pdf), especially if you worked on both ends with the wrong guys.

Dayuhan

03-27-2014, 09:15 AM

Ah the gas issue.

Perhaps now we can return to the earlier defence of Germany's strategic decision to place reliance on energy from Russia.

Did anyone defend that decision?

A massive strategic error. Who was responsible and whose heads should roll?

The Nordstream pipeline was first conceived in the late 90s, I believe... no idea if the risk of over-reliance on Russia was part of the discussion at that time. Fuchs might know. The individuals who made the decision are likely long since retired.

I find it quite strange that a country that consumes as much gas as Germany doesn't have a single LNG terminal. Japan has (from memory, could be a bit off) something like 30 of them. Pipelines are great, but tie to a specific source, while an LNG terminal can take tankers from anywhere. Norway can pick up some of the difference, but not all, and pipelines from Norway can't deliver gas from any other source. LNG terminals in France and Belgium can bring some, but capacity is limited and they have to balance German demand with that of other customers. Europe isn't using all of its LNG terminal capacity and could bring in more... but none of those terminals are under German control. Whether or not the Germans could tap that capacity and whether existing internal pipeline networks could deliver the gas from the pipelines to Germany) is another question. It could probably be done, but it would take time.

Germany's dependence on Russian gas is sometimes overstated: gas accounts for about 21% of Germany's primary energy supply and Russia provides about 35% of the gas. Losing that would still cause considerable pain, especially given the decision to shut down German nuclear plants.

The point I was trying to make is that relieving German dependence on Russian gas is not just a matter of finding gas suppliers. The replacement gas (from Qatar, the US, or almost any other potential supplier) would arrive as LNG, and Germany will need to invest in the infrastructure needed to support a switch from pipeline delivery to LNG tanker delivery.

Fuchs

03-27-2014, 01:36 PM

4) And not unimportant. There was some kind of agreement that there is no integration of Ukraine into Nato and EU, this agreement was broken by western politicians, IMHO a stupid move.

A couple promises were broken, but this is incorrect. An association treaty (which wasn't even ratified) isn't the same as integration and IIRC the promises were actually about NATO expansion and Western troops in the former Warsaw Pact.

The only permanent Western troops presences in the former Warsaw pact that I know of are
* East Germany, which within limits was part of the agreement.
* Those two much criticized U.S. BMD installations
* the tiny air policing fighter flight NATO countries provide for the Baltic countries
* embassy-, liaison-, officer exchange- and intel-related personnel

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 01:50 PM

Here comes the pain, as promised. From Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA2Q0MR20140327):

Kiev opened the way for the IMF deal by announcing on Wednesday a radical 50-percent hike in the price of domestic gas from May 1 and promising to phase out remaining energy subsidies by 2016, an unpopular step Yanukovich had refused to take.

It also accepted a flexible exchange rate that is fuelling inflation, set to hit 12-14 percent this year, according to Yatseniuk, and a central bank monetary policy based on inflation targeting.

The prime minister, who took on the job a month ago saying his government was on a "kamikaze" mission to take painful decisions, said the price of Russian gas on which the nation depends may rise 79 percent - a recipe for popular discontent.

Fuchs

03-27-2014, 02:12 PM

Both makes sense. They can set up a welfare program to help the poor if the heating costs go through the roof.
It's better to let the people feel the true price of energy than to shield them against it. They would otherwise never go for more efficiency.
Same problem in Iran; not understanding opportunity costs, oil-rich countries insist that oil ought to be cheap for their consumers - and end up with a horribly inefficient domestic oil consumption.

You need to rein in on this; the medium and long term benefits of letting markets force people into more efficient consumption are huge.

The exchange rate thing is even more important; a weak national currency makes imports and vacations abroad very expensive, but it boosts exports. An artificially strong currency only accumulates problems and pains over time. So far no country has sustained an artificially strong currency for long without showing great distress. Look at Southern Italy; it had an artificially strong currency for decades because its currency union with North Italy, and it never seems to be able to catch up.

OUTLAW 09

03-27-2014, 02:15 PM

American Pride---all necessary if I heard his speech correctly due to the former President and his group of cronies that raped the Ukrainian economy to the tune of between 36 and 40B USD.

Am more concerned that Russia is going to indeed pull the trigger---based on unnamed US/European intel sources Russian troop count is now up to 30K this week up from 20K last week.

There have been extensive sightings of Spatnaz and especially GRU/FSB security forces without uniform markings.

IF one is to believe Putin's statements in the Duma and in TV he is not moving on the Ukraine --then why the sudden buildup in one week?

Since Russian divisions are basically smaller than US he has right about now 5-7 depending on the count in a "CPX type field exercise".

Based on the article yesterday indicating the open window is closing in the next six weeks for an Russian invasion---Putin I think has made the decision that 1) western initial responses and sanctions were weak and ineffective even though S&P/Fitch has downgraded a large number of banks/companies to negative and 2) if he is going to take an economic hit then it is better to get it over with and argue in a nationalist form to his population they will have to suffer through as the West does not understand them but hey all Russians are now in the Federation--Hitler use to call that the "Heim ins Reich" program.

The last sentence in the article is the important one---"an invasion at this moment cannot be excluded"---sounds right out of what we used to call a Indications and Warnings briefing given to the National Command Authority.

Taken today from the German Focus Online:

12.53 Uhr: Russland treibt den Truppenaufbau an der Grenze zur Ukraine westlichen Sicherheitskreisen zufolge weiter voran. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass mehr als 30.000 russische Soldaten dorthin verlegt worden seien, heit es aus europischen und US-Sicherheitskreisen. In der vergangenen Woche lag die Zahl Medienberichten zufolge noch bei 20.000. Unter den an die Ostgrenze der Ukraine verlegten Truppen seien Spezialeinheiten und Milizen mit Uniformen ohne Hoheitsabzeichen, verlautet es weiter aus den Kreisen. Auch die Einheiten, die die Kontrolle ber die ukrainische Halbinsel Krim bernommen hatten, seien nicht eindeutig als russische Soldaten zu erkennen gewesen. Die Eingliederung der Halbinsel in die russische Foerderation loest im Westen Befrchtungen aus, dass Russland auch in der Ost-Ukraine intervenieren koennte. Wie auch auf der Krim gibt es dort einen groessen russischstaemmigen Bevoelkerungsanteil. In US-Regierungskreisen heit es, es sei unklar, welches Ziel der russische Prsident Wladimir Putin mit der Truppenverlegung an die Grenze verfolge.

Eine Militraktion koenne nicht ausgeschlossen werden.

Fuchs

03-27-2014, 02:26 PM

30k is not an awful lot, even if it's reinforcements only.

The Russians remember the Chechnya insurrection and how much personnel it took to drown it.
A 400k troop concentration would be a decent start for an invasion, but they won't be able to mass that many for months.

OUTLAW 09

03-27-2014, 02:50 PM

Fuchs---5-7 divisions fully manned, equipped and critically having the necessary supplies in place for a quick charge to Moldavia and into the eastern portion is a breeze when the Ukrainians cannot get more than 20K together at any given time.

What the I&W guys look for is not the troop count but do the Russians have the supplies in place for extended operations and the answer is yes they do and in really large amounts which would be necessary for extended operations into the summer.

So the next question is if in fact it is just a CPX to exercise their staff as they claim then ending a CPX and heading home would be "normal"---but instead they are still increasing-and they no longer speak of a CPX in any PR releases via Interfax--so it is no longer in the realm if a "CPX"---so what is it then?

This small PR comment came in via Interfax:

14:18 Zyuganov: Russia should foster unity of Ukrainian forces resisting fascist nationalists

So when dealing with Russian OSINT and reading between the lines "what is fostering unity of Ukrainian forces resisting fascist nationalists" really mean?

So who then links up with those "unity forces resisting fascist nationalists"---and who are those "unity forces"--what the Ukrainian Army or Spatnaz and the GRU?

Fuchs

03-27-2014, 03:03 PM

They don't have all that much in the Western Military District. (https://www.academia.edu/5407818/2013_The_Military_Capability_of_Russias_Armed_Forc es_in_2013_in_Hedenskog_and_Vendil_Pallin_eds_Russ ian_Military_Capability_in_A_Ten-Year_Perspective)
About seven brigade equivalents and one or two brigade equivalents airborne.
An equivalent force is at the Caucasus, but largely fixed there due to no less than four regional hot spots, two of which require military and not only paramilitary presence.

And an invasion would not be about facing the Ukrainian military only.

The utility of a troops concentration is that it could embolden Russians in Eastern Ukraine and deter Ukrainians from putting them down. It's also completely legal and legitimate and thus comes at no real political price.
I suppose that's what Putin is really doing. He looks like he's collecting bargaining chips for a border redefinition treaty that includes Ukrainian neutrality and trade provisions.
None of his recent coups de main had a published force build-up, after all.

Ulenspiegel

03-27-2014, 03:16 PM

A couple promises were broken, but this is incorrect. An association treaty (which wasn't even ratified) isn't the same as integration and IIRC the promises were actually about NATO expansion and Western troops in the former Warsaw Pact.

The only permanent Western troops presences in the former Warsaw pact that I know of are
* East Germany, which within limits was part of the agreement.
* Those two much criticized U.S. BMD installations
* the tiny air policing fighter flight NATO countries provide for the Baltic countries
* embassy-, liaison-, officer exchange- and intel-related personnel

Sorry, here I disagree. An EU association of an European country always include the (slim) danger, that this country becomes a second Poland and will apply for full membership in around 15 years. And please do not tell me, we would and could object then. EU association is for me a red line, as it has hidden military implications. :-)

As Germans we should admit that one part of the deal with Gorbachow was the preservation of a glacis, something that was eroded in the last year. We can only discuss the motivations to do so, not the fact.

The correct sequence IMHO would have been to offer Russia NATO membership, then offer EU association to Ukraine.

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 03:54 PM

The correct sequence IMHO would have been to offer Russia NATO membership, then offer EU association to Ukraine.

This I agree with to a large extent., though I think the window for NATO membership was in the 1990s before the Putin assumed office with his nationalist-realist allies. Here's why (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/5-reasons-why-russia-will-never-join-nato/423840.html):

Most important, Russian membership in NATO would all but mean the end of Russia’s dream of restoring its former superpower status. By joining NATO, Russia would effectively become “just another large European country” on the same level as Germany, Britain or France — a “sacrilege” for the derzhavniki, or great-power nationalists, who remember when the Soviet Union was much larger and more powerful than these three countries combined.

Some other obstacles (http://en.interaffairs.ru/events/188-should-russia-seek-to-join-nato.html):

1.Due to NATO's consensus-based decision-making, Russia would have to accept the terms that the alliance's East European novices would throw in as prerequisites for Russia's admission.

2.Switching to NATO's standards would cause huge damage to Russia's own military-industrial complex.

3.Georgia and Japan would certainly take advantage of Russia considering that a NATO candidate must be free of unsettled territorial disputes with its neighbors.

4.Russia's own turn to NATO would render meaningless its endeavors to debar a number of post-Soviet republics – Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan – from the alliance.

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 04:01 PM

American Pride---all necessary if I heard his speech correctly due to the former President and his group of cronies that raped the Ukrainian economy to the tune of between 36 and 40B USD.

There is no doubt that Yanukoych was corrupt. But in the context of Ukrainian politics, that does not make him unique. Whatever his merits and transgressions, were his policies any worse than austerity? You express your outrage about his corruption and political practices - why is there no moral offense to austerity? But since Yatseniuk has already made his decision, the question really now is which political officials in the new Kiev government will survive the coming storm with their legitimacy and reputation intact. Yatseniuk has stated his belief that his political career will not last this episode; so that makes him a useful idiot for Washington since he can push whatever policies, no matter how radical or absurd, without regard for his own future. It makes me wonder what's in it for him. Firing Tenyukh from the Defense Ministry could be a blessing in disguise for Svoboda if this new government collapses under the weight of popular discontent due to the coming austerity measures since they will not be associated with the failure.

carl

03-27-2014, 04:02 PM

Outlaw 09:

When the Russians roll into eastern Ukraine, what will Poland do? I mean specifically other than going bonkers. Will they start some kind of UW campaign? Will any of the other frontline NATO states?

How much of the Russian army is fully manned equipped and trained? In the old days I believe they had reserve, skeleton type divisions. Is that still the case?

carl

03-27-2014, 04:06 PM

There is no doubt that Yanukoych was corrupt. But in the context of Ukrainian politics, that does not make him unique. Whatever his merits and transgressions, were his policies any worse than austerity? You express your outrage about his corruption and political practices - why is there no moral offense to austerity? But since Yatseniuk has already made his decision, the question really now is which political officials in the new Kiev government will survive the coming storm with their legitimacy and reputation intact. Yatseniuk has stated his belief that his political career will not last this episode; so that makes him a useful idiot for Washington since he can push whatever policies, no matter how radical or absurd, without regard for his own future. It makes me wonder what's in it for him. Firing Tenyukh from the Defense Ministry could be a blessing in disguise for Svoboda if this new government collapses under the weight of popular discontent due to the coming austerity measures since they will not be associated with the failure.

And all of that makes no difference at all about what to do when Ivan rolls west.

davidbfpo

03-27-2014, 04:09 PM

Cited in part:
The only permanent Western troops presences in the former Warsaw pact that I know of are: Those two much criticized U.S. BMD installations

My recollection was that these two items were cancelled sometime ago, much to the annoyance of the Czech and Polish governments who had fought hard to persuade their public.

I am slightly puzzled that no use has been made of the 'on call' NATO elements, or at least announce planning for exercises.

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 04:13 PM

Both makes sense. They can set up a welfare program to help the poor if the heating costs go through the roof.

They could... but they won't. Austerity is not a humanist program. It's not even intended to salvage sinking economies; the economic literature and recent experiences in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, UK, and US all make this clear. It's meant to secure whatever remains in a dying economy for the creditors... at the expense of pensioners, the poor, the sick, workers, veterans, the unemployed, and so on. Even the IMF's own economists admit as much. Austerity will not save Ukraine.

But now that Yatseniuk has decided on this path, we're now left with the political question of who will survive to govern Ukraine after it's all said and done. Combined with Moscow's pressure on Kiev, Yatseniuk's position is untenable in the long-term. Someone will break and it won't be Putin.

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 04:18 PM

And all of that makes no difference at all about what to do when Ivan rolls west.

I doubt that he will. He doesn't need to. I suspect that political agitation will continue. At this moment, as far as Russian-Ukrainian relations are concerned, Moscow has all the cards. It physically occupies Ukrainian territory. It has 30,000+ troops massed on the border. It has provocateurs throughout the country. Ukraine has no allies. It's entering into an unstable economic period. It's army is virtually non-existent. Yatseniuk was unelected and has no care about the future - he's the perfect man to push as far as possible in implementing the Washington Concensus in the short window that the West has to do so. For both Washington and Moscow, this is about securing of much as Ukraine as possible before the music stops.

OUTLAW 09

03-27-2014, 05:50 PM

If one looks at the announcements today out of Kiev---they did include a protection for the lower working class and poor, it looks like they are cutting 10% of the bloated government which was the old Soviet overhang anyway, and are wanting to have the oligarchs' be taxed (no argument of out them was heard) to support the rest of the population and they are rising natural gas prices which were the cheapest in the east bloc together with raising gasoline prices also the cheapest in the east.

Then it appears they are shifting their natural gas purchases towards the EU via the Slovakian gas line that is being set up and they are while saying publicly they will be paying over $400 for gas they are still holding to the legal treaty rate of $285 and are threatening to take Russia to court for the 1.4B in military equipment Russia took effectively locking up Russia in an ongoing court case they will in fact lose in the end.

On top of that they are raising the water and electrical rates to the Crimea, and by having dropped out of the CIS they can hit Russia shipments to the Crimea which go through the Ukraine twice once at the Russian border and again at the Crimea border with custom charges. On the top of that Ukrainian banks hold over 20B in Crimea assets ie mortgages, business loans etc that the Crimea will have to work out if they would to reregister all their companies and properties inside Russia otherwise they cannot sell a thing to any outside investor due to the inherent risks of not knowing who owns what which has been the problem with the Georgian and Moldaivan enclaves.

The EU dropping of customs on Ukrainian products hits mid to end of April saving another 600M USD on their exports and will draw exports once headed to Russia towards the EU--by the way Russia has been blockading their exports now for a number of weeks ie meat and wheat for "safety" reasons--started before the Crimea.

And they have formed a money chasing team to track down the embezzled monies of the former President and company which should recoup another 200-300M.

So I am not so worried about the financial immediate future ---it is the ongoing proRussian provocations and the underlying assumption by Putin and Co. that they have a right in rewriting the Ukrainian constitution which they have voiced a number of times in the last two weeks.

While Russian claims to hold to the 21 Feb agreements they in fact never signed them.

davidbfpo

03-27-2014, 06:19 PM

Via a "lurker" the viewpoint of a Crimean resident, who on reflection supports unification with Russia:
10 guarantees to the Crimea after joining Russia:

1. The main principle of the future accession - the inhabitants of the Crimea have nothing to lose, even in small things, acquiring at the same time many new features. Winning in the main, without losing anything of value!
2. All social payments and benefits previously granted by the Ukraine are guaranteed in the Russian budget. After joining both national currencies remain in use; the Ruble and Hryvnia, and all deposits, savings accounts are given guarantees.
3. All previously obtained certificates, certificates, diplomas and permits issued on behalf of the public authorities of Crimea and Ukraine remain in force and recognized by the Russian Federation. Their replacement will be made to the Russian way of notification, after a long transition period.
4. Entrepreneurs do not need to worry! All legal documents for Crimean enterprises are given Russian recognition, without any tedious re-registration procedures and licensing, and they will be subject to replacement by Russian documents on their expiration dates.
5. All higher education institutions and their branches are located at the time of the referendum on the peninsula, will continue to teach their students and after the transition to Russian jurisdiction grant diplomas etc as Russian documents.
6. All Crimean students will have the opportunity to fully prepare for the unified state exam. Russians know that after taking the exam for admission to universities is greatly simplified.
7. Those who are retired in the Crimea, including the military, receiving benefits, pensions and allowances, as well as veterans of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, retain their privileges, and the size of their pensions will increase substantially. In Russia welfare of veterans and retirees – is a stated, public national priority.
8. All land and real estate in Crimea, owned by individuals and organizations to remain at the current owners without any additional confirmations and checks. Private property in Russia is sacrosanct!
9. Health services are provided in the Crimea on a free basis, and will remain so after turning into the Crimea region of the Russian Federation. Free healthcare for all Russian citizens is enshrined in the Russian Constitution.
10. Free passage from the Crimea to other regions of Ukraine should be maintained – without the need for a visa. Crimean residents can still go to their relatives and friends residing in the territory of Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine – should have a mutual visa-free regime, Russia does not intend to revise neighbourly relations with the fraternal Ukrainian people.

Now whether Moscow has even considered such items is a moot point.

carl

03-27-2014, 06:27 PM

David:

The last sentence in number 8 is the best one.

"Private property in Russia is sacrosanct!"

Firn

03-27-2014, 07:10 PM

More on the budget (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/yatsenyuk-citing-billions-of-dollars-stolen-by-yanukovych-calls-for-austerity-measures-341086.html), from the Kyivpost:

In a dramatic 30-minute speech today, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk asked parliament to support a range of belt-tightening measures for the nation to stay solvent and overcome the after-effects of the looting by overthrown President Viktor Yanukovych and his team.

“If the country were a commercial entity, we would be bankrupt,” Yatsenyuk said, adding that the nation will be some Hr 289 billion in the red this year, or $26 billion at the current exchange rate, an enormous figure considering the national budget is only about $50 billion.

Yatseniuk's government suggested a package of laws that would help to meet the financial and economic challenges, and parliament is expected to vote on these suggestions later in the day. The prime minister predicted that the nation's gross domestic product will drop 3 percent this year if parliament accepts the austerity measures, and 10 percent if it does not.

That the Ukrainian economy is in turmoil after all those events is all too natural. We need of course more informations but my quick personal observations:

a) Never waste a bitter crisis, kicking off key reforms and slashing subventions like on the enemys gas is smart if they execute it well with direct transfers to avoid too big of an demand shock.

b) A truly 'big bath' accounting wise, they must have written off immense amounts and 'restated' other items to come up with a deficit of -50%!

c) In any case Yatsenjuk will get much of the blame, deflecting it from a newly elected one

d) Higher taxes on tabacco and alcohol are staple stuff

Lots of things to add but it will be key to not have a heavy depression before the long-needed necessary reforms and the aid kick off growth. The Ukrainian situation is of course totally different from the circumstances in practically all European countries who sufferd and are suffering a depression.

Perhaps it is the perfect time to tackle the big issues, with an enemy at the borders, strong financial support coming in and the iterim government taking most of the blame. There is no doubt that the IMF, EU and USA have to deliver, the strategy is mostly sound and it depends now on the hard task of executing it. Does anybody have an up-to-date account about how much is pledged to Ukraine? Lots of different entities and programs.

It is btw likely that those billions 'due' to Russia and likely Gazprom will just written off with Western help against the backdrop of the Crimean robbery.

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 08:43 PM

That the Ukrainian economy is in turmoil after all those events is all too natural.

Right, but it's too often ignored that the overthrow of Yanukovych triggered this crisis in its current state. For several years Yanukovych was looking for a way out of Ukraine's economic problems either through the EU or Moscow. And neither delivered. He would not have survived the 'reforms' the new government is implementing, which is why he abandoned the EU Association Agreement. And while it's agreeable that Yanukovych was corrupt, we only have the word of his militant successors describing the extent of it. This situation could have been avoided with the February agreement.

Never waste a bitter crisis, kicking off key reforms and slashing subventions like on the enemys gas is smart if they execute it well with direct transfers to avoid too big of an demand shock.

....

Lots of things to add but it will be key to not have a heavy depression before the long-needed necessary reforms and the aid kick off growth. The Ukrainian situation is of course totally different from the circumstances in practically all European countries who sufferd and are suffering a depression.

How many "[well executed]" "key reforms" (read: austerity measures) claimed to be "smart" before the fact were actually well executed? The problem with the pro-austerity crowd is that when their policies are demonstrated to be abject failures, they retort that it wasn't sufficiently stringent or pure in its application. There is no evidence that Ukraine's experience with austerity will be any different than that of the Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, the US, UK, or even Russia. What is different in Ukraine is it's unstable political situation entering into a period of austerity.

This is from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/02/27/washingtons-man-yatsenyuk-setting-ukraine-up-for-ruin/):

They like him because he’s pro Western,” says Vladimir Signorelli, president of boutique investment research firm Bretton Woods Research LLC in New Jersey. “Yatsenyuk is the the kind of technocrat you want if you want austerity, with the veneer of professionalism,” Signorelli said. “He’s the type of guy who can hobnob with the European elite. A Mario Monti type: unelected and willing to do the IMFs bidding,” he said.

