PDA

View Full Version : Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Beelzebubalicious
07-20-2007, 10:12 PM
I've been here for a year with one to go. Just wondering if anyone on this board is out here or if anyone knows anyone who is...Not that I'm lonely, but am just curious. Political situation here is interesting and I'm always looking for fresh perspectives on it.

By the way, this probably slipped by (as it's largely rumor) most people, but an interesting story potentially linking recent assasination to Yuschenko poisoning. Story is full of "funny" information...

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/03/29232b88-9987-418f-b2b7-71aa13000365.html

Beelzebubalicious
10-15-2007, 02:35 PM
On Sunday, Ukrainian partisans celebrated the creation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) on the main square (the Maidan) in Kyiv despite attemps by the Socialists and Communists to prevent them. This anniversary is the first time that UPA has been able to celebrate with the full approval of the Ukrainian government. Previous celebrations devolved into violence, but a large police presence provided for a more peaceful celebration this year...Full story at:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5grKmzcVCt8L0-UfHxPGan5N5VStwD8S9BTO00

More interesting is the debate over whether the UPA are patriots or traitors and whether they should receive full social and medical benefits (equal to veterans of the red army, for example). President Yuschenko is in favor of providing them full benefits. Anyway, it's an interesting history. For more information, check out:

Wikipidia UPA page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army)
Chronicles of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (http://www.infoukes.com/upa/)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/UPA.jpg/250px-UPA.jpg
UPA Appeal Poster

Beelzebubalicious
09-04-2008, 04:39 PM
Several stories in major news sources about pending collapse of government in Ukraine. Not a new story, in many ways, since the government always seems to be on the verge of collapse and the current coalition was weak to begin with. It is a bigger story with the situation in Georgia, the Black Sea Fleet parked in the crimea, the large Russian and Russia-leaning population in Ukraine and the Prime Minister Tymoshenko and former PM and opposition leader Yanukovych kow-towing to Russia. Where does that leave Ukraine? Victor Yuschenko seems to be the only person still openly and fully supporting Western ties (NATO, EU, etc) but he has limited and dwindling power.

I've heard through friends that several ministers have resigned and that Tymoshenko is trying to strengthen her position as Prime Minister through making changes to the Constitution. Meanwhile, Yuschenko's own party is voting to leave the coalition government. In addition, GasPutin has pressured Turkmenistan to increase the cost of gas to Ukraine, further pressuring the leadership into concessions.

Still not clear if the US has a plan to respond and if so, what it is. EU is pouring money into Ukraine and working on changing laws, standards, etc but that's a slow process and the Ukrainians can string that out as long as they like. Not a pretty picture.

Beelzebubalicious
09-04-2008, 05:41 PM
And to make matters worse, the Ukrainian military is buying Geely-brand cars from China (http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=155934699&cat_id=32598) because they are "economic and mobile" but also the "kitting-up, equipped with special sound and light signals". Hmmm....in the crash test world, it's called the "death vessel (http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/02/04/geely-death-vessel/)". The automobiles are being made in the Kremenchuk Automobile Assembly Plant (KrAAP (http://www.aval.ua/eng/press/partners/?id=35595)). Says it all

Stan
09-04-2008, 06:37 PM
And to make matters worse, the Ukrainian military is buying Geely-brand cars from China (http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=155934699&cat_id=32598) because they are "economic and mobile" but also the "kitting-up, equipped with special sound and light signals". Hmmm....in the crash test world, it's called the "death vessel (http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/02/04/geely-death-vessel/)". The automobiles are being made in the Kremenchuk Automobile Assembly Plant (KrAAP (http://www.aval.ua/eng/press/partners/?id=35595)). Says it all

Interesting, Estonians are driving their old USA and European cars to Odessa via Moldova, selling them at some flea market, and taking the train back after a weekend on the Black Sea.

Other than the descriptions of life on the beaches :cool:, I can think of little reason to even go to The Ukraine.

You should'a never left... Look what happened :D

davidbfpo
09-04-2008, 08:15 PM
Other than the descriptions of life on the beaches :cool:, I can think of little reason to even go to The Ukraine.

I would differ. I've had two excellent holidays there, once in Western Ukraine, centred on Lviv / Lvov (an old Polish city, with pre-1914 architecture) and then the Crimea - where Sevastapol is all new build since WW2. Loads of history, much of it grim alas; friendly people and good food in privately owned places. Yes, the lack of hot water in a hotel can happen.

davidbfpo

Beelzebubalicious
09-04-2008, 10:42 PM
Stan had the unfortunate luck to visit Ukraine in the 90s when things were a bit hairier and a little less friendly. I tried to get him to come visit when I was there, even tried to entice him with the opportunity to blow things up, but he held his ground. Then again, if you're going to take a vacation, I wouldn't go to Ukraine, either. In fact, when I had the chance, I left Ukraine. It has a lot to offer, as you mentioned Mr. bfpo, but for the cost and hassle, there are a lot of other better choices.

Jedburgh
09-09-2008, 03:46 PM
EDM, 8 Sep 08: Crisis in Ukraine (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373348)

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is ready to call an early parliamentary election as his party, Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense (NUNS), withdrew from a coalition with Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s Bloc (BYT (http://www.ibyut.com/)). According to Ukrainian laws, NUNS has time until September 13 to change its mind; otherwise, either a new coalition will emerge or Ukraine will see a third parliamentary poll in four years. Russia, self-confident after the events in Georgia, may play some role also in Ukraine as both Tymoshenko and her possible ally in a new coalition, Party of Regions (PRU (http://www.partyofregions.org.ua/eng/)) leader Viktor Yanukovych, have apparently been seeking Moscow’s support.

The crisis in Ukraine has both domestic and international roots. On the one hand, both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko rejected Yushchenko’s condemnation of Russian behavior in Georgia. This prompted Yushchenko to accuse them of betraying the country’s national interests. On the other hand, rivalry between Yushchenko, who wants to run for a second term in 2010 but is weakened by constitutional reform and low popularity, and Tymoshenko, who views her tenure as prime minister as a springboard to presidency, has reached its climax.....

jmm99
09-10-2008, 12:58 AM
but ...my last accusation is bigger than your prior accusation - and I have the prosecutor's ear.

Then:


Ukraine's PM accuses president of self-interest
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Sep 06, 2008 09:05 EST
KIEV, Sept 6 (Reuters) - Ukraine's Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko accused President Viktor Yushchenko on Saturday of putting his political ambitions before the national interest, adding to the bad blood between the former allies. .....

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=332954

and two days later:


Ukraine president Viktor Yushchenko accuses PM Yulia Tymoshenko of treason
Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko has accused Yulia Tymoshenko, the Prime Minister, of high treason amid a bitter political struggle over whether the country's future lies with the West or with Russia.
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 8:06PM BST 08 Sep 2008
Miss Tymoshenko has revealed that she has been summoned by prosecutors to answer the president's charge of treason as Ukraine's two rulers battle it out for power ahead of a 2010 presidential vote over their country's future direction. ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2706210/Ukraine-president-Viktor-Yushchenko-accuses-PM-Yulia-Tymoshenko-of-treason.html

May have to reference my old Soviet law books on the conduct of "state trials".

jmm99
09-10-2008, 01:19 AM
Here is one view of US policy and the Ukraine. Draw your own conclusions.


No Dog in This Fight
by Doug Bandow
09.09.2008
Washington has become an ugly place. Eight years of bitter Republican attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton have been followed by eight years of bitter Democratic attacks on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But this venom cannot compare to the tidal wave of political hatred that has recently overwhelmed Ukraine’s capital of Kiev.....
....
Doug Bandow is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance. He is a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire (Xulon).

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=19810

See also DB's wiki bio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Bandow

Ron Humphrey
09-10-2008, 03:01 AM
but ...my last accusation is bigger than your prior accusation - and I have the prosecutor's ear.

Then:



http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=332954

and two days later:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2706210/Ukraine-president-Viktor-Yushchenko-accuses-PM-Yulia-Tymoshenko-of-treason.html

May have to reference my old Soviet law books on the conduct of "state trials".

One would imagine there would be two different types of legal precedence under which the PM could be tried that which would have existed under Soviet rule or a western type approach

Wonder which one PM would prefer?

Conundrums,conundrums:confused:

jmm99
09-10-2008, 03:55 AM
The old Soviet law was based on the continental European Code systems (e.g., French, German and Italian systems are the usual grist for study in a Comparative Law course). There were some Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist additions - to carry out the aims of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

That being said, the basic sustantive and procedural law was not that much different from what one finds in Germany. While somewhat different from the UK and US "common law" systems (which are filled with statutes and codes anyway), Russian law then (and probably now - I haven't kept up with the Russian and Ukrainian codes) was not that bad - in ordinary cases.

In fact, in ordinary criminal cases, it sometimes could give better results than our system. Besides the prosecutor and defense lawyers (who were not always competent), the Russians had an independent legal office that reviewed the case in all aspects for errors by lawyers and judges. Many cases we read resulted in reversals of decisions because of that office.

But, all such bets were off in a political case. If you were a political defendant, you were screwed - the only question was how much of a show would be produced. In all of the Great Purge Trials, the form of due process was observed, though the results were pre-ordained. Of course, those summarily executed in the Lubyanka cellers were spared that show. I suspect (but do not really know) that the old pattern may still prevail as to political trials (e.g., the fall of the oligarchs).

So, as to Ms. Tymoshenko's options, it really wouldn't matter what legal procedures were used if the cards were stacked as they used to be in the good, old days.

PS: Chinese law was even wilder - going from the Manchu system (based on the continental European Code systems in large part) to the Mao-based ChiCom system - a real innovative piece of work.

Beelzebubalicious
09-10-2008, 10:01 PM
In my opinion, it's fairly pointless to talk about legal systems, traditions and such. They don't really matter in Ukraine. Ukraine uses the old Soviet law, which was basically designed to be contradictory and opaque so that the people with the power could protect their own interests and punish others. That's the tradition Ukraine inherited and works with today. It's presented to the world as if there's rule of law, but behind the scenes, it's anything but.

Each party will try to defend themselves or attack the other using whatever tactics they can and will wrap it up with a legal justification. Last time a constitutional change was put forward, it was debated in the Constitutional Commission (forgot exact name) and there was a behind the scense free for all buying or coercing of votes. It will be the same this time.

I agree with Bandow that the USG does not understand politics and reality in Ukraine very well, should not act hastily (for sure) but I don't think the USG can afford to sit on the sidelines. Russia isn't, that's for sure. USG, with European partners, needs to continue to push reform. I think many people understand that Russia, despite it's current economic strength and show of military force, is buried in the past and that the future for Ukraine lies in the West. In terms of safety and short term interests (and maximizing individual benefit as a result), the focus is on Russia, however. It's a long term fight.

jmm99
09-11-2008, 07:29 PM
but here is the poll:


EDM
SURPRISING AND CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS ON THE UKRAINIAN STREETS
By Roman Kupchinsky
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A number of recent public opinion polls in Ukraine reveal that regional differences toward Russia after the war in Georgia remain a factor but are not as extreme as some media reports present them to be.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373355


from same source
The results of these polls would seem to indicate that the President of Ukraine, a firm advocate of Ukrainian membership in NATO and a strong supporter of Georgia, and the opposition Party of Regions are both out of touch with the views of the majority of the population. ...
....
Only the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc has benefited from recent events by refusing to endorse the president’s pro-Georgian stance and limiting itself to statements supporting Georgian territorial integrity and by taking a neutral view of future membership in NATO.

The greatest loser in the eyes of the Ukrainian public appears to be the Russian leadership, which failed to win overwhelming support from the allegedly “pro-Russian” eastern and southern regions of Ukraine for its actions in Georgia.....

Beelzebubalicious
09-12-2008, 04:31 PM
I am surprised by the reaction of Ukrainians in the East and South. I didn't expect that kind of reaction.

I was just wondering what a war with Russia might do to Ukraine. Their military is supposed to be woefully unprepared and under-resourced and in bad need of reform. If Russia crossed the border, it might stir up nationalist feelings, unite the country in opposition and spark investment in the military. If Ukraine isn't going to join NATO, the next best thing is to break with Russia.

Stan
09-12-2008, 07:00 PM
I am surprised by the reaction of Ukrainians in the East and South. I didn't expect that kind of reaction.

I was just wondering what a war with Russia might do to Ukraine. Their military is supposed to be woefully unprepared and under-resourced and in bad need of reform. If Russia crossed the border, it might stir up nationalist feelings, unite the country in opposition and spark investment in the military. If Ukraine isn't going to join NATO, the next best thing is to break with Russia.

Hey Eric,
Beside Palin's recent statements to the Kremlin (http://en.rian.ru/world/20080912/116733016.html), the political ramblings in Tbilisi seem to be moving in every direction, perhaps even the right one :confused:

Would Putin dare cross the border now with all the rhetoric and our tub toys in the Black Sea ? Jeez, that's a darn good question !

Regards, Stan

Beelzebubalicious
09-12-2008, 11:39 PM
USG seems ready to admit Ukraine in to NATO, but the Europeans seem less enthusiastic. Russia aside, what are the implications for Europe and NATO? I haven't really followed this closely. I'm more familiar with the implications for EU membership...

jmm99
09-13-2008, 01:01 AM
I do NOT mean Gov. Palin is a no-brainer.


from Stan's link above

Palin told interviewer Charles Gibson of ABC News that Georgia should be granted membership of NATO. When pressed on whether this would mean that the U.S. would be obliged to defend Georgia if Russian troops went into the country again, she replied, "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

"What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against," Palin added. "We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia."

So, what does the NATO Treaty say:


Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

Now, admittedly, we can find weasel-words in Article 5 - "such action as it deems necessary". So, a NATO state could find "the use of armed force" to be "not necessary". A warning to little countries ?

Bottom line: Gov. Palin's "Perhaps" was justified by the treaty's weasel-words; and the rest of her answer was substantially accurate as to NATO obligations.

PS 1: My dog is not in this political fight - I support neither ticket - but, fair is fair.

PS 2: Article 5 provides the implications for Europe and the US.

Ron Humphrey
09-13-2008, 01:12 AM
Why exactly would it be surprising that the Ukrainians no matter their particular bend towards the Russia-Georgia deal would still as a strong majority less inclined to lean towards hoaving the same thing happen to them.

IOW just because not all feel its worth their own skin to "back Georgia" doesn't mean they would be any less concerned about their own skin in relation to Russian intentions.

Beelzebubalicious
04-28-2010, 03:05 AM
Yes, it's Ukraine (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100427/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ukraine_russia_fleet) and it would be funny if weren't also sad. I like the fact that the speaker had an umbrella with him to shield him from the eggs....

I do think the opposition is right, though. Yanukovych is selling the country out. The USG is so behind the curve. Russia has been buying up land and businesses in crimea for years. They've also been distributing propaganda and encouraging russian nationalism. In 2008, the USG figured out that it might be smart to put some money in and engage in crimea in an attempt to balance the equation somewhat (heading up to the election). They channeled existing and new project funds to crimea and attempted to show a good american face down there. People still voted en masse for Yanukovych and the russian option and now I'm sure the USG is kicking themselves for sitting on the sidelines for so long.

Secondarily, I wonder whether recent events in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and current realities in Ukraine (bad economy tentatively propped up by the IMF) might push people to respond with violence (beyond the usual paid mobs and such)? Time will tell, I guess.

Tukhachevskii
04-28-2010, 03:15 PM
Yes, it's Ukraine (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100427/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ukraine_russia_fleet) and it would be funny if weren't also sad. I like the fact that the speaker had an umbrella with him to shield him from the eggs....

I do think the opposition is right, though. Yanukovych is selling the country out. The USG is so behind the curve. Russia has been buying up land and businesses in crimea for years. They've also been distributing propaganda and encouraging russian nationalism. In 2008, the USG figured out that it might be smart to put some money in and engage in crimea in an attempt to balance the equation somewhat (heading up to the election). They channeled existing and new project funds to crimea and attempted to show a good american face down there. People still voted en masse for Yanukovych and the russian option and now I'm sure the USG is kicking themselves for sitting on the sidelines for so long.

Secondarily, I wonder whether recent events in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and current realities in Ukraine (bad economy tentatively propped up by the IMF) might push people to respond with violence (beyond the usual paid mobs and such)? Time will tell, I guess.

Lets not forget the large Russian diaspora in the Crimea and the fact that legally speaking Khruschev's reorganistion of the Republic boundaries during the 1960s had dubious legality even by the Soviet constitutional standards of the day. Prior to his incorporation of the Crimea into the Ukraine the Crimea was a province belonging to the Russian SFSR. To this day the controverial move still rankles Russian lawmakers and politicians who inherited the Soviet constitution and its political problems. Indeed, the legal situation is roughly analogous to the status of Chechnya within the Russian Federation; the original conflict began when Dudayeav asserted the right of Chechnya to seced from the RF based upon the claim that Chechnya had been accorded Republic status according to the 1990 Soviet constitution which was repealled, adopted, abolished and then partlty incorporated into Russian law (Checnya was now an Autonomous region again though with certain Republic-like powers). The Russian diaspora, like the one in Kaliningrad, is hardly an illigitimate matter for the Russians to be concerned about and neither is their ability to acces a warm water port. IMO the Ukrainian's need to show maturity rather than, as you claim the Russians are doing, of turning it into a nationalist issue with which to contest the recent elections. Of course, it would hurt for the Russian's to think-out-of-the box and show some maturity too:wry:

GI Zhou
04-28-2010, 07:46 PM
This is all of the Ukraine's making. If previous Ukrainian governments had bit the bullet and weaned the country's energy usage and rconomy off cheap Russian gas, they would be in a better bargaining position. Instead the government had its hands tied as the country is still dependent on cheap Russian gas. The oppositionm, fall all its attacks, is just as responsible as the present government for this situation.