This isn't about democracy. Or corruption. Yatsenyuk is unelected. He also has no interest in a future political career and is totally committed to the IMF's program. That's very useful for Washington. But being a banker and economist usually doesn't make a good politician. Would Americans find it acceptable if the Tea Party besieged the Congress and White House, installed Tea Cruz, and then went full sped ahead in slashing Medicare and Social Security before the next presidential election? Why not wait to implement any policies until after the election?

Perhaps it is the perfect time to tackle the big issues, with an enemy at the borders, strong financial support coming in and the iterim government taking most of the blame. There is no doubt that the IMF, EU and USA have to deliver, the strategy is mostly sound and it depends now on the hard task of executing it.

The "perfect time" for whom? The people of Ukraine are no longer in control of their country. An unelected Western-backed technocrat with elite allies leads the administration in Kiev while Russia occupies Crimea and has amassed 30,000 soldiers on the border. In any language, this is a disaster for Ukraine, one precipitated by a coup in lieu of negotiations, and it will not be made easier by a policy of austerity. Yatsenyuk has 2 months to deliver a stablized economy to his successor in the May elections - I doubt he'll pull it off.

What do elections look like in a demographically divided, partially occupied, economically bankrupt, radicalized country?

Firn

03-27-2014, 09:57 PM

The "perfect time" for whom? The people of Ukraine are no longer in control of their country. An unelected Western-backed technocrat with elite allies leads the administration in Kiev while Russia occupies Crimea and has amassed 30,000 soldiers on the border. In any language, this is a disaster for Ukraine, one precipitated by a coup in lieu of negotiations, and it will not be made easier by a policy of austerity. Yatsenyuk has 2 months to deliver a stablized economy to his successor in the May elections - I doubt he'll pull it off.

What do elections look like in a demographically divided, partially occupied, economically bankrupt, radicalized country?

So what is your solution? No elections in May? No reforms until May? No government decisions until that date? :wry:

It is all good and well to criticise heavily, but the Ukrainian leadership, elected by the parliament whose president fled threatened by popular uprising, has not the luxury to do the same. In this time of historic crisis it has to act to avoid in those bad times worse.

P.S: The IMF has got it right and wrong in the past, it isn't the devil. It is proper to criticise guidelines and policies but in your post it almost sounds like it is some kind of dark force wanting to do evil.

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 10:04 PM

Here's one about Russia's red lines (http://russialist.org/putin-draws-his-own-red-lines-across-post-soviet-space/):

Krutikov devotes his article to where these lines are. According to him, they include any further expansion of NATO eastward, especially involving Georgia and Ukraine, designed to encircle Russia. Instead, Putin’s first “red line” is that Ukraine, Georgia, Sweden and Finland must retain their “neutral status as ‘buffer countries.’”

And a ninth is American support for “a ‘fifth column’” of opposition figures in the Russian Federation and especially any encouragement for demonstrations against the Putin regime.

Another one (http://russialist.org/russia-beyond-the-headlines-new-assertiveness-signals-a-fresh-foreign-policy-era-for-russia/):

“In his speech, Putin basically made it clear that from now on, Russia will act just like the United States does. “Why are Albanians permitted to do something in Kosovo … that Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars are prevented from doing in Crimea?”

“Vladimir Putin has announced that existing borders in the former Soviet Union could be reexamined if a threat emerges to what the Russian president himself calls the ‘Russian world’,” says Russian political analyst Sergei Markedonov.

I suppose in the celebrations following the collapse of the Soviet Union, not much thought at the policy level was given to the consequences of dispersing ethnicies across many borders despite the world's collective experience in Europe and Africa since World War II. Some credit the post WW2 population transfers for Europe's stability (and some also argue the same for the success of the 'surge' during the second Iraq War). Are we entering a similar era for the Slavic world?

However, the U.S. is not yet ready to accept Russia’s new foreign policy course. “We should not expect the West to recognize Ukraine as part of Russia’s sphere of influence. This would be a step backward in terms of the past 20 years in which Ukraine has been integrated into the transatlantic space,” says Andrew Weiss.

However, this position is not constructive and is fraught with new challenges. “The West, of course, can continue to refuse to negotiate, but this would further destabilize the situation in Europe. We must put an end to the uncertainty and unspoken issues that have persisted since the Cold War,” says Dmitry Suslov.

Several commenters here seem convinced that economic sanctions on Russia will be sufficient punishment to keep Moscow in check. I have my doubts. The Kremlin is not occupied by lawyers, businessmen, or technocrats like in most Western capitals. The stock market ticker is not correlated with political success. The danger is not in how to define the status of Russian power, but that Russian power is not fully integrated into the Washington-led economic system and therefore very few levers exist to compel specific policy choices in Moscow.

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 10:10 PM

So what is your solution? No elections in May? No reforms until May? No government decisions until that date? :wry:

May elections are great. I've been sayings since the beginning that the way forward for Ukraine is to have early elections. Implementing unpopular economic policies by an unelected technocrat before those elections are not so great. Was the Kiev revolution about democracy or capitalism? Because only one of them is victorious with Yatsenyuk in office.

It is all good and well to criticise heavily, but the Ukrainian leadership, elected by the parliament whose president fled threatened by popular uprising, has not the luxury to do the same. In this time of historic crisis it has to act to avoid in those bad times worse.

This "historic crisis" was created by the "Ukrainian leadership" after they compelled Yanukoych to flew. The administration in power now in Kiev is not innocent in this matter - it was Yatsenyuk, et al, not Yanukovych, that abandoned the February agreement and triggered the chain of events since then. So, yes, I'm very critical of that government which now calls upon my government to assist them materially and financially.

P.S: The IMF has got it right and wrong in the past, it isn't the devil. It is proper to criticise guidelines and policies but in your post it almost sounds like it is some kind of dark force wanting to do evil.

I never said the IMF is "the devil". But the IMF is definitely not concerned with matters of social justice. And social justice, not unrestrained capital movement, is the greater contributor to stability, peace, and democratization.

carl

03-27-2014, 11:05 PM

03-27-2014, 11:44 PM

Fuchs---5-7 divisions fully manned, equipped and critically having the necessary supplies in place for a quick charge to Moldavia and into the eastern portion is a breeze when the Ukrainians cannot get more than 20K together at any given time.

A quick charge to Moldavia????-
From where? Certainly not Western Russia-t'would require crossing at least 2 significant water obstacles. If you really view this as a possible option then I suggest you assess the status/concentration of Russian tank/tracked vehicle transport assets--wheeled HETs and rail flatcars--in the area of the exercise force buildup. Then consider the road/rail networks to see how easy your sprint to Moldova or Donets might be.

If your exercise forces all crossed over into Crimea, then we might have a different scenario to consider.

Perhaps a better alternative possibility for the force/supply buildup is to provide emergency relief to Crimea if Ukraine cuts the utility cords.

AmericanPride

03-27-2014, 11:48 PM

American Pride:

One of your agreements seems to be that Yanukovych placed the interests of Ukraine over those of himself and of Russia.

You're going to have to do a much better job before you convince me of that.

Then let me dispel you of that perception. The idea of the "invisible hand" (that self-interest leads to better public outcomes) strikes both ways. Yanukoyvch refused the EU deal out of self interest - he would not have survived the political turmoil of slashing subsidies and ending public programs. Whatever his motivations, that's clearly beneficial to a public using such programs. Yanukovych negotiated with the EU before he struck a deal with Moscow - that should tell you how much control the Kremlin actually had over him. He turned down the EU agreement after he measured the full political costs to himself. Yanukovych was a self-interested pragmatist; what's good about them is that they're predictable. And predictability is desirable in politics and security.

Yatsenyuk is an ideologue and his ideology is capitalism. Ideologues are not predictable or rational. They're committed to abstract principles at the exclusion of material experience. That's why Yatsenyuk has clearly said he's on a "kamikize mission"; he knows he has a small window to implement his dreamy ideals of unrestrained capitalism before reality catches up with him and the public throws his government out of office. That's why he's not running for election - he knows he can't win. His agenda of unpopular policies relied upon the use of force to install him in office. So he's going to push as hard and fast as possible to secure his gains before the election - that'll shape the political field for his successor. He has admitted as much several times in public statements.

So what are the "interests of Ukraine"? Let's keep it broad: political sovereignty, territorial integrity, and economic stability seem like good, general interests. The first was destroyed when Yanukovych, who was democratically elected, was thrown from office. There is no sovereignty while Yatsenyuk is in office - he was never elected by the public. That triggered the crisis in territorial integrity; not only the intervention by Russia to seize Crimea, but also the widespread agitation of ethnic Russians who are suspicious of Yatsenyuk's government and it's clear disregard that upwards of ~40% of Ukrainians do not want to join the EU. So despite Ukraine's close material ties with Russia, all of that is simply ignored and discarded, including billions of dollars in unconditional aid, which will no doubt contribute to Ukraine's economic instability.

So, Yanukovych is out and Yatsenyuk is in. That doesn't help the average Ukrainian. The way forward for Ukraine is a free and open election, not economic austerity.

Fuchs

03-28-2014, 12:27 AM

They could... but they won't. Austerity is not a humanist program. It's not even intended to salvage sinking economies; the economic literature and recent experiences in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, UK, and US all make this clear. It's meant to secure whatever remains in a dying economy for the creditors... at the expense of pensioners, the poor, the sick, workers, veterans, the unemployed, and so on. Even the IMF's own economists admit as much. Austerity will not save Ukraine.

Reality is much more complicated than that, and "austerity" is a poor description of many reforms.
The IMF's admission about the multiplier of government spending is not relevant to the Ukrainian situation, as it's about a specific set of economic conditions - many of which are not met.
It's complicated.

The Ukraine, Iran, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, United States - all of them have moved into economic traps from which it's very hard if not impossible to escape without major scars. Yes, I included the bubble in Turkey even though it did not burst yet.

A long period (5+ years) of bad economic policies can create such traps, and it's not helpful to point out that a particular recipe for leaving the trap is painful while all the other recipes don't work well either. It's a trap!

Dayuhan

03-28-2014, 01:02 AM

It is of course true that the policies that created the situation have to change, the gas subsidy in particular standing out as something unsustainable. Whether it's wise to simply drop them all at once, rather than phasing them out over a period of time, is another question.

I'm just recalling Manila in '86... when Marcos finally fled, the IMF came in and insisted that a Government that was barely functional had to drop a huge range of subsidies on basic goods (food, electricity, and fuel in particular) overnight. Prices soared, and the reaction on the street was not pretty. No question that the subsidies had to go, but there has to be some consideration for the need to avoid imposing massive political shocks on a government that is still trying to figure out which drawer the paper clips are in and where all the money went.

The Ukraine is of course a different place and a different situation, but I would think that the IMF might at least consider a phased reduction in subsidies rather than an outright cutoff.

Dayuhan

03-28-2014, 02:54 AM

Dayuhan ---this goes a little to what JMA is alluding to even though I do not necessarily blame it only this WH

If Neptune invaded Uranus, JMA would find a way to blame the White House.

---it goes back to a large degree the Bush years "who looked Putin in the eyes"........

Bush may or may not have "looked Putin in the eyes", but whatever they saw didn't stop Putin from invading Georgia on Bush's watch.

There seems to be an assumption that if the US had done something different, or had different leadership, events in the Ukraine would have come out differently. Those assumptions seem to me rather tenuous at best: any "what if" scenario is inherently speculative. US reluctance to get involved in a military face-off with another nuclear power in the other guy's back yard is not something new and it is not a feature of any recent "soft power" strategy: it goes back to the beginning of the nuclear age. It is very unlikely that a Republican President or any other American leader would have responded any differently.

What worries me and it goes to this WH is a distinct lack of clarity in fully explaining the current Russia issue

What worries me is what seems like a reflexive Amercian-centric response assuming that the primary constraint on Russian action is and must be the actual or expected US response. I don't think that's consistent with reality. This is not the Cold War, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and Europe is not some frail fainting virgin that can only be rescued from inevitable ravishment at the hands of the bear by an aggressive US posture. That was another age.

If the White House, over the last few administrations, had tried to get the US public riled up over the threat Russia poses to Europe, what would have been the natural reaction? Don't you think Americans might have pointed out that Europe's combined GDP is 8 times that of Russia. Germany, France, and the UK each have a higher GDP than Russia. Combined EU defense spending is 3 times that of Russia... and the EU spends only 1.7% of GDP on defense, as opposed to well over 4% for the US and Russia, meaning that Europe can afford to spend a whole lot more if they choose to.

I don't think the American people are going to buy the notion that Russia is a direct threat to the US. To Europe, perhaps, but why should the US spend scarce resources to defend Europe when Europe is so clearly capable of defending itself? Trying to sell Americans on the idea that the US should keep troops in Europe at American expense to protect Europe from Russia is going to be a losing proposition unless Europe is willing to step up and invest in their own defense. Leadership does not mean doing everything for everyone. Sometimes it means encouraging and if necessary forcing those you lead to make use of their own capacities.

This image of mighty Russia setting up to roll over helpless Europe has got to stop. It's not real. If the Europeans want or need American assistance, we should certainly be willing to discuss that, if they ask nicely and offer to cover at least a substantial part of the cost. There is absolutely no need for the US to shove its way in and assume the role of protector of Europe.

None of this means that the US should neglect or ignore its allies, especially if those allies ask for help. It means that the US is in no economic position to provide defense for everyone, everywhere, all the time, and that allies with the capacity to provide for their own defense need to step up and do it, not expect the US taxpayer to protect them.

For way to long we as a country ignored Russian and Putin since 2000 as we literally chased the "bad guys" around the world and in the end it was a failure and a 4T USD loss.

Certainly the American habit of committing large scale military force to objectives that are neither attainable by military force nor essential to US interests has dissipated US military capacity and wasted a lot of money... but did that really affect Russian decision making in Crimea? I can't see a US administration dispatching military force to defend or retake Crimea under any circumstances.

For example--this WH dallied on calling out Russia for being in violation of the INF, for not being in compliance with the agreements they signed under the OCSE since 2001... that Russian activities in the southern hemisphere has drastically picked up to a point of matching them from 30 years ago and the list goes on.

If the US had made an issue of all these things, what would have changed? Not much, I expect. The US would still not be willing to go to war with Russia over Crimea, and there would still be a general reluctance to shove forces into Europe.

What "Russian activities in the southern hemisphere" are you referring to?

The same WH and the previous WH have failed to indicate to the American population that Russia is currently being managed by four separate organizations ie the Russian Security Services FSB/GRU/MoI, the oligarchs, the Army and especially the Russian Mob.

Are you suggesting that the White House should be positioning Russia as a threat to the US, and telling the American people ought to fear Russia? I don't see that internal balance (or imbalance) of power as something that should strike fear into the hearts of the US.

Certainly the US needs a coherent policy for dealing with Russia, and certainly (and more importantly) the US and Europe should be working together to develop joint policies. Fear and the unnecessary inflation of threat make a very poor basis for policy.

Take a map and draw in the Russian Federation then draw in the "Stans" that are under direct Russian influence

Russia has some influence in the "'Stans", but if they want to re-integrate them into a resurrected Soviet Union they will face a real challenge from another major power that is rapidly establishing itself as a dominant economic player in that region: China. The Chinese have moved into Central Asia in a big way, with lots of money to invest and long term deals to make. In the medium to long term I'd rate the likelihood of Russia and China facing off with each other over Central Asia as higher than the probability of either Russia or China facing off with the US. Both have extensive land borders with that region, and both consider it strategically critical, far more than it would be to the US.

One is looking at the former Soviet Union all over again and this in the 21st century when the Cold War was suppose to be over.

From the perspective of threat to the US, no. The Cold War was never just the Soviet Union vs the US. The Soviet Union represented an expanding ideology that the US perceived as an existential threat. That ideology took root far outside the Soviet sphere of influence and was perceived as raising the possibility of an ideologically coherent global bloc. That is simply not the case with today's Russia. The closest thing to an ideology behind Putin's moves is Russian nationalism. Ruissian nationalism is not Communism or an equicalent to Communism. We do not have to worry about Russian nationalism breaking out in Cuba or Nicaragua or Venezuela, or about Russian nationalist parties gaining a political foothold in western nations. It's a self-limiting ideology: it only appeals to Russians. Certainly it's a concern, especially in the immediate neighborhood and in countries with substantial Russian populations, but Russia is not the Soviet Union and this is not a new Cold War. That doesn't mean it's not a problem, but it needs to be placed in perspective.

So in formulating foreign policy just how does one go about it if in fact the American public is totally in the dark?

Not by trying to spread fear.

Do we have a strategy that reflects a clear end goal and what is to be achieved and or we just going to muddle through this over and over.

Putin does have a strategy and it is long term.

He probably does, but whether recent events in the Ukraine were part of that strategy is another question. I do not for a moment believe that the Ukrainian revolution was provoked by Moscow as a pretext for seizing the Crimea. I don't think that revolution was planned or expected by Russia, or that it was initially welcome. It did eventually provide an opportunity that Putin seized. That looks less piece of a long term strategy than an act of opportunism.

Realistically: Putin has Crimea, and he's not going to let it go. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong, it's just what is. Nobody's going to take it away from him, and given the emotional and ego factors it's not likely that sanctions will force him to release it. If sanctions can impose enough pain on Russia's economic elite, whose support Putin needs, it might (or might not) discourage any further Russian moves. In any event it's a regional crisis that involves primarily Europe with the US in a supporting role, not an existential threat to the US.

If all this convinces Europe that a threat exists, and persuades them to raise defense spending to a more credible level, this could actually be a long-term gain for the US. The idea that "leader of the free world" translates to "sole supplier of defense to the free world" is long overdue for retirement. Freedom ain't free, and all who enjoy it need to invest in maintaining it, not just Americans. If the Ukraine has to lose Crimea to deliver that message, that is not a critical loss to the US. The message is a good deal more critical.

OUTLAW 09

03-28-2014, 06:42 AM

OUTLAW 09

03-28-2014, 06:48 AM

wm---even the NATO Senior Commander an American used the same word---charge across to Moldavia---would run along the southern border after merging with the Crimea forces which by the way are still being increased.

Question would be if the Crimea is secure then why the increase in armored forces being photographed really near the border when the Ukrainian forces are just using personnel carries minus tanks?

If the Russian ground forces have the airborne capability that was exercised and they are still by the way on alert status then bridges and major rod intersections are never an issue for the Russian Army.

The Daily Beast article would be a good place to read about the open window they have due to the weather---they no longer need roads.

OUTLAW 09

03-28-2014, 06:55 AM

American Pride---just curious so in all your comments I hear you saying that a democratically elected president who together with his cronies stole over 70B then fled ---even his dentist son went to billionaire status in under three years---how is that possible---is far better than the street tossing out the former crook and installing an interim individual who seems to have some support from somewhere.

And the 42kilos of gold bars and $5M in cash left behind was what the average earned Ukrainian blue collar working class individual salary for say one week?

How can that be good?---if in fact the Maidan was not an outburst against the rule of law and good goveranance what was it? ---the neo Nazi nationalist takeover that Putin and Co. claim it was or was it an undercover Western land grab to takeover the raw resources of the country?

Come on AP you are sliding back into the political debate I went through on the FU Berlin in the 60/70s between world communist dominance and the evils of capitalism---the world has moved on and it is now all about the rule of law and good governance and along the way if a country can get an economy moving along that is accepted by the population regardless of how it looks then so be it.

The Maidan regardless of what one thinks was an expression of the population and we at a distance should accept that simple fact and provide them any support in getting their economy and country moving again all the while an invasion army sits on their borders, the Russian special forces and GRU are in the country and the Russian backed President raped the country.

Remember even in some of the Arab countries that have had a color revolution they have at least moved further along than some of the former Soviet Union empire countries since 1994.

One can say this is a "colored" view of the current Russian military situation but it is probably as close as one will get without reading the classified reports.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/state-of-war-341161.html

JMA

03-28-2014, 07:43 AM

I'm not fully through, but it is a great read. He also warned of the nationalistic tendencies in Russia partly rooted in the 'tragedy' of the lost empire. Interestingly the commodity exports back then were also increasingly used to fund imperial ambitions and to keep the inefficient system going. Time will tell what will happen to Putin's Russia.

Nationalistic tendencies among the Russias were obvious all along.

What happened was in the years after the Soviet collapse the US and western Europe took their eye off the ball thinking they could build 'normal' relations with Russia. Not smart.

The problem with Russia's dreams of empire are that to be achieved it means that numerous nations and ethnic peoples need to be absorbed, dominated and controlled most likely against the wishes for self determination of the peoples concerned.

The world is now reaping the results of the strategic incompetence of the US and Europe. G_d help us all.

JMA

03-28-2014, 07:53 AM

I note with some interest that where you have been a loud and vocal champion of International Law when it came to US / NATO involvement on Libya, Syria etc you are quiet on the Russian invasion of Crimea.

Also of course what comes to mind is your earlier defence of the German strategic decision to accept energy reliance on Russian oil/gas.

Have you changed your position on these issues?

Reality is much more complicated than that, and "austerity" is a poor description of many reforms.
The IMF's admission about the multiplier of government spending is not relevant to the Ukrainian situation, as it's about a specific set of economic conditions - many of which are not met.
It's complicated.

The Ukraine, Iran, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, United States - all of them have moved into economic traps from which it's very hard if not impossible to escape without major scars. Yes, I included the bubble in Turkey even though it did not burst yet.

A long period (5+ years) of bad economic policies can create such traps, and it's not helpful to point out that a particular recipe for leaving the trap is painful while all the other recipes don't work well either. It's a trap!

JMA

03-28-2014, 08:01 AM

Ok you have finally seen through Dayuhan.

I warned you.

You really expect a comprehensive response?

Dayuhan---you did see the article written by a former internal Russian political type who in fact alluded to fact that long term plans existed, did exist and were just taken out and implemented.

Come on Dayuhan---you write like mirhond did---what is actually your own personal uninhibited opinion?---taking apart anyone's comments is actually easy---writing and defending one's opinion is actually tougher.

So what do you think Putin is doing , will do and what his future is to be?

Two points stand out over the last three weeks;

1. he wants to rebuild the greater Soviet Union---that is a given
2. in a Interfax PR released last night he definitely as I alluded to a couple of times fears the "street" breaking into the Russian population---and that is definitely a given

JMA

03-28-2014, 08:02 AM

So what do you think, big guy?

A quick charge to Moldavia????-
From where? Certainly not Western Russia-t'would require crossing at least 2 significant water obstacles. If you really view this as a possible option then I suggest you assess the status/concentration of Russian tank/tracked vehicle transport assets--wheeled HETs and rail flatcars--in the area of the exercise force buildup. Then consider the road/rail networks to see how easy your sprint to Moldova or Donets might be.

If your exercise forces all crossed over into Crimea, then we might have a different scenario to consider.

Perhaps a better alternative possibility for the force/supply buildup is to provide emergency relief to Crimea if Ukraine cuts the utility cords.

Fuchs

03-28-2014, 01:25 PM

Cited in part:

My recollection was that these two items were cancelled sometime ago, much to the annoyance of the Czech and Polish governments who had fought hard to persuade their public.

I may have missed some U.S. logistics troops in Romania as well.

JMA

03-28-2014, 03:16 PM

I've been rather quiet on SWC for months actually.

There was a recent text on my blog equating the Western and Russian violations of IL and pointing out the recent hypocrisy. Legally the Russians have a pretty good case when they compare Western behaviour against Yugoslavia with their behaviour against Ukraine, except the violated guarantees. But treaties were violated by Western countries as well, so they can construct equivalent Western evilness by adding a few violations.
The West clearly was lacking self-discipline, and now it sees what happens when other great powers lose respect for rules, too.

That was no answer... unless you are OK with the Russian action on the grounds of previous US actions elsewhere.

Are you OK ... without reservation... with the Russian action?

The gas supply thing is still the same; Russians are even more dependent than Germans on the pipeline, and we've had natural gas trade with them since well into the Cold War. It's largely a non-issue. Even a complete cut-off would merely be a nuisance when compared to historical embargoes.
The "energy reliance" on natural gas makes up only 22.5% Germany's energy 'consumption' (http://www.crp-infotec.de/08spezi/energie/grafs_basics/deutschland_energiemix.gif) and the minority of its natural gas consumption is from Russia: 38% (http://tinyurl.com/o8q6ss4)

8.5%: Anybody who thinks Germany - the people whose parents and grandparents waged two world wars under total naval blockade - couldn't cope with a loss of this is a fool.
It would be painful, but more like a paper cut pain than like the pain of a submission technique.

Yes... Germany can cope with an abrupt termination of supply... but are they prepared to expose themselves to the disruption... as a reaction to the Russian invasion of Crimea?

My guess is no. The Germans are too fat and comfortable to act in support of international Law and the self determination of a fellow European people if they have to take some 'pain' in the process.

But the original strategic decision to place themselves in a position of dependency for energy from Russia was clearly an error and damaging to the German ability to act according to - what one would believe is - their conscience.

This decision must rank along with the decision to invade Russia in June 1941. It seems when the Germans screw up they screw up big.

03-28-2014, 03:21 PM

So what do you think, big guy?

I gave you an hypothesis in the third paragraph. Another option is Russia is that conveying a threat so Ukraine thinks long and hard about pulling the utilies plug on the Crimea.

AmericanPride

03-28-2014, 04:41 PM

How can that be good?---if in fact the Maidan was not an outburst against the rule of law and good goveranance what was it? ---the neo Nazi nationalist takeover that Putin and Co. claim it was or was it an undercover Western land grab to takeover the raw resources of the country?

I think it can all be true simultaneously. There is nothing contradictory about Washington using the cover of ousting a corrupt president to seize control of Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence. And just because Yanukovych was corrupt and had authoritarian tendencies, it doesn't mean his successor is any better by default. I think Yanukovych had to go, but the West did itself no favors in the method that it orchestrated his departure; nor with the installation of Yatsenyuk as president. There were political routes available for a more agreeable transition as well as candidates with policies with more appeal among the public. But I suspect that wasn't the real aim in the removal of Yanukovych who, only months ago, was being enticed by the West for an EU association agreement. But after he rejected the terms of the agreement, suddenly his long known corruption becomes justification for his unconstitutional removal. That's politics, but let's do ourselves a favor and not pretend that the West is innocent in all of this.

The Maidan regardless of what one thinks was an expression of the population and we at a distance should accept that simple fact and provide them any support in getting their economy and country moving again all the while an invasion army sits on their borders, the Russian special forces and GRU are in the country and the Russian backed President raped the country.

It was the expression of a small segment of the population, and even that segment of the population is not head over heels in favor of Yatsenyuk and his policies. It's for this reason that revolutions have multiple stages - see Egypt as the most recent example. But the West is not interested in a democratic outcome in Ukraine (or Egypt) but instead with pushing through a range of policies over the objections of the Ukrainian people (if necessary). Hence the push from the unelected Yatsenyuk to implement policies he publicly admits are difficult and unpopular. He's not responsive to the public will.

AmericanPride

03-28-2014, 04:48 PM

Was the far right a threat before it was not a threat before it was a threat again (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26784236)?

At a parliament session on Friday, Mr Turchynov, called the Right Sector rally outside parliament "an attempt to destabilise the situation in Ukraine, in the very heart of Ukraine - Kiev. That is precisely the task that the Russian Federation's political leadership is giving to its special services".

...

"We will avenge ourselves on [Interior Minister] Arsen Avakov for the death of our brother. The shooting of Sashko Bily is a contract killing ordered by the minister," Right Sector member Roman Koval was quoted as saying by the Ukrayinska Pravda website.

...

The Right Sector played a prominent role in the Kiev protests - and the clashes with police - which led to the removal of Mr Yanukovych from power. Its main support base is in western Ukraine.

Was the far right an agent of the Russian "specical services" while the Right Sector "played a prominent role" in the protests "and removal of Yanukovych from power"? So Moscow triggered the coup against it's own man in Kiev to justify seizing Crimea? I thought Russia was a third-rate power on the verge of economic collapse.

OUTLAW 09

03-28-2014, 05:46 PM

wm---the estimates of the Russian military strength in their so called exercise is climbing---today at the least the US is admitting to 50K on all borders of the Ukraine and if one reads the various open source materials that are out there the Ukrainian estimate of 100K might in fact be the more accurate number.

So is Putin going for it or just a threat?---am picking ---going for it as the Russian economy is now after the first round of sanctions starting to struggle and it is going on the long haul to be hurt far more.

By the way it is just not me seeing the moves being made------
http://time.com/39705/russia-invasion-ukraine-likely/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=MB.03.27.2014

Going for it now allows for all the hits to come and then they can bunker in and wait it out.

This thing is so far from an exercise---go back to a lot of the Cold War military articles---the key that the analysts look for are the stock piled supplies for an extended operation---they are in place and increasing.

For speed they need the copter transportation ---in place---they need their heavy attack copters ---are in place and they need the armor, airborne, spatnaz and GRU security forces---all in place. All fighter air cover and AWACs are in place as well.

Secondly, if they are just to threaten the Ukraine to keep the pressure on---- then a brigade parked 50 miles away is enough---not though 100K within a 30km striking distance and in some cases less than 2kms.

Based on their own Interfax PR it was to be a CPX to test out new forms of commo and intel and then home---they are still there and growing.

Even Obama warned Russia today to pull away from the border areas as it could be misinterpreted.

Fuchs

03-28-2014, 05:58 PM

But the original strategic decision to place themselves in a position of dependency for energy from Russia was clearly an error and damaging to the German ability to act according to - what one would believe is - their conscience.

This decision must rank along with the decision to invade Russia in June 1941.

This only confirms what I already thought of you.

Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

AmericanPride

03-28-2014, 06:20 PM

Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

I'm in agreement with you. People seem too caught up in their own propaganda. What has happened in Crimea (and South Ossetia) is not very different from similar actions by the West in Yugoslavia and to some extent even Libya and Iraq. There should not be any surprise that other states, particular ones with perceived injustices done against them, are equally dismissive of international law. Putin used the same Kosovo precedent in 2008 in Georgia as he did in 2014 in Ukraine, and six years later people are still shocked and surprised that he's using it? That ranks high in negligence in my book.

Unfortunately, Washington is very short-sighted in its policymaking, and that has been the case for some time. The short-sightedness is very destructive in building international norms and functional mulitlateral mechanisms to solve international problems, especially with states that do not have close economic or social linkages with the United States. There was no strategic forethought exercised in Washington about Ukraine in the Russian context.

Stan

03-28-2014, 06:52 PM

wm---the estimates of the Russian military strength in their so called exercise is climbing---today at the least the US is admitting to 50K on all borders of the Ukraine and if one reads the various open source materials that are out there the Ukrainian estimate of 100K might in fact be the more accurate number.

Could you provide a link to this ?

So is Putin going for it or just a threat?---am picking ---going for it as the Russian economy is now after the first round of sanctions starting to struggle and it is going on the long haul to be hurt far more.

The Russian economy would barely feel any immediate effects of some Obama created financial barriers. They hit Georgia with so-called border built up troops. Not sure I see the differences. Care to expand ?

By the way it is just not me seeing the moves being made------
http://time.com/39705/russia-invasion-ukraine-likely/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=MB.03.27.2014

Going for it now allows for all the hits to come and then they can bunker in and wait it out.

This thing is so far from an exercise---go back to a lot of the Cold War military articles---the key that the analysts look for are the stock piled supplies for an extended operation---they are in place and increasing.

Imagine what the North Koreans think every year when 50,000 troops come in with aircraft and tanks within 2 miles of their borders, not to mention huge naval ships ? Stock piles ? Ever served in Korea ? Ever been to Norway's (NATO's) stock piles ?

Even Obama warned Russia today to pull away from the border areas as it could be misinterpreted.

You mean this warning from the POTUS ? (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-politics/)

Obama said any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be "deeply destabilizing, and he warned "the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."

C'mon already !

Firn

03-28-2014, 06:53 PM

It was the expression of a small segment of the population, and even that segment of the population is not head over heels in favor of Yatsenyuk and his policies. It's for this reason that revolutions have multiple stages - see Egypt as the most recent example. But the West is not interested in a democratic outcome in Ukraine (or Egypt) but instead with pushing through a range of policies over the objections of the Ukrainian people (if necessary). Hence the push from the unelected Yatsenyuk to implement policies he publicly admits are difficult and unpopular. He's not responsive to the public will.

I think one should be careful indeed not to get caught up one's own propaganda, as you wrote. Ukraine is not an islamic nation and the times of communist insurgencies are long gone. So far pretty every Eastern European country which became a stable democracy turned West attracted by it's qualities and it's back on Russia. Look in contrast at the governments and strongmen composing Putin's Eurasian Union dream, not much democracy there. So even if there would be only cynical geopolitics at work in the EU or USA, aiming at extenting their sphere of influence, a democratic outcome seems to be ideal in the long run.

As somebody who was against the Iraq war form the very beginning, is highly critical of military interventions abroad I see the opportunity costs of such actions clearly. Still nobody should get fooled by the Russian rhetoric which makes use of the very different case Kosovo, but is in the tradition of Soviet Union which argued in quite similar fashion. See the Afghan war or the crushing of popular uprisings. In any case the key difference between the recent Western interventions is that occuption is seen as temporary mean, while Russia has annexed the occupied territory. They also made such a joke out of the referendum that even if, and this is a big if, the majority wanted indeed to be part of Russia that they threw away any good legal claim of it.

JMA

03-28-2014, 08:37 PM

Not a smart response Fuchs.

Thought you would understand the need to define just who is a Crimean and therefore qualifies for a vote in any election or referendum.

Seems you accept that anyone - in this case read Russians - who happen to be in town at the time can vote. Including all manner of thousands of Russian servicemen, base maintenance support staff and any wives etc. So if US NATO servicemen happened to be in Germany at election time could just show up and vote in any German election? Please now, lets show a little intellectual clarity on this matter.

Then the question is when did these people - who you seem to accept as Crimeans - actually arrive in Crimea? Where they transported in by Stalin or later to fill the gap created by the Tartars who were shipped out?

Now - I know this is painful for one so willingly dependent on mother Russia for energy - what do you think about the legality of the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea?

Seems strange to have to remind you of all people of this quote:

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston Churchill

This only confirms what I already thought of you.

Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

OUTLAW 09

03-28-2014, 08:43 PM

OUTLAW 09

03-28-2014, 08:49 PM

Great article on leaked Russian instructions of disinformation for Russian TV--

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/03/28/anonymous-international-leaks-kremlins-instructions-to-russian-tv/

JMA

03-28-2014, 08:53 PM

You mean this warning from the POTUS ? (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-politics/)

C'mon already !

U right Stan... your man is failing the test of character in a crisis.

There is one on his side who appears to be trying to show a little backbone:

Time to hold Russia accountable for its aggression (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/27/opinion/menendez-russia-sanctions/index.html)

But still no one of consequence has the balls to demand a Russian roll-back.

Seems the dying horse ain't got any kicks left.

TheCurmudgeon

03-28-2014, 09:04 PM

American Pride---just curious so in all your comments I hear you saying that a democratically elected president who together with his cronies stole over 70B then fled ---even his dentist son went to billionaire status in under three years---how is that possible---is far better than the street tossing out the former crook and installing an interim individual who seems to have some support from somewhere.

...

Come on AP you are sliding back into the political debate I went through on the FU Berlin in the 60/70s between world communist dominance and the evils of capitalism---the world has moved on and it is now all about the rule of law and good governance and along the way if a country can get an economy moving along that is accepted by the population regardless of how it looks then so be it.

While I generally agree with most of your post(s), those two phrases always trigger the hairs in the back of my neck. "Rule of Law" is just another way of saying that you are following locally interpreted procedural legitimacy - it is always a matter of interpretation. Stoning a woman for being raped is following the "rule of law" in some parts of the world. “Good governance” is almost meaningless since the standard of what is “good” has to be interpreted by those being governed. It is really only relevant if you are trying to correct “bad” governance and then it is only important if it is really bad (like your examples of Yanukovych. I guess I would caution against using terms that may not have a universally agreed upon definition.

That said, I agree, the proof will be in the pudding. Economics matter first and foremost, since a country had a better chance to remain a democracy if it is wealthy (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/centers/cid/publications/faculty/wp/101.pdf).

Recent studies of democratization, most importantly Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub,
Limongi, 2000 (PACL), question the modernization hypothesis that richer countries are
more likely to be democratic. PACL claim instead that transitions to democracy are
unpredictable, but once there, countries can remain democratic with higher levels of GDP
per capita. We retest this hypothesis using an expanded data set and a three-way, rather
than two-way, categorization of regimes: autocracies, partial democracies, and full
democracies. We find that the modernization theory does hold up well, contrary to
PACL’s findings: greater levels of prosperity do predict when countries are likely to
leave autocracy and stay fully democratic. Partial democracies, on the other hand, emerge
as the most volatile and least predictable category of regimes.

JMA

03-28-2014, 09:08 PM

That said, I agree, the proof will be in the pudding. Economics matter first and foremost, since a country had a better chance to remain a democracy if it is wealthy (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/centers/cid/publications/faculty/wp/101.pdf).

Unless of course that country borders on a country with delusional dreams of empire.

Stan

03-28-2014, 09:24 PM

Stan----article is in German but has better details----

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/russlands-geheime-manoever-in-diesen-laendern-uebt-putin-den-einmarsch_id_3727795.html

Also---

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/time-russian-forces-double-along-ukraine-border-341257.html

Thanks for the links !

I'm 50% Swiss German... No problems.

On the surface the article seems a tad one sided. Then the dolphin story to boot.

I wouldn't place much credibility with this as an open source, but that's just me perhaps :o

You should check out council member Fuchs' blog. Perhaps also considered to be one sided, but he does a much better job of finding and justifying facts.

Stan

03-28-2014, 09:33 PM

U right Stan... your man is failing the test of character in a crisis.

There is one on his side who appears to be trying to show a little backbone:

Time to hold Russia accountable for its aggression (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/27/opinion/menendez-russia-sanctions/index.html)

But still no one of consequence has the balls to demand a Russian roll-back.

Seems the dying horse ain't got any kicks left.

Hey Mark !

Just spent 2 weeks in Maryland with my sister and her family. You are not going to find many Bama supporters in Maryland, and, I suspect, elsewhere either.

However, in this tiny little place called Estonia, seems far better to call the West home than placing bets on Vova.

Sorry, but I can't strike a comparison with Eastern Europe and Sub Sahara. Seems there's a place for "carrot and stick" and also a place for soft (and fuzzy) diplomacy when it comes to a nuke war involving 2 million soldiers.

Regards, Stan

JMA

03-28-2014, 10:04 PM

Hey Mark !

Just spent 2 weeks in Maryland with my sister and her family. You are not going to find many Bama supporters in Maryland, and, I suspect, elsewhere either.

However, in this tiny little place called Estonia, seems far better to call the West home than placing bets on Vova.

Sorry, but I can't strike a comparison with Eastern Europe and Sub Sahara. Seems there's a place for "carrot and stick" and also a place for soft (and fuzzy) diplomacy when it comes to a nuke war involving 2 million soldiers.

Regards, Stan

Yes Stan Russia is a different kettle of fish altogether.

This is why there is a need for really smart guys - supplied with accurate and up to date intel - having a wide range of options - economic, military etc - to bring Russia to heal and roll back the status quo in Crimea to a pre invasion situation.

Not every challenge needs to be met by the use of nukes or 'boots on the ground' ... smart people know that.

03-28-2014, 11:18 PM

Outlaw:
I don't want to pile on too much as Stan has already done a good job responding to much of your post, but I too would like to see sources (other than those open source articles you mentioned) for your claims quoted below:

For speed they need the copter transportation ---in place---they need their heavy attack copters ---are in place and they need the armor, airborne, spatnaz(sic) and GRU security forces---all in place. All fighter air cover and AWACs are in place as well..

I also wonder about your source for what I&W folks look for, especially since I used to do I&W myself back during that Cold War. Perhaps you could also give us links to the "Cold War military articles" you mentioned.

Finally, Russians hunkering down and sucking it down after the fact of an invasion of Ukraine or Moldova would be much less likely, IMHO, than during the days of the Soviet Union. Not the same folks today--even Russia has its Gen Xers, Gen Yers, and Millennials who could be a potent nucleus for unrest. Based on the government's response to them, it appears Pussy Riot was a big enough threat to the status quo.

OUTLAW 09

03-29-2014, 06:52 AM

wm---if you were I&W then you know the term indicators---many here and other places deride open source but in fact open source can and does provide up to 80% of most intel leads/tips then one just has to look harder for confirmation points.

What you missed on the next generation types in Russia comment is shown much by their Facebook and other social media mentions which surprisingly has been both positive and support of Putin's moves. He is at a high of now 80% popularity up from 54%.

That is a major surprise---it IMO goes to the heart of Russian nationalism that Putin has hit the nerve on as the population is still suffering the effects of the breakup---the oligarch's have been great at taking the money and running poor about finally developing the country so that the population sees the effects of billions being made on gas and oil.

In some aspects the population has not liked the in their eyes put down of their image of a superpower much like the Americans do not like being told their days are numbered as a superpower.

So until the Russian population throttles back Putin he will move forward.

Open source articles can in fact be great indicators when one sees mentioned small items that parallel each other but from different sources. The core problem is one must learn to understand the one-sided at times and focus on the small comments--feeling an article as being one sided can actually lose you an indicator.

We learned far more about jihadi's by actually reading their social media and websites---if you had not learned to be neutral one would have turned it off declaring it propaganda which many did and still do.

And yes when we watched the Soviets' ---it was exercises by types, numbers of personnel, followed by number of bridging units, followed by supply abilities with weather overlaid on the whole thing. Do open searches for old newspaper articles released prior to every major Soviet exercise in the 70/80s that were held in central and eastern Europe on a regular yearly basis-you will many open mentions similar to what I find and point out.

Dayuhan

03-29-2014, 08:58 AM

Dayuhan---you did see the article written by a former internal Russian political type who in fact alluded to fact that long term plans existed, did exist and were just taken out and implemented.

Come on Dayuhan---you write like mirhond did---what is actually your own personal uninhibited opinion?---taking apart anyone's comments is actually easy---writing and defending one's opinion is actually tougher.

As I wrote before, my opinion is that Putin's action in the Ukraine was primarily an act of opportunism. I do not think that Russia instigated the Ukrainian revolution as a pretext. I think in the early stages the events that unfolded were unexpected and not terribly welcome in Moscow, but when they produced a power vacuum and opened a window of opportunity, Putin took it. Whether or not that involved modifying a plan that was already in place or a completely new plan I do not know. It is entirely possible that plans already existed: governments and militaries routinely plan for all kinds of events.

I expect that it is very likely that next time around Putin will try to create his own opportunity, and that bordering nations would be well advised not to provide opportunities.

So what do you think Putin is doing , will do and what his future is to be?

Two points stand out over the last three weeks;

1. he wants to rebuild the greater Soviet Union---that is a given
2. in a Interfax PR released last night he definitely as I alluded to a couple of times fears the "street" breaking into the Russian population---and that is definitely a given

I don't know what Putin plans, and I don't know his future. Neither do you. Neither does anywhere else here. There's a wide range of skills and knowledge represented here, but clairvoyance and telepathy are not among them. We don't know if Putin wants to restore the former Soviet Union, or the pre-Soviet Russian Empire (Ukraine was part of Russia long before the Soviet Union was ever conceived), or to reunite all of what used to be called the "Rus' Peoples", or to re-establish control over areas with Russian speaking populations, or something completely different. I see no basis for the assumption that Putin intends to re-establish the Soviet Union. The only thing we can reliably assume based on recent events is that if Putin is presented with a gilt-edged silver-platter opportunity to take some land from a neighbor, he'll take it.

I don't believe that Putin has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the 'Stans back, regardless of what he may or may not plan or want.

The discussions that try to position this as a confrontation between the US and Russia, or between Obama and Putin, seem to me almost childish. Europe exists. Europe's economy dwarfs that of Russia and combine EU defense spending is far greater than that of Russia. Europe has far greater economic leverage over Russia than the US has. There is no reason whatsoever to cast this as a US - Russia issue, that's a resurrection of an archaic Cold War anachronism. If Putin is facing off with anyone here, he's facing off with Europe.

I do believe that the US should provide Europe with whatever reasonable support is requested in the imposition of economic sanctions, or even placing US military units in Europe, if - and only if - the cost is borne by Europe. The US taxpayer should bot be footing the bill for the defense of Europe, nor should the US be initiating the moves. Leadership does not mean doing everything for everyone, and it does not mean jumping to the top of every pile and the front of every parade. Sometime it means encouraging, or even forcing, those you lead to make full use of their own capacities.

I do not believe that the continued presence of US forces in Europe would have deterred Putin from moving on Crimea. I think he would have concluded, reasonably and rather easily, that the US is not going to war over Crimea, and carried on. I don't think that has anything to do with Obama, either: the same conclusion would have been just as easy to reach, and just as valid, under any other President.