Firn
01-22-2014, 10:38 PM
First deaths (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25838962) in the Kiev clashes. Obviously that blood spilled into the snow is bad news, as a line has now been crossed.


The ongoing fighting between demonstrators and riot police has been ferocious, but limited; hostilities have been restricted to a small corner of the capital near the government building, and the two sides observe many breaks in clashes.

But all this may be about to change. More activists are flooding into Kiev from the west, and crowds are massing at the site of the clashes. As the anger and the number of people mounts, the likelihood of a massive outbreak of violence, from either side, increases.

The Ukraine is perhaps the most important conflict area right on the borders of the EU. It is always rather obvious that Mr. Putin is trying by many means and with considerable effort to bring this rather large country into the Russian orbit. Western attempts have clearly been less pushy but relied more on the passive but strong pull of attractive elements of the EU and it's countries. It is certainly in the interest of pretty much all EU members to have an Ukraine which does not augment Russian power. 45 Million more on your side and 45 Million less on the other are in general a rather good deal even if it sounds quite crude. In my opinion in the long term the option Europe is as well a far better course for the Ukrainians as a whole then the option Russia.

Klitschko (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-vitali-klitschko-on-ukraine-opposition-movement-a-939355-2.html) makes some good points:


SPIEGEL: Vladimir Putin once said that Ukraine was not a proper state.

Klitschko: Our neighbors to the east regrettably view the issue of EU integration exclusively from a geopolitical standpoint. But that's not the point: We are not fighting against anyone. We are choosing a road to development for our country. Unfortunately many people in Moscow still view Ukraine as "their zone" -- as part of the Russian sphere of influence. They don't understand that it would also be better for them to have a Ukraine that is a strong neighbor, with a strong economy. A Russian expansion at Ukraine's expense is impossible.

SPIEGEL: Putin says that the EU -- not Russia -- is actually intervening in Ukraine. Aren't all sides trying to make Ukraine into their sphere of influence?

Klitschko: We negotiate with Europe as equals; Russia looks down at us. The EU makes us offers; Russia wants to impose its will on us.

SPIEGEL: Would you tell him that you are striving over the long term for Ukraine to enter the EU?

Klitschko: The answer is obvious. Just look at the countries that have oriented themselves toward Europe, and those that haven't. In the former East Bloc countries we all had similar starting conditions after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today we see the progress made by countries that have elected to take the European route. They have a high standard of living, better infrastructure, and civil rights are respected. This is the only way for us.

This Klitschko has always struck me as a smart, disciplined fellow in the couple of interviews I have heard and read before. Obviously he is in a relative weak position compared his opponents who certainly are not playing by the typical European rulebook, but they also have much to lose.

davidbfpo
01-22-2014, 11:51 PM
The protests in Kiev have in the last few days reached a new intensity, but behind the limited BBC reporting, other press reports and some social media it is clear that the violence is very limited to a small part of Kiev - near the parliament. See tonight's BBC report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25843988

The protesters also appear far more organised, indeed equipped and armed to the extent the rioters and the riot police appear to be one. Some reports indicate the extreme right are in the frontline. I noted tonight one of the dead protesters came from eastern Ukraine, where traditionally the Russian-speaking majority have supported the government.

In Lviv, a western city, no reported protests - except to block the redeployment of security forces to Kiev. Western Ukraine traditionally has voted against this government - so why the inactivity?

When you consider the weather that anyone is rioting is amazing. It is minus minus 19C now and was minus 12C during the day:http://uk.weather.com/weather/today/UPXX0486:1:UP

For several years Ukrainian politicians have failed their nation, remember the 'Orange Revolution' and within years the then elected Prime Minister is ejected by the voters, ending up in prison.

Firn
01-23-2014, 12:25 PM
It is of course difficult to understand why things happen exactly in the way they happen. Maybe the cold does reduce the ability to create mass protests.

In any case it is difficult to imagine a strong economic development of this large country under the thumb of Russia. A closer integration of it's economy into the European on the other hand should help a considerable amount in the long term.

There a great amount of graphics showing the aweful performance of it's economy compared to other European countries of the ex-Warsaw Pact. One can argue that in geographic terms* the Ukraine got the shortest stick, being the distant from the economic clusters of the West but by any benchmark the 'progress' has been terrible.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TE6yn3U7C1w/T1ehuGREgiI/AAAAAAAABCw/NE2hXTbRVb0/s1600/gdp%2B18%2Byeras.jpg

Shocking indeed.

http://www.reinisfischer.com/img/ukrainevspolandgdp.png

*Poland, a country of roughly similar dimensions, has the huge advantage to be close to Germany (and Souther Scandinavia).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Gross_domestic_product_(GDP)_per_inhabitant,_in_pu rchasing_power_standard_(PPS),_by_NUTS_2_regions,_ 2009_(%25_of_the_EU-27_average,_EU-27%3D100).png



Just the monthly salaries per oblast, but it indicates that the Ukraine has a reversed economic landscape compared the rest of the Eastern European countries, in which generally the regions closer to the West (plus the capital) are richer. Seems like the rich coal deposits kicked off the economic development based on heavy industry with the usual cluster effects, a bit like the old Ruhr.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Ukrainian_salary_map.png/800px-Ukrainian_salary_map.png

Firn
01-24-2014, 05:52 PM
I did a little bit of research to understand more about the aweful economic growth of the country. In this short time you can get only a very limited and fragmented view, but I found the impact of monopolies and the interactions with politics interesting:

The Ukrainian Week (http://ukrainianweek.com/Economics/78820) does as far as I can tell a fine job at covering the economic fallout of concentrated power of the oligarchs and their influence within politics. The combinations of power and money is a very dangerous ones and can result in a vicous cycle in which both push each other. More money means more political power and more political power more money.


A good example is the position of Rafael Kuzmin, First Deputy Chair of the Antimonopoly Committee, who insists that Dmytro Firtash and Rinat Akhmetov, two Ukrainian tycoons referred to as key Party of Regions’ sponsors until recently, are not monopolists. Meanwhile, independent economists estimate that DTEK, a group of power plants owned by Rinat Akhmetov, controls over 35% of the electricity supply market. Dmytro Firtash’s entities control 100% of facilities producing ammonium nitrate and nearly 50-60% of ammonia and urea production facilities. Meanwhile, Mr. Kuzmin refers to the Privat Group as a monopolist. The group is owned by Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Hennadiy Boholiubov who are still outside the Party of Regions. However, Mr. Kuzmin admitted that the Antimonopoly Committee had no proof of Privat Group’s monopolistic activity because its different companies are owned by various offshore entities.

Ukrtelecom, a major Ukrainian telephone operator, has recently been bought by a little known company linked to the president’s family, according to The Ukrainian Week’s sources. Prior to being sold to private investors, Ukrtelecom had been on the list of natural monopolies dominating the nationwide markets for local telephone service and telecommunication channel rental. However, it was removed from that list in June 2011 although the company controls nearly 70% of the city landline telephone market and 75% of the intercity and international telephone connection markets.

Very bad incentives indeed. It should not surprise anybody that the oligarchs have mostly built their empires from heavy industry investments in the east. Of course there are also other players with a similar background not least the famous pro-European prisoner. All in all the situation has become also so dangerous because the control of the state power has become so important to conserve the personal wealth and freedom. I have little doubt that the current president fears that the roles could become reversed. There is likely even enought dirty laundry around to get a lot of political opponents into prison by a fair trial.

davidbfpo
01-25-2014, 11:44 AM
A FP article goes behind the shields we've seen of late; the headline gives away the theme:
Ukraine's Public Enemy Number One: The Police
Why Ukraine's brutal riot police are one of the biggest obstacles on the path to reform.

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/24/ukraines_public_enemy_number_one_the_police

Added. A report using open sources to identify the ammunition used in the Kiev clashes, which may have killed two people. The title tells you 'not fit for purpose':
Report: Lethal ‘car stopper’ bullets used against protesters during Hrushevskoho Street clashes

Link:http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/report-lethal-car-stopper-ammunition-used-against-protesters-during-hrushevskoho-street-clashes-335579.html

Firn
02-07-2014, 12:07 AM
Seems like somebody pro-Russian is having fun with leeking internal US and EU conversations.

The professional Americans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MSxaa-67yGM) which will have amused the EUropeans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjrACdTQE8) even more then they have been amused about the US before. After hearing the US opinion on Klitschko I'm pretty sure he is a right guy for the future.

I'm pretty sure there are some broad grins around the diplomatic world when it heard the first tape. :D

Firn
02-20-2014, 08:26 PM
Shocking news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26280710) from Ukraine. A tragedy right here in Europe and a very dangerous situation. I wrote about the dominance of the Eastern Oligarchs in their economy and the dark flows between them and the current political leadership. Now the latter has pushed itself into a much smaller corner, it was not acting exacatly in a (Western) democratic manner before and now it has much blood on his hands. They engineered prison and abuse for their lected political opponents for much less, so they are perhaps rightly even more afraid of losing power. There are also extremist on the other side. A bad, bad situation.

I will have to collect my thoughts on that.

P.S: Looking at this footage (http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/20/ukraine-police-fire-protesters-kiev-video) there is no surprise how a considerable share of the victims died. Such a waste of life.

davidbfpo
02-22-2014, 12:13 PM
At last a clear concise expert explanation what is going on in the Ukraine, by Anne Applebaum:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10653932/The-pictures-from-Kiev-dont-tell-the-whole-story.html

Even so it is easy to see that events in Kiev have moved at a pace which may invalidate her explanation.

There is much more to what has and is happening in the Ukraine, far beyond the scenes in the centre of Kiev. A truly corrupt state, which was starting to split not so much geographically as institutionally - most clearly shown by the police refusing national orders - and the reports of a mass protest in Kharkov against the government.

JMA
02-22-2014, 07:29 PM
Tomorrow - 23 Feb - the Sochi Olympics end then Russia will be free to enter the fray... openly.



At last a clear concise expert explanation what is going on in the Ukraine, by Anne Applebaum:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10653932/The-pictures-from-Kiev-dont-tell-the-whole-story.html

Even so it is easy to see that events in Kiev have moved at a pace which may invalidate her explanation.

There is much more to what has and is happening in the Ukraine, far beyond the scenes in the centre of Kiev. A truly corrupt state, which was starting to split not so much geographically as institutionally - most clearly shown by the police refusing national orders - and the reports of a mass protest in Kharkov against the government.

Firn
02-23-2014, 07:38 PM
The events of the last days showed once again how difficult it is to make political predictions, especially about the future. I wrote about a president backed into a small corner and (rightly) afraid to lose his power, but I did not imagine that he was so afraid that he would decide to flee out of the country...

It was much easier to anticipate the luxury and wealth in which he lived, as he and mostly eastern oligarchs have plundered the state and the people, but the ship in the artificial lake was still a surprise. As well as the pheasants I should add.

It is difficult to understand what drove him into the political exile but losing control of most of the country, the refusal of a large part of the military and the more then doubtful loyality of the security forces seem to have been the most important elements. Who knows.

Overall it would be disgraceful if the EU, IMF and USA would miss once again a chance to support the Ukraine in it's difficult task to become a working democracy. Russia under Puntin is clearly only interested in keeping it in it's orbit. There is no doubt that in the mid to long run an Ukraine better integrated into the Western economic and political system will result in a higher standard of living for most citiziens.

The huge advantage of the Western world is it's vast financial strenght (yes, despite crisis and all). It would be amazingly stupid and possibly costly to be once again stingy. A 30 billion credit line feels like a good deal, most from the EU, maybe some of the USA and the IMF. Braking the monopolies of the oligarchs would be a good string to attach, cutting the subventions for gas a stupid one, talk about own goal. If this goes against the IMF rules, the EU should step up quickly. Raising 30 billions over a couple of years should cost the EU as a whole, even if we include some write-off, only a couple of billions at the most, perhaps at most some 10 € per capita*. The sucess is of course not secure but it should greatly increase the chances to move the Ukraine in the right direction for the good of it's citiziens.

Even 5 billons are pretty cheap for a good chance to greatly increase the political and economic stability of a rather large European country and to greatly reduce the Russian influence on it if you think how much money, possibly 100+ billion, was thrown by European nations into that far away dustbin called Afghanistan.

TheCurmudgeon
02-23-2014, 08:43 PM
We may have a break in the drama but there is still far to go (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/22/a_house_united) before the end of this crisis.


Throughout the crisis in Ukraine, experts real and imagined have persistently invoked the country's vaunted East-West "divide." According to this interpretation, Ukraine is neatly divided into two homogeneous, coherent, and irreconcilable blocs. The implicit message is that partition is inevitable and desirable. As Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev for the pro-Russian and "separatist" Kharkiv on Feb. 22, analysts feared he would ignite a civil war between Ukraine's irreconcilable factions. But as is often the case with such binary oppositions, they conceal and obfuscate more than they reveal and clarify, creating a simplistic image of a complex condition.

On a separate note, compare the Ukraine to Syria. Here the sides are clearly defined and the idea of devolving into civil war is still something that is feared by all sides (even though it is still a real possibility). The nature of the culture as well as the political systems is different enough to potentially keep that from happening.

Firn
02-23-2014, 09:09 PM
I think the article does a good job at pointing out the factors which unite the country instead those, often stressed recently, which divide it. As I wrote before nobody can predict the future, but there is a good chances that Ukraine might follow the path most other countries to the north and west already undertook with good sucess. It won't be an easy ride as the road is very bumpy. Helping the financially starved, economically weak and politically fragile state properly should increase it's odds greatly.

I just hope that the EU does not make the error of comitting too little and to be too weak against a relatively weak Russia which overplayed it's hand. An EU membership is obviously far far away but why should the Ukraine, an doubtlessy European nation be automatically excluded? Because a large percentage of it's citiziens speak Russian?* Because the current Russian strongman wants to keep it under his thumb?

*It would of course not be the first one.

Firn
02-24-2014, 08:20 PM
Ukraine bonds rally (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-02-23/ukraine-bond-rally-seen-tied-to-fresh-aid-amid-default-concerns), the financial markets so far like the progress from armed clashes on Maiden to the hunt for Yanukovych. The talk about big international financial aid might have played a very minor role too. :wry:


Ukraine has $17 billion of liabilities coming due, excluding interest, through the end of 2015, including $1 billion of bonds maturing in June this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The price on notes due in four months rose to 97.31 cents on the dollar today from as low as 91.438 cents last week, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Pretty impressive stuff. Now the financial markets are not efficient but tend strongly to be so.

Compost
02-25-2014, 07:34 AM
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/ukraine-on-the-brink-a-fragile-calm-4928/

Firn
02-25-2014, 12:59 PM
Just a few quick comments:


There is also a strong economic division, though this one is less geographic in nature. As with much of post-Soviet Russia, Ukraine saw the rise of an oligarchical class who quickly captured former state assets, and then got involved in politics to protect their economic gains. While these oligarchs span the political spectrum (indeed, Yulia Tymoshenko is included among their number), they have mostly been a conservative force in Ukrainian politics, fearing that closer integration with the EU could damage their standing. The allegations of corruption surrounding these oligarchs, along with the dire economic situation in Ukraine, have combined to fuel much of the discontent of recent months.

Perhaps conservative is indeed the right word to describe those mostly Eastern robber barons, who would rather conserve the previous status quo as it allows them to corrupt and steal so easily. Keep in mind that most moved in a similar way to their Russian counterparts, snapping up state-owned enterprises and buying monopolies. It is no surprise that most stem from the industrial heartland of Ukraine.


Such a financial outflow would also be politically unacceptable within the EU itself, given the ongoing political fallout from the Greek sovereign debt crisis. Bailing out a non-EU state with European funds would be highly contentious, especially in Germany.

Furthermore, despite the weakened state of Russian finances, Russia is geographically and linguistically much closer to Ukraine, and its trade is far more vital to the health of the national economy than anything the EU or USA has to offer. As such, they cannot expect merely to become Ukraine’s major power patrons, taking over from Russia. Russia will always be a significant influence on Ukrainian society, and this state of affairs must be accepted by the US and European governments to proceed in a constructive manner. No permanent settlement can be secured without Russian interests being considered.

As much as I like the try to show a 'balanced' integration of Russian interest it is important to point out that quite a few EU members, especially the Baltic states have found themselves in a situation with pretty much the same getting written. Russian interest dominated them for centuries and yet they are now firmly part of the EU and even NATO. While Russia is powerful in some regards, it is weak in others and it is quite possible to see the Ukraine within the EU in ten-twenty years.

I would dispute that the Russian trade is much more vital for the Urkaine then the one with the EU. Trade with the European Unions has increased considerably relative to the one with Russia. With closer economic integration and economic development this should increase further. If Ukraine is able to finance the gas it is actually it is actually not in a weak position compared to Russia in which a good part of the budget gets financed by the sale of gas to the EU.

Interestingly, the EU has uploaded a paper (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/january/tradoc_152074.pdf) dealing with 'Myths' about the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. I had no time to read it.

Firn
02-25-2014, 05:40 PM
Some interesting demographic and economic trends within the country:

The Western-looking and more Ukrainian-speaking regions have overall a considerable higher fertility...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Fertilityrate2011ua.PNG


.. and longer life-expectancy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/UkrLifeExpectancy.PNG


A snapshot of growth:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/NaturalGrowth2012.PNG

The Krim profited from an influx of ethnic Tartars. As a benchmark we have the native languages:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Nativelanguage2001ua.PNG


The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine) page is surprisingly detailed and well structured, good job.

P.S: The anthem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lItPEbc6e-I) seems strangely fitting, at least for those who went out to protest.

Firn
02-26-2014, 02:36 PM
An interesting map brought into play by Invest Gazeta (http://www.investgazeta.net/ekonomika/zona-proedanija-164683/). This has been (quite obviously) disputed by the Russophil (http://darussophile.com/2014/02/everything-is-annihilated-the-split-of-ukraine-on-the-basis-of-economic-data-important-text/) and discussed in the comments below.

http://www.investgazeta.net/img/st_img/zona-proedaniya-big.gif

I can not dig deep enough to get a proper understanding of the facts, still I find the discussion interesting. In Italy it is also a hot topic but the facts are far clearer.


AP says:
February 3, 2014 at 3:07 pm

What I’ve heard agrees with the chart you posted rather than the article you translated. To a certain extent it makes sense: Ukraine is fantastically corrupt, the ruling party is linked to the Eastern oligarchs. Why wouldn’t they underpay in terms of taxes, given their connection to the government? Ukraine’s new tax laws, for example, favor large businesses of the sort that dominate the Eastern economy over small and medium-sized businesses more typical of the western parts of the country:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/16/us-ukraine-tax-protests-idUSTRE6AF1U020101116


The answer:


Fedia Kriukov says:
February 3, 2014 at 4:36 pm

Upon some further consideration, I can’t say that you’re entirely wrong. I added a column to my spreadsheet above, calculating “Tax per capita as % of GRP per capita”. As you can see, the East does not have the same tax burden as the Center (your theory that Ukrainian tax laws favor large businesses could account for that). But the West’s tax burden is still the lightest of all.

So to recap all of this:
1) The West is the poorest part of the country in terms of GRP per capita
2) The West pays the least amount of taxes per capita (naturally follows from (1))
3) The West has the lightest tax burden even in relation to its meager GRP per capita (just under that of the South)
4) The West is the most heavily subsidized part of the country

I think this should settle the East vs West debate.

One other note is that usually only the Lvov region is used to represent the West. However, while Lvov is the richest and most developed region of the West, it is only one of 7 western regions in that part of the country, and is not representative of their overall level. Even then, Lvov is merely on par with poorest regions of the rest of the country. There are very few regions outside of West Ukraine that are economically surpassed by Lvov.


All rather interesting stuff, but as I said I will have to stay on the sidelines of that discussion.

A paper (http://www.usubc.org/site/files/Regions%20of%20Ukraine%20June%202013-v3.pdf) about FDI, the capital plays clearly a special role. Overall subventions gained by political power/corruption can be key elements of shareholder profit, as Boing and other US companies (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/corporate-welfaresubsidiesboeingalcoa.html) show. Taking from the poor to give to the rich is of course not an US invention. :wry:

TheCurmudgeon
02-26-2014, 04:37 PM
A little more information on the east-west divide and the potential for violence.


A Russian parliamentary (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/02/25/all_not_quiet_on_ukraine_s_eastern_front?utm_sourc e=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=MB%202.26.14)delegation visiting the Crimean city of Simferopol on Tuesday welcomed the potential move. "If the parliament of the Crimean autonomy or its residents express the wish to join the Russian Federation, Russia will be prepared to consider this sort of application," said Leonid Slutsky, the head of the delegation. "We will be examining the situation and doing so fast." According to Ukrainian media reports, Russian authorities in Crimea have begun issuing passports following expedited procedures.

Firn
02-26-2014, 08:43 PM
Ukraine Crimea: Rival rallies confront one another (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26354705)


However, Crimean parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Konstantinov later said MPs would not discuss any secession by Crimea, which currently enjoys autonomy within Ukraine.

Mr Konstantinov described as "provocation" earlier media reports on the issue.

In Simferopol, Crimean Tatars chanted "Glory to Ukraine!", while the pro-Russian activists responded with "Russia!"

It is quite understandable that Russian-speakers fear for their rights, especially those concerning their language. While there has been considerable propaganda there is more then some truth behind it. Interestingly the Tartars see themselves as the victims of the Russian majority with the Crimea which keep the reigns of power and wealth, leaving others outside.

Some info about the financial needs (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26322400)

TheCurmudgeon
02-27-2014, 04:42 PM
Is the the begning of a seperatist movement (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/crimea-ukraine.html?_r=1&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=MB.02.27.2014)or the dying gasps of a failed regime?


Masked men with guns seized government buildings in the capital of Ukraine’s Crimea region on Thursday, barricading themselves inside and raising the Russian flag after mysterious overnight raids that appeared to be the work of militant Russian nationalists who want this volatile Black Sea region ruled from Moscow.

Police officers sealed off access to the buildings but said that they had no idea who was behind the assault, which sharply escalated tensions in a region that serves as home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and also to a number of radical pro-Russia groups that have appealed to Moscow to protect them from the new interim government in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital.

Adding to the confusion, Viktor F. Yanukovych, the ousted president of Ukraine, declared on Thursday that he remained the country’s lawful leader and appealed to Russia to “secure my personal safety from the actions of extremists.” Russian news agencies reported that he had already arrived in Russia, but officials did not immediately confirm that.

davidbfpo
02-28-2014, 01:02 AM
A couple of historical snippets on the situation in the Crimea before today. I spent a week there twelve years ago; a brilliant place for a holiday I digress.

The population of Sevastopol, the biggest city, had then shrunk by a third; after Ukrainian independence and many ethnic, young Russians returning to the "motherland" to pursue employment. A disproportionate number of the population were already retired, on meager Soviet-era pensions (including ex-military) or faced retirement.

The Black Sea fleet had dispensed with nearly all its old vessels, especially submarines, but shared the harbour with the Ukrainian navy. The Russian army still had some facilities, including historical WW2 sites and near Simferopol, the capital, there was a large Russian air force base with TU22 Blinders and Mig-25/27 fighters. The civil airport @ Simferopol shared it with the Russian Air Force. On the approaches to Sevastapol the single track railway bridges all had Russian Army guards and a plethora of active radar & SAM sites.

The Crimean Tartars IIRC were deported after 1944, ostensibly as they sided with the Germans and were not returned home till after Stalin's death. That is not something you forget as a community.

Firn
02-28-2014, 01:41 PM
Your impression certainly fits what I glanced form the Crimean maps:


Demographic trends

The population of the Crimean Peninsula has been consistently falling at a rate of 0.4% per year.[56] This is particularly apparent in both the Russian and Ukrainian ethnic populations, whose growth rate has been falling at the rate of 0.6% and 0.12% annually respectively. In comparison, the ethnic Crimean Tatar population has been growing at the rate of 0.9% per annum.[57]

The growing trend in the Crimean Tatar population has been explained by the continuing repatriation of Crimean Tatars mainly from Uzbekistan.

It is pretty likely that since the 2001 census the proportion of Russian speakers has decreased a couple of percentage points. I also got the impression that the pro-Russian demostrators were generally quite a bit older then the ones in Kviev or the Tartars.

As I stated before nobody knows what the future will bring but I can not imagine that Putin does really want to cut so deeply into Russian flesh that he orders more then limited military provocations. And yes, provoking they do (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26379722).

They are indeed looking uniform and modernly equipped, it would be very surprising if they aren't regular members of the Russian armed forces. Controlling the two big Crimean airports will obviously allow the air transport in and out. Such behaviour can of course not be tollerated in the long run by the Ukraine.

TheCurmudgeon
02-28-2014, 05:27 PM
Russia admits that it has moved troops in Ukraine (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10668357/Russia-admits-that-it-has-moved-troops-in-Ukraine.html)

Russia has finally confirmed that it has moved troops into Ukraine's restive Crimea region, after speculation about Moscow's involvement -

Russian troops have moved into Crimea in what Moscow is calling a mission to “protect Black Sea Fleet’s positions” but which the Ukrainian government has denounced as an “armed intervention.” The Russian foreign ministry said Friday that it had informed the Ukrainian government that armoured units from the Black Sea Fleet base near Sevastopol had entered Crimea in order to protect fleet positions.

Somewhat dated, but an interesting paper none-the-less.

Russian Military Capabilities: "Great Power" ambitions and reality (http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2009_RP12_kle_ks.pdf)

JMA
02-28-2014, 05:42 PM
Somewhat dated, but an interesting paper none-the-less.

Russian Military Capabilities: "Great Power" ambitions and reality (http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2009_RP12_kle_ks.pdf)

Are some deliberately missing something here?

Before the Russians moved troops into Crimea they were told:

US Warns Russia Against Ukraine Intervention (http://www.voanews.com/content/us-warns-against-russian-intervention-in-ukraine/1857658.html)

How should this be interpreted?

Russia flips Obama and Obama blinks...

carl
02-28-2014, 07:44 PM
Are some deliberately missing something here?

Before the Russians moved troops into Crimea they were told:

US Warns Russia Against Ukraine Intervention (http://www.voanews.com/content/us-warns-against-russian-intervention-in-ukraine/1857658.html)

How should this be interpreted?

Russia flips Obama and Obama blinks...

Nobody takes anything that guy says seriously for even a moment. They can do as they please and we will do nothing. Hopefully the rest of the world will be slow on the pickup because we still have three years of him to go.

Firn
02-28-2014, 07:59 PM
The guardian offers as usual well organized live-blogging (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-taking-over-airports-live-updates) with good summaries.

It contains also a link to the presentation of the new Russian uniforms to be fielded in 2014 (http://en.ria.ru/photolents/20121225/178388360_4.html). I'm certain that the local Russian-Non-Russian paramilitary forces of the Crimea got the first pick. Or maybe they stumbled across them in an old warehouse, along with pretty modern locking small arms. Happily the equipment was in complete sets and so everybody could uniformly drive away in the military vehicles which happened to be there as well. :D

TheCurmudgeon
02-28-2014, 08:50 PM
I'm certain that the local Russian-Non-Russian paramilitary forces of the Crimea got the first pick. Or maybe they stumbled across them in an old warehouse, along with pretty modern locking small arms. Happily the equipment was in complete sets and so everybody could uniformly drive away in the military vehicles which happened to be there as well. :D

At this point I don't know if additional troops have been introduced to the Crimea or if these are Marines from the Naval Base taking up a defensive posture to keep the Ukrainians, or anyone else, from trying to remove them from the area. Either way, they are Russian troops on Ukrainian soil. But they may not constitue the vanguard of an invasion but simply a LP-OP of sorts. I would be curious to know what, if any, legal authority they are claiming for this action.

As for warnings not to intervene, I am not sure that we (the US) should be making any. There is still a government (of sorts) in the Ukraine. If they invite in the EU or NATO perhaps we can get involved, but if there is anything left to the concept of sovereignty, then we have little authority to act.

On the other hand, the Russians have physical bases in the Ukraine. The question now is whether Russia will recognize (not openly, but covertly) the new government of Ukraine or whether they will take the posture that this was an illegal coups and intervene directly.

Firn
02-28-2014, 11:07 PM
As I have written before nobody knows what will happen, even Mr Putin which has clearly ordered armed aggression a bit similar - minus bloodshed - of what happened in Afghanistan ealier. I was a bit surprised when I heard about those organized well-armed men taking over the Crimean parliament a couple of days earlier. A local mixed bag was not out of the question but the CCTV footage on the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26392958) shows quite clearly that this was no rabble from the street. I will leave the evaluation to competent guys but it really looks like Russian SF waltzed at 04XX into the regional parliament of a sovereign nation...

From the sheer amount of gear it seems that they planned to stay for a while.

omarali50
02-28-2014, 11:48 PM
+1

Why is the US supposed to eagerly jump into what is a truly complex dispute, with some right on both sides? (and thousands of nuclear weapons on one of them)
After all, Crimea is, as these things go, historically more Russian than Ukrainian (whatever that means), ethnically mostly Russian and probably has more Russian troops right now than Ukrainian ones...not a simple matter for a distant power to get involved in...
And while Russia is not an attractive state, Ukraine is not very likely to rise above Moldavian levels anytime soon.
But then again, what do I know. I am certainly not an expert on the region or its history.

carl
03-01-2014, 12:41 AM
It seems to me the critical unknown is will somebody, maybe the Tatars in Crimea or the Ukrainians themselves in Crimea or somewhere else, fight the Russians? If they don't, no big deal. If they do, trouble approaches.

I don't know enough about it to make a guess. Does anybody have an idea?

Dayuhan
03-01-2014, 02:50 AM
Are some deliberately missing something here?

Before the Russians moved troops into Crimea they were told:

US Warns Russia Against Ukraine Intervention (http://www.voanews.com/content/us-warns-against-russian-intervention-in-ukraine/1857658.html)

How should this be interpreted?

Russia flips Obama and Obama blinks...

It would certainly be unwise (though not atypical) to issue warnings or declare "red lines" in a situation where the US is clearly not prepared to intervene. If you actually read the article, though, it seems mostly a case of bad headline writing: the National Security Adviser's statement is neither warning nor threat, and should not have been described as such.

Can't imagine what anyone would want or expect the US to do about it in any event.

Firn
03-01-2014, 08:01 AM
Another report from the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26394846).


From the scene
Oleg Boldyrev BBC Russian, Simferopol

Passengers at the main airport in Simferopol were waiting for their flight to Istanbul when they were told airspace over the city was closed and the flight would not leave until the next morning at the earliest.

Some considered making the 500km (310-mile) trip to the nearest international airport, in Odessa.

Meanwhile, the airport car park was still being patrolled by heavily-armed soldiers in uniforms that gave no indication of where they were from.

News from elsewhere was no less alarming. The main television station was taken over by armed men who said they were from Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

Reports came in that fibre optic lines connecting Crimea to the rest of Ukraine were either blocked or damaged.

If the mobile or internet connection goes down, it will be the most palpable indication yet of an emergency situation for the local people.

Let us step back for a moment and look at the big picture:

1. There is no doubt that Russian forces are invading Ukraine.

2. There have been no deaths in this armed conflict only because Ukrainian forces did not oppose them by military means.

3. So far the invasion seems to be limited to the Crimea, into which troops have been airlifted and maybe shipped.

So what are the political goals of Russia? The occuption and de-facto annexion of the Crimea, where Russian speakers have a slight majority under demographic pressure? Or more? How do those political objectives clash?

Lots of questions for the other sides as well: How and when will the new Ukrainian government react? How can we have proper Ukrainian elections if they can't be held in the whole country?


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


Personally I think while Russia has shown known strenghts it has also greatly weakened it's influence on the Ukraine and lost any soft gains from Sotchi within days. The Russian invasion is so far limited to the Crimea, where it will possibly 'justified' by a popular vote for autonomy or-so, which hardly anybody can take seriously considering the circumstances. This invasion is likely a considerable hit for many moderate 'Russian-friendly' voters within the Ukraine, keep in mind that many ethnic Ukrainians actually voted for disposed president in exile. Now after the bloodshed in Kviev and the Russian invasion of the Crimea a good deal of sympathy will be gone and the votes of the ethnic Russians will hardly be enough in a national election, especially if the ones from the Crimea can not be collected.

I read a nice, in-depth (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/kampf-um-die-krim-angst-um-den-kleinen-frieden-12826203.html) article in the German FAZ which asked good questions to different people. I tend to agree with the Andrej that it is unclear that even within the ethnic Russian there is a majority for a long-term Russian occupation. It is of course a fluid affair but so far the most likely aggressive action by Russia is to repeat what they did in Georgia. It of course only one path of action and much depends on the Ukrainian reaction. We will see.

Firn
03-01-2014, 10:43 AM
A blast of the past from Wikipedia, on a national scale:


1979: Soviet intervention
The Soviet intervention

On October 31, 1979 Soviet informants to the Afghan Armed Forces who were under orders from the inner circle of advisors under Soviet premier Brezhnev, relayed information for them to undergo maintenance cycles for their tanks and other crucial equipment. Meanwhile, telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul were severed, isolating the capital. With a deteriorating security situation, large numbers of Soviet Airborne Forces joined stationed ground troops and began to land in Kabul on December 25. Simultaneously, Amin moved the offices of the president to the Tajbeg Palace, believing this location to be more secure from possible threats. According to Colonel General Tukharinov and Merimsky, Amin was fully informed of the military movements, having requested Soviet military assistance to northern Afghanistan on December 17.[65][66] His brother and General Dmitry Chiangov met with the commander of the 40th Army before Soviet troops entered the country, to work out initial routes and locations for Soviet troops.[65]

On December 27, 1979, 700 Soviet troops dressed in Afghan uniforms, including KGB and GRU special forces officers from the Alpha Group and Zenith Group, occupied major governmental, military and media buildings in Kabul, including their primary target – the Tajbeg Presidential Palace. That operation began at 19:00 hr., when the KGB-led Soviet Zenith Group destroyed Kabul's communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command. At 19:15, the assault on Tajbeg Palace began; as planned, president Hafizullah Amin was killed. Simultaneously, other objectives were occupied (e.g. the Ministry of Interior at 19:15). The operation was fully complete by the morning of December 28, 1979.