In short: the US has every reason to be concerned, no reason whatsoever for fear, panic, or hysteria. I don't think it's at all likely that Putin can be forced to give back Crimea, but it is likely that he can be deterred from taking another bite... unless he's presented with an irresistible opportunity, which should be avoided. The US needs to work closely with Europe, urge them to adopt harder sanctions if needed, but not try to dictate what the response should be. I think bluster is pointless and counterproductive and that no demands should be made that we haven't the will or capacity to back up with action.

Is that enough opinion, or would you like more?

JMA

03-29-2014, 10:31 AM

Is that enough opinion, or would you like more?

That's a good start but a pity it is merely a summary of what is becoming the 'conventional wisdom' being published on the Internet.

A good guideline when you use other peoples opinions is to cite them.

I wait with baited breath for you to comment in detail in the early stages of a developing situation - like Syria, Libya, Ukraine - before you can side with - and regurgitate - the developing prevailing opinion on the Web.

Firn

03-29-2014, 12:11 PM

In short: the US has every reason to be concerned, no reason whatsoever for fear, panic, or hysteria. I don't think it's at all likely that Putin can be forced to give back Crimea, but it is likely that he can be deterred from taking another bite... unless he's presented with an irresistible opportunity, which should be avoided. The US needs to work closely with Europe, urge them to adopt harder sanctions if needed, but not try to dictate what the response should be. I think bluster is pointless and counterproductive and that no demands should be made that we haven't the will or capacity to back up with action.

So Putin called Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/putin-calls-obama-to-discuss-diplomatic-resolution-to-ukraine-crisis-white-house-says/2014/03/28/9b896ce8-b6bc-11e3-b84e-897d3d12b816_story.html?hpid=z4) to reach a “diplomatic resolution”. Earlier I wrote (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=153864&postcount=495), looking at Russias short economic legs and Clausewitz that:

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.

Now, as you have pointed, nobody knows if Putin wants to grab another piece of land and create that 'worse outcome'. But it is very likely that the costs in blood and Russian wealth will be considerably higher if he decides to invade Ukrainian mainland and that Putin knows it. However if he is able to get peace now the patriotic victory should not lose too much glory at home and in some abroads.

On the other hand he should know that even a mighty Empire with the largest mechanized army the world has ever seen can implode in the circumstances of economic catastrophe and collapse...

Firn

03-29-2014, 12:38 PM

Taht Klitschko endorses Poroshenko (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/klitschko-endorses-poroshenko-for-president-will-run-for-kyiv-mayor-instead-341322.html) is of course important news for the presidential race. Poroshenko has of course much baggage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5NcUQ9AGQQ#t=17).

"The only chance to win is to nominate a single candidate from the democratic forces. Let's leave the principle 'two Ukrainians - three hetmans' to other politicians. During the last year I had been insisting on nominating one candidate... It should be the candidate who has the greatest support of citizens. I offer the only candidate from the democratic forces Petro Poroshenko be supported in the presidential elections," Klitschko said at a meeting of the UDAR Party in Kyiv on March 29.

"I have made the considered decision to run for Kyiv mayor," Klitschko said. "I want to make Kyiv a really European capital, and we should do our country a truly European country. All the reforms and all initiatives start in the capital."

I admired in the past his smart way to box, playing the game disciplined and cooly in his comfort zone. Of course he had the physical abilities under his mental strenght to allow him to win this way, but that tactical discipline*...

This support is of course part of a political deal. Instead of searching unlikely presidential power he tries to get the pretty likely mayor of Kyiv. It is still good to see that his tendency to moderation extends also the election campaign. Maybe he thinks that he get his opportunity later after a difficult economic transition, maybe he mostly wants to avoid dangerous disunity. Who knows, but I think that for Ukraine it is an excellent move.

*Look at my signature :wry:

03-29-2014, 02:22 PM

wm---if you were I&W then you know the term indicators---many here and other places deride open source but in fact open source can and does provide up to 80% of most intel leads/tips then one just has to look harder for confirmation points.
I do not deny the value of OSINT. What I asked for was additional sources that might confirm or deny the "facts" in the sources you did provide--"trust but verify"--I'd really prefer not to undergo a nuclear version of the guns of August because of some decisions made as a result of unconfirmed I&W--the US has already made a similar mistake this century

What you missed on the next generation types in Russia comment is shown much by their Facebook and other social media mentions which surprisingly has been both positive and support of Putin's moves. He is at a high of now 80% popularity up from 54%.
I discount much of the postings on social media as well. The fundamental nature of the internet is one that promotes a culture of deception. I am sure you are aware of efforts to artificially increase a website's "hits" to get its Google score up and thereby have it show up earlier in a Google search. Go back and look at how folks have responded to mirhond's posts on this thread as a possible example of deception and attempted perception (or, perhaps more accurately, misperception) shaping. For all we know, you might be an agent provocateur trying to stir up a knee jerk reaction by western nations with your "Sky is falling" posts.:wry:

Open source articles can in fact be great indicators when one sees mentioned small items that parallel each other but from different sources.
Provided that the sources really are different. See how many times a Google search that produces thousands or millions of hits is at root just just the same story reposted/republished on multiple web pages.

And yes when we watched the Soviets' ---it was exercises by types, numbers of personnel, followed by number of bridging units, followed by supply abilities with weather overlaid on the whole thing. Do open searches for old newspaper articles released prior to every major Soviet exercise in the 70/80s that were held in central and eastern Europe on a regular yearly basis-you will many open mentions similar to what I find and point out. How many Russian/Soviet/WP invasions occurred after those press releases? I do not remember any.
Press releases seem more like disproof than proof of a pending invasion. I suggest you look at how many press releases Russia sent out in summer 2008 prior to its invasion of South Ossetia/Abkhazia/Georgia or in the summer of 1968 before the invasion of Czechoslovakia. In fact they were at pains to hide their initial incursions into the Crimea, not tell the world they were getting ready to take over the peninsula in an Interfax PR

If you want to look at historical indicators, you might note that both the 1968 and the 2008 invasions occurred in August. Troop training and replacement cycles, as well as weather play a significant part in military operations planning.
I no longer watch Russian military training cycles so I do not know whether they are using the same training/rotation schedules that their Soviet predecessors did. I would be surprised if they have changed it too much, though, because of things like the Russian weather and the fact that much of the current senior leadership was trained under the old Soviet system--Check out this OSINT site (http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/osc/RFarmedforces.html)for some bios of those guys.

OUTLAW 09

03-29-2014, 03:18 PM

wm---then I am assuming you have never worked OSINT and driven OSINT into the other INTs.

If my math was and is correct at the height of the Cold War the KGB/GRU had over 25,000 personnel focusing just alone on OSINT.

One of the actual clashes verbally and politically between the USW and then SU came from an actual crossing of OSINT articles that led the SU to development first the SS20 and then we developed the cruise missile with deployment abilities inside NATO.

There was a rash of open source articles concerning Russian troops being to close to the border followed by the Kerry/Russian FM telephonic conference followed by reports of the Obama/Putin concerning the same subject then followed by the Interfax statement from the Russian FM that they will not ross the border----all by different sources but all chattering basically the same messages.

Governments often communicate with each other in this fashion so that they intentions are understood.

Back to social media---one has to these days watch it like a hawk---during Iraq we often knew of new insurgent TTPs and weapon systems far faster via their websites long before we saw it on the battlefield---so yes chatter has to be monitored they problem is inherently most Americans feel it is "propaganda".

OUTLAW 09

03-29-2014, 03:35 PM

Dayuhan---interesting comment and my even more interesting response.

"I don't know what Putin plans, and I don't know his future. Neither do you. Neither does anywhere else here. There's a wide range of skills and knowledge represented here, but clairvoyance and telepathy are not among them."

Dayuhan---it does not take a clairvoyant to read text reporting quoting Putin nor any other Russian political figure these days. It is out there for all to read and understand or maybe not understand.

If you track Interfax on a daily basis you would have seen a reported meeting between Putin and his National Security Council two days ago and high level Duma reps where he gave them the tasking to analyze all of the "color" and "spring" events in order to understand how one must "protect" the Russian population from such neo radical, neo Nazi, Nazi and nationalist influences.

And he noted that whatever changes where to be made concerning Russian law they "should not" interfere with the Russian population's civil liberties.

So again to my point ---he "was not" concerned about the Ukrainian "street's influence" washing over his citizens in the coming years------BUT he was "concerned" enough to give a verbal tasking to his security council AND publicly have that tasking reported via Interfax---come on Dayuhan.

How nice it is of him to would respond to his "protection" of Russian civil liberties.

Secondly---search the web and one will find at least on five occasions since 2005 he has made virtually the same comment ie it was a disaster when the Soviet Union broke apart and it should have been left as a whole unit.

Now is that being clairvoyant or just a good reader when one now looks at actual events and one can place previous comments made by Putin into clear text context?

Dayuhan---now go to this link and tell me what you assume Putin in fact was alluding to---does not take a clairvoyant?

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6936

davidbfpo

03-29-2014, 03:43 PM

A short article 'Ukraine: Divvying Up The Breadbasket Of Europe':http://registan.net/2014/03/27/ukraine-divvying-up-the-breadbasket-of-europe/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+registan+%28Registan.net%29

03-29-2014, 03:57 PM

wm---then I am assuming you have never worked OSINT and driven OSINT into the other INTs.

That is definitely a poor assumption on your part. I wonder what basis you have for that assumption given what I have posted, to include a link to data from the US federal government's Office of the Director of National Intelligence's (ODNI)Open Source Center in my last post.

The guiding principle of intelligence analysis must always be a healthy dose of skepticism. Analysts must always remember to consider the source, to include the analysts themselves. Publishers/producers of so-called open source data often have agendas of their own. To consider the published information in any article found in the NY Times, Hurriyet, BBC, Pravda, Allgemeine Zeitung, Paris Match, Asia Timeset. al. as without an agenda and, therefore, distortion free is the height of folly in my opinion. Analysis should include assessing the motivations of those behind the data sources. Quite often open source stories and "leaks" are targeted at a country's own populace more than at the rest of the world.

JMA

03-29-2014, 04:04 PM

Unless of course that skepticism is as a result to the deductions/conclusions not being what you want to hear.

Important to always remember this:

If a man is offered a fact, which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something, which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. – Bertrand Russell

That is definitely a poor assumption on your part. I wonder what basis you have for that assumption given what I have posted, to include a link to data from the US federal government's Office of the Director of National Intelligence's (ODNI)Open Source Center in my last post.

The guiding principle of intelligence analysis must always be a healthy dose of skepticism. Analysts must always remember to consider the source, to include the analysts themselves. Publishers/producers of so-called open source data often have agendas of their own. To consider the published information in any article found in the NY Times, Hurriyet, BBC, Pravda, Allgemeine Zeitung, Paris Match, Asia Timeset. al. as without an agenda and, therefore, distortion free is the height of folly in my opinion. Analysis should include assessing the motivations of those behind the data sources. Quite often open source stories and "leaks" are targeted at a country's own populace more than at the rest of the world.

OUTLAW 09

03-29-2014, 04:05 PM

David---interesting article for a number of reasons;

1. Russia has in fact been blockading Ukrainian and even Polish fresh meats and processed foods for now over four weeks---they started the same drills on the Crimea border three days ago.

2. Russia announced via Interfax yesterday that the Crimea will be able to export 2M metric tonnes of grain to Russia this year.

3. The EU in removing all customs on Ukrainian products literally opening the door for the Ukraine to shift their traditional trading markets westwards and not towards Russia and or China ---since there is not for 2014 any customs on any of their products they will be able to earn more than fair market price inside the EU---there is strong EU talk to extend that customs relief well into 2015 as a stabilizing factor.

Wondered why the Chinese yesterday here in Berlin mentioned a number of times that international borders are not to be changed.

My concern is not the trade side but more importantly what will the West "allow" for Russian input into their new government and constitution as the Russians are making strong noises about what has to and what cannot go into the documents (from Interfax today)---will be interesting to see if the US lets the Ukrainians do it on their "own" or with a "little help from friends".

Russian suggested input still follows what they at first "suggested" to the "illegitimate" Ukrainian government as a possible solution at the start of the Crimea event.

03-29-2014, 04:05 PM

If my math was and is correct at the height of the Cold War the KGB/GRU had over 25,000 personnel focusing just alone on OSINT.

OSINT efforts against an open society tend to be much more productive than those against a closed society. It stands to reason that the KGB/GRU would have had a very large OSINT effort during the Cold War era--think of such publications as Aviation Week, Jane's Defense Weekly, and the AFCEA Journal , not to mention all the military doctrinal literature and technical manuals available for the asking in a US library or bookstore.

03-29-2014, 04:15 PM

Unless of course that skepticism is as a result to the deductions/conclusions not being what you want to hear.

Important to always remember this:

I spoke to this concern in my post as follows:

The guiding principle of intelligence analysis must always be a healthy dose of skepticism. Analysts must always remember to consider the source, to include the analysts themselves. Emphasis added in the requotation

Richards Heuer writes on analytic bias in his seminal work (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/)on analysis as well.

OUTLAW 09

03-29-2014, 04:16 PM

OUTLAW 09

03-29-2014, 04:21 PM

Just when Obama gets untracked with the EU, China and especially Merkel ---der Spiegel Online is now carrying a NSA story from today that they collected over 300 reports from her cell.

That will go over like a lead balloon with her and the German public.

03-29-2014, 05:00 PM

Russia announced via Interfax yesterday that the Crimea will be able to export 2M metric tonnes of grain to Russia this year.

Compare this with the following 25 March story from ITAR-TASS (http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/725257)

Russia’s Agriculture Ministry considers ways of subsidizing seasonal agricultural work in Crimea, a source in the agriculture ministry told Itar-Tass.

Ways of supplying Crimean agricultural workers with farm machinery and fuel for sowing are considered, said the source.

He said the complexity of providing agricultural equipment lies in the fact that in the previous years Crimean agricultural producers received equipment from the south of Ukraine.

Tough to do much grain exporting if the farmers don't even have the equipment and fuel for sowing the grain to be exported in the first place.

OUTLAW 09

03-29-2014, 06:36 PM

wm---tells me there is a distinction lack of unified messaging being done between TASS and Interfax which is actually unusual since they are both State controlled and to a large degree State owned.

There is a section that double checks the messaging---probably and I will go out on a limb---the first one is the correcter of the two and the second one is laying blame on the Ukrainians if in the fall the 2M tonnes do not get delivered.

Kind of a preventive act for the fall.

OUTLAW 09

03-29-2014, 06:44 PM

wm-----Originally Posted by wm
"The guiding principle of intelligence analysis must always be a healthy dose of skepticism. Analysts must always remember to consider the source, to include the analysts themselves."

Something I have seen in the last 40 years or so of intel work and up to 2013 is one simple fact---not many intel analysts even understand they own personal biases especially military analysts.

Second thing I have learned is that there are just not many intel analysts that speak more than English these days. Especially the languages of eastern Europe.

Third thing I have learned is put 15 analysts in a room with one report and you will 15 varying opinions---even lucky to get a quorum on just one opinion.

In the years preceding the fall of the Wall DLI stopped teaching German and or even French as it was felt the Cold War was over---even Russian went into a slow walk and then after 9/11 it was all Arabic in multiple flavors.

Firn

03-29-2014, 07:07 PM

Ukraine exported on average over the last five years roughly 10M tons of grain, according to this paper (http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/aq344e/aq344e.pdf). 2M tons of grain export out of Crimea seem to be fantasy numbers, perhaps even if they export all the produced grain and import some back. In 2001 they got 1,4M tons according to this this thesis (http://www.waterfoodecosystems.nl/docs/WaterMuk/report_alterra_sayat.pdf).

With a bit over 4% of the area of Ukraine Crimea produced roughly 3% of it's grain in 2001. Perhaps I will find some more data specific to the occupied territory.

kaur

03-29-2014, 07:51 PM

About OSINT. 2 Putin's meetings with FSB officers. He warns about Westerns plans to disturbe his integration projects. In Russian. Moderates feel free to delete :)

February 2013 http://izvestia.ru/news/544959
December 2013 http://oko-planet.su/politik/politiklist/223596-vladimir-putin-vystuplenie-na-torzhestvennom-vechere-posvyaschennom-dnyu-rabotnika-organov-bezopasnosti.html

+ 1 In the beginning of December Russian front organisation of compatriots in Crimea received already tasks about Eurasian Union and future of Ukraine http://www.ruvek.ru/?module=articles&action=view&id=8622

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 07:46 AM

kaur---these go to support the theory that I linked to previously ---an article from a former Russian national security council member/advisor that stated openly there were always plans for the Crimea in the cabinet and secondly the Russian Army never moves without a plan---what appears on the surface to be speed is in fact based off of a long term plan that has been practiced.

What concerns me is that it is now evident that both the Russian Defense Minister and the Foreign Minister do not make a move without full approval by Putin much like in the Communist days.

So when the Russian DM/FM both declare they are not going into Crimea--does one believe them or not?

Yesterday I linked to a article released in the States about the intelligence being seen by the US from Foreign Policy---basically the analysts were saying the same thing---this is what we see but it does not match what we are hearing so we cannot make a decision one way or other.

Putin is honestly weighing his options and he is not above going into the Ukraine.

Yesterday Bill M over on the blog provided a solid insight into the Russian Nationalism that is driving Putin which many here seem to brush over as secondary---but with Putin it is not secondary it is his primary driver.

Firn

03-30-2014, 08:27 AM

We have already quite a few posts on the energy aspect of this conflict, but I think it is worth to take a look at this paper (http://www.voxeu.org/article/limited-economic-impact-us-shale-gas-boom) which supports what some have already written here and in the energy security thread:

Conclusions: A revolution, not a panacea

Our analysis suggests that commentators and policymakers need to better distinguish between the ways in which the US shale gas boom constitutes a ‘revolution’ and the ways in which it does not. The US unconventional energy boom has reversed the decline of domestic production, significantly lowered oil and gas imports, reduced gas costs for consumers, and created a political space for tougher regulations on coal-fired power plants. But it is not a panacea. Even if current estimates of production turn out to be accurate, the benefits to the US economy in the long run are relatively small, and the benefits to manufacturing competitiveness in most sectors are even smaller. In the longer term, US energy security and climate goals will still require a strong role for public policy frameworks. Improving energy efficiency and promoting low-carbon technologies will be just as important as before. For the EU, given its more limited known reserves of unconventional oil and gas, these conclusions are likely to be all the more relevant.

In this areas Germany has led the way among the large European nations, perhaps partly a reflection of the lack of ressources and the war-time experiences. It is no coincidence that Japan has overall the most similar approach amon the big industrial powers.

In Europe's case a better integration of the energy infrastructure (pipelines, gird), more strategic storage (gas, oil,), 'battery' capacity (pumped-storage hydro, etc) and LNG terminals are additional, important means to achieve long-term energy security.

Stan

03-30-2014, 09:17 AM

Something I have seen in the last 40 years or so of intel work and up to 2013 is one simple fact---not many intel analysts even understand they own personal biases especially military analysts.

Second thing I have learned is that there are just not many intel analysts that speak more than English these days. Especially the languages of eastern Europe.

That's where you enter the picture. The analyst back at Bowling can also read interfax or whatever garbage being regurgitated. But, it is then up to folks like us to ensure that the open source being quoted has been sufficiently scrutinized, so that "that" single-language analyst at least knows that the open source being quoted is left from center, Bravo Sierra :D

You, as a field reporter with 40 years of experience, should know that.

I have also asked that you out of courtesy for others herein, provide links. It's a bit cheesy to fall back on "it's in German" as if you are the only one that speaks more than one language.

Stan

03-30-2014, 09:22 AM

Dayuhan

03-30-2014, 09:49 AM

Dayuhan---various open reporting tends to discount a lot of what is being throw around by the Russians ie disinformation and outright propaganda.

This article destroys a much published Russian myth at the at beginning of the Crimea event and just after the Maidan demos....

Yes, Russian propaganda is crude, at times almost embarrassing. I guess somebody somewhere falls for it.

Just when Obama gets untracked with the EU, China and especially Merkel ---der Spiegel Online is now carrying a NSA story from today that they collected over 300 reports from her cell.

That will go over like a lead balloon with her and the German public.

Wait a minute... who needs who when it comes to countering Russia? Is it Obama who needs Merkel, or is it Merkel who needs Obama? Who's being threatened here?

Hint: it ain't the US.

Again: the US-centric viewpoint is truly bizarre. This is not the US facing off with Russia and needing to rally European support. Europe is the target of the threat, not the US. Europe has the economic leverage, not the US. Europe has the capacity to contain Russia: this is not the battered Europe of the 1950s that we're talking about, it's a major modern group of states with economic clout that simply dwarfs anything the Russians can bring to bear. I certainly think the US should support Europe as requested, within reason, but why does the discourse here always try to place the US in a center stage role? Is this not just a reflexive reversion to Cold War patterns of thought?

Dayuhan---it does not take a clairvoyant to read text reporting quoting Putin nor any other Russian political figure these days. It is out there for all to read and understand or maybe not understand.

If you track Interfax on a daily basis you would have seen a reported meeting between Putin and his National Security Council two days ago and high level Duma reps where he gave them the tasking to analyze all of the "color" and "spring" events in order to understand how one must "protect" the Russian population from such neo radical, neo Nazi, Nazi and nationalist influences.

And he noted that whatever changes where to be made concerning Russian law they "should not" interfere with the Russian population's civil liberties.

So again to my point ---he "was not" concerned about the Ukrainian "street's influence" washing over his citizens in the coming years------BUT he was "concerned" enough to give a verbal tasking to his security council AND publicly have that tasking reported via Interfax---come on Dayuhan.

How nice it is of him to would respond to his "protection" of Russian civil liberties.

Secondly---search the web and one will find at least on five occasions since 2005 he has made virtually the same comment ie it was a disaster when the Soviet Union broke apart and it should have been left as a whole unit.

Now is that being clairvoyant or just a good reader when one now looks at actual events and one can place previous comments made by Putin into clear text context?

Dayuhan---now go to this link and tell me what you assume Putin in fact was alluding to---does not take a clairvoyant?

The "let us make Russia great again" rhetoric is as predictable as a metronome, and about as interesting. Taking that, adding on an opportunistic grab at a piece of land that was effectively handed over on a silver platter, and concluding that the intent is to re-establish the Soviet Union looks a bit like adding 2 and 2 and getting 10. The data are not sufficient to draw that conclusion, unless of course you really want to draw that conclusion... or if you're starting with that conclusion and working backward to try to support it.

It is never safe to draw conclusions about intentions from public speeches.