The Soviet military command at Termez, Uzbek SSR, announced on Radio Kabul that Afghanistan had been liberated from Amin's rule. According to the Soviet Politburo they were complying with the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness and Amin had been "executed by a tribunal for his crimes" by the Afghan Revolutionary Central Committee. That committee then elected as head of government former Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal, who had been demoted to the relatively insignificant post of ambassador to Czechoslovakia following the Khalq takeover, and that it had requested Soviet military assistance.[67]

The live-coverage of the Russian invasion of the Crimea (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/01/crimea-crisis-deepens-as-russia-and-ukraine-ready-forces-live-updates) does certainly fit in many areas the blue print rather well.


Mr Aksyonov's election has not been approved by the new authorities in Kiev, who traditionally appoint the prime minister of Crimea, in consultation with the regional parliament.

"I appeal to the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, to provide assistance in ensuring peace and tranquillity on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea," Mr Aksyonov said in a statement.

He went on to announce that he was taking control of security in Crimea "on a temporary basis".

"All commanders are to obey only my orders and instructions," Mr Aksyonov said. "I ask all those who refuse to do so to resign."

Obviously it is only and always those fascist bandits which create 'instability':


Unknown armed men from Kiev have tried to seize the Crimean Interior Ministry overnight, and there were several injuries in that attack, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“Thanks to the decisive action of self-defense squads, the attempt to seize the building of the Interior Ministry was derailed. This attempt confirms the intention of prominent political circles in Kiev to destabilize the situation on the peninsula,” the statement added.

Moscow is very concerned with the latest developments in Crimea and thinks any further escalation would be irresponsible, the ministry added.

Looking at some of the pictures of roadblocks in the Crimea I'm quite certain that Russia is pushing to arm local ethnic Russians, ideally with some military background, to get a decent local militia or 'self-defense squads'
going. So far a good amount of boxes have been ticked off.

1. Insertion of SF by air and land to take over the buildings of the government, airports, ports, TV & Radio stations, Internet hubs, roads and strategic crossings.

2. Movement of regular troops into the Ukrainian region with a slight ethnic Russian majority

3. Pledges for help by the local leader of the party of the Russian-speakers which also controlled the parliament.

4. Reports about counter-revolutionary, ah sorry, fascist attacks on the legitimate leadership of the Crimea

5. A propaganda offensive by the Russian media and parliament to put all the blame on the West and all those nasty 'fascist bandits'

6. A unquestioned leader, named Putin, which is officially silent while playing over the telephone a different political game towards the West.

... we will see which boxes follow. Will we see a heavy brigade rolling out of Sevastopol?

JMA
03-01-2014, 11:01 AM
It would certainly be unwise (though not atypical) to issue warnings or declare "red lines" in a situation where the US is clearly not prepared to intervene.

Absolutely.

One qould have thought Obama would have learned his lesson from Syria (about red-lines) but it seems he is not smart enough.


If you actually read the article, though, it seems mostly a case of bad headline writing: the National Security Adviser's statement is neither warning nor threat, and should not have been described as such.

Can't imagine what anyone would want or expect the US to do about it in any event.

You are applying your normal pathetic spin - you obviously can't help yourself.

Obviously Obama is not warning of the possible use of force. Only that "there will be costs".

Do you think Putin is quaking in his boots over this? Perhaps hysterical laughter?

Firn
03-01-2014, 11:16 AM
The world is a strange place, facts are indeed stranger then fiction. Haartez reports of several ex-IDF members (http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.577114#) who have joined the protesters on Maidan, supporting the neo-nazi, fascist bandits:


I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders from their team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother,’” he said. “What they’re saying about Svoboda is exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like them because they’re inconsistent, not because of [any] anti-Semitism issue.”

The commanding position of Svoboda in the revolution is no secret, according to Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Washington D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank.

“The driving force among the so-called white sector in the Maidan are the nationalists, who went against the SWAT teams and snipers who were shooting at them,” Cohen told JTA.

Still, many Jews supported the revolution and actively participated in it.

You really could not make that up, I would have laughed a guy coming up with such a story out of the room. The famous jewish French philospher came actually to a similar conclusion in his piece: I believe into the honour of the Ukraine (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/faschismus-vorwurf-ich-glaube-an-die-ehre-der-ukrainer-12820395.html).

Considering our discussion about Syria is Mr. Delta along with his comrades now also a foreign fighter?

P.S: Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWGluhvL7JI#t=14) shows a longer version of the Crimean parliament's occupation by Russian SF forces. Note the snow-camo on some rifles, no surprise if we consider that the close-by winter olympic games of Sotchi had seen a high concentration of special and security forces which were no doubt given priority in terms of gear.

Dayuhan
03-01-2014, 11:58 AM
One qould have thought Obama would have learned his lesson from Syria (about red-lines) but it seems he is not smart enough.

He may have learned a little, as there's no specific red line or "we will not tolerate" statement here.


Obviously Obama is not warning of the possible use of force. Only that "there will be costs".

It doesn't look like a warning at all, just a generalized statement of disapproval, much like those the Russians and Chinese issue every time the US is shaping up to intervene somewhere. Those aren't meant or expected to change anyone's course of action, just to declare a position.


Do you think Putin is quaking in his boots over this? Perhaps hysterical laughter?

Of course he's not quaking in his boots, any more than Bush was when the Russians and Chinese disapproved of intervention in Iraq or Obama was when the Russians and Chinese disapproved of intervention in Libya. Statements like that aren't meant to scare anyone, and nobody would expect them to scare anyone.

Firn
03-01-2014, 12:25 PM
My last post before I'm off:

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/shifting-energy-trends-blunt-russias-natural-gas-weapon/2014/02/28/7d090062-9ef7-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html) has an interesting article on how the Russian gas weapon has become much blunter compared to 2009.


As clunky Soviet-era factories and mines have become more efficient or gone out of business, Ukraine’s domestic gas consumption has dropped nearly 40 percent over the past five years, cutting its imports from Russia in half, according to a report by Sberbank Investment Research.

Domestic consumption might drop further if Ukraine trims the generous subsidies it gives households using natural gas, although so few households are paying their bills that it might not matter. “People will go from not paying the lower price to not paying the higher price,” said Thane Gustafson, senior director of Russian energy for the consulting firm IHS CERA.

...

“Ukraine has reduced its consumption of Russian gas, which puts them in a less vulnerable situation. Also the hardest part of winter is over. And there is a fair amount [of gas] in storage,” said a senior Obama administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “Ukraine is obviously still in a precarious situation,” he added, “though very different from what it was in 2009.”


If indirect means do no longer cut it due to changed circumstances and one has to pull off a local 'counter-revolution' direct military force might become necessary in the eyes of a certain leader. Of course the Russian invasion is a peaceful affair and only an aggressive Ukrainian defense of it's territory could spark a war. :rolleyes:

Some of the Russian news and moves remind me of a fine bon mot of good old Clausewitz:
“The invader* is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed.”

*In the original conquerer, it refers to the way Napoleon justified the invasion of Prussia and argued that he had wanted to keep the peace - after he provoked Prussia in everyway possible. It seems that Lenin, a avid reader of CvC, valued this bon mot highly. See the Wiki for the historical context.


Another cause was Napoleon's formation in July 1806 of the Confederation of the Rhine out of the various German states which constituted the Rhineland and other parts of western Germany. A virtual satellite of the French Empire with Napoleon as its "Protector", the Confederation was intended to act as a buffer state from any future aggressions from Austria, Russia or Prussia against France (a policy that was an heir of the French revolutionary doctrine of maintaining France's "natural frontiers"). The formation of the Confederation was the final nail in the coffin of the moribund Holy Roman Empire and subsequently its last Habsburg emperor, Francis II, changed his title to simply Francis I, Emperor of Austria. Napoleon consolidated the various smaller states of the former Holy Roman Empire which had allied with France into larger electorates, duchies and kingdoms to make the governance of non-Prussian and Austrian Germany more efficient. He also elevated the electors of the two largest Confederation states, his allies Württemberg and Bavaria, to the status of kings. The Confederation was above all a military alliance: in return for continued French protection, member states were compelled to supply France with large numbers of their own military personnel (mainly to serve as auxiliaries to the Grande Armée), as well as contribute much of the resources needed to support the French armies still occupying western and southern Germany. Understandably, Prussia was indignant at this increasing French meddling in the affairs of German homogeneity (without its involvement or even consultation) and viewed it as a threat. Napoleon had previously attempted to emolliate Prussian anxieties by assuring Prussia he was not adverse to its heading a North German Confederation, but his duplicity regarding Hanover dashed this. A final spark leading to war was the summary arrest and execution of German nationalist Johann Philipp Palm in August 1806 for publishing a pamphlet which strongly attacked Napoleon and the conduct of his army occupying Germany. After giving Napoleon an ultimatum on 1 October 1806, Prussia (supported by Saxony) finally decided to contend militarily with the French Emperor.

JMA
03-01-2014, 02:21 PM
He may have learned a little, as there's no specific red line or "we will not tolerate" statement here.

Look, I appreciate you are lonely out there in the boonies but I am not well disposed to entertain you now it looks as if CrowBat has put you in your place in the syrian thread.

The 'red-line' here is:


"The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."

That line has been crossed so now we wait to see what these costs will be.


It doesn't look like a warning at all, just a generalized statement of disapproval, much like those the Russians and Chinese issue every time the US is shaping up to intervene somewhere. Those aren't meant or expected to change anyone's course of action, just to declare a position.

Yes, in this case the message to Russia - and the rest of the world - is that whatever the Russians do the US will do nothing.


Of course he's not quaking in his boots, any more than Bush was when the Russians and Chinese disapproved of intervention in Iraq or Obama was when the Russians and Chinese disapproved of intervention in Libya. Statements like that aren't meant to scare anyone, and nobody would expect them to scare anyone.

OK now you are an expert on international affairs.

Think what message it sends to the rest of the world ...

... OK enough ... go find someone else to play with.

Firn
03-01-2014, 03:36 PM
A couple of posts ago I asked if we will see a heavy brigade rolling out of Sevastopol:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhpXAmBCcAEsftb.jpg:large

Not exactly MBT nor seemingly a brigade yet but another box ticked off in the old spiel, posted 40 min. ago.

I also wondered when finally Mr. Putin would 'cave in' to the big pressure inside Russia and from the Crimea and break his 'inaction'. Now at last he does something, after his unruly troops have spontaneously occupied most of the Crimea:


Russian President Vladimir Putin has asked the upper house of parliament to approve sending armed forces to Ukraine’s Crimea region, the Kremlin said in a statement on Saturday.

“In connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory (in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) ... I submit a proposal on using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the normalisation of the socio-political situation in the that country,” the statement said.

How surprising :rolleyes:

Since yesterday night I have become convinced that it is a complete Russian invasion so far limited to the Crimea. Once you cut through the fog of war with that view the Russian actions today were pretty predictable unless a strong reaction happened from the attacked nation.

P.S: It is also not unexpected that some Ukrainian would come up with such a picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhoq8CaCUAMmV-f.jpg

Just protecting the people abroad which happen to speak your language and your culture and finished perhaps unjustly within the borders of another nation. It is no surprise that they also call for you help, rightly or not and establish self-defense forces...

carl
03-01-2014, 03:45 PM
Russia already has insurgencies in its south that it can't handle. Now it may grab a chunk of the Ukraine possibly giving itself another insurgency to deal with since the Ukrainians have a history of that kind of thing. This action may not be good for Russia in the long run no matter how much fun it is for Vlad now.

Firn
03-01-2014, 03:56 PM
Fresh news.


The upper house of the Russian parliament unanimously approved President Putin’s request to use armed forces in defence of Russians and Russian interests, anywhere in the territory of Ukraine.

So Russia reserves itself the right to invade other parts of it's sovereign neighbour. It may or may not, of course. Maybe there still has to be an discussion in Moskva where and when the fascist bandits should try to attack next. Brave Russiaphile self-defense forces will of course be waiting for them.

So the dear Vladimir has decided to cut very deeply indeed into the Russian flesh or better the long-term interests of the Russian nation. I bet most of the Ukraine will feel profound love for the nation which calls them 'little brother' and that the whole of Europe will now convinced of the peace-loving nature of the current leadership. I would love to know what the big Western leaders think now after they had all those pleasant conversations on the phone with Vladimirovic...

TheCurmudgeon
03-01-2014, 04:29 PM
Those closer to the situation are also posturing (http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/france-germany-poland-warn-of-more-violence-in-ukraine_915023.html),


Paris: Foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland -- currently leading an European mediation in Ukraine -- voiced concern Friday over the worsening security situation in the country, urging for unity to complete a political transition.

"We are deeply concerned with the tensions in Crimea," Xinhua quoted top French diplomat Laurent Fabius as saying. “Everything must be done to decrease the tension in the eastern region and promote peaceful discussions among relevant parties.”

In a joint statement with German and Polish counterparts Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Radoslaw Sikorski, Fabius reaffirmed "support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country", urging "all parties in Ukraine to refrain from actions that could challenge this".

Firn
03-01-2014, 05:08 PM
Spot the difference...

Saying sorry on their knees on Maidan to the pro-western Ukrainians:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/25/article-2567420-1BCD887E00000578-745_634x420.jpg

Saying sorry on their knees in Kharkiv to pro-Russians activists:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhpxFG7CQAEXHHz.jpg



A logical consequence of the Russian invasion:


Vitali Klitschko, the former boxer now contending to be Ukraine's next president, has urged parliament to mobilise the army, AFP news agency reports. "Parliament must ask the army's commander-in-chief to declare national mobilisation after the start of Russian aggression against Ukraine," he said in a statement. He also asked for the UN Security Council to gather urgently for talks on the crisis.

So far the Ukrainian forces let the Russians walked into their country unopposed. Many in Kviev will ask themselves how far Mr.Putin will go to achieve his political goals by military goals. Are some of the Eastern regions next if they just stand idle by? Maybe even more? What do you have defensive forces if the are not at least making some effort to make it a bit more difficult to take over parts of your country...

TheCurmudgeon
03-01-2014, 05:09 PM
Even if the US wanted to intervene, how long would it take us to unilaterally mount a credible heavy force to react?

Firn
03-01-2014, 05:38 PM
Of bio loos and false flags (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26368479), how the former pro-Russian leadership of Ukraine planned to discredit and disrupt the activists of Maidan. After looking at the way the Russian media has been producing cookie-cutter caricatures of fascists bands one is inclined to believe that those documents are real. Yanukovych is surly a sad man now that it didn't work out for him.



6. Imitate robberies:


TRANSLATION: imitate robberies, by breaking shop windows, of the shops near Independence Square, including Globus, where some Euro-Maidan activists are staying.

ANALYSIS: This didn't seem to have worked. Protesters' militia, called Samooborona (Self-defence forces) had regular patrols around the square, and alcohol was banned throughout.


8/9. 'Create grounds for anti-terror op'

TRANSLATION: Ensure that weapons, explosive substances and also objects resembling improvised explosive devices and ammunition are found during searches of the buildings, facilities and tents, and that the aforementioned facts are covered by the media.

TRANSLATION: Ensure that weapons, explosive substances and also objects resembling improvised explosive devices and ammunition are found during searches of the buildings, facilities and tents, and that the aforementioned facts are covered by the media.

ANALYSIS: Boomerang was the code name of the operation that included snipers, which resulted in multiple deaths in Kiev. Obviously the SBU [security service] knew about the plan and there were repeated reports about weapons allegedly stored in large number among the protestors. In one case, explosives were handed over to two young men in the protestors' HQ. They were badly injured when they opened the packet. While there were reports of firearms used by the protestors on 22 February, none of those killed by the snipers appeared to be carrying any guns.

It is certainly amazing how those guys and girls were able to pull it off against the odds.

JMA
03-01-2014, 05:48 PM
I would love to know what the big Western leaders think now after they had all those pleasant conversations on the phone with Vladimirovic...

They realise just how impotent they really are.

If Assad doesn't listen to them why should Russia?

Firn
03-01-2014, 05:54 PM
I generally dislike the impulse of peope to compare a current situation with a far more stark past, but I could not resist to take a quick look at the Wiki:




Sudeten German pro-Nazi leader Konrad Henlein offered the Sudeten German Party (SdP) as the agent for Hitler's campaign. Henlein met with Hitler in Berlin on 28 March 1938, where he was instructed to raise demands unacceptable to the Czechoslovak government led by president Edvard Beneš. On 24 April, the SdP issued the Karlsbader Programm, demanding autonomy for the Sudetenland and the freedom to profess Nazi ideology. If Henlein's demands were granted, the Sudetenland would then be able to align itself with Nazi Germany.

"I am asking neither that Germany be allowed to oppress three and a half million Frenchmen, nor am I asking that three and a half million Englishmen be placed at our mercy. Rather I am simply demanding that the oppression of three and a half million Germans in Czechoslovakia cease and that the inalienable right to self-determination take its place." - Adolf Hitler's speech at the NSDAP Congress 1938

There are certainly some differences but also quite some similarities...

So now I understand even more why some Polish? guy decided to take this not so original take on Mr. Putin:

http://racjapolska.blox.pl/resource/putin_hitler.jpg

Perhaps it was just retweeted by an Ukrainian.

@JMA: I think Putin would have been wise to show restraint. Yes he achieved a strategic surprise by preparing and executing an invasion while he fooled the Western powers. Yes he occupied the Crimea and right now there is very little the Western powers or the Ukraine can do against it. Yes he will be pretty satisfied with him and perhaps be rather smug. But there will be a steep price to payed by the Russian people, hopefully and so far likely not in blood. Russia might boast itself for the vast natural ressources but it's economy is only kept afloat by the money payed mostly by Europeans for it. And increasingly Europe is moving away from Russian imports. There is little doubt that Russia depends economically more on Europe then the other way around.

In any case the words of some Western politicians sound now indeed naive and perhaps even stupid, and Putins words have no worth at all.

carl
03-01-2014, 06:42 PM
Even if the US wanted to intervene, how long would it take us to unilaterally mount a credible heavy force to react?

Nothing much at all can be done now. But what can be done that will work well is get our LNG export terminals on line asap and the same for the gas field in the Med off Israel.

Firn
03-01-2014, 06:59 PM
Indeed carl, there is quite a bit underway in that regard. The recent events should give such projects a big boost and might kick life into others, some of which were already considered to be dead. After the 2008-09 gas dispute there was, under vastly different circumstances such a reaction but it faded away. I think quite a few will think now about the old saying: Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Bill Moore
03-01-2014, 08:16 PM
It is easy to see how we walk into situations 3/4 blind due our government's and media's framing of the narrative. I'm no advocate for Russia or Putin but there is more to this story than is being covered.

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_14000042.aspx


Special comment: What Western media have not reported is the description of events in Ukraine and Crimea by Russian speakers who live there and broadcast by Russian media. Russian state TV has portrayed Ukraine as a country in chaos. Reports have emphasized the vulnerability and fears of the Russian-speaking population, particularly in eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

Some reports state that Ukrainian hooligans are burning the houses of Russian speakers. Others state that Ukrainian militias are marching to take over Crimea. Still others say the Ukraine regime in Kyiv intends to ban the use of the Russian language.

Protection of Russians and Russian speakers and supporters was the justification for Russian military intervention in Georgia in 2008.

There is no doubt there is some truth in their claims. That is simply the nature of these conflicts, but we prefer to erase the gray areas and frame it in black and white terms.


In other words, the Western news narrative about freedom fighters and enlightened democrats in Kyiv is not the only narrative. The Russian version of the story depicts the new leaders of Ukraine as criminals, terrorists, neo-Nazis and Western agents, especially the new interim prime minister Yatsenyuk, who is an American favorite with almost no following in Ukraine, according to Forbes.

In the Western story line, Russian behavior is belligerent, unreasonable and irresponsible. In the Russian storyline, Russian soldiers are hastening to defend ethnic Russians from Ukrainian bullies and Western deception and betrayal. The Russian soldiers are preventing the spread of chaos and responding to an appeal for humanitarian assistance.

Bolded area is my highlight which points once again to uninformed State Department meddling and pushing their favorite candidates regardless of their legitimacy with the actual constituents.

carl
03-01-2014, 08:31 PM
Bill:

What your excerpts are describing almost exactly parallels the canned propaganda campaign as outlined by Firn.

Bill Moore
03-01-2014, 08:53 PM
Good propaganda has an element of truth to it.

Chris jM
03-01-2014, 10:48 PM
The other point to remember is that Russia most likely has its own red-lines and that some may have been triggered already.

Moscow lost control of Ukraine during the Great Patriotic War and I suspect they do not want to see the former Soviet state simply swing into the West's sphere. That would put the front line of the East-West divide right back at the heartland of Russia as it was in 1940/41. Russia's strategy for security seems to depend around the inevitability of the state's centralist weaknesses being mitigated by the immense distances and buffer-zones of the former Soviet states. Pre-empting Ukraine becoming a part or an associate of NATO is, if I were to make an uneducated guess, the driving calculus for Moscow right now.

In the same way that the American presence projected into Iraq served as a means of influencing Iran and Saudi Arabia back in '03, I suspect that Russian presence projected into Georgia in '08 helped serve, in part, as a means of influencing Ukraine. I think that Russia isn't willing to accept such a fundamental change to it's geopolitical assumptions given the potentially enormous consequences of losing Ukraine to the EU/NATO sphere (and, while the likes of Orange revolution and the recent ousting of Yanukovych are baby steps, they do have huge potential for changing the trajectory of the region).

carl
03-01-2014, 10:49 PM
Good propaganda has an element of truth to it.

Entirely too facile. Good propaganda knows the audience and what will move it and acts upon that. Truth has little to do with it.

Bill Moore
03-01-2014, 10:52 PM
This must be the Forbe's article that referenced.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/01/5-things-you-should-know-about-putins-incursion-into-crimea/

5 Things You Should Know About Putin's Incursion Into Crimea


1. What Is Crimea? Crimea is a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine, which means that while it is part of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, it is largely self governed.


2. Why Russia Wants It. Put simply, without a naval base in Crimea Russia is finished as a global military power. A few other comments about national pride, etc., but the core interest seems to be the ability to project military power, to include Russia's support for Assad.


3. Why Ukraine Wants It. Crimea, it should be stressed, is sovereign Ukrainian territory.

many regions of Crimea, especially Sevastopol and the capital of Simferopol, are avidly pro-Russian, much of it is not.

There is also the matter of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons and Russia vowed to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.


4. What We’re Doing About It

Unfortunately, if Putin wants to take Crimea, there’s very little Ukraine, the US or NATO can do about it.

the West is not wholly without leverage either. While it went mostly unnoticed in the American press, Obama made an unscheduled stop to Vice President Biden’s meeting with Georgia’s Prime Minister Garibashvili and expressed support for creating closer ties and for its aspirations of full NATO membership.


5. What Will Be The Consequences?


If Putin does annex Crimea, it will surely bring international condemnation and, quite probably, some form of implicit or explicit trade sanctions. With its weakened economy, that is not something that Russia can easily afford and a downturn can be expected.

Putin will also see a military buildup in his backyard. NATO membership for Georgia, with the advanced weapon systems and training it will bring,

The Crimean Tartars, with their deep hatred of Russia, will resist Russian sovereignty, possibly resulting in a situation similar to the one in war-torn Chechnya.

And that is what is so worrying about Putin’s latest moves. They show that he is clearly a desperate man,

Obviously my opinion only, but despite the sky is falling reports from Foxx Media/News, from a strategic perspective it appears the U.S. and the West actually have the upper hand and it is Putin that is in the no win situation if you evaluate who gains and loses over time.

Putin probably has a credible narrative about ethnic Russians being threatened Crimea, I suspect in some regards it is little different than many other countries that have experienced decades of conflict and where there is has been little in the way of reconciliation between the various ethnic groups. If one gets the upper hand the other will be oppressed. He can use that argument as a thinly veiled reason to insert troops using our rhetoric of responsibility to protect (R2P), but if the author the Forbes' article is right, it will backfire on him. Chess, not checkers.

Firn
03-01-2014, 11:07 PM
@Bill Moore/carl: I agree that the best propaganda inflates some grain of truth. If you look at the propaganda streaming out from the Russian media it is quite revealing on how little it can base itself. The only big Ukrainian own goal was the language law which was portrayed as a threat to throw guys speaking Russian into prison. If there were really brutal attacks on streets on Russian speakers or arson attacks the propaganda machine would milk it with gusto. But just like in the case of all those 'fascist bandits' there is so little, so few facts which can be brought to bear without having much to add. But if you would believe some of the Russian media a genocide seems to be almost at hand.

One of the most shocking aspects of the whole Russian invasion is how pure of a cold war power play it was so far. The pretext was so feeble that it is not even worth discussing. Putin was doing an Afghanistan-type invasion with some Sudetenland elements while he seemingly reassured the Western leaders. As I have written before the take-over in the Crimea is something out of an old Soviet textbook minus the killing with some brown markings.

To be honest I don't know to which extent Putin acted to avoid the loss of face in front of his own people after the media went wild with fascist bandit this, fascist bandit that for months. In any case he did what he did and this tells enough.

So nobody should be surprised by this news:

James Mates ‏@jamesmatesitv


Latvia+Lithuania have invoked NATO art. 4 in response to #crimea NATO now obliged to hold emerg council meeting. Only 4th time in history

Latvia has a far higher amount of Russians which were settled there, like in the Crimea after WWII, partly to provide more control over the locals. How else but very concerned should they feel after such Russian aggression?

In my humble opinion Putin is risking to lose the Ukraine with it's 40+ million by invading the 2 million Ukrainian Crimea. It could well turn out to be a Phyrric victory. Just like the US invasion of Iraq promoted the importance of actually having powerful WMD (think Iran) the recent Russian invasion has shown to western-minded Ukrainians how important it is to get under the umbrella of the EU or/and NATO. I doubt that the Ukrainian elections will give pro-Russian any significant power in the national parliament for a long time unless we see a repeat of East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968. And with the element of surprise now gone it is difficult to imagine that the Russian troops can just drive into Kviev to eat ice or drink cocktails.

AdamG
03-01-2014, 11:09 PM
OSINT mapping
http://cigeography.blogspot.com/

TheCurmudgeon
03-01-2014, 11:20 PM
As best as I can tell, we should still have two ships in the Black Sea, although one has a new commander.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/navy-relieves-commander-of-ship-that-ran-aground-after-sochi-tour/

I doubt we have too much else in the area. I don't believe we can get a carrier into the Black Sea, anyone know about Marine capabilities in the Mediterranean?

While this is all very interesting, it seems that cooler heads are prevailing at least on the Ukrainian side. They will not easily be goaded into a confrontation.

Firn
03-01-2014, 11:53 PM
As best as I can tell, we should still have two ships in the Black Sea, although one has a new commander.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/navy-relieves-commander-of-ship-that-ran-aground-after-sochi-tour/

I doubt we have too much else in the area. I don't believe we can get a carrier into the Black Sea, anyone know about Marine capabilities in the Mediterranean?

While this is all very interesting, it seems that cooler heads are prevailing at least on the Ukrainian side. They will not easily be goaded into a confrontation.

From an Ukrainian perspective a mobilisation or readiness of it's armed forces seems almost a necessity as they certainly won't want to lay their trust into the limited objectives of Putin. While most of the damage has been done already the own goal/imbecile language law was rightly withdrawn. Letting those Russian flags flutter for now in the Crimea and parts of the East may work well into the long-term favour of the current Ukrainian leadership.

1. It does almost force Western states to open their wallets and help the Ukraine politically, financially and economically. I was going to write more about it but it seems that the US president has already issued a statement in this regard:


The people of Ukraine have the right to determine their own future. President Obama has directed his Administration to continue working urgently with international partners to provide support for the Ukrainian government, including urgent technical and financial assistance. Going forward, we will continue consulting closely with allies and partners, the Ukrainian government and the International Monetary Fund, to provide the new government with significant assistance to secure financial stability, to support needed reforms, to allow Ukraine to conduct successful elections, and to support Ukraine as it pursues a democratic future.

2. It does also increasingly isolate Russia financially, economically and politically. Russia needs the European economy much more then Europe needs Russia, especially since Spring is coming. Compared to frozen conflicts in Moldova or Georgia this invasion had a different quality as Russia was clearly the aggressor.

3. The Russian speakers are only by a small margin the majority in the Crimea and the economy relies on tourism and agriculture. Electricity, gas and water comes seemingly from the mainland, just like most necessaties. While it is not out of the question that Putin will pump money into the Crimea to 'win' the 'referendum', incentives Russian tourists and organize the supplies it won't be a smooth ride for the people there. Once again the Russian occuption might be a rougher period for Russia and especially it's occupied Crimean then it imagined.

Dayuhan
03-01-2014, 11:58 PM
Look, I appreciate you are lonely out there in the boonies but I am not well disposed to entertain you now it looks as if CrowBat has put you in your place in the syrian thread.

Last I looked he'd stopped dreaming about pipelines and US interests and gone back to reporting events, which seems a step in a reasonable direction.



The 'red-line' here is:


"The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."


Not much of a red line there. Of course intervention will always have costs, but they will probably not be imposed by the US or Europe.


Yes, in this case the message to Russia - and the rest of the world - is that whatever the Russians do the US will do nothing.

The world already knew that, just as the world knew that Russian and Chinese denunciation of American interventions would not go beyond words.


Think what message it sends to the rest of the world ...

Nothing they didn't already know.

carl
03-02-2014, 12:07 AM
If the Russians annex the Crimea, it will give Turkey, the Ukraine, rich Gulf Arabs who want to prove their piety, Iran and anybody else who care to play the game a chance to practice unconventional warfare against the Russians through the good offices of the Crimean Tatars. Which will not only be bad for Russia, it will be bad for the rest of the world in that it may provide yet more fuel for the jihadist fire.

Russia has made more mischief and caused more suffering over the last 100 years than any other country, and they're still at it.

Firn
03-02-2014, 12:09 AM
[URL="http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/01/putin-proposes-use-of-russian-armed-forces-in-ukraine"An article[/URL] to finish off my day. An interesting one, to say the least. History was certainly made today.


This is probably the most dangerous situation in Europe since the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968," said a Western official on condition of anonymity. "Realistically, we have to assume the Crimea is in Russian hands. The challenge now is to deter Russia from taking over the Russian-speaking east of Ukraine."

The next bit is interesting, the part about the movie seems to strange.


This is probably the most dangerous situation in Europe since the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968," said a Western official on condition of anonymity. "Realistically, we have to assume the Crimea is in Russian hands. The challenge now is to deter Russia from taking over the Russian-speaking east of Ukraine."

WAR HAS ARRIVED

On Kiev's central Independence Square, where protesters camped out for months against Yanukovich, a World War Two film about Crimea was being shown on a giant screen, when Yuri Lutsenko, a former interior minister, interrupted it to announce Putin's decree. "War has arrived," Lutsenko said.

Hundreds of Ukrainians descended on the square chanting "Glory to the heroes. Death to the occupiers."


Grim reading about the WWII fights in the Crimea, which contained perhaps one of the most brilliant victories over the odds in the last 100 years. Didn't know much about that.


Von Manstein had five infantry divisions, one Panzer Division (22nd Panzer Division), and two and a half Romanian Divisions against 19 Soviet divisions and four armoured brigades at Kerch. He committed his units in the south against the 44th Army. The 902nd Assault Boat Command of the 436th Regiment, 132nd German Infantry Division, landed behind the Soviet lines and helped unbuckle the Soviet second lines. The artillery bombardment lasted only 10 minutes, and within three and a half hours of the assault being launched, the 44th Army collapsed. On the first day, XXX Corps, attacking with the 28th, 50th and 132nd Divisions had broken through in the south. At a cost of 104 killed and 284 wounded, they captured 4,514 Soviet soldiers. Kozlov did not appreciate the significance of the German breakthrough and failed to release reserves for a counter-attack. On 9 May, von Manstein committed the 22nd Panzer Division, which swung north and trapped the 51st Army against the Sea of Azov. Soviet morale and organisation collapsed, and a stampede to the rear areas began. Once this happened, the eight divisions of the 51st Army surrendered releasing XXX Corps to pursue the fragments of retreating Soviet forces to Marfovka, barely eight miles from Kerch.[12]

Aftermath

The speed of the advance was rapid. The 132nd Infantry Division overran several airfields, capturing 30 Soviet aircraft on the ground. On 10 May, Fliegerkorps VIII launched KG 55's He 111s against the Soviet forces. The large and slow He 111s made easy targets for ground fire, and eight were lost. However, the anti-personnel bombs (SD-2) were devastating to Soviet infantry. German bombers also attacked shipping evacuating personnel from Kerch. The 1,048 long tons (1,065 t) Chernomorets was sunk the same day.[13] By this time, the air battle was won by the Luftwaffe. Despite the withdrawal of some Geschwader to support the German 6th Army at the Second Battle of Kharkov, the Luftwaffe had destroyed Soviet aerial opposition and enabled the German Army to make deep penetrations, capturing 29,000 Soviet men, 220 guns and around 170 tanks.[14]

In 12 days, the VVS Crimean Front had lost 417 aircraft. The Luftwaffe assisted the final defeat of Soviet ground forces on 20 May, when Kerch finally fell. Some 116,045 Soviet soldiers were evacuated by sea. However, 162,282 were left behind, killed or captured. The Germans claimed to have taken 170,000 prisoners, but this number included a large number of civilians.[15] German casualties amounted to only 3,397 casualties in XXX and XLII Corps, including 600 dead. They expended 6,230 short tons (5,650 t) of ammunition, losing nine artillery pieces, three assault guns and eight tanks. In exchange, von Manstein had destroyed three Soviet armies. Although forced to return some Luftwaffe units and the 22nd Panzer Division for Operation Blue, he could now concentrate his forces for an attack on Sevastopol.[12]

AdamG
03-02-2014, 01:45 AM
If the Russians annex the Crimea, it will give Turkey, the Ukraine, rich Gulf Arabs who want to prove their piety, Iran and anybody else who care to play the game a chance to practice unconventional warfare against the Russians through the good offices of the Crimean Tatars. Which will not only be bad for Russia, it will be bad for the rest of the world in that it may provide yet more fuel for the jihadist fire.

Already an issue, albeit a small one. Guess the Kremlin thinks the risk is acceptable, in order to keep their Black Sea naval base.


CRIMEAN TATARS IN SYRIA

There are no accurate figures of how many Crimean Tatars are fighting in Syria, but local sources say they are few.