Of course Putin is not going to resurrect the Soviet Union, however fondly he dreams of it. He's not getting Central Asia back, among other things. He might, if he's willing to eat the pain and suck up prolonged sanctions, be able to absorb some Russian-dominated enclaves along bordering states. If he did - and again, the key to stopping him lies with Europe, not the US - how would that threaten the US?

It is worth remembering that the threat the Soviet Union posed to the US came from their position as the leader and dominant figure of a genuinely global ideological movement that for a time posed a direct challenge to the US, and for a while made serious inroads in the developing world and even in some developed countries. That ideological aspect of the Soviet threat is something Putin cannot replicate, because he has no ideology beyond Russian Nationalism, and Russian Nationalism can only be sold to Russians. It is not Communism.

We can treat Putin as a challenge, or if we really must as a potential threat, but trying to equate Putin's Russia with the threat posed by the Soviet Union just doesn't hold up. Putin's Russia is not the Soviet Union, this is not a new Cold War, and we'd be fools to treat it as such and let our decisions be shaped by reflexes inherited from a lost and unlamented age.

Fuchs

03-30-2014, 02:03 PM

Again: the US-centric viewpoint is truly bizarre. This is not the US facing off with Russia and needing to rally European support. Europe is the target of the threat, not the US. Europe has the economic leverage, not the US. Europe has the capacity to contain Russia: this is not the battered Europe of the 1950s that we're talking about, it's a major modern group of states with economic clout that simply dwarfs anything the Russians can bring to bear. I certainly think the US should support Europe as requested, within reason, but why does the discourse here always try to place the US in a center stage role? Is this not just a reflexive reversion to Cold War patterns of thought?

I largely agree, but I disagree that "Europe" is threatened. And the lack of a real threat is what limits the enthusiasm to wrestle with Russia. Unlike the United States, Europeans are just not that much into the "containment" thing.

A former USSR country in geographic Europe, but outside of EU or NATO had and has its sovereignty violated.
Maybe Europeans are just more defensive; actions are not considered to be equally bad when they violate formal allies or not.
The expectation seems to be that U.S. governments are equally angered by both if only the perpetrator is a designated baddie. South Ossetia should have disproved this ambition in the context of Russia, but apparently it did not.

One or two more such cases and the U.S. might be called a paper tiger, which in turn might lead to another stupid war just to prove something.

Dayuhan

03-30-2014, 02:21 PM

I largely agree, but I disagree that "Europe" is threatened.

Ok, that's legitimate... I should have said something like "to the extent that there is a threat, it is Europe that is threatened, not the US".

One or two more such cases and the U.S. might be called a paper tiger, which in turn might lead to another stupid war just to prove something.

It would be a poor sort of nation that got into a fight to avoid being called weak... but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

JMA

03-30-2014, 03:09 PM

We can treat Putin as a challenge, or if we really must as a potential threat, but trying to equate Putin's Russia with the threat posed by the Soviet Union just doesn't hold up. Putin's Russia is not the Soviet Union, this is not a new Cold War, and we'd be fools to treat it as such and let our decisions be shaped by reflexes inherited from a lost and unlamented age.

Here you go again.

This sounds like a repeat of your comments at the start of the Syrian crisis. You were 100% wrong then and with that track record I remain amazed you have the gall to try to sell your arguments on this thread. You have a very thick skin.

Funny how I read the international press and when you next post see you repeating the same line. You ever have original thoughts?

davidbfpo

03-30-2014, 03:13 PM

How this is supposed to do anything but get a headline eludes me:
British troops will take part in wargames in the Baltics in order to reassure Ukraine in the face of a potential Russian invasion, the Defence Secretary said today.

The Ministry of Defence has not yet announced which units, and in what numbers, would take part in the exercises.

There is much, no, sorry, a little more about the UK's defence / military effort being "hollowed out" in the report.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10732676/Ukraine-crisis-British-forces-to-join-Nato-wargames.html

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 03:14 PM

The Daily Beast from today is carrying an extremely detailed article containing photos and they have over 90M of video footage depicting exactly who was behind the killing of civilians via snipers on the Maidan.

Will be interesting to see how the Russians respond to the article, photos and video footage as they have been crying for an investigation and now it looks like the KGB/FSB trained snipers were behind the attacks.

If in fact it was the Ukrainian SBU which is virtually under FSB control it really be interesting to see how the Ukrainian government responds as well.

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 03:28 PM

Looks like the Russian did in fact respond but I think their PR came out via Interfax before they knew of The Daily Beast article, videos, and photos.

From Interfax from today---look who is the author ie their Foreign Minister:

03/30 14:12 Moscow has evidence suggesting Right Sector was behind Maidan snipers' shooting - Lavrov

So we have just in the last four days seen a massive amount of disinformation if not blatant lying.

So again why trust FM Lavov when he states the Russian military is not going into the Ukraine if he cannot get his story straight on the snipers.

It is also amazing just how little Russia and Putin thought through their actions in the Crimea and the sanctions are taking multiple different avenues which are actually surprising them---this article in from Interfax show their FM stunned that Crimean's wanting to travel to the EU will have to go Kiev to get their EU visas and show an Ukrainian pass---it is almost like the Russian FM does not even understand the EU visa requirements

From Interfax today:

March 30, 2014 14:39 Moscow not informed about EU plans to issue visas to Crimea residents via Kyiv - Lavrov

MOSCOW. March 30 (Interfax) - No official notification has arrived in Moscow about the European Union's plans to issue Schengen visas to residents of Crimea exclusively through Kyiv, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

"No decision has been made yet, as far as I know. But speculation of this sort has gotten round, in a rather original manner, I would say. Some claim that rules should be introduced, requiring each Crimean applicant for the Schengen visa to travel to Ukraine, visit the consular service and get the visa after producing the Ukrainian passport," Lavrov said in an interview with the Voskresnoye Vremya program on Russia's Channel One.

"Statements are also being made that European Union travelers can visit Ukraine without a visa and that Ukraine has unilaterally offered the visa-free regime to European Union countries. But the visa regime holds for Crimea," he said.

"Such approaches are being discussed publicly and seriously," Lavrov said.

"They are not talking with us, however. They are discussing this within their inner circle, arguing that they will make a decision, which must be enforced. This is unacceptable. It is a crude violation of human rights. People who live in Crimea and who opted to switch to Russian citizenship, have nothing to do with geopolitics. They want to live in a country that matches their cultural and linguistic interests and 'genetic fund.' If the European Union takes such steps we, I am sure, will retaliate in a way that would make it clear to the European Union that these crude violations of human right will not pass," Lavrov said.

NOTE: not sure what they will do as most still have to get a visa to visit Russia so that will be nothing new to the EU.

NOTE: what the heck is "genetic fund" never knew there were specific Russian gene sets---so now does everyone require a DNA test prior to joining the Russian Federation?

Lavrov also said that the discussion of the issue of visas for Russians planning to travel to Ukraine, did not go any further. Asked whether Russia could introduce visas for Ukrainians, he said, "It would be stupid, in my opinion." "I think this idea is no longer alive in Kyiv. It must have been raised in the heat of the debate, but it has been rejected and is of no importance now," Lavrov said

Stan

03-30-2014, 03:28 PM

David,
Nothing new in the article. The aerial policing efforts have been performed and led by nearly every NATO nation for years.

In fact, so much to the point that when a new nation took over, it never made the local press.

Sadly, most of the three Baltic States can barely support the 2 aircraft that are already here.

Best, Stan

How this is supposed to do anything but get a headline eludes me:

There is much, no, sorry, a little more about the UK's defence / military effort being "hollowed out" in the report.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10732676/Ukraine-crisis-British-forces-to-join-Nato-wargames.html

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 04:49 PM

Putin has repeatedly stated that he is/was angered by the expansion of NATO which the Russians were supposedly told in 1990 would not happen.

In the German Focus Online today is an article which two Germans close to the conversations during that period stated --- that conversation never occurred as no one in 1990 even envisioned the Soviet Union breaking up as fast as it did when it did.

So has Putin built his "own" version in his mind about the breakup of the Soviet Union?

Genau diesem Geruecht wiederspricht nun allerdings der Ex-Kanzlerberater Horst Teltschik. Diese Zusage gab es nicht. Keiner hat 1990 die Aufloesung der Sowjetunion und des Warschauer Paktes erwartet noch vorausgesehen", sagte Teltschik der Bild-Zeitung vom Montag laut Vorabbericht. Er war mageblich an den deutsch-deutschen Verhandlungen der Wendezeit und der deutschen Wiedervereinigung beteiligt. Auch der fruehere Auenminister Hans-Dietrich-Genscher hatte eine solche Zusage in einer ZDF-Talkshow bestritten.

Stan

03-30-2014, 05:41 PM

In the German Focus Online today is an article which two Germans close to the conversations during that period stated ---

Honestly, do you really read this garbage (http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/tu-es-nicht-mit-russen-sex-boykott-gegen-russen-mega-erfolgreich_id_3730344.html) ?

„Tu es nicht mit Russen“ heißt eine Kampagne ukrainischer Aktivistinnen. Ihr Sex-Streik gewinnt zusehends an Aufmerksamkeit. Auf der Facebook-Seite der Ukrainerinnen hat der Protest zwischenmenschlicher Natur bereits Tausende Likes.

A sex boycott against Russians with T-shirt sales proceeds going to the Ukrainian Army :D

JMA

03-30-2014, 05:45 PM

I largely agree, but I disagree that "Europe" is threatened. And the lack of a real threat is what limits the enthusiasm to wrestle with Russia. Unlike the United States, Europeans are just not that much into the "containment" thing.

Yes this rings a bell...

From Chamberlain and appeasement (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/chamberlainandappeasementrev1.shtml)

As the League of Nations crumbled, politicians turned to a new way to keep the peace - appeasement. This was the policy of giving Hitler what he wanted to stop him from going to war. It was based on the idea that what Hitler wanted was reasonable and, when his reasonable demands had been satisfied, he would stop.

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 06:24 PM

We have often written about whether the Russian troops were going to move into the Ukraine or just threaten.

The warning tone of the intel articles being leaked/released has been raising in the last several days as has the number of the Russian troops being counted---what is brothering some analysts is now the spotted Russian field hospital located within 10kms of the Ukrainian border.

Add now the return of the Senior NATO Commander (US) back to NATO this evening due to "the lack of transparency" on the part of the Russian intentions. Interesting as he was in DC for Senate hearings which he cancelled and then suddenly left.

That is a serious signal to Putin that NATO/EU/US are not buying into the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Defense Minster statements that they will not be crossing as the ground reality is telling them something else.

What is also interesting is that in the last two days via Interfax there are more and more press releases concerning violence against proRussians in the Ukraine, more demos for their own elections on whether to leave the Ukraine and naturally more reporting on neo radical, neo Nazi activity along with strong Russian "suggestions" about what they think the Ukrainians should be doing in their new constitution.

03-30-2014, 06:30 PM

From Chamberlain and appeasement (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/chamberlainandappeasementrev1.shtml)

From page three of the above link:

There were many reasons why Chamberlain appeased Hitler, but here are the main ones:
1.The British people wanted peace - they would not have supported a war in 1938.
2.Many of Hitler's complaints appeared reasonable at the time - especially about the Treaty of Versailles.
3.Chamberlain wanted a strong Germany to serve as a barrier against expansion by communist Russia.
4.Britain's armed forces were not ready for a war, and they could not have helped Czechoslovakia anyway.
5.Many people admired Hitler. In 1938, the American magazine 'Time' declared him 'Man of the Year'.
6.Chamberlain remembered the slaughter of the First World War; he thought another war would destroy civilization

How many of these reasons, mutatis mutandis, besides perhaps #4, map to Western European leadership's feelings about Putin and 21st Century Russia?

JMA

03-30-2014, 06:33 PM

From page three of the above link:

How many of these reasons, mutatis mutandis, besides perhaps #4, map to Western European leadership's feelings about Putin and 21st Century Russia?

Are you in denial that appeasement is at the core of the current response to Russian military aggression?

PS: cowards always seek to rationalise their behaviour - to respond to your question

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 06:47 PM

This goes to the current nationalism that is driving in some aspects Putin who is riding it.

"I was born in the Soviet Union," wrote Udaltsov on his movement's website, "and it will always be my homeland. Those who destroyed it and their supporters today will always be my political opponents. The rebirth of the Soviet Union in new forms is necessary, crucial and urgent."

Komsomolskaya Pravda journalist Ulyana Skoibeda, whose claim to fame is the scandal last year when she regretted that the ancestors of today's Jewish opposition activists hadn't been killed by the Nazis, was ecstatic over the Crimean annexation.

"As I listened to Putin's speech about Crimea, I hugged my child close and said, 'Look, son. You will remember this for the rest of your life,'" Skoibeda wrote. "Entering a conflict with the whole world to defend your rights and interests — that is the U.S.S.R. And being willing to live in poverty — that is also the Soviet Union. So what if Russia has been kicked out of the Group of Eight? The Soviet Union always lived in isolation. My homeland is back."

A large swath of the Russian population shares Skoibeda's views. Almost everyone who supports using force against Ukraine sees it primarily as a path to resurrecting the Soviet Union. This may be explained by the fact that the majority of these people never lived in the U.S.S.R. and do not remember it. For them, it is just a mythical golden age of a great power that could provide stability to several generations of Russians.

Stan

03-30-2014, 06:48 PM

What is also interesting is that in the last two days via Interfax there are more and more press releases concerning violence against proRussians in the Ukraine, more demos for their own elections on whether to leave the Ukraine and naturally more reporting on neo radical, neo Nazi activity along with strong Russian "suggestions" about what they think the Ukrainians should be doing in their new constitution.

This entire region has been doing that since 92 and it sadly still takes place here every year.

You are either a Russian or a Nazi despite the fact that today's youth have not a clue and are not even remotely interested in reading about their recent past.

Power vacuums and growing pains. Hardly news, but certainly something Germany is concerned about.

03-30-2014, 06:57 PM

Add now the return of the Senior NATO Commander (US) back to NATO this evening due to "the lack of transparency" on the part of the Russian intentions. Interesting as he was in DC for Senate hearings which he cancelled and then suddenly left.
Again one wonders what is your source??? I ask because according to the Senate Armed Services Committee web page (http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/us-european-command-and-us-transportation-command_04/01/14), the hearings are still on for April 1st.

By the way your prior post about Breedlove commenting on Russia's ability to sprint across the Ukraine (my poor paraphrase of your post) came to light in an article in the NY Post--not exactly a quality source unless you are looking for scandal and innuendo.

Firn

03-30-2014, 07:02 PM

I just wanted to add that while France and Britain were 'appeasing' Mr. Hitler they were rather heavily gearing up for war.

----

Personally I would welcome a somewhat higher military spending but most importantly a better spending on the Italian and European level. For example in Italy the armed forces have a far too old median age, are too top-heavy, too micro-managed and it's budget far too personnel-centric. One has just to look at the forces as a whole and then compare it to other ones. It is the old song that the pay-checks and privilegi especially towards the top get defended at all costs at the price for the other big two areas training and equipment. The bureaucrats have cut them to the bones and have been considerable harder on the salaries of the lower ranks...

On the issues of the Baltic states: Wouldn't it be helpful to station at least one EU-NATO heavy brigade + support elements in the Baltics? Rotating it a bit like the air-police thing should help to share the burden. The cost of the base, housing and training facilities could be shared by NATO and the three NATO 'hosts'. The idea is to give further credibility that NATO will protect her members, ideally raising the potential costs of any Russian plan to such a level that a war won't go hot there.

03-30-2014, 07:07 PM

Are you in denial that appeasement is at the core of the current response to Russian military aggression?
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Nice double question fallacy on your part.

PS: cowards always seek to rationalise their behaviour - to respond to your question[/I]
I fail to see how this is an answer to my question--This response does not speak in any way to how the 6 reasons for appeasement of Hitler and Nazi Germany are germane today WRT to Putin and Russia.

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 07:13 PM

wm---come on dude---check CNN both online as well as their ongoing International Desk.

Do you really read anything other than........whatever is your view point.

Secondly, if you read German then this goes to what JMA is talking about ---read it on the German Huffington Post---taken from a close associate to Putin 2000-2005---the last sentence reinforces what JMA has been saying.

Putins Ziel sei es, ein Russland wie unter Zar Nicholas II. oder Stalins Sowjetunion wiederherzustellen. "Seiner Ansicht nach ist es seine Aufgabe, zu beschuetzen, was ihm und seinen Vorfahren gehrt", sagte Illarionov der schwedischen Tageszeitung. "Putin beansprucht Teile Georgiens, die Ukraine, Weirussland, die baltischen Staaten und Finnland."

Russland koennte etwa die Unabhngigkeit von Finnland 1917 bestreiten und sie als "Verrat nationaler Interessen" anfechten. Weil Finnland nicht Teil der Nato ist, wuerde jede militrische Aktion gegen das Land nicht unbedingt eine Antwort des Westens hervorrufen, schreibt der britische Independent.

Eine Invasion ist laut Illarionov allerdings nicht auf Putins aktueller Agenda. "Aber wenn niemand Putin stoppt, wird das frueher oder spaeter passieren", warnt Putins Ex-Berater.

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 07:23 PM

TheCurmudgeon

03-30-2014, 07:56 PM

Outlaw, along the same lines of Putin's emphasis on Russain ethnic identity as being the basis for action, Putin highlighted another Pro Russian enclave in his call (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/europe/putin-calls-obama-on-Ukraine.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0) to the President:

While not mentioning Crimea, the Kremlin drew attention to Ukraine’s blockade of Transnistria, a breakaway, pro-Russian region of Moldova, another former Soviet republic to the south. Frozen for years in an international limbo, neither accepting Moldova’s rule nor formally part of Russia, Transnistria has relied on land access through Ukraine for crucial imports.

It is hard to tell if this is 1) for domestic consumption, and therefore a way to back out of a potentially bad situation; 2) part of a real concern for ethnic Russians; or 3) a way to justify a push into Eastern Ukraine in order to protect Transnistrian Russians.

What concerns me is that we are not in a position to make a realistic determination of which of the above three options (or combination of them) are actually Putin's motivation for bringing up the subject.

What is clear is that Russian ethnic identity is helping Putin's status in Russia.

Stan

03-30-2014, 08:23 PM

What is clear is that Russian ethnic identity is helping Putin's status in Russia.

Similar to Bush jr., approval ratings worked well til all the dead soldiers returned home :wry:

He managed to rouse ethnic tensions here too, but not sufficient to snap half of an EU and NATO country.

A little too soon and overrated in my opinion.

OUTLAW 09

03-30-2014, 08:27 PM

TC----check out the ongoing comments between myself and Bill M over on the blog side concerning Russian nationalism under the Open Letter to Obama.

It is deep- it is there- and we in the West have basically not seen it nor maybe not wanted to see it in our moves towards soft power.

Bill had some interesting comments concerning the ethnicity (Russian) of the citizens currently inside the Russian Federation which he pointed out is relatively high for a country and then look at the enclaves he is going after and it also includes Finland as Russian nationalism has been preaching against the 1917 Finnish agreement.

He is in fact chasing the Czarist dreams of an all Russian empire--nothing more nothing less and he has a military force able to implement with short lines of communication and after 13 years of chasing jihadi's NATO has nothing to counter with.

The messaging concerning Breedlove's coming back to NATO today was to the point---"we do not trust what you are telling us" about the alleged exercise---when one hears the term "lack of transparency"---that is not a good sign in the world of power politics.

kaur

03-30-2014, 08:32 PM

To Outlaw about snipers.

Here are some videos about that shooting episode. First you have to consider chronology. In the morning that day 20.02 UA interior ministry reported that there was sniper fire against police forces. There were wounded policemen.

1. video (in Russian) and you see not regular police unit moving forwar at Insitutskaja street. Their barricade was at corner of Intitutskaya and Olhynska street. You can hear intensive shooting and guys with optical rifles instruct each other to observe windows (sounds very much like counter sniper action) and this unit is moving forward http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OgynH-7Is

2. video. I think that this video shows the same unit moving forward towards Maidan square street institutskaja and filmed from other side. They were shooting to the ground and forcing crowd to move back to Maidan. One moment they started to retreat back to their initial position. Then the killing started by the hotel Ukraina.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JVc1hzi_r_Q
Maybe they started retreat after their casualty? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iICzRf8m21w

3. video. Video says that head of Alpha sniper unit claims that they were on the roof of cabinet of ministers and didn't fire a shot http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3A1u49lRwr8

Map of the area http://varlamov.me/2014/-/rev_2014_02_18_41.jpg

My thought. If you look at the number of policemen and the number of Maidan guys, then I speculate that police opened fire to prevent overrun of their positions and they carried out mission of protection of government district. At the same time EU ministers were negotiating truce talks between president and opposition inside this area. Result was so called 21.02 agreement.

JMA

03-30-2014, 08:32 PM

[QUOTE=JMA;154275]Are you in denial that appeasement is at the core of the current response to Russian military aggression?[?"QUOTE]
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Nice double question fallacy on your part.

I fail to see how this is an answer to my question--This response does not speak in any way to how the 6 reasons for appeasement of Hitler and Nazi Germany are germane today WRT to Putin and Russia.

You try and do a list of the reasons why as applicable to this scenario... afterall you seem to be on the side of those who see no threat from Russian military adventurism.

JMA

03-30-2014, 09:21 PM

Again one wonders what is your source??? I ask because according to the Senate Armed Services Committee web page (http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/us-european-command-and-us-transportation-command_04/01/14), the hearings are still on for April 1st.

You are being ridiculous.

U.S. sends top general back to Europe over Ukraine crisis (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBREA2S0B920140330)

U.S. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel considered Breedlove's early return "the prudent thing to do, given the lack of transparency and intent from Russian leadership about their military movements across the border," a Pentagon spokesman said.

Ukraine crisis: top U.S., NATO general recalled to Europe (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-top-u-s-nato-general-recalled-to-europe-1.2591839)

Gen. Philip Breedlove, who is both NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the head of the U.S. military's European Command, had been due to testify before Congress this week. He arrived in Europe Saturday evening.

I suggest you offer an unreserved apology to Outlaw and readers here for trying to be a smart ass.

By the way your prior post about Breedlove commenting on Russia's ability to sprint across the Ukraine (my poor paraphrase of your post) came to light in an article in the NY Post--not exactly a quality source unless you are looking for scandal and innuendo.

NATO Commander warns of Russian military building on Ukraine border (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLvBlEc1WL8)

Nato general warns about Moldova, Baltics (http://euobserver.com/foreign/123588)

He also warned the current number of troops amassed along the eastern Ukrainian border may pose a threat for Moldova and its separatist region of Transniestria, which last week requested to be incorporated into Russia on the Crimean model.

Again, you have been exposed for the ..... you are. If you are nor man enough to apologise to Outlaw publicly then at least do it by private message.

Fuchs

03-30-2014, 09:32 PM

Yes this rings a bell...

From Chamberlain and appeasement (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/chamberlainandappeasementrev1.shtml)

I ceased to pay attention when some anglophone person mentions "appeasement". They almost never get it right, and the context is almost always utterly unsuitable.

JMA

03-30-2014, 09:36 PM

I ceased to pay attention when some anglophone person mentions "appeasement". They almost never get it right, and the context is almost always utterly unsuitable.

Sorry if I touched a nerve there. It must be embarrassing to be a German at the moment.

TheCurmudgeon

03-30-2014, 10:02 PM

Similar to Bush jr., approval ratings worked well til all the dead soldiers returned home :wry:

He managed to rouse ethnic tensions here too, but not sufficient to snap half of an EU and NATO country.

A little too soon and overrated in my opinion.

Stan,

The dynamics of Nationalism in a individualistic democracy (Bush) and Ethnicity or Religion in a communal society (Putin) are different. Ethnic wars can go on for centuries but Democracies lose interest in Nationalistic fights in about 5-7 years. When I have more time I will provide references, but don't confuse the two, they are not the same.

Take for example, the US and Germany. The US fought a war 60 years ago with Germany but we don't equate it as a war with the Germans but as a war with their misguided leadership. I don't think the Russians see their conflict with Germany the same way, although I think they have morphed it into a distrust and hatred of Fascism.

Probably the closest American's came to this was the sustained mistrust of the Russians as the leaders of the Soviet Union. But the idea of hating a people based on their identity goes against the core values of a individualistic, liberal democracy. That is why we have to believe that this is all Putin's doing and if the people of Russia were not living in a police state they would understand what a dictator Putin really is. We HAVE to believe that, because the alternative threatens the very basis of our value system. It is this value distinction that matters and allows identity to play such a undying role in Russian social dynamics.

03-31-2014, 12:50 AM

Putins Ziel sei es, ein Russland wie unter Zar Nicholas II. oder Stalins Sowjetunion wiederherzustellen. "Seiner Ansicht nach ist es seine Aufgabe, zu beschuetzen, was ihm und seinen Vorfahren gehrt", sagte Illarionov der schwedischen Tageszeitung. "Putin beansprucht Teile Georgiens, die Ukraine, Weirussland, die baltischen Staaten und Finnland."

Russland koennte etwa die Unabhngigkeit von Finnland 1917 bestreiten und sie als "Verrat nationaler Interessen" anfechten. Weil Finnland nicht Teil der Nato ist, wuerde jede militrische Aktion gegen das Land nicht unbedingt eine Antwort des Westens hervorrufen, schreibt der britische Independent.

Eine Invasion ist laut Illarionov allerdings nicht auf Putins aktueller Agenda. "Aber wenn niemand Putin stoppt, wird das frueher oder spaeter passieren", warnt Putins Ex-Berater.

A quote (or misquote?) from a Swedish daily--who knows for sure as yet again you do not source your quotation.
"Putins Ziel sei es, ein Russland wie unter Zar Nicholas II. oder Stalins Sowjetunion wiederherzustellen. " While Putin's goal may be to recreate the Russian Empire of Nicholas II or Stalin's USSR, wishing something does not make it so. In fact he might be careful what he wishes for--look what happened to Nicholas II.

I think the most revealing point in your quoted text comes from the highlighted last sentence as well: "warnt Putins Ex-Berater" ("warned Putin's ex-advisor")--for those readers who do not speak German. Perhaps Putin would be in a better place had he not alienated Illarionov with his return to totalitarianism--Vlad might at least have some cogent economic advice right now.

03-31-2014, 01:03 AM

wm---come on dude---check CNN both online as well as their ongoing International Desk.

Do you really read anything other than........whatever is your view point. A case in point follows.

I read a lot from all sides and do so quite carefully. One wonders about your ability to quote accurately. A case in point follows.
Youi said:

Add now the return of the Senior NATO Commander (US) back to NATO this evening due to "the lack of transparency" on the part of the Russian intentions. Interesting as he was in DC for Senate hearings which he cancelled and then suddenly left.
Here's the CNN story's excerpt (http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/30/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?iref=storysearch)

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the top U.S. commander in Europe back to the continent because of the "growing uncertainty in Ukraine," Pentagon press secretary Rear. Adm. John Kirby said Sunday. Gen. Phil Breedlove was in Washington, where he was supposed to give annual testimony before Congress later this week.

"More broadly, he felt it was important for General Breedlove to continue our efforts to consult with NATO allies, and to discuss specific ways to provide additional reassurance for our NATO allies in Eastern Europe," Kirby said of Hagel's decision to cut short Breedlove's stay in Washington.

"While it does not foreshadow imminent military action in Ukraine, the general's return will allow him more time to confer closely with his staff and our allies and partners, and to better advise senior leaders," Kirby said.
The reason I asked for your source was to see how badly you had distorted the news story you were sourcing. And, not surprisingly, the distortion is pretty apparent. Despite your assertion to the contrary, a US COCOM Commander does not have the prerogative to cancel Congressional hearings. GEN Breedlove did not act on his own initiative. He was told to go back to Europe by the SecDef. And GEN Breedlove could easily be back in DC for the Tuesday hearings.
Having GEN Breedlove back in Europe gives the folks back in DC the right level of clout at NATO to see and report on what the rest of the alliance leadership is thinking. I do not see anything here about a lack of transparency or any of the other fear-mongering stuff you cited previously.

TheCurmudgeon

03-31-2014, 01:20 AM

TC----check out the ongoing comments between myself and Bill M over on the blog side concerning Russian nationalism under the Open Letter to Obama.

Outlaw, I have been following it. I think you and Bill have gotten it right. The problem as I see it is not that people don't understand Putin's using ethnicity to push for Russian empire. The problem is that Westerners don't really understand the power of ethnicity. They think it is only a tool use by political leaders and the "elite" or the "Oligarchs" to confuse the people, but it exists on its own. They did not create it. They only use it.

I am preparing a short paper trying to explain that the problem is not them, it is us and how we perceive the situation. It is basically taken from my work on Legitimacy (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/political-legitimacy-and-values). It goes over some of the basic research by Inglehart, Hofstede, ans Schwartz that I cite in that article. I was going to send it to SWJ but they seem to have a fairly large backlog so I am not sure where I will send it. (I have a piece I was told would be published soon on how we try to mix democratization with stabilization and end up doing neither well that includes a more in depth analysis of values called Schizophrenic Doctrine but they have not had a chance to publish it - the editors here are understaffed).

I will keep up with the conversation there.

Thanks

03-31-2014, 01:29 AM

wm---what is with this comment referencing "fallacy"---the last time we had this use of the term it was from mirhond if I recall correctly about four hundred postings ago on this thread and he would use it in the same exact way if I recall his comments---you were not in the same class with the same teacher by the way?

"Nice double question fallacy on your part."
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Unlike mirhond, to whom you inappropriately compared me, I do not to just drop the fallacy bomb whenever I feel like it. I chose to point out that JMA had committed a significant fallacy with the text I quoted. He made assumptions that "appeasement is at the core of the current response" and that I knew this to be the case. He then proceeded to ask whether I denied the truth of these two unproved assumptions on his part. My response include the double question "Have you stopped beating your wife" To answer yes would affirm that he had previously beat his wife but now has stopped. To answer no would be to say that he is still beating his wife. Now I do not know whether JMA is married, but I suspect he would not like one to assume that he has ever been a wife beater, which one must accept by answer the question I posed. I did not want to be painted in to such a corner, which is what his question did.

]"By the way your prior post about Breedlove commenting on Russia's ability to sprint across the Ukraine (my poor paraphrase of your post) came to light in an article in the NY Post--not exactly a quality source unless you are looking for scandal and innuendo."[/B]

So I guess in the true mirhond fashion you do not like NYT writers for what reasons---poor English grammar, poor research etc. I attributed the source as the NY Post--a far different newspaper than the NYT (aka New York Times) And thanks for the second unfounded slur. As a quid pro quo for that comment, I quess it is appropriate to ask when we can expect you to start quoting from the Weekly World News, People Magazine, WonderWall's web site and the National Inquirer.

By the way the Breedlove comment was carried by NATO's own homepage as well as CNN as well as the Kiev Post as well as der Spiegel who I am assuming you feel that they are all looking for scandal and innuendo.

Do you not get that the purpose of most media is to make money? A secondary goal is swaying opinion to their financial/governmental sponsors' point of view. Telling the truth is at best only tertiary.

03-31-2014, 01:49 AM

You try and do a list of the reasons why as applicable to this scenario... afterall you seem to be on the side of those who see no threat from Russian military adventurism.

As you so often accuse others, it now seems to be your turn to be unable to state a concrete position and instead just do some Google searching followed by selective cutting/pasting to support your backward looking search for the responsible parties who should be blamed for their mistakes.
For starters, perhaps you could justify your assuming that I see no threat from Russian military adventurism. In point of fact I see a significant threat--and not just from the Russians. I also see a threat from a ill-considered knee-jerk response to that adventurism which, as I previously posted (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=154222&postcount=694), could devolve into a nuclear-armed "Guns of August." Your posts seem to paint you as a fan of historical parallels (whether they appropriately apply or not). Here's one for you. The last "War to End All Wars" started in a year whose last two digits were 14.

Dayuhan

03-31-2014, 04:23 AM

He is in fact chasing the Czarist dreams of an all Russian empire--nothing more nothing less and he has a military force able to implement with short lines of communication and after 13 years of chasing jihadi's NATO has nothing to counter with.

Whoa, hold on... a few posts back Putin was trying to resurrect the Soviet Union (I believe that was presented as "a given"). Now he's trying to resurrect the Russian Empire. Which is it? Surely we are not pretending that the two were the same thing.

I've no doubt that Putin goes to bed at night dreaming of resurrected grandeur and potency, and of a return to imaginary glories that never really existed. He's hardly unique in that. I suspect that he wakes up to reality. He might, if he is presented with or able to contrive sufficient opportunity, be able to break off and reclaim a few Russian-dominated enclaves... it he and his elite inner circle are willing to put up with some pain and some risk. That would hardly equate to reconstituting the Russian Empire and would certainly not equate to a reconstituted Soviet Union.

What I think you're skating around here is the reality that an effort to build some sort of entity encompassing all Russian speakers and built on Russian nationalism is not even vaguely recreating the threat of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a threat to the US because it represented an ideology that had, at least in theory, the capacity to root and grow in any environment, and to seek to control any nation. Russian nationalism is not Communism, nor does it represent an equivalent threat.

If we speak of threat, we obviously have to ask who is threatened. In this case, nations bordering Russia that have significant Russian-dominated enclaves have every reason to feel threatened, especially if those enclaves are restive or have a separatist history. Nations that were once under the Soviet boot but have no significant concentration of ethnic Russians would be concerned, but might not perceive a direct threat. Western Europeans may not feel threatened at all, and we'd be hard pressed to define any direct threat to the US.

The key for the US, I think, is to remain calm, resist the wailing and rending of garments that goes with that "return of the Cold War" mantra, and remember that the nations of Europe are individually and collectively mature, capable, and very much able to make their own determinations about threat. Finland has been mentioned as a potential target... but do we need to go dashing out to tell the Finns how threatened they ought to feel? Of course not. The assessment of threat to Finland is for the Finns to determine. If they feel they need help, they will ask for it, and if they do, we should provide it, to the extent that it's compatible with our objectives and capacities. The same applies to others who believe they are (or are not) threatened.

There's a difference between trying to place a threat in a reasonable perspective and denying that any threat exists.

Dayuhan

03-31-2014, 04:41 AM

Here you go again.

And there you go again, resorting to ad hominem in the absence of substance

This sounds like a repeat of your comments at the start of the Syrian crisis. You were 100% wrong then and with that track record I remain amazed you have the gall to try to sell your arguments on this thread. You have a very thick skin.

Out of curiosity, I looked at early posts (mid 2011) on the Syria threads. The opinion I expressed then was that while Syria was likely to devolve into a stellar mess, the US had no critical or even pressing interests at stake, US involvement was unlikely to make things better and could easily make them worse, and that the US should therefore STFO. I certainly don't think that was "100% wrong"; I retain the same opinion to this day. I am very happy that the US had the wisdom to avoid wading into that particular mess.

Funny how I read the international press and when you next post see you repeating the same line. You ever have original thoughts?

I don't know what you read of "the international press". From what I've seen much of the opinion writing on the Ukraine reflects the same bizarre tendency I see here: speaking of the issue as a confrontation between the US and Russia or even between Obama and Putin, and disregarding the role that Europe needs to play.

I see little need to revise an opinion simply because others share it. If somebody were to present compelling and well substantiated arguments against that opinion, that would be another story.

OUTLAW 09

03-31-2014, 06:06 AM

wm---here is a single comment from yourself which shows that yes you seem to be attempting to quote accurately, you seem to like to take comments apart as does mirhond and Dayuhan which is actually an easier route to go.

"Despite your assertion to the contrary, a US COCOM Commander does not have the prerogative to cancel Congressional hearings. GEN Breedlove did not act on his own initiative. He was told to go back to Europe by the SecDef. And GEN Breedlove could easily be back in DC for the Tuesday hearings."

Have I quoted it accurately?

Happy you agree that yes between yourself and mirhond you both argue in the same fashion.

The comment that reflects you seem to not understand the relationship between a Commander and the Sec Def---Breedlove was directed by the Sec Def to return in fact yes as the Sec Def is his Commander ---that order dictates what he does and the hearing was cancelled by his boss the Sec Def--he will not be back on Tuesday as the meeting was formally cancelled---he is back in NATO simply because of the threat of Russian troops who are not being withdrawn by the Russians and that is the US message he is carrying in his person--you can check the multiple reporting from the Kerry meeting which confirms that simple fact---so where is in theory the difference in what I said and what you write? He is back right and the meeting cancelled right and he is not going back on Tuesday right----come on wm get it right if one critiques others.

I could go all day in taking each of your sentences apart---but I am more interested in what you are saying not in the how you are saying it and lately you are all over the map---that is the inherent problem when trying to dissect each sentence and statement---much as mirhond did and Dayuhan does.

OUTLAW 09

03-31-2014, 06:18 AM

Dayuhan----you are better sometimes and bad at others.

If one understands nationalism especially Russian nationalism whiuch goes back to the Czarist days and the nationalism tied to the glory of the Soviet Union as a "superpower" the two are in fact the same.

Review both forms and you will notice Putin is working both of them in his messaging to the world and to the Russian population.

The Russian are not pulling back and are still very much interested in matching into the Ukraine--the problem is that the initial reasons which they used for the Crimea are not working currently in the Ukraine as both the Ukraine/US/NATO/EU have worked hard in the last two weeks to eliminate the Russian arguments actually quite successfully.

So they are attempting to reestablish new arguments which if you and say wm would expand out the reading to "see and understand" the other view point say reading Interfax or TASS.

I have over the last three days pasted in the comments at least three new arguments the Russians are attempting to establish as a legal reason for moving.

OUTLAW 09

03-31-2014, 06:28 AM

wm/Dayuhan---this is how one reads the world press and you can critique the quote if you like.

Thoroughly read the released verbiage by Kerry in any of the leading articles and watch his video and then compare it against this short Interfax PR and one notices just how the Russians spin---or you can go back to the linked article I posted on the Russian government directions for news reporting standards issued to the Russian TV---and yes it is the same concept.

Then dissect in your fashion what Kerry formally stated to the Interfax PR.

You will I hope notice two distinct worlds---look at how the Russians define "working with" vs say the position of NATO/US/EU when they use the term "working with".

03/31 09:09 RUSSIA, U.S. AGREE TO WORK WITH UKRAINIAN GOVT, PEOPLE ON CRISIS SETTLEMENT- LAVROV

Dayuhan

03-31-2014, 08:16 AM

If one understands nationalism especially Russian nationalism whiuch goes back to the Czarist days and the nationalism tied to the glory of the Soviet Union as a "superpower" the two are in fact the same.

Review both forms and you will notice Putin is working both of them in his messaging to the world and to the Russian population.

We all understand nationalism. It is not some arcane and rarefied concept.

Apart from the rather peripheral fact that they share a place in the idyllic and distorted memory lane of past Russian greatness, the Czarist empire and the Soviet Union have virtually nothing in common. The Soviet Union was intended to be the core of a global communist movement that could (and to some extent did) challenge the West in every corner of the globe and could theoretically have become a venue for global domination... of course that failed because at the end of the day Communism sucked, but the intent was there.

The Czarist empire had no such ambition and posed no such threat. It was a real threat to weak and defenseless neighbors, a very remote threat to the major powers of Europe, and no threat art all to the US. The two are not the same thing, far from it.

The Russian are not pulling back and are still very much interested in matching into the Ukraine--the problem is that the initial reasons which they used for the Crimea are not working currently in the Ukraine as both the Ukraine/US/NATO/EU have worked hard in the last two weeks to eliminate the Russian arguments actually quite successfully.

Do you really think they are so concerned with arguments and reasons? Or are they assessing the consequences that might or might not be imposed, and/or trying to organize an incident that could be used as a pretext. I assume that Ukrainian authorities realize that it would not be smart to respond to a Russian nationalist rally by breaking heads, even if the participants richly deserve it.

So they are attempting to reestablish new arguments which if you and say wm would expand out the reading to "see and understand" the other view point say reading Interfax or TASS.

I have over the last three days pasted in the comments at least three new arguments the Russians are attempting to establish as a legal reason for moving.

Yes, we see this stuff. It's pretty crude. So what?

wm/Dayuhan---this is how one reads the world press and you can critique the quote if you like.

Thoroughly read the released verbiage by Kerry in any of the leading articles and watch his video and then compare it against this short Interfax PR and one notices just how the Russians spin---or you can go back to the linked article I posted on the Russian government directions for news reporting standards issued to the Russian TV---and yes it is the same concept.

Then dissect in your fashion what Kerry formally stated to the Interfax PR.

You will I hope notice two distinct worlds---look at how the Russians define "working with" vs say the position of NATO/US/EU when they use the term "working with".

03/31 09:09 RUSSIA, U.S. AGREE TO WORK WITH UKRAINIAN GOVT, PEOPLE ON CRISIS SETTLEMENT- LAVROV

Yes, we're all aware that Russia produces a large quantity of generally pretty unsophisticated propaganda. Again, what's the point?

JMA

03-31-2014, 08:28 AM

Nit-pick, nit-pick, nit-pick... whatever floats your boat.

We all understand nationalism. It is not some arcane and rarefied concept.

snip

JMA

03-31-2014, 08:55 AM

Russia playing the US the 'two steps forward, one step back' routine.

Promises of Diplomacy but No Advances in Ukraine Talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/world/europe/kerry-and-russian-counterpart-meet-on-ukraine-crisis.html?_r=0)

Incredibly the US has rolled over and spread its legs over the Russian annexation of Crimea and the 'theft' of Ukrainian naval vessels, aircraft and anti-aircraft missile systems.

The once great US has been reduced to demanding - without result to date - that the Russians pull their military back from the Russian/Ukrainian border but not from Crimea nor reverse the annexation.

Now it appears Russia will be prepared to take 'one step back' but not without additional terms and conditions being extracted by Russia from an all but impotent US WH.

This is history in the making. Sad to see Russia humiliating the US with such ruthless cruelty... but it has been coming for some time now.

JMA

03-31-2014, 09:30 AM

Out of curiosity, I looked at early posts (mid 2011) on the Syria threads. The opinion I expressed then was that while Syria was likely to devolve into a stellar mess, the US had no critical or even pressing interests at stake, US involvement was unlikely to make things better and could easily make them worse, and that the US should therefore STFO. I certainly don't think that was "100% wrong"; I retain the same opinion to this day. I am very happy that the US had the wisdom to avoid wading into that particular mess.

Oh dear.

Lets work through it then.

This is the thread:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=12821&highlight=Syria

Consider this a test of your integrity.

Stan

03-31-2014, 10:24 AM

Stan,

The dynamics of Nationalism in a individualistic democracy (Bush) and Ethnicity or Religion in a communal society (Putin) are different. Ethnic wars can go on for centuries but Democracies lose interest in Nationalistic fights in about 5-7 years. When I have more time I will provide references, but don't confuse the two, they are not the same.

Stan,

Yes, I’m well aware of the differences with 20 years in this country and 12 collective years in 7 African countries. But I can always be confused :D

While Putin and company certainly tried to rouse the ethnic Russians in Estonia, it required more than just fighting words and there was sufficient evidence of paying people to incite and organize violence. It would have been far simpler to drive into Estonia and take over the town of Narva, but yet, they didn’t. In this case, ethnicity wasn’t enough.

The Russian youth in the Baltic States have no desire to return to Russia, nor a return to deprivation. They are however just ignorant enough to take on a dare when feed alcohol and being paid to incite violence. They also know just how to push the Estonians into a brawl.

Regards, Stan

davidbfpo

03-31-2014, 10:52 AM

There are a number of posts in this thread which detract from the discussion and do not help. So those responsible stop.

The Crimean crisis deserves nothing better than 'Stay calm, Carry on'.

OUTLAW 09

03-31-2014, 11:38 AM

Dayuhan---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
"We all understand nationalism. It is not some arcane and rarefied concept."

Based on this comment would you then say that there are two different forms of nationalism at work inside Russia?
1. one is what I call the "populist" version being driven by the Russian population (from Czarist days)
2. and one is "hegemonic" being driven by the Russian elite ie Putin and Co. (from Comrade Stalin's SU days)

While both interact and are driving each other each ---their themes and or messaging is quite different which is something one would not normally anticipate in the common usage of the term nationalism.

In addition to the various themes and messaging there is also at the Russian political level ie Putin the use of specific terms and words that mean one thing for the Russians and another for the West---intractably tied to both styles of nationalism .

Example---when Kerry states that the new form of government is to be determined by the Ukrainians the Russians say yes BUT this is what we want as a solution---a "federated"state ie a federated country definitely means something to the West but is it exactly the same as meant by Russia?---no it is not.

Does say an "military exercise" in Western terms equal that of say the Russians are saying---where parking 80K troops on one's immediate border is being defined as an "exercise", but internally it is being viewed by the Russians as a not so subtle signal to their neighbor by what they mean "federated".

Dayuhan it is all about the use of words and how those words are being used and believe me I am not so sure you understand just how "nationalism" is being used by the Russians.

If one does in fact fully understand the two types of Russian nationalism then it is really easy to go back and review their actions and statements for the last ten years ---then their entire thinking process is very easy to comprehend.