Those Crimean fighters who have become known — like Abu Khalid — have tended to gravitate toward the Russian-speaking factions, particularly Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar. The current second-in-command of that group, now an independent faction, is a Crimean, whose nom de guerre is Abdul Karim Krimsky.

In September, the head of the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar People, Mustafa Jemilev, said that “only a handful” of Crimean Tatars had been recruited , and blamed the radical Islamic organization Hizb ut-Tahrir.

In response, Hizb ut-Tahrir said that it was not sending Crimean Tatars to Syria but that “some individuals” were going to take part in the conflict.

The accusations against Hizb ul-Tahrir came after Ukrainian media reported in April that a 20-year-old man from Crimea, Abdullah Jepparov from the Belogorsk region, had been killed fighting with “extremists” in Syria.

Ukraine’s Segodnya newspaper reported that Abdullah’s friends said he had become interested in radical Islam via Hizb ut-Tahrir, and then moved from Crimea to Turkey to work. From Turkey, Abdullah and six other Crimean Tatars went to Syria.

http://eaworldview.com/2014/02/syria-testimonials-russian-speaking-jihadis-crimean-tatar-suicide-bomber/

TheCurmudgeon
03-02-2014, 02:04 AM
I don't see Russia giving Crimea up without a fight. Too much of their ability to influence things in the Med and the Levant are dependent upon that sea port. Plus they have a reasonable argument that the population wants their protection.

The question will become the nature of the deal that ensues and whether the new Ukrainian government will concede the terrain or press for military assistance from the West. I saw they moved up a referendum on Crimean independence to the end of this month. Let's see if that's enough to appease the Kremlin.

AdamG
03-02-2014, 02:13 AM
Seems like the Kremlin already anticipated a Mujihadeen move.

From a few days ago -


The Interfax news agency quoted Russian military sources as saying the incident at Belbek airport was intended to stop "fighters" flying in. However, Interfax later quoted a Russian official as saying that no units had approached the airport or blockaded it. NBC News was unable to independently verify either account.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/ukraine-accuses-russia-invasion-over-airport-blockade-n40851

From today -


A leader of the Ukrainian radical group Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), Dmitry Yarosh, has called on Russia’s most wanted terrorist Doku Umarov to act against Russia in an address posted on Right Sector’s page in VKontakte social network, Russia Today reported.

http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/ukraine-nationalist-leader-calls-on-chechen-militants-to-act-against-russia/

carl
03-02-2014, 02:19 AM
Vlad may have bought himself a pack of trouble that Russia can't handle over the next 10 years. Aside from the needless suffering and death there may be some good come from it; the final washing away of the last vestige of the Soviet Union.

No matter what Vlad does it still doesn't solve the problem that has existed for the last several hundred years. They don't control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus.

TheCurmudgeon
03-02-2014, 02:59 AM
So, perhaps the smartest thing we can do is let them have the Crimea and let the whole thing go to crap on Russia's watch.

flagg
03-02-2014, 03:21 AM
Vlad may have bought himself a pack of trouble that Russia can't handle over the next 10 years. Aside from the needless suffering and death there may be some good come from it; the final washing away of the last vestige of the Soviet Union.

No matter what Vlad does it still doesn't solve the problem that has existed for the last several hundred years. They don't control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus.

Would increasingly aligned interests between Russia and Turkey to more closely partner in energy distribution to Europe for profit and influence eliminate that problem?

carl
03-02-2014, 03:26 AM
So, perhaps the smartest thing we can do is let them have the Crimea and let the whole thing go to crap on Russia's watch.

No. Passivity favors the aggressor. In the long run the best thing to do is provide Europe with alternative sources of natural gas, which we can do. That would be similar to what we had the Saudis do to help end the Cold War, provide alternative sources of energy so the money doesn't flow to Vlad and the boys.

We should also stop pretending that Vlad's Russia are our buddies and if we just talk nice to them all will be well. That will have to wait until the current President is gone.

There are a lot of things we can do but the point is just standing around waiting for them to fall won't do. We have to help tip them over.

All this pertains to the Ukraine as a whole. There isn't much we can do about the Crimea now.

I wonder if it wouldn't be good to engage in unconventional warfare ourselves against the Russians in the Crimea. Or at least encourage and support Ukrainian efforts in that direction. That would cut off the jihadis.

TheCurmudgeon
03-02-2014, 04:20 AM
We should also stop pretending that Vlad's Russia are our buddies and if we just talk nice to them all will be well. That will have to wait until the current President is gone.

There are a lot of things we can do but the point is just standing around waiting for them to fall won't do. We have to help tip them over.

I am not sure I would agree with your assessment of the current President. i think he is more savvy than most give him credit for. Just because he has butted heads with the military does not mean he doesn't understand the dynamics at play. But we will have to wait and see if I am wrong.

I think we have to be careful who we help and how. Crimean Tartars are Muslims and any effort by them may not take kindly to our assistance. I don't know if we have any good will considering recent events. We might be best to support them from a distance rather than directly.

carl
03-02-2014, 04:30 AM
I think we have to be careful who we help and how. Crimean Tartars are Muslims and any effort by them may not take kindly to our assistance. I don't know if we have any good will considering recent events. We might be best to support them from a distance rather than directly.

That is why I suggested the Ukrainians, or maybe the Turks. The idea is the takfiri killers are going to come knocking at the door of the Tatars saying "Can I help?" and it will be much easier to reject the offer is they can reply "No, those other guys are already helping us thank you."

TheCurmudgeon
03-02-2014, 04:36 AM
That is why I suggested the Ukrainians, or maybe the Turks. The idea is the takfiri killers are going to come knocking at the door of the Tatars saying "Can I help?" and it will be much easier to reject the offer is they can reply "No, those other guys are already helping us thank you."

I agree. But we still have to be invited to join the game. I have seen nothing yet that has indicated a formal ( or informal) request. UN is useless in this situation, so I would expect it to come via the EU or NATO after a request from the Ukrainians. I don't believe we have any grounds for unilateral action.

carl
03-02-2014, 04:53 AM
I agree. But we still have to be invited to join the game. I have seen nothing yet that has indicated a formal ( or informal) request. UN is useless in this situation, so I would expect it to come via the EU or NATO after a request from the Ukrainians. I don't believe we have any grounds for unilateral action.

I don't know if any of this would be overt. I do think that somebody on our side had better make an offer before the jihadis do though. Those guys aren't going to wait for an invitation.

Dayuhan
03-02-2014, 07:08 AM
In the long run the best thing to do is provide Europe with alternative sources of natural gas, which we can do.

Actually "we" can't do that in any direct sense: while the US is likely to become a gas exporter, it's not likely to provide more than a small fraction of Europe's needs. The main US contribution to European gas supply is less likely to be in direct export than in indirect displacement: the gas that the US used to buy on the global market will be available for purchase by other customers, and the gas that west coast US terminals ship to Asia will free up ME gas for European consumption. Australia's emergence as a significant exporter is also likely to address Asian demand and direct more ME gas to Europe. Europe will be able to find non-Russian gas, but it will not be directly provided by the US.

The main obstacle to reduction of Europe's gas dependence on Russia in the short term is not supply, but infrastructure. The gas is available, but Europe will have to make large investments in regasification terminals and rearranging their pipeline networks in order to use it, and these things take time, money, and commitment.

Even if Europe does wean itself from Russian Gas, the impact on security issues remains open to doubt. The Russians will still find buyers for their gas, though they will have to invest in infrastructure that points east instead of west. Even if Europe no longer depends on Russian gas, Europeans are still not likely to embrace a confrontational attitude toward Russia: European governments have neither the means nor the inclination to get confrontational.

Of course if the US really wanted to knock gas prices down and cause money issues for the Russians, we could always lift sanctions on Iran, but that's not likely.

In short, the global gas market is a large and complex thing with a lot of players and influences, and no unilateral US move is likely to have a very significant impact on Russia. Not much there that "we" can do to "them" directly.


We should also stop pretending that Vlad's Russia are our buddies and if we just talk nice to them all will be well. That will have to wait until the current President is gone.

Changing the way we talk to or about the Russians is not likely to change their behaviour.


There are a lot of things we can do but the point is just standing around waiting for them to fall won't do. We have to help tip them over.

An opportunity to do that may emerge, if they step on their dicks and create a mess. We can't create that opportunity, but we can remain alert and exploit it if it emerges.


All this pertains to the Ukraine as a whole. There isn't much we can do about the Crimea now.

Not much we can do about any of it, really... boycotting the G8 summit and talking a lot aren't going to stop the Russians from doing what they want to do. Most likely option is to watch, wait, and exploit any UW window they leave open. At this point a great deal remains unclear, and we're not in any way sure what the Russians intend to do.


I wonder if it wouldn't be good to engage in unconventional warfare ourselves against the Russians in the Crimea. Or at least encourage and support Ukrainian efforts in that direction. That would cut off the jihadis.

That opportunity may arise, and if an insurgency emerges we may be able to support it. Whether we can create one, or whether we should try to, is another question.

Firn
03-02-2014, 08:33 AM
I got interested about the supposed reliance of the Crimea on the Ukraine for little things like water, electricity and gas, beside the stuff coming over by road and rain so I made a quick search.


1. Water

The Crimean population and it's agriculture depend on the Northern Crimean Canal from the Dnepr for water. This 2003 (http://www.waterfoodecosystems.nl/docs/WaterMuk/report_alterra_assel.pdf) paper has looked closely at the problem from irrigation point of view.



Precipitation in Crimea on average 407 mm annually, which covers only half of the crop requirements. According to different estimations, in average, local water resources are able to provide only 15-20% of population requirements.

Hence, the deficit of water resources in Crimea is covered by de
livery of Dnepr river’s water through the Northern Crimean Canal (further NCC), first opening of which was held in 1963. Dnepr river’s water is delivered for water provision of Kerch, Feodosia, Sevastopol, Simferopol, Sudak cities and villages, as well as for irrigation


http://www.waterfoodecosystems.nl/images/58000.JPG

Roughly 80% goes to agriculture, one of the two pillars of the Crimean economy. So it is very vulnerable to any disruption of the water supply.


2. Electricity

There is no working power plant in the Crimea (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/5026.pdf) which grid depends to a 100% on the rest of the Ukraine.

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_grid/ukraine/graphics/Ergy-Grid-Ukraine.jpg

Any disruption would be indeed very problematic for the local population and the economy. Of course there might be some generators and the Russian army might bring some more in, but that is pretty inefficient and full of frictions.


3. Natural Gas

All of it comes through a pipeline from the north. Find no good paper in my quick search, still it is obvious that the Crimea is to 100% reliant on the Urkaine for gas. Russia depends now on the Ukraine to get it's own gas it's newly occupied territory.

http://en.ria.ru/images/15520/63/155206369.jpg


4. Communications

The Russian invader has cut all the links with the mainland. It would be interesting to know does still work, this might be a interesting topic to look into later.

Keep in mind that tourism is the second pillar of the economy. Without the ability to actually communicate with the guests and the other way around and the inability to use the 'net tourims will get another big hit.


5. Other stuff

Pretty certainly almost all coming from the north on the roads. The friendly Russian checkpoints will doubtlessy promote the transportation business.

In the long run Russia might of course connect the occupied Crimea across the Strait of Kerch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Kerch) with the proper infrastructure, apart from water. It is a pretty problematic place to put a bride across, so that there is none. Water will remain a big problem and the Russian government must put a huge effort into the rest to get it working in the mid to long term. But needless to say that in the best case for the next couple of months and perhaps couple of years the Crimean economy and population will be reliant on the good will of the national government.

Firn
03-02-2014, 09:12 AM
An interesting, 3-year old paper (http://www.undp.crimea.ua/img/content/file/CRIMEA%20RURAL%20TOURISM_ENG.pdf) about the tourism in the Crimea.




ORIGIN OF VISITORS

Crimea welcomes around 5 million visitors every year. Visitors to Crimea mainly originate from:

– Ukraine
65%
– Overseas
35%

Of the 35% overseas visitors, the origins are as follows:
• Russia
75%
• Belarus
2.7%
• UK
6.6%
• United States
7.3%
• Poland
2.8%

Overall, the numbers of foreign visitors in Crimea has declined since 2007 (Figure 6.1

So the Crimea is actually most reliant on it's own country for tourists. Even if that percentage has declined and the spending per capita is not as high it is still the most important stream of revenue. The decline of Russians is highly interesting, there are similar competitors out there.

I think there is no doubt that tourism will take a big, big hit unless the situations stabilizes or improves.

A bit more up-to-date, the domestic share has increased...


As for the structure of the tourist flow in the Crimea, domestic and inbound tourism prevail: domestic tourism accounts for 58.8% of total flow, inbound tourism for 36.7%, outbound tourism poses just 4.6%.

The citizens of Ukraine comprise the largest share (69.2%) in the structure of tourist visits. The share of 27.9% stands for the visitors from the former Soviet countries (Russia, Belarus, Moldova, etc.). The remaining 2.9% are associated with the tourists from other parts of the world.

JMA
03-02-2014, 09:33 AM
Last I looked he'd stopped dreaming about pipelines and US interests and gone back to reporting events, which seems a step in a reasonable direction.

Not much of a red line there. Of course intervention will always have costs, but they will probably not be imposed by the US or Europe.

The world already knew that, just as the world knew that Russian and Chinese denunciation of American interventions would not go beyond words.

Nothing they didn't already know.

OK so you think you know it all... so run along now and play with someone else... there's a good boy.

JMA
03-02-2014, 09:50 AM
OK, so that is your view of what Carl has posted.

Any chance of you stating your opinion on this matter and other on SWC clearly and fully?

Or are you happy to snipe at other peoples contributions without exposing yourself to same?

Have you considered discussing your disposition with a professional?


Actually "we" can't do that in any direct sense: while the US is likely to become a gas exporter, it's not likely to provide more than a small fraction of Europe's needs. The main US contribution to European gas supply is less likely to be in direct export than in indirect displacement: the gas that the US used to buy on the global market will be available for purchase by other customers, and the gas that west coast US terminals ship to Asia will free up ME gas for European consumption. Australia's emergence as a significant exporter is also likely to address Asian demand and direct more ME gas to Europe. Europe will be able to find non-Russian gas, but it will not be directly provided by the US.

The main obstacle to reduction of Europe's gas dependence on Russia in the short term is not supply, but infrastructure. The gas is available, but Europe will have to make large investments in regasification terminals and rearranging their pipeline networks in order to use it, and these things take time, money, and commitment.

Even if Europe does wean itself from Russian Gas, the impact on security issues remains open to doubt. The Russians will still find buyers for their gas, though they will have to invest in infrastructure that points east instead of west. Even if Europe no longer depends on Russian gas, Europeans are still not likely to embrace a confrontational attitude toward Russia: European governments have neither the means nor the inclination to get confrontational.

Of course if the US really wanted to knock gas prices down and cause money issues for the Russians, we could always lift sanctions on Iran, but that's not likely.

In short, the global gas market is a large and complex thing with a lot of players and influences, and no unilateral US move is likely to have a very significant impact on Russia. Not much there that "we" can do to "them" directly.



Changing the way we talk to or about the Russians is not likely to change their behaviour.



An opportunity to do that may emerge, if they step on their dicks and create a mess. We can't create that opportunity, but we can remain alert and exploit it if it emerges.



Not much we can do about any of it, really... boycotting the G8 summit and talking a lot aren't going to stop the Russians from doing what they want to do. Most likely option is to watch, wait, and exploit any UW window they leave open. At this point a great deal remains unclear, and we're not in any way sure what the Russians intend to do.



That opportunity may arise, and if an insurgency emerges we may be able to support it. Whether we can create one, or whether we should try to, is another question.

Stan
03-02-2014, 10:01 AM
The main obstacle to reduction of Europe's gas dependence on Russia in the short term is not supply, but infrastructure. The gas is available, but Europe will have to make large investments in regasification terminals and rearranging their pipeline networks in order to use it, and these things take time, money, and commitment.

Hey Steve !

A little late as the Nordstream pipeline (http://www.nord-stream.com/) is in full swing. Vovo (Vlad) and Gerhard Schröder are best buds and the Germans want that gas :p

They have already cut out most of the Baltic States and rerouted since 2007. The Ukraine was intended to support Southstream but lost out to Bulgaria.

Deep Sigh from a slightly snowy Estonia !

AdamG
03-02-2014, 11:10 AM
Who are the Crimean Tatars, and why are they important?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/ukraine-finds-its-forces-are-ill-equipped-to-take-crimea-back-from-russia.html?_r=0

This is a really good post
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=152953&postcount=97

Reminds me of this - http://youtu.be/Hgq4w4dqKsU

JMA
03-02-2014, 11:23 AM
Anyone read a repeat of the Sudeten Crisis building?

Dayuhan
03-02-2014, 11:53 AM
A little late as the Nordstream pipeline (http://www.nord-stream.com/) is in full swing. Vovo (Vlad) and Gerhard Schrder are best buds and the Germans want that gas :p

They have already cut out most of the Baltic States and rerouted since 2007. The Ukraine was intended to support Southstream but lost out to Bulgaria.

Very true... and also very true that Germany doesn't have a single LNG terminal, so even if they did have a sudden impulse to replace Russian gas with imports from the US, the ME, or elsewhere, it would take years and billions before the impulse could be indulged without relying on terminals in Belgium and France

The point I was trying to make to Carl was that while the Europeans can reduce their reliance on Russian gas (with time, commitment, and considerable expenditure), the US has no magic lever it can throw and reduce that dependence.