In the US diplomacy and I think Bill M will agree we have not been good at picking up the not so subtle signs of nationalism being expressed by the Arab springs and the "colored" revolts and now by the Russians.

One could in fact be writing a current Ph.D thesis on nationalism just by taking the various statements by the Russian elites and Putin and Co. and compare them to the words being used by Interfax, TASS, and Russian TV compare them to the various social media comments being sent by the individual Russian population against what is being said in the West.

That is why right now the US diplomacy seems to be struggling-which I think is where JMA is coming from--if I can see it then my next question is why are they the US not seeing it themselves?

Again your comment is correct;
"It is not some arcane and rarefied concept."

My response is yes while it is not some arcane and rarefied concept just when was the last time you read something along the lines of say Russian or Islamic nationalism written here in SWJ or for that matter any new political articles on the exact same topic in say the last ten years?

That is the core question.

Dayuhan

03-31-2014, 12:25 PM

Based on this comment would you then say that there are two different forms of nationalism at work inside Russia?

1. one is what I call the "populist" version being driven by the Russian population (from Czarist days)
2. and one is "hegemonic" being driven by the Russian elite ie Putin and Co. (from Comrade Stalin's SU days)

That sounds less like two discrete nationalisms than like a fundamental nationalist impulse being expressed in different terms by different segments of the population, and being manipulated to serve elite agendas. This is neither surprising nor unique: elite manipulation of nationalist impulses is as old as nationalist impulses.

Of course different nations, and different groups within nations, express the nationalist impulse in terms and goals specific to their own circumstances... but I don't see how any of this supports the rather extreme threat assessments we sometimes see here.

My response is yes while it is not some arcane and rarefied concept just when was the last time you read something along the lines of say Russian or Islamic nationalism written here in SWJ or for that matter any new political articles on the exact same topic in say the last ten years?

Nationalism is a regular feature of discussions on East Asia. I recall bringing it up in a discussion of the "Asian Pivot" not so long ago, pointing out that people long immersed in conflict with non-state and trans-state actors were going to have to adjust to an environment dominate by traditional nation-states and strong nationalist sentiments.

"Islamic nationalism" is to me an oxymoron, but I am perhaps excessively rigorous with definitions.

Russian nationalism is discussed in pol sci journals, I suppose less so in the mainstream press. People write books about it:

http://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Russian_Nationalism_and_the_National_Rea.html?id=a JDfIL_ii_EC&redir_esc=y

Certainly there is material out there. What's not clear to me, again, is how all this supports an elevated assessment of threat.

Firn

03-31-2014, 12:37 PM

I think it is indeed important to point out that Putin's Russia is not a threat to the free World as the Soviet one was. The Soviet Union was, without going into Marxist hairsplitting, the most powerful state of an ideology, which it rappresented and supported to different degrees. It was attrative to many, including the wealthier West and this made it of course a lot easier to project power on a world wide stage.

Putin's Russia does to some extent use the ideas and memories of the 'good, old' days in the SU and not only for the propaganda value. This EurasianUnion and his older comments on the tragedy of the SU's fall indicated that some of those old ideas still play a considerable part in the political process in the Kremlin. The loss of an empire is usually hard to stomach. Nationalism is another motif driving the agenda as well as anti-Western feeling.

At least this is my take on it.

Fuchs

03-31-2014, 12:43 PM

Regarding nationalism and Russians; which Russians?

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/commonwealth/ussr_ethnic_1974.jpg
This USSR map shows of course a couple regions more than today's Russia, but it also omits a couple Tatar minority regions in Western Russia.

Still, you can see how Russia is hardly a nation state in European style. Russia and China had instead grown so very large and were assembled when illiteracy was still widespread. (http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2014/3/6/why-is-the-basque-country-more-violent-than-catalunya.html) These multi-ethnic countries were probably for these reasons able to survive while others such as Austria-Hungary or later Yugoslavia did not.

OUTLAW 09

03-31-2014, 02:44 PM

Dayuhan---while you might argue that nationalism is just nationalism and there is really no difference as is argued by some historians/political science professors others might break nationalism into the following categories;

1 Ethnic nationalism
2 Civic nationalism
3 Expansionist nationalism (imperialism)
4 Romantic nationalism
5 Cultural nationalism
6 Post colonial nationalism
7 Liberation nationalism
8 Left-wing nationalism
9 Liberal nationalism
10 National conservatism
11 Schools of anarchism which acknowledge nationalism
12 Religious nationalism
13 Pan-nationalism
14 Diaspora nationalism

Russian foreign policy as defined by the Putin Duma speech could in fact be a Doctrine of sorts meaning I will if I feel it necessary take over any territory that has any size of "mistreated Russians"---he defines in the Duma speech then Russians being based on ethnicity, language and culture or what Interfax recently called "genetic fund". Or if one uses the nationalism list above points 1,2 and 5.

If one really analyzed Putin's speech you would see a tad bit if not a massive bit of what the Germans called prior to the Nazi's coming to power a movement in Germany called "Blut und Boden" (points 1, 4, and 5) which set the nationalism stage for the Nazi movement to succeed.

Even Germans picked up on the "Blut und Boden" bits in his speech but we somehow missed them.

I guess if you accept the list then my use of the term hegemonic nationalism equates with point 3 or expansionist/imperialist nationalism.

Russian nationalism has taken multiple different interacting forms since the 18th century ---then expanded under the last few Czars and really expanded using the Red Army boots on the ground during WW2 in a "communist" expansion nationalism.

If we look at this Interfax PR from today you will notice the subtle form of nationalism inside the PR using ethnicity, language and culture all specific forms of nationalism in a not to subtle expansionism threat as voiced by Putin in the Duma where he stated that he had the right to protect "mistreated Russian groups" regardless in what country.

What is interesting is that one could use the Putin Doctrine to argue say in San Antonia Texas that the Mexican government needs to establish an armed presence in San Antonio to "defend the Spanish speaking people" from having to learn English in American schools. See just how dangerous this doctrine can be if it is allowed to become political reality anywhere in the world.

There was released recently a list of over 365 hotspots in the world where one country could annex another's territory using the Putin Doctrine.

MOSCOW. March 31 (Interfax) - The Russian Foreign Ministry is concerned by the Latvian authorities' plans for the teaching process to fully switch into the Latvian language as of 2018, and calls on the human rights agencies of the Council of Europe (CoE), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union (EU) to exert due pressure on Riga in order to stop discrimination of its Russian-speaking population.
"These education initiatives are another instance of the ongoing discriminatory policy of the Latvian authorities, aimed at the forced assimilation of the Russian-speaking population and the building of a mono-ethnic society in Latvia," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement posted on its website on Monday.
"The letters call for due pressure to be exerted on the Latvian authorities with the aim to stop discrimination of the Russian-speaking population based on their ethnicity and language," the ministry said.
Dolgov sent the letters to senior human rights officials in the CoE, the OSCE, and the EU, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

So again Dyauhan just how one splits the coffee bean just means your banana might in fact be my apple depending on how one defines the specific piece of fruit one is looking at.

While others might not even agree that it is a piece of fruit but that it is a flower or even a bird.

Have never been one for defining things in a strict fashion as do many professors, historians, or even bloggers---have been more for attempting to define it based on the environment where it is occurring and how it is "seen".

OUTLAW 09

03-31-2014, 03:09 PM

Dayuhan ---this is the problem that Russia is now having with it's nationalism---following the motto I took over the Crimea to "defend those poorly mistreated Russians---and the West just doe not understand" using expansionist nationalism couple to ethnic and cultural nationalism to motivate my own population in support of my political moves.

This cam in over Interfax today and it is interesting that Russian lawmakers when being briefed by OCSE reps and Russian is a signatory of the OCSE "think" that the OCSE's interpretation of internal law is wrong.

Especially when now Russia has to use any and all opportunities just to validate the Crimea takeover as being internationally legal.

Part of the theoretical problem Russia is facing is that they continue to complain about Russian mistreatment and the need for a federated region politically representing the proRussian community---now with the Crimea gone there are 1.5M fewer voters that would or could vote for the proRussian Ukrainian Regions Party so after the elections will Russia argue the ethnic Russians are "politically underrepresented" thus the vote was "illegal"?

Letting nationalism out of the bottle to drive international decisions is hard to put back into the bottle when suddenly the one that released it is in a corner.

March 31, 2014 17:40 OSCE reps to discuss Crimea with Russian lawmakers

MOSCOW. March 31 (Interfax) - Russian lawmakers think experts from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will only be able to monitor the Ukrainian presidential elections in Crimea after the OSCE recognizes Crimea as Russia's constituent territory.

President of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly Ranko Krivokapic told reporters in Moscow on Monday that the OSCE delegation plans to meet with State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin to discuss organizational aspects of the Ukrainian presidential elections. The OSCE mission will hopefully gain access to both sides of the border, he also said.

This issue will be discussed in talks with Naryshkin later on Monday, leader of the Russian permanent delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, State Duma Deputy Nikolai Kovlayov confirmed.

"If elections are to be held in Ukraine, polling stations must be opened in Crimea and in the rest of Russia in accordance with international law, to allow those who want to participate to cast their ballots," he said.

"But if this is to be done, Crimea must be recognized as Russia's constituent territory," Kovalyov said.

"We will honor all of our obligations in accordance with international agreements. The ball is in Ukraine's court now," he said.

OUTLAW 09

03-31-2014, 03:48 PM

Dayuhan---if we take this from the CEPA Report 35 and read through it would we find elements of Russian nationalism or in much of what I write about which is really Russian imperialism on two different levels one driven by the population the other driven by elites.

Who says nationalism is not alive and well in Russia?

The Russian seizure of Crimea poses a direct challenge to the post-Cold War security order in Europe. By forcibly altering the borders of a sovereign neighboring state, Russia has weakened the foundations of the post-Cold War territorial settlement and reintroduced geopolitics to Europe’s Eastern frontier.1 The Crimean incursion is a violation of three international agreements that have underpinned the stability of Eastern Europe and Ukraine (the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994
and the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997). The move marks the second time in five years that Vladimir Putin’s Russia has humiliated and dismembered an ex-Soviet state without encountering a strong reaction from the West. Compared with Russia’s brief but-bloody fight in the Caucasus during the 2008 Georgia War, the invasion of Crimea represents a significant escalation in Russian military ambition. Ukraine is the largest and most important country in Eastern Europe, with 45 million inhabitants and a strategically-vital
location straddling historic invasion routes and modern day energy transit links between Europe and Eurasia. With tens of thousands of Russian troops deployed in and around Ukraine, the crisis has profound implications for the military balance of power in the region and longer-term configuration of the former Soviet Union and neighboring Central and Eastern Europe.

Stan

03-31-2014, 04:01 PM

This cam in over Interfax today and it is interesting that Russian lawmakers when being briefed by OCSE reps and Russian is a signatory of the OCSE "think" that the OCSE's interpretation of internal law is wrong.

Especially when now Russia has to use any and all opportunities just to validate the Crimea takeover as being internationally legal.

You're not keen on responding to me, so I'll make this as short as possible.

Attempting to find your interfax links is a PITA. If you really want us to read more on the posts, you need to step a bit further forward. It is after all just a copy and paste manoeuvre and then hit the globe with chain links at the top of the text box and voilà.

You probably already read about purported withdrawal of Russian forces and the guestimated numbers. We've gone from a SWAG of 80K down now to 10 K. Those Ruskkies must be a fast bunch :wry:. But just in case, here it is (please note the use of a quote box, as these are not my words, but the author's).

Russia is gradually reducing the number of troops stationed near its border with Ukraine, a Kiev official said on Monday.

... the Russian forces have been gradually withdrawing from the border (http://www.france24.com/en/20140331-russia-gradually-withdrawing-troops-ukraine-border/)," the spokesman for the Ukrainian defence ministry's general staff, Oleksiy Dmytrashkivskiy, told the AFP news agency in a telephone interview.

Dmytrashkivskiy said he could not confirm how many soldiers the drawdown involved or the number of troops still stationed at Russia's border with its former Soviet satellite.

But an analyst with Kiev's Centre for Military and Political Studies, Dmytro Tymchuk, said that his sources had told him that Russia had only 10,000 soldiers remaining near the border as of Monday morning.

Stan

03-31-2014, 04:42 PM

Dayuhan---while you might argue that nationalism is just nationalism and there is really no difference as is argued by some historians/political science professors others might break nationalism into the following categories;

Sorry to cut your quoted text short. For those interested, it's also listed here.

Types of nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_nationalism)

I'm curious however, not regarding just how we did not second guess Putin, but, how Putin operates.

Not a land grab, just a swift kick in the Alpha and immediately gone. What a mistake, if his worst fears were further expansion of NATO and US Force presence on his back door.

Nothing nationalistic nor ethnic here. He blew it.

TheCurmudgeon

03-31-2014, 04:59 PM

We all understand nationalism. It is not some arcane and rarefied concept.

It may not be an arcane or rarefied concept, but that does not mean it is understood (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/).

In essense, there are two ways to be part of a nation. The first is by identity at birth, associated with ethnic or religious identity. This is the involuntary type. The second is by voluntary association, as in a country like the US where the nation was created through a common set of ideals and a struggle to achieve and maintain those ideals.

Classical nationalism is the political program that sees the creation and maintenance of a fully sovereign state owned by a given ethno-national group (“people” or “nation”) as a primary duty of each member of the group. Starting from the assumption that the appropriate (or “natural”) unit of culture is an ethno-nation it claims that a primary duty of each member is to abide in cultural matters by one's recognizably ethno-national culture.

...versus...

Nationalism in a wider sense is any complex of attitudes, claims and directives for action ascribing a fundamental political, moral and cultural value to nation and nationality and deriving obligations (for individual members of the nation, and for any involved third parties, individual or collective) from this ascribed value.

When it comes to how it affects a population there are two sides to it: the first is the irrational belief in a common "consciousness", and the second is an irrational distrust of outsiders.

Let us now turn to question (1c), the nature of pro-national attitudes. The explanatory issue that has interested political and social scientists concerns ethno-nationalist sentiment, the paradigm case of a pro-national attitude. Is it as irrational, romantic and indifferent to self-interest as it might seem on the surface? The issue has divided authors who see nationalism as basically irrational and those who try to explain it as being at least in some sense rational. Authors in the first camp, who see it as irrational, propose various explanations of why people assent to irrational views. Some say, critically, that nationalism is based on “false consciousness”. But where does such false consciousness come from? The most simplistic view is that it is a result of direct manipulation of “masses” by “elites”. On the opposite side, the famous critic of nationalism, Elie Kedourie (1960) sees this irrationality as being spontaneous. Liah Greenfeld has recently gone as far as linking nationalism to mental illness in her provocative (2005) article. On the opposite side, Michael Walzer has offered a sympathetic account of nationalist passion in his (2002). Authors relying upon the Marxist tradition offer various deeper explanations. To mention one, the French structuralist Étienne Balibar sees it as a result of “production” of ideology effectuated by mechanisms which have nothing to do with spontaneous credulity of individuals, but with impersonal, structural social factors (Balibar and Wallerstein, 1992). (For an overview of Marxist approaches see Glenn 1997). Consider now the other camp, those who see nationalist sentiments as being rational, at least in a very wide sense. Some authors claim that it is often rational for individuals to become nationalists (Hardin 1985). Consider the two sides of the nationalist coin. First, identification and cohesion within the ethno-national group has to do with inter-group cooperation, and cooperation is easier for those who are part of the same ethno-national group. To take an example of ethnic ties in a multiethnic state, a Vietnamese newcomer to the States will do well to rely on his co-nationals: common language, customs and expectations might help him a lot in finding his way in new surroundings. Once the ties are established and he has become part of a network, it is rational to go on cooperating, and ethnic sentiment does secure the trust and the firm bond needed for smooth cooperation. A further issue is when it is rational to switch sides; to stay with our example, when does it become profitable for our Vietnamese to develop an all-American patriotism. This has received a detailed elaboration in David Laitin (1998, summarized in 2001; applied to language rights in Laitin and Reich 2004; see also Laitin 2007), who uses material from the former Soviet Union. The other side of the nationalist coin has to do with conflict between various ethno-nations. It concerns non-cooperation with the outsiders, which can go very far indeed. Can one rationally explain the extremes of ethno-national conflict? Authors like Russell Hardin propose to do it in terms of a general view of when hostile behavior is rational: most typically, if you have no reason to trust someone, it is reasonable to take precautions against him. If both sides take precautions, however, each will tend to see the other as being seriously inimical. It then becomes rational to start treating the other as an enemy. Mere suspicion can thus lead by small, individually rational steps, to a situation of conflict. (Such negative development is often presented as a variant of the so-called Prisoner's Dilemma.) Now, it is relatively easy to spot the circumstances in which this general pattern applies to national solidarities and conflicts. The line of thought just sketched is often called the “rational choice approach”. It has enabled the application of conceptual tools from game-theoretic and economic theories of cooperative and non-cooperative behavior to the explanation of ethno-nationalism.

That probably didn't help explain much, other than the common in-group/out-group distictions found in nationalist attitudes.

Sorry for the edits, trying to make it less bulky, more to the point. If I had more time I would have written a shorter post

TheCurmudgeon

03-31-2014, 05:04 PM

Stan,

Yes, I’m well aware of the differences with 20 years in this country and 12 collective years in 7 African countries. But I can always be confused :D

My apologies, I did not intend to appear condescending.

While Putin and company certainly tried to rouse the ethnic Russians in Estonia, it required more than just fighting words and there was sufficient evidence of paying people to incite and organize violence. It would have been far simpler to drive into Estonia and take over the town of Narva, but yet, they didn’t. In this case, ethnicity wasn’t enough.

I agree, ethnic identity only creates a common bond. It does not create the intent to go to war on its own. Some other provocation is required.

Stan

03-31-2014, 05:40 PM

My apologies, I did not intend to appear condescending.

I agree, ethnic identity only creates a common bond. It does not create the intent to go to war on its own. Some other provocation is required.

Stan,

Appreciate that and no offense taken.

I know I often sound like I could care less, or, even don’t fully appreciate the significance of ethnicity in low intensity conflicts.

Being 1 of a 3-man team during the Rwandan genocide meant no second guessing, or it would cost you your life. I appreciated and calculated the hatred against the French and the distance with the remainder of the West.

I didn’t have to fully understand it, but I did need to get it right with over 4,000 dying a day all around us, and an exiled army hiding in the bush.

So, I appreciate the academic descriptions but the reality is, our administration could care less and wants fast answers without the anthro spin on things. What we do however need is a smart decision based on knowing all this Sierra and turn it into an executive summary in 5 lines or less.

davidbfpo

03-31-2014, 07:02 PM

From The Daily Beast:
The slaughter of 53 protesters in the Maidan on February 20 changed history. Now, exclusive photographs show what really happened.....Most of the photographs accompanying this article were taken on February 20, and they appear to reveal the truth about who carried out the shootings in Independence Square on that day—a fateful one for both Ukraine and for Europe, which suddenly witnessed the continent’s worst political violence of the 21st century. The pictures shared exclusively with The Daily Beast show members of a crack anti-terrorist unit known as the Alfa Team in the courtyard of the headquarters of Ukraine’s feared state security service, the SBU, preparing themselves for battle.

Link:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/30/exclusive-photographs-expose-russian-trained-killers-in-kiev.html

There are only ten photos, minus any context of the building, but an early post linked to a long YouTube clip of armed men with such armbands IIRC.

Not sure if I'd be 100% certain the Ukrainian Alfa (Alpha?) were Russian-trained. The Ukraine has been independent for over twenty years and capable of training its own CT unit.

JMA

03-31-2014, 07:41 PM

From The Daily Beast:

Link:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/30/exclusive-photographs-expose-russian-trained-killers-in-kiev.html

There are only ten photos, minus any context of the building, but an early post linked to a long YouTube clip of armed men with such armbands IIRC.

Not sure if I'd be 100% certain the Ukrainian Alfa (Alpha?) were Russian-trained. The Ukraine has been independent for over twenty years and capable of training its own CT unit.

David, the US and the Brits always offer to train special forces and Presidential Guards probably more as a means to gain intel of key members and collect general intel on capabilities etc than anything else. No doubt the Russians play the same game.

carl

04-01-2014, 03:57 AM

From The Daily Beast:

Link:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/30/exclusive-photographs-expose-russian-trained-killers-in-kiev.html

There are only ten photos, minus any context of the building, but an early post linked to a long YouTube clip of armed men with such armbands IIRC.

Not sure if I'd be 100% certain the Ukrainian Alfa (Alpha?) were Russian-trained. The Ukraine has been independent for over twenty years and capable of training its own CT unit.

All those easily identifiable faces. I wonder how many of those guys are still in Ukraine.

Dayuhan

04-01-2014, 05:29 AM

Dayuhan---while you might argue that nationalism is just nationalism and there is really no difference as is argued by some historians/political science professors others might break nationalism into the following categories

As I said, the nationalist impulse can manifest itself in different ways in different circumstances.

What is interesting is that one could use the Putin Doctrine to argue say in San Antonia Texas that the Mexican government needs to establish an armed presence in San Antonio to "defend the Spanish speaking people" from having to learn English in American schools. See just how dangerous this doctrine can be if it is allowed to become political reality anywhere in the world.

I suppose the Chinese could also apply it to the rapidly growing number of Chinese nationals in Eastern Siberia as well.

So again Dyauhan just how one splits the coffee bean just means your banana might in fact be my apple depending on how one defines the specific piece of fruit one is looking at.

Yes, that's always the case. What you're not explaining is how any of this supports or explains your assumptions regarding threat in the current circumstances.

Have never been one for defining things in a strict fashion as do many professors, historians, or even bloggers---have been more for attempting to define it based on the environment where it is occurring and how it is "seen".

It's difficult to have a conversation without some sort of functioninh consensus on what the terms in play mean.

Dayuhan---if we take this from the CEPA Report 35 and read through it would we find elements of Russian nationalism or in much of what I write about which is really Russian imperialism on two different levels one driven by the population the other driven by elites.

I don't see "elements of Russian Nationalism" there, just another fairly breathless assessment of impending doom.

You could say that current events represent a challenge to the "post-Cold War territorial settlement", or you could say that it exposed certain weaknesses in that settlement, namely the stranding of Russian enclaves in non-Russian nations. As we see so often in Africa, when national boundaries don't line up with ethnic divisions, there's often trouble. There are different ways to deal with that. Sometimes people move: hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians have moved out of the "'Stans", particularly Kazakhstan, and back to Russia since the collapse of the USSR. Sometimes the solution may be adjusting a border. It does not seem an unimaginable thing.

Who says nationalism is not alive and well in Russia?

I don't know, is anybody saying that?