Enjoy your snow... we just got back to the mountains after a bit of beach time :D

JMA
03-02-2014, 12:52 PM
Very true... and also very true that Germany doesn't have a single LNG terminal, so even if they did have a sudden impulse to replace Russian gas with imports from the US, the ME, or elsewhere, it would take years and billions before the impulse could be indulged without relying on terminals in Belgium and France

Not good logic.

Why would reliance on terminals in Belguim and France be a problem?

You want to rethink this?

Firn
03-02-2014, 01:20 PM
I checked the facts about water and electricity and it is correct to say that the Crimea has no big power plants as there are indeed a range of smaller hydro plants in the South. It will hardly cover the demand but it is something. Most of the drinking water comes from the Southern mountains, although there have been contamination issues.

-----

The Crimean economy depends to a large degree on tourism so it is interesting to look into that matter. After some early numbers what do have some guys on the street to say? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/us-ukraine-crisis-balaclava-idUSBREA200Y520140301)




Ludmila Marchenko, a retired teacher, simply burst into applause when asked about the masked soldiers with automatic rifles standing guard nearby.

"At first we were in shock, now we see it as a liberation," the 66-year-old told Reuters.

Those residents who felt foreboding as they watched the armored vehicles roll mostly hung back in the crowd.

"This is a mess. This is an invasion. I think this is an act of aggression by Russia," said Dmitry Bessonov, 55, a retired miner from Donetsk.

"They made a big mistake when they stood on Maidan and said they wanted to ban the Russian language ... We don't want to be second-class citizens," said Marchenko's brother Vitaly, a civilian sailor.

"I am not against a united Ukraine ... Yes, our president was not great. Yes, there was corruption and theft, but we don't want to live under these conditions. We are just sick of these speeches by fascists and neo-fascists."

"It is a great joy for is," said Vladimir Tikhonov, 53, an electrician. "I want this to be Russian land and it will be."

Valentina Magomedova, an accountant whose curiosity drew her to the scene, said people regretted a decision by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian, to transfer the Crimea from Russia to Soviet Ukraine in 1954.

"The new authorities (in Kiev) are not legitimate. We trust Putin, we love Russia," she said. "We were part of Russia and we are sorry still that Khrushchev gave us away."

While most residents had no love for Kiev's new leaders, some were worried by the dangers of the situation and wary of Russia's designs. Confronting the mute soldiers, one man vented his frustration, "What are you doing here? Get lost."

"I have a business, tourist season is beginning, I can't have a war," he said under his breath, shaking his head and turning his back on the 10 trucks and five armored vehicles.

A nearby restaurant decided to shut its doors early and keep them shut for the next few days.

"That's me losing my salary, if this keeps up," said Natalia Fomichova, 35, a lively blonde waitress at the seaside restaurant, overlooking opulent private motor boats parked in Balaclava bay.

"No one asked us. We are like puppets for them ... We have one Tsar and god - Putin," she quipped.

The last two comments are pretty golden. "I have a business, tourist season is beginning, I can't have a war" sounds like a good slogan for peace.

Keep in mind that almost 70% of the tourists are Ukrainians and only a quarter Russians. So the slight Russian speaking majority does indeed heavily rely on it's fellow countrymen to get a salary.

The national government has also likely payed the pensions for the teacher and the minder. With the occupation in the Ukraine how will it function? Looking at the demographics of the Crimea a large share, especially among the Russian speakers rely on pensions.

I think Putin has understandably moved the 'referendum' forward as the Crimea will take increasingly heavy economic damage over time. Maybe he will try to buy a good share of them with strong financial support but it is hard to imagine working that efficiently and justly. Nobody outside Russia beside a couple of allies will in any case take the outcome of any Crimean vote under the Russian boot seriously.

So time seems to work actually in favour of Kviev.

Dayuhan
03-02-2014, 01:33 PM
Why would reliance on terminals in Belguim and France be a problem?

One word: capacity. A move to replace Russian pipeline imports with LNG imports would require a huge expansion of existing terminal capacity.

LNG ports are large and complex single-purpose installations that require considerable time and very large investments to build or expand. Given the amount of gas Germany imports, the absence of any existing (or planned) LNG terminal is an indication that the Germans are not putting any great effort into reducing their dependence on Russian sources. Germany can't simply decide to shut off Nordstream and replace that 55 million bcm/yr with LNG imports. They could find the gas (though they'd push the price up), but the existing LNG terminal capacity couldn't accommodate it.

Europe overall gets roughly 80% of its gas from pipelines and 20% from LNG. Equalizing that figure will require large investments in new regasification terminals and pipeline infrastructure. Using LNG from alternative sources to replace Russian gas is possible long term but it is not a short term solution, and it's not just a matter of finding available gas.

JMA
03-02-2014, 01:38 PM
Isn't Google wonderful... a few minutes and you can present yourself as an expert on just about anything.

You want to post your source?



One word: capacity. A move to replace Russian pipeline imports with LNG imports would require a huge expansion of existing terminal capacity.

LNG ports are large and complex single-purpose installations that require considerable time and very large investments to build or expand. Given the amount of gas Germany imports, the absence of any existing (or planned) LNG terminal is an indication that the Germans are not putting any great effort into reducing their dependence on Russian sources. Germany can't simply decide to shut off Nordstream and replace that 55 million bcm/yr with LNG imports. They could find the gas (though they'd push the price up), but the existing LNG terminal capacity couldn't accommodate it.

Europe overall gets roughly 80% of its gas from pipelines and 20% from LNG. Equalizing that figure will require large investments in new regasification terminals and pipeline infrastructure. Using LNG from alternative sources to replace Russian gas is possible long term but it is not a short term solution, and it's not just a matter of finding available gas.

Firn
03-02-2014, 01:41 PM
Ukraine is calling up the reserves (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/uk-ukraine-idUKBREA1H0EM20140302). I wrote before that this was the most likely path because nobody can put any faith in what comes out of Moskva. Perhaps they limit themselves to the Crimea but at least the invader will not have it all it's way in the rest of the country.


Yatsenyuk in Kiev: this is red alert. This is not a threat, this is the declaration of war on my country

Indeed that is given if your country gets invaded. Now the diplomatic line seems to be to call a spade a spade...


Ukraine mobilised on Sunday for war and called up its reserves, after Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to invade in the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the Cold War.

Ukraine's security council ordered the general staff to immediately put all armed forces on highest alert, the council's secretary Andriy Parubiy announced. The Defence Ministry was ordered to conduct the call-up, potentially of all men up to 40 in a country that still has universal male conscription.


It is important to keep in mind that understandably that the current situation is foggy, fluid and uncertain. The Russian invadors have of course occupied the Crimea and disarmed some of the tiny Ukrainian forces on it but there are some who defy the 'suggestions' of the occupiers.


Igor Mamchev, a Ukrainian navy colonel at a small base near the regional capital Simferopol, told Ukraine's Channel 5 television he had refused to surrender.

"A truck with troops of the Russian Federation, armed with rifles, helmets and bullet-proof vests arrived at our checkpoint and suggested we give up our weapons and accept the protection of the armed forces of the Russian Federation," he said.

"I replied that, as I am a member of the armed forces of Ukraine, under orders of the Ukrainian navy, there could be no discussion of disarmament. In case of any attempt to enter the military base, we will use all means, up to lethal force.

"We are military people, who have given our oath to the people of Ukraine and will carry out our duty until the end."

Ukrainian marines were barricaded into a base in Feodosia, a Crimean port. Russia appealed for them to back the "legitimate" - pro-Russian - regional leadership.

Their commander, Dmytro Delyatytskiy, told Ukraine's Channel 5 by telephone Russian troops had demanded they give up their weapons by 10 a.m. and they refused.

"We have orders," he said. "We are preparing our defences."

After the confusion and the reluctance to provoke any sort of violence within the Crimea such actions might actually result in deadly force between both sides. Lots of potential friction, hopefully there won't be new bloodshed.

The Russians have cut off all the traffic (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26405082) between the Ukrainian mainland and it's peninsula. Digging trenches. So they are cutting off themselves and people of the Crimea with it's economy.

davidbfpo
03-02-2014, 02:09 PM
An overview from Moscow, by a former Soviet Army colonel who has worked for a US think tank for a long time IIRC:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/02/crimea-crisis-russia-ukraine-cold-war?CMP=twt_gu

From the strategic political to the tactical and weapons used. A short photo essay on the cough unofficial military in the Crimea:http://imgur.com/a/3DzA0/layout/blog

A curious filmed exchange between a Ukrainian navy officer and visitors:http://censor.net.ua/video_news/273726/ukrainskie_ofitsery_ne_dali_rossiyiskomu_spetsnazu _vyvezti_orujie_iz_uchebnogo_tsentra_vy_voobsche_c hto

What I did note from some film footage from crowded places in the Crimea was that the civilians are overwhelmingly middle aged.

Firn
03-02-2014, 02:14 PM
What I did note from some film footage from crowded places in the Crimea was that the civilians are overwhelmingly middle aged.

I think I mentioned that earlier, not surprising if you look at the demographics and the older 'Russian' generation is perhaps more nostalgic and feels perhaps less Ukrainian. It fits also the opinions off the street which I have read. The younger will also have more business to do.

This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQqBYq75LjY) captures the situation so far pretty well. Lots of heavily armed masked men on one side, a couple of at best lightly armed men in dress uniform on the other.

UA= Ukrainian army
RU= Russian army

Translation from YT user Tina Kinal:


UA: and you are not on my territory?
RU: we are following the order.
UA: no, this is my car. this is a state owed APC. you want peace? so do it peacefully.
RU: ho can we do it peacefully with you?
UA: ho can we do it peacefully with you? what are you doing here on my territory?
RU: take a car away
UA: so you can take all my armor away?
RU: take the boxes away and take Kamaz away

Firn
03-02-2014, 03:20 PM
MOSCOW (Reuters) - The governor of Russia's Belgorod region said on Sunday armed groups had tried to cut off a road leading to Ukraine, Interfax news agency reported.

"Armed men are roaming the area ... There was an attempt to close off the road from Moscow to Crimea," Yevgeny Savchenko was quoted as saying about events on Saturday. "This is really troubling."

(writing by Elizabeth Piper, editing by Timothy Heritage)

Obviously it is really troubling that somebody might close the 'Moscow-Crimea road' which just runs through pretty much all of eastern Ukraine. How shocking that there are armed men on their side of the border.

TheCurmudgeon
03-02-2014, 03:23 PM
BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26405635) reporting that it is the intent of the Government in Kiev to ask for UK/US assistance. Any similar news on requests for assistance from Kiev to either Poland or Germany?


Ukrainian national security officials announced several other measures on Sunday:

The armed forces would to be put on "full combat readiness"
Reserves to be mobilised and trained
Foreign minister to seek help from US and UK leaders in guaranteeing its security
Emergency headquarters to be set up
Security to be boosted at key sites, including nuclear plants
Airspace to be closed to all non-civilian aircraft

Firn
03-02-2014, 03:32 PM
10.38 Very interesting that Ukraine is now referencing "safety of its nuclear assets".

As far as I'm aware this is the first time they have mentioned that.

Then it brings into play the 1994 Budapest Memorandum - which was signed between Ukraine, the US, UK, and Russia. Ukraine agreed to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal, in return for the signatories promising to come to Ukraine's defence in case of aggression.

Read more about it here

Pretty similar to the treaty on which grounds Britain decided it felt binded to defend Belgium a hundred years ago. I don't know what exactly the treaty says but the Ukrainians are clearly looking at all the options and possibilities which strenghten their position.

It is sadly all too easy to find grim references...

And god is always with 'us':

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhuddIzCcAAe-Fl.jpg


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02838/Ukraine-Sebastopol_2838996d.jpg

Orthodox brother against orthodox brother...


Oh and Kerry is finally using the words I started to use after I saw those Russian SF storming the Crimean parliament. :wry:


You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.

Firn
03-02-2014, 03:52 PM
A couple of posts ago I wrote that this Russian invasion into the Ukraine will greatly undermine the Russian influence in the rest of the country, even among those who voted for the ex-leader which fled to the invader. Now perhaps his most important supporter has come out against the Russian invasion. Quite convient of course, but there certainly is good for your finances to be regarded as ally of Yanukovych:



14.38 Ukraine's richest man and the chief financier of deposed president Viktor Yanukovych has denounced Russia's incursion and called for Ukrainians to preserve their country's territorial integrity.

Russia's "recourse to force from outside is unacceptable. The crisis can only be resolved peacefully," said Rinat Akhmetov, one of the former president's closest allies.

Mr Akhmetov said in a statement:

Quote I call on all citizens to unite for a united and indivisible Ukraine. We must keep cool heads, not succumb to provocations and take well-considered decisions.

Like Yanukovych, Mr Akhmetov comes from the pro-Russian region of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, where his financial holding company System Capital Management is based.

Mr Akhmetov, said by Forbes magazine to be worth more than $15 billion, was twice a member of parliament for Yanukovych's Regions Party.

Right now the Ukrainians are faced with the classic war dilemma leaving little to gray: Are you for the attacked Ukraine or the invading Russia?

Kerry again:


He added that G8 nations and some other countries are “prepared to go to the hilt to isolate Russia” with a “broad array of options” available.

They’re prepared to put sanctions in place, they’re prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges.

I will also bleed because I was foolish enough to trust the Russian leadership. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Sadly I only saw through the Russian fog of war on Friday after the stock market closed down.

AdamG
03-02-2014, 04:08 PM
SIMFEROPOL, March 2 (RIA Novosti) – Ukrainian servicemen stationed in Crimea are leaving en masse their military units and handing over weaponry and arsenals to local pro-Russia authorities and militia, a RIA Novosti correspondent reported Sunday.

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry immediately denied the report, which was also circulated by other Russian media, calling it “a provocation.”

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140302/188021252/Ukrainian-Troops-in-Crimea-Side-with-Pro-Russia-Forces.html

See also http://rt.com/news/ukraine-military-russia-resign-437/

Now this is good popcorn...


Ukrainian radical activists are conducting organized searches of residences of former government officials and handing over all documents to the US military, a man who says that he took part in some of these operations claims.
http://rt.com/news/us-military-ukraine-radicals-440/

AmericanPride
03-02-2014, 04:18 PM
I'm sure there's a general consensus about the credibility of the pre-text of the Russian operation, but we (the West) only have ourselves to blame for the frustration caused by our helplessness in this situation.

First, the West invented the concept of responsibility to protect, which the Russians have used (so far successfully) at least twice (Ossetia and Crimea). And in their justification, the Russians cite US operations in Libya, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. Although world opinion seems against the Russian action (due to the use of armed force, not on the basis of the responsibility to protect), the US is clearly also with little credibility in condemning the Russian government on this basis.

Second, from November 2013 to February 2014, the US actively promoted political agitation in Ukraine for the removal of Yanukovych for a second time from office, even though his last election was certified by international monitors as legitimate. Senator John McCain was in Ukraine in December clearly promoting the removal of Yanukovych and Ukraine's movement towards the West. And Washington clearly broke from the European initiative, which had a negotiated agreement for early elections and a new constitution. Washington wanted Yanukovych out, but there apparently was little forecasting down for the end-game. Washington had no solution for Ukraine's coming financial crisis, for establishing the new government's legitimacy, or for defending Ukraine from Russian intervention - which, by the way, should have been predicted given the fact that not only is Ukraine closely integrated with Russia economically, geographically, and demographically, but that also Russia has a significant military presence within and near the country itself. So Washington facilitated this crisis but was also unprepared to deal with the fallout.

Whatever happens to Ukraine now, if it joins NATO and the EU, it will only do so as a rump state. And whatever gains Brussels wanted will not be achieved, and Washington's gains will be relatively insignificant in comparison to what was imagined several days ago. Moscow on the other hand literally has boots on the ground and is actively shaping the situation in its favor; Crimea is lost, so any political settlement will include confirming Russian access/control there. The open ended question is (1) eastern Ukraine, there is already pro-Russian political agitation, and (2) Ukraine's financial situation.

But there are also other implications. First, it's clear that Washington's power relative to that of other states, specifically Russia, is waning. Washington's policies in Ukraine were short-sighted and now it's left with no credible options that do not further escalate the crisis beyond Ukraine's borders (i.e. deploying NATO troops to Poland). Washington tipped over the canoe without a life-jacket. Moscow's domestic problems are minimal and it's economic relations with Europe are arguably still very strong, so Moscow is in a very strong position to project power abroad. Washington is not postured appropriately to defend against an assertive Moscow in Europe, or to do so in the long-term, given the state of the defense industry and the political situation in Washington.

TheCurmudgeon
03-02-2014, 05:59 PM
Whatever happens to Ukraine now, if it joins NATO and the EU, it will only do so as a rump state. And whatever gains Brussels wanted will not be achieved, and Washington's gains will be relatively insignificant in comparison to what was imagined several days ago. Moscow on the other hand literally has boots on the ground and is actively shaping the situation in its favor; Crimea is lost, so any political settlement will include confirming Russian access/control there. The open ended question is (1) eastern Ukraine, there is already pro-Russian political agitation, and (2) Ukraine's financial situation.