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 06:12 AM

Dayuhan---who taught you that taking sentence by sentence making your own comments is a form of dialogue?

IMHO this is what the leftist students did in the years 60/70s in Germany and guess what in the 90s they are actually quiet and have not seen their voices since then---strange is it not.

Back to nationalism---these is also two new forms of nationalism that just cropped up in the Russian dialogue as seen in Interfax this morning from last night and over the last few days.

Economic/political nationalism are now political tools being used by Putin---as I mentioned to you earlier in comments directed to you Putin is jammed up right now by his earlier moves in the Crimea. So how does he come out of the jam---he uses nationalism in new undefined forms and it appears to the West just to be "politics". We have since the Cold War days in the West looked at the "politics", but we never did understand the underlying nationalisms that was driving those "politics" we were "seeing".

Some in the Force have actually understand the concept of "seeing and understanding" but they are few and far between.

The reasons he used there are not working currently as the Ukrainian oligarchs in the east and south have made a decision that business inside the EU is better than the CIS/Russia and are damping down the proRussian groups and the Ukrainian security forces are getting better at fishing out Russian agents/provocateurs and are controlling better the busses coming from Russia.

So where to with an argument that sounds "legal" in his head that he thinks he can "sell" the West on---the political and economic nationalism is next.

The political nationalism was started two days ago with arguments tied to the Russian suggested federation also released via Interfax and now the economic nationalism argument is being pushed considering the Moldavian enclave.

21:22 Economic woes may put Transdniestria on "unpredictable" path - Russian diplomat

So since you enjoy making individual comments then what is being implied by "unpredictable path".

Take the term and then provide for me a good workup of what it could be and how it would go into effect "politically".

JMA

04-01-2014, 07:45 AM

All those easily identifiable faces. I wonder how many of those guys are still in Ukraine.

If they are and are not 'disappearing' one by one then Ukraine is clearly incapable of looking after itself.

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 11:30 AM

Firn---there is talk by the Ukrainians just after the Russian announcement that the 40 or so Ukrainian vessels would be remaining under their control as well as the military posts and military equipment to include the military housing will be totaled and taken to international court where the Ukrainians will get an international order of repayment-(there is talk that Russia is trying to sidestep that court)--plus the rates were also set for the Black Sea Russian fleet until 2042 that while even though cancelled by the Russians are still internationally binding as the Crimea is not being internationally recognized.

Gazprom has taken over all Ukrainian gas and oil locations, equipment and control the drilling areas as well as the gas pipelines inside the Crimea---the Ukraine has indicated they will calculate that against anything Gazprom attempts to charge them.

Found this as well today----and the bottomless pit opens up for the Russian economy-----

Simferopol - Crimea's Regional Development Ministry has sent Russia's Finance Ministry a proposal to develop the peninsula's rural areas and the overall cost of the project is 150 billion rubles, Regional Development Minister Sergei Glebov said.

Stan

04-01-2014, 12:02 PM

Over and above the debt issue, one wonders about future loss of revenue to Gazprom. Econ 101 and price theory-- as price goes up demand goes down unless the demand is inelastic. Particularly with warmer weather coming to the region, how inelastic is Ukrainian natural gas demand?

Good point. They tried to also turn off our gas and rail, but, the idiots did it in early Summer :D

Firn

04-01-2014, 12:34 PM

@outlaw09: I think the Ukrainian government would be foolish to serve any loan or liability to the Russian government or de-facto SOE like Gazprom. The higher their debt becomes to that bunch the better it can be. :wry:

@Stan: The curse of a not that wealthy little country with a small market living next to Putin's Russia...

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 01:33 PM

Firn---this is an issue which surprises one about Russia---regardless of how they act and what they do they seem to be adamant about maintaining legality in the international area of law---they have in the past given way when taken to court over outstanding debt and or unpaid debt so actually it might well work in reverse for the Ukrainians as they have with the threat of debt recovery gotten the Russians today to move a tad as it looks like they will get their ships/aircraft back after the court threat.

What is far more worrying is the increased rhetoric in comments on "mistreated Russians in the east---this from Interfax today was as well a report on the attempted arrest of a proRussian priest in Odessa for incitement;

Moscow - Members of the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russia's parliament, are worried about the fate of the "people's governor" of the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, Pavlo Hubarev, Russian Senator Igor Morozov has said. They claim he was badly beaten and is in a prison hospital.

MOSCOW. April 1 (Interfax) - Officers of Ukraine's special operations force Alfa came to the apartment of Odessa priest Oleh Mokryak in order to detain him, but the priest was not home, a representative of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations told Interfax.

"The priest has been accused of contacts with participants in Odessa demonstrations that criticized the policies pursued by the new Kyiv authorities," he said.

The Alfa group that came to the priest's apartment included ten officers armed with automatic weapons, he said.

Father Oleh, who serves at the St. Tatyana Church of the National Law Academy in Odessa and heads the diocese's department of missionary work, catechesis and religious education, was "earlier summoned to the Security Service of Ukraine over the phone," the representative said.

In a separate development, Ukrainian law enforcement officers searched the apartment of pro-Russian activist Valery Kaurov, who heads the Union of Orthodox Citizens of Ukraine, in Odessa on Tuesday morning.

Kaurov himself has said that he is "out of the reach of law enforcement agencies of Ukraine."

The second worry is---yes Putin pulled back one single lone mech infantry BN as a sign of "good faith"----but Merkel indicated this morning that is nowhere close to what Putin should be doing.

So for all the telephonic meetings between Kerry and the Russian FM---all for show and no substance.

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 01:49 PM

As the Ukrainians told Russia yesterday---before they complain about the Ukrainian governance they should clean up their own governance.

Another Russia governance complaint today via Interfax that goes a towards the Ukrainian comments----not so sure--must check it but I believe the Russians have a similar new law in place for about the last five months especially focused against demonstrators.

Another perfect example of Russian double standards---but it signals to me they are getting concerned that the Ukrainian security forces are finally recovering and getting focused far faster than the Russians thought they would especially towards internal threats.

April 01, 2014 15:54 Russia expects West, rights organizations to react to Ukrainian bill on preventive detentions
MOSCOW. April 1 (Interfax) - Russia is waiting for the West to react to the bill on preventive detentions of persons suspected of plotting crimes against national security, submitted to the Ukrainian parliament.

"The Russian side is waiting for its Western partners - the 'staunch' advocates of democratic reform, including in the post-Soviet space - to respond to the Ukrainian leadership's recent initiative. We also hope that Russian, Ukrainian and foreign human rights organizations will react accordingly," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a commentary on Tuesday.

"The bill would authorize the detentions of Ukrainian citizens who pose a threat to Ukraine and the Ukrainian public's interests, and to the country's territorial integrity. It would also introduce temporary rules of preventive detentions of persons 'suspected of plotting or committing crimes against Ukraine's national security," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

kaur

04-01-2014, 01:58 PM

Some weeks after Coup d'etat and annexion of Crimea Russia's defence minister talks about nazizm.

In light of the broad spread of the ideas of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, Russia must once again demonstrate its categorical refusal to accept fascism in the world at the Victory parade on May 9, Russian Defense Minister Army Gen. Sergei Shoigu said at a meeting at the defense ministry.

"Unlike Ukrainian right-wing radical forces who openly march in Ukrainian towns with fascist symbols, praise Bandera and other Nazi abettors, vandalize monuments to Soviet soldiers, Russians are actively preparing for a solemn celebration of the upcoming 70th anniversary of the liberation of Odessa, Kerch, Simferopol and other cities from German fascist occupiers," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_31/Russian-V-Day-parade-must-demonstrate-the-world-categorical-non-acceptance-of-fascism-Russian-Defense-Minister-4697/

Is this irony of faith? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EzUXybYgnw

davidbfpo

04-01-2014, 02:00 PM

First a photo from The Guardian, which has the IMHO an unlikely caption:
A woman walks past a train loaded with Ukrainian tanks which are set to leave the Crimean peninsular by the end of Monday.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/31/1396291085569/Train-loaded-with-Ukraini-007.jpg

Second a photo from FP's Morning Brief, which has no caption, but is alongside the headline 'No Evidence of Russian Drawdown as NATO Meets in Brussels'.

https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/W5kiuJGn1LwLPyH8OmnYImS4RZR1cEANn2rBLbSdt6yNGVyVKO ovMV7QrWvFce5-TyVKWuLcY4QFMJsotI1NWkfu9schVh4dn3FT4XzQ=s0-d-e1-ft#http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/mbrustank.jpg

JMA

04-01-2014, 02:10 PM

The second worry is---yes Putin pulled back one single lone mech infantry BN as a sign of "good faith"----but Merkel indicated this morning that is nowhere close to what Putin should be doing.

Yet the message was (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/31/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/):

Russian President Vladimir Putin told Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday that he'd ordered a partial withdrawal of Russian troops from his country's border area with Ukraine, Merkel's office said.

Then when it dawns on here that she has been 'had' by Putin:

The Kremlin made no mention of a withdrawal in its description of the call but said the two leaders discussed Ukraine, including "possibilities for international assistance to restore stability."

Merkel tricked into passing disinformation. NATO disagrees:

Ukraine crisis: No sign of Russian troop pullout - Nato (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26830336)

The Russians are having fun with the idiots from the US and Europe they are playing with. This is really sad.

So for all the telephonic meetings between Kerry and the Russian FM---all for show and no substance.

Obama / Kerry are falling for the Russian need to keep talking - thereby giving the appearance that they (the Russians) are committed to seek a diplomatic solution. The joke is on the US... again.

Stan

04-01-2014, 03:19 PM

@Stan: The curse of a not that wealthy little country with a small market living next to Putin's Russia...

Firn,
More like arm twisting.
Had he shut the gas off in the Winter, that would have been a major issue and would have required immediate remediation on Estonia's political party.

Stan

04-01-2014, 03:20 PM

First a photo from The Guardian, which has the IMHO an unlikely caption:

David,
Looks like loading onto rail cars.

Ever been in a tank :D

TheCurmudgeon

04-01-2014, 03:48 PM

I add this for three reasons.

First, it shows that younger people in the Ukraine MAY have a more liberal attitude towards each other than the Russian media may want to admit.

Second, it demonstrates that Americans may not fully comprehend what Putin means when he talks about protecting “Russian speakers”.

And third, the Russians have no sense of humor.

What 'The Simpsons' Says About Ukraine's Language Divide (http://kcur.org/post/what-simpsons-says-about-ukraines-language-divide)

Misha Kostin, a 21-year-old construction engineer in eastern Ukraine, loves The Simpsons. He's loved it for 10 years. He says the animated series "illustrates everyday life problems in humorous ways, and offers a useful moral at the end of each episode."

And though Kostin and most of the people in eastern Ukraine are native Russian speakers, he prefers to download episodes dubbed not in Russian but in his second language, Ukrainian. All his friends in the city of Donetsk prefer the version dubbed in Ukrainian.

"They talk in Russian, they think in Russian," and even their parents speak only Russian, he says of his friends. "But Simpsons? They like in Ukrainian."

Vladimir Lykov, creative director of an animation studio in Donetsk, agrees that The Simpsons is more popular in Ukrainian than are some other shows, like Family Guy.

In the recent crisis in Ukraine, much has been made of the divisions between Russian speakers, who are the majority in the east and the south, and the Ukrainian-speakers, who are dominant in the western part of the country.

But Lykov says language in Ukraine has always been more a political tool of division than an actual divide. People in eastern Ukraine — especially those under 35, who came of age after the Soviet Union collapsed — like being bilingual, he says.

"Unfortunately," he says, "The media likes to show that only Russians live here and only Ukrainians live in western Ukraine. Actually people here have no trouble understanding both languages. And Ukrainian is even funnier for Russian-speakers [because] it's got cleverer slang."

It appears the Simpsons are from the Ukraine, the Griffins are from Russia ...

davidbfpo

04-01-2014, 04:06 PM

David,
Looks like loading onto rail cars.

Ever been in a tank :D

Stan,

Indeed loading onto railway cars. I don't recall seeing heavy armour actually being deployed by the Russians in their 'fraternal assistance'. Nor do I think the Ukraine had any heavy armour in the Crimea. Let alone that Russia would return such equipment to the Ukraine.

Just illustrates how our mainstream media can confuse themselves and us. More likely it is Russian heavy armour in Russia (outside of the Crimea) being loaded or unloaded.

Yes I think I have been in a tank, stationary and in a simulator of an APC.

Stan

04-01-2014, 04:23 PM

Stan,

Indeed loading onto railway cars. I don't recall seeing heavy armour actually being deployed by the Russians in their 'fraternal assistance'. Nor do I think the Ukraine had any heavy armour in the Crimea. Let alone that Russia would return such equipment to the Ukraine.

Just illustrates how our mainstream media can confuse themselves and us. More likely it is Russian heavy armour in Russia (outside of the Crimea) being loaded or unloaded.

Yes I think I have been in a tank, stationary and in a simulator of an APC.

David,
I agree. More media hype than fact.

BTW, you don't need a ground guide to drive on dirt :rolleyes:

Stan

04-01-2014, 04:26 PM

TheCurmudgeon

04-01-2014, 04:37 PM

Stan,
My 50-year-old better half says that not even the Baltic States understand Putin and his protection rationale.

The Estonians watch the Simpsons in English !

I am sure that Putin's comments are for internal consumption and is code for protecting ethnic Russians. It is the kind of rational that most Russians can get behind. I believe it was stated elsewhere that the Russian Constitution even includes language requiring the government to protect Russians even when they are abroad. The comments probably bolster his ratings and help justify military action in the minds of many Russians.

Outside of Russia it probably sounds like he is out of his mind.

I do think it is interesting that Family Guy is better in Russian. Apparently being fat and selfish tranlsates well ... or Stewy reminds them of Putin.

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 04:37 PM

Stan/David---the tanks are I believe are in fact Russian T80s with modifications ie the second photo but with no protective skirt over the roller wheels which might be a shipping thing but it appears they are loading at a railhead and the first photo appears to be the T90 as the side skirt is straight and level through the entire side of the tank whereas the T80 has a wave shape (along the first three rollers) at the front portion of the side skirt. Both carry the same config in reactive amour.

The Ukrainians have the T80s as well but have not shown them in photos up on the border as they have them hidden for protection or bunkered in fixed locations only displaying the turret.

There was a exact replica of the tank on the railcar recently in the Kiev Post depicting Russian armor on the Crimean border.

The Russians had a Naval Marine unit on the Crimea with heavy tanks---the Russians have signaled they will return equipment but I agree with you that heavy weapons are probably not on that list and they have not stated when they will return the equipment.

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 04:45 PM

One has to a least appreciate the Russian insistence on whatever it is they are talking about even if it flies in the face of reality. Or maybe it was an April Fool's joke by the Russian Foreign Ministry. BUT one has to admire their alternate state of reality.

Taken from Interfax today;

April 01, 2014 17:30 Russia didn't violate Budapest Memorandum with regards to Ukraine - Foreign Ministry
MOSCOW. April 1 (Interfax) - Moscow rejects all claims it has violated its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum of December 5 1994.
"Concerning claims that Russia is demonstrating an unreliable nature of the concept of 'negative' security 'guarantees' for nonnuclear states, thus 'destroying' the nuclear nonproliferation regime, it should be underscored that the pledge not to use and not to threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states alone constitutes the common element of the Budapest Memorandum and of the 'negative guarantees' concept in its classical understanding. Russia has in no way violated this obligation with regards to Ukraine," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

NOTE: the following are the six points of the Budapest Agreement signed by Russia.

1.Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2.Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3.Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4.Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5.Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6.Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 05:03 PM

Firn---seems like Putin is a bit of an economist along with his other abilities.

Looks as if his KGB past was helpful in getting research materials for his thesis.

DID PUTIN PLAGIARIZE HIS DOCTORAL THESIS?
"The Washington Times" reported on March 25 2006 that two scholars at the Brookings Institution have demonstrated that parts of President Putin's 1997 doctoral dissertation were lifted verbatim or with minor changes from a Russian translation of a management study written at the University of Pittsburgh in 1978 (see "Russia: U.S. Academics Charge Putin With Plagiarizing Thesis"; rferl.org; March 27, 2006). Putin's thesis discusses how the state should best manage its wealth in natural resources.

Taken from the Washington Post March 18 2006:

Russia has a really big plagiarism problem. So many businessmen, academics and high-ranking government officials — President Vladimir Putin included — have been found to have plagiarized their college and doctoral theses that Russia’s education minister just denounced the revelations, saying they were hurting Russia’s reputation.

“People not versed in this topic will get the idea that all academics are cheats and liars,” Education and Science Minister Dmitry Livanov just told the Kommersant newspaper, according to a Russian news agency. ”It’s a severe reputational problem for Russian science.”

Firn---maybe this is why they overlooked the impact of the sanctions affecting them economically---"it's a severe reputational problem".

Stan

04-01-2014, 05:04 PM

NOTE: the following are the six points of the Budapest Agreement signed by Russia.

1.Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2.Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3.Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4.Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5.Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6.Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

Not to intentionally be picky herein, and while I see your point, there's a bit more to the Budapest Agreement

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 (http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484)) 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.

Stan

04-01-2014, 05:10 PM

Firn---seems like Putin is a bit of an economist along with his other abilities.

Looks as if his KGB past was helpful in getting research materials for his thesis.

Outlaw,
It get's better yet !

In 2007 Putin decided to rewrite grade school history books too (http://www.economist.com/node/10102921) :eek:

The manual's choice of period is suggestive: from Stalin's victory in the “great patriotic war” to the victory of Mr Putin's regime. It celebrates all contributors to Russia's greatness, and denounces those responsible for the loss of empire, regardless of their politics. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not seen as a watershed from which a new history begins, but as an unfortunate and tragic mistake that hindered Russia's progress. “The Soviet Union was not a democracy, but it was an example for millions of people around the world of the best and fairest society.”

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 05:11 PM

Stan---the core issue is how Russia is now spinning reality in the repeated face of comments that the Crimea annexation was done legally and in accordance with Russian law.

There is a nice quote from Stalin where he basically states that there comes a time in everyone's life as a person or country that one simply can ignore signed treaties/agreements/contracts.

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 05:16 PM

Stan--good catch on the history book---did not see that one before.

Dayuhan---I have a number of times stated that Putin moved into the Crimea for two reasons.

1. rebuild the Czarist dream of a greater Russia
2. rebuild the former empire of the Soviet Union

Both being driven by Russian nationalism--cultural and imperialistic.

This comment taken from Stan's quote goes to point 2.

"The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not seen as a watershed from which a new history begins, but as an unfortunate and tragic mistake that hindered Russia's progress. “The Soviet Union was not a democracy, but it was an example for millions of people around the world of the best and fairest society."

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 05:23 PM

Stan---went back and read your linked article and this stood really far out there and it goes again to my previous comments on nationalism and how the West and the US have simply missed the "indicators" on how deep it has been in the current Russia.

Taken from following link: http://www.economist.com/node/10102921

The decade after the collapse of communism was notable for the absence of any official ideology. Weary of grand designs, the Russian elite preferred pragmatism and enrichment. Asked about his national dream in 2004, President Vladimir Putin said that it was to make Russia competitive. But Russia's new oil-driven strength and its aspirations to be a world player have once more created a demand for something more victorious and uplifting. And as Mr Putin looks for ways to stay in power after his second presidential term expires next March, his ideological comrades are placing him in a gallery of Russia's great leaders, a quasi-tsar.

“The attitude towards the past is the central element of any ideology,” Yury Afanasyev, a Russian liberal historian, has written in Novaya Gazeta. Indeed, in Russia arguments about history often stir greater passions than do debates about the present or future. What kind of country Russia becomes will depend in large part on what kind of history it chooses. And that is why the Kremlin has decided that it cannot afford to leave history teaching to the historians.

Putin has indeed chosen the new Russian path and it started in Georgia, then Moldavia and now the Crimea ------ then it will be Belarus, the Baltics and eventually Finland.

Still feel he wants the two pieces of the Ukraine as icing on the cake in the rebirth of greater Russia---then he will be de facto "a quasi -tsar" in Russian history books.

OUTLAW 09

04-01-2014, 05:44 PM

Firn---taken from 30 March 2014 Motely Fool concerning the use of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive down Russian oil prices.

Interesting idea----in fact it goes to Russians inherent weakness in being just a raw resource seller of just two main products---gas and oil.

Wonder if the WH spoke about this with the Saudi's recently when they were there?

The world's most powerful weapon: Oil
For several years, the United States' Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, has rarely garnered any attention, mostly because it is used so sparingly. Since 1977, when it was implemented, there have been only a handful of times that it has tapped, the last being in 2011, when President Obama authorized the release of 60 million barrels in response to the crisis in Libya.

That is what makes the recent "test sale" of 5 million barrels of oil so intriguing. This is the first time since 1990 that there has been a test sale from the SPR, which just happens so coincide with the time there was concern that Iraq could invade Saudi Arabia. While correlation does not always mean causation, the release of those 5 million barrels coincided with a 2.7% drop in crude oil prices.

Hit 'em where it hurts -- their wallet
It's no secret that Russia is one of the world's leading exporters of oil and gas. It exports about 8.5 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined petroleum products, as well as 19.3% of the worlds natural gas exports. What is less known is Russia's nearly crippling dependence on oil and gas revenues to pay the bills. The $662.3 billion petroleum industry in Russia represents 26.5% of GDP, and over 50% of the federal government's revenue comes from royalties. Unfortunately for Russia, its oil doesn't come cheap. Even with oil at $100 per barrel and current production levels, the country projects only 1.8% GDP growth, and if oil were to fall any lower it would force massive federal budget cuts.

So what exactly would releasing oil from there do? Let's say U.S. production and imports from Canada and Mexico were to hold place. The U.S. would need to release about 950,000 barrels per day to meet all of the United States' current demand. Based on the SPR's 727 million barrels in storage, we could do this for well over two years and drive down global prices significantly. Surprisingly, though, we don't even need to go to that extreme. According to economist Phillip Verleger in a recent Quartz article, if the U.S. were to release only 500,000 barrels per day from the SPR, it would lead to a $10 drop in oil prices and would cost Russia $40 billion in sales. At this pace, we could maintain this pace for more than four years and could potentially cause Russia's GDP to drop by 4%.

We've done it before, but it will be harder this time
There are two ways to describe the collapse of the Soviet Union: The storybook version is about the arms race that eventually bankrupted the USSR and led to its evenutal collapse. The one that doesn't get told as much, though, is the other half of what caused the bankruptcy: cheap oil. In a coordinated effort with Saudi Arabia to increase global crude production, inflation-adjusted oil prices fell 69% between 1981 and 1988. This resulted in massive revenue shortfalls for the USSR and became a critical piece that eventually led to its downfall.