I have a problem with your narrative. It smacks of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a direct threat to the United States because it advocated exporting worldwide a political and economic system that was a direct threat to capitalist democracy. For that reasons the two sides played a game a chess (or chicken) with each other with the world as their playground. That is not the case today. Russia has a direct interest in the Crimea. It was part of Russia until it was given to the Ukrainians. It houses the Russian Black Sea Fleet. There is a substantial Russian population (never mind the fact that the large Russian population is the result of Stalin removing the native Tartars). This is not the Soviet Union trying to exert influence over a small Island in the Caribbean (ala Granada). We have little direct interest in this case. So to portray actions in the Crimea as a US/Soviet Union conflict is reading the situation wrong. The Crimea was never the U.S.'s to lose.


But there are also other implications. First, it's clear that Washington's power relative to that of other states, specifically Russia, is waning. Washington's policies in Ukraine were short-sighted and now it's left with no credible options that do not further escalate the crisis beyond Ukraine's borders (i.e. deploying NATO troops to Poland). Washington tipped over the canoe without a life-jacket. Moscow's domestic problems are minimal and it's economic relations with Europe are arguably still very strong, so Moscow is in a very strong position to project power abroad. Washington is not postured appropriately to defend against an assertive Moscow in Europe, or to do so in the long-term, given the state of the defense industry and the political situation in Washington.

I would agree, the West meddled in the affairs of the Ukraine. But it is our stance that we do this to help the local peoples achieve political freedom. We can use the exact same arguments the Russian's are using in the Crimea to aide the Ukrainians. Bottom line, this is best resolved through local choice. Naive, perhaps, but to play this out as a replay of the Cold War, as many are trying to portray this as, is to create a narrative that does not exist.

Russia has acted in a way reminiscent of the Cold War, but we should not invoke the entire narrative. One that would demand military action in kind. Russia will lose in the end, because the Ukraine that remains will be very interested in joining NATO, finally bringing the alliance they respect, if not fear, directly to their doorstep.

AmericanPride
03-02-2014, 06:17 PM
I have a problem with your narrative. It smacks of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a direct threat to the United States because it advocated exporting worldwide a political and economic system that was a direct threat to capitalist democracy. For that reasons the two sides played a game a chess (or chicken) with each other with the world as their playground. That is not the case today. Russia has a direct interest in the Crimea. It was part of Russia until it was given to the Ukrainians. It houses the Russian Black Sea Fleet. There is a substantial Russian population (never mind the fact that the large Russian population is the result of Stalin removing the native Tartars). This is not the Soviet Union trying to exert influence over a small Island in the Caribbean (ala Granada). We have little direct interest in this case. So to portray actions in the Crimea as a US/Soviet Union conflict is reading the situation wrong. The Crimea was never the U.S.'s to lose.

I think in one sense the Cold War never ended. Washington exploited the collapse of the communist system to probe deeply into historical Russian spheres of influence -- and Washington routinely dismisses Russian objections under the ideological cover of promoting the free market and democracy. But even within free market democratic systems there is intense, even anti-democratic, competition, and Ukraine is no different. It was not acceptable to Washington that Ukraine was not firmly within Washington's vision of a capitalist America-oriented Europe (it should be noted that Washington's solution to Ukraine's financial problems, which triggered this episode, was to offer IMF conditional loans attached to deeply unpopular austerity measures). The removal of Yanukoych was the policy objective even if, as you state (and with which I agree), the United States has no direct interest. I agree that Moscow has legitimate and material interests in Ukraine. The difference is that Moscow secured its interests with a military operation.

EDIT: In addition, I think (1) Washington has clearly reached the apex of its influence, meaning that short-sighted, almost reckless policies, should be abandoned; (2) Washington should be negotiating with Moscow on issues, like in Iran and Syria, rather than testing the limits of relations, and (3) Americans, specifically American politicians, need to realize the practical limits of American exceptionalism and reevaluate the country's place in the world.


Russia will lose in the end, because the Ukraine that remains will be very interested in joining NATO, finally bringing the alliance they respect, if not fear, directly to their doorstep.

What is Moscow losing that it doesn't want or need in the first place? Washington is not in any position to dictate to Moscow, and Brussels is firmly tied with Moscow economically. Berlin and Paris specifically are less interested in confrontation with Moscow than Warsaw or any of the Baltic states. Moscow also has leverage in Tehran and Damascus than Washington notable lacks -- aside from the threat of military force, which is not politically feasible given America's domestic political and economic situation. There are clear divisions in NATO vis-a-vis Moscow policy, so it may be in hindsight that the expansion of NATO in the 1990s could become a political liability for the credibility of the alliance.

Firn
03-02-2014, 06:18 PM
@AdamG: There is no doubt that confused Ukrainian forces gave up their weapons more or less readily after heavily armed masked men turned out in ever greater number. Some, mostly of Russian ethnicity might even have willingly gone over. The Russian invader came through the fog of war like a thief in the night and caught them completely unprepared. Who knows what happens now to those who surrendered their weapons. I'm pretty sure they will get pressured to work for the Russian propaganda.

It is likely that with the strategic surprise gone and resolve growing that quite a few units in the Crimea will hold out for now. Obviously they just have no real military value but a symbolic one.

@American Pride: I actually agree with most of your first part but I think your view in the second part is too mechanistic and badly grounded. It is important to keep in mind that a lot of things can happen, even some unthinkable ones. Who would have imagined that Putin would pull off a old Soviet-style invasion in the Crimea? Who believed that his Ukrainian ally would flee to him and that the people would talk a walk in this palace?

I think the current Ukrainian leadership got duped Mr Putin but it is acting surprisingly wise so far. Pretty nobody outside Russia and it's allies can accuse it to act aggressively or provocative and it has started to take the right steps. The idiotic language law has been vetoed, the reserves get finally mobilized, the UN, EU, NATO, EU etc are involved and it is clear who the aggressor is.


Ukrainians at home and abroad are asking good questions:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02839/embassy4_2839246c.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02837/Budapest_Memorandu_2837141c.jpg

An excellent job on that poster, sums it up very nicely.

AmericanPride
03-02-2014, 07:07 PM
I actually agree with most of your first part but I think your view in the second part is too mechanistic and badly grounded. It is important to keep in mind that a lot of things can happen, even some unthinkable ones. Who would have imagined that Putin would pull off a old Soviet-style invasion in the Crimea? Who believed that his Ukrainian ally would flee to him and that the people would talk a walk in this palace?

I agree in part. Anything can happen, and it is a very fluid situation right now. But I disagree that the Russian military operation and Yanukovych's flight to Russia could be classified as unexpected. Six years ago, Moscow conducted a "surprise" invasion of Georgian-claimed territory but given the conditions, capabilities, and provocations, that too shouldn't have been surprising. Moscow has been clear from the beginning with its objections to Washington's interference in Ukraine's political process but was ignored. Washington was adamant on forcing the ouster of Yanukoych and apparently very little thought was given to the possible outcomes. And the collapse of the political deal negotiated by Brussels last month more or less sealed the fate of the country. There are reports that Russian consulates are busy handing out citizenship papers to ethnic Russians in Ukraine (don't know if it's limited to Crimea); there were similar reports in the South Ossetia War. When Moscow announced the military drills, activating aerospace and airborne forces, that was the signal that it was too late for Washington to act.


I think the current Ukrainian leadership got duped Mr Putin but it is acting surprisingly wise so far. Pretty nobody outside Russia and it's allies can accuse it to act aggressively or provocative and it has started to take the right steps. The idiotic language law has been vetoed, the reserves get finally mobilized, the UN, EU, NATO, EU etc are involved and it is clear who the aggressor is.

Medvedev has been clear that Moscow will not negotiate with the new Ukrainian government in Kiev because the new officials are viewed as illegitimate; he basically said that Moscow has no one with which to negotiate. Of course, that's also self serving to Moscow, but it has a grain of truth to it, given some reports of parliamentarians being forced from parliament at the point of a gun. And I think here's the point: both Washington and Moscow have interests, some of which are contradictory, in Ukraine; but Moscow is much better positioned to actually see their policies through. Is Moscow the "aggressor"? Yes - but only in one sense. Moscow is responding decisively to actions facilitated by Washington and by events in Kiev. Why would Moscow watch idly in an uncertain situation following the collapse of it's ally's government?

Firn
03-02-2014, 07:15 PM
Dnepropetrovsk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R_O-XRZLis). This part of Ukraine doesn't seem to be 'lost yet' as the Ukrainian anthem says. If I remember correctly 60%+ voted there for the fugitive. I was correct, see the maps:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Ukraine_Presidential_Feb_2010_Vote_%28Yanukovych%2 9.png/800px-Ukraine_Presidential_Feb_2010_Vote_%28Yanukovych%2 9.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83% D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D 0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png/800px-%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83% D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D 0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png

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

Euromaiden ridicules the 'strong support' for the Russian invasion of the Crimea.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhuQjhbCQAAvJht.jpg:large

Everybody tries of course to depict the situation in it's own colours but I certainly did not see vast amounts of people on RT or other Russian media. Possibly the Russian leadership and media is caught off guard as this part of the war doesn't seem to work out as planned.

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

From the twitter account of Maxim Tucker:


Long queues at #Ukraine army recruitment posts.Sergeant tells volunteers 3 million signed up in 24 hours, eager to fight #Russia in #Crimea

@andersostlund Source is me - my friends, husbands of friends and fathers of friends en masse

I would love to see sources about this, 3 millions seem to be off by a magnitude. However long queues to sign up do not sound unlikely if we remember what happened a hundred years ago. It was easy to forget that millions of men were indeed streaming enthusiastically to fight for their respective fatherland, which was done wrong in their eyes.

AmericanPride
03-02-2014, 07:24 PM
Firn,

The Russian media has been pretty aggressive in attempting to shape the narrative for its domestic audiences. It reported that Ukrainian military units in Crimea are surrendering, that Kiev protesters were dominated by fascists, that ethnic Russians in Ukraine are at great risk, and so forth. There's also news about very large protests in Moscow and St. Petersburg in support of Russian military operations.

There's really not much the new government in Kiev can do. Moscow already controls Crimea. Unless military action is taken, I think the political end-game will be opening soon.

Firn
03-02-2014, 07:44 PM
@American Pride: Indeed Russian controls the Crimea as I have written before. Right now Ukraine has not the slightest hope to retake it by military means, and it would be foolish to do so. While the Crimea depends on the mainland for irrigation water, electricity, natural and more it may actually be wise to keep the lines open.

The Russian have seemingly cut the road and rail lines by themselves so they are now blocking off the Ukrainian peninsula of supplies for the 2 million civilians. I'm sure that the Russian military is working hard to make up for the shortfall and it is early days but time is in this regard likely working against the invaders. The big tourism sector depends mostly on domestic Ukrainian demand but that has been poorly substituted by Russian brigades. Sounds like a bright future for the common people, ethnic Russian or not. Only massive economic aid from Russia can counter it to some degree...

Overall the Ukrainina government can do a great deal and does already so, I have already written on that.

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

The mobilization is starting:

The Kyiv post (http://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/ukrainian-volunteers-prepare-for-war-as-military-on-high-alert-338111.html) has some pictures about men coming in to join the military:

http://www.kyivpost.com/media/images/2014/03/02/p18i1juscf10oj580p45ofm1phn7/big.jpg


On March 2, men from Kyiv flooded the city’s 10 district recruitment centers, eagerly waiting in line to receive their orders. Many, like Andriy, were called late at night and instructed to appear the next day.

Others however, volunteered to enlist. A representative from the recruitment office in Kyiv’s Pechersk district said that more than 500 men enlisted at his office on March 2. Over half were volunteers.

The majority of men were excited about the opportunity to serve their country. As he shuffled out the door after signing up, one man exclaimed, “We are ready to fight! We want to fight!”

Others, however, are worried about what a violent confrontation with Russian troops might mean. “Scary, scary, scary. We don’t know why he was chosen,” said the mother of one potential soldier "We can only hope for the best.”

Indeed.

I'm pretty sure that it will take a long time to get the men and their units ready as nobody suspected that such a thing could actually happen. Still it is quite a change from the first days of the invasion.

Firn
03-02-2014, 08:18 PM
The Kyiv post (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/oligarchs-step-in-to-save-ukraines-sovereignty-338116.html) has a highly interesting article about how "Oligarchs step in to save Ukraine’s sovereignty".


Kolomoisky, whose wealth Korrespondent magazine puts at $3.5 billion, is a leader in the Jewish community in Dnipropetrovsk, which could dampen Kremlin propaganda that the EuroMaidan Revolution is an anti-Semitic movement.

His business interests include chemical production, finance, media, metallurgy, oil extraction and sports. News media reported that Kolomoisky had been providing financial support for the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform, Vitali Klitshcko’s liberal political party that holds 42 seats in parliament. However, Klitschko denied this repott.

Not everybody accepted. Desperate times aske for desperate measures, and I think that some hope to protect their status, wealth and security.


Political observer Vitaly Portnikov reacted by calling these “wartime appointments” accepted by responsible businesspeople “in the face of aggression.”

Since the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych as president on Feb. 22, speculation has increased over the prospect of reprivatizing assets owned by the largest businesspeople who purchased them from the state at rock-bottom prices under non-transparent auctions held by the State Property Fund.

Oleksandr Bondar, the former State Property Fund chairperson who is seen as a candidate to take this position again, publicly declared his support for reprivatizing some properties.

However, as long as oligarchs hold their seats in the government administrations, the chances of reprivatization are slim.

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

According to a Russian paper important news from the eastermost oblast of the Ukraine, with the largest percentage of ethnic Russians IIRC. 2010 voted 80%+ for the fugitive, so it is not unlikely that there is truth in it. Will we see another Russian invasion?


Luhansk Oblast Council doesn't recognize new Ukraine government

March 2, 20:20 p.m. -- The Luhansk Oblast Council doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Ukraine's new government, Kommersant.ua reports. The regional council "considers illegitimate all central executive branches of power because they were formed with violation of laws," reads the statement of the council. Also, the members support the holding of a referendum on federalization that would allow regional governments to ahve more autonomy. The memmbers called on the Verkhovna Rada "to declare Russian language a second state language in Ukraine, to take immediate measures to disarm all illegal armed groups and to cease politically motivated prosecutions of police and Berkut riot-control police units," according to the statement. The council also declares support for Oblast Council chairman Valery Holenko. -- Olena Goncharova

The Luhansk Oblast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_Oblast) contains roughly 5% of the total population, a bit more then the Crimea.


he population is largely Russian-speaking although ethnic Ukrainians constitute a majority (58%). Among the minorities are native Russians (39%), Belarusians (0.8%), and others (1.4%). Ukrainians constitute the majority in all raions except for Stanytsia-Luhanska Raion and Krasnodon Raion, both of which are east of Luhansk. Ethnic Russians also constitute the majority in regionally significant cities, such as Krasnodon, Sverdlovsk, Krasnyi Luch and Stakhanov.

According to the 2001 Ukrainian Census more than 68.8% of the population consider themselves Russian speakers, while Ukrainian speakers were only 30%. The Russophone population predominates in the southern portion of the region and around the city of Luhansk, while the northern region is less populated, mostly agricultural and Ukrainophone.

Its population (as of 2004) of 2,461,506 million constitutes 5.13% of the overall Ukrainian population. The Luhansk Oblast rates fifth in Ukraine by the number of its inhabitants, having an average population density of 90.28 /km². About 87% of the population lives in urban areas, while the remaining 13% reside in agricultural areas. According to the national census, 54% of the population are Ukrainians and 42% are Russians.

carl
03-02-2014, 09:01 PM
Would increasingly aligned interests between Russia and Turkey to more closely partner in energy distribution to Europe for profit and influence eliminate that problem?

Flagg:

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

For Russia to have certain, read certain, use of the Bosporus and Dardanelles Turkey and Russia would I imagine have to get as close as the US is to Canada or France is to the UK. I don't think whatever economic arrangements that may or may not come to be will overcome centuries of hostilities between the two countries. I suppose it could happen but given Vlad's disposition the Turks would have to bow down, and from what I've read of Turks, that ain't likely.

So the upshot is even with the Crimea, the Black Sea Fleet can only go where the Turks, and NATO, feel like leaving it go. With all the trouble Vlad is going to, they're still bottled up.

TheCurmudgeon
03-02-2014, 09:05 PM
EDIT: In addition, I think (1) Washington has clearly reached the apex of its influence, meaning that short-sighted, almost reckless policies, should be abandoned; (2) Washington should be negotiating with Moscow on issues, like in Iran and Syria, rather than testing the limits of relations, and (3) Americans, specifically American politicians, need to realize the practical limits of American exceptionalism and reevaluate the country's place in the world.

(1) I agree that we reached the Apex of our influence, but Washington reached the apex of its influence when we invaded Iraq. Ever since then we have lost credibility. We existed as a morale giant, an omnipotent beast that you did not want to disturb. Iraq burst the bubble of that illusion. Not only are we not the moral center of the universe but there are clear limits to what we can do. We cannot regain the moral high ground until we stop drone warfare - targeted extrajudicial assassinations with "acceptable" levels of collateral damage and close our CIA jails. We are now just like everyone else, except with a bigger economy and more guns.

(2) I disagree here. Washington has nothing to gain by negotiating with Moscow. Washington needs to be negotiation with Peking. China is the key player in these events. We need to convince them that Russia under Putin is a wildcard and that China and the US need to be building a closer military relationship. Our economic interests are mostly aligned. This presents an opportunity if we chose to take it.

(3) I agree. Unfortunately, that illusion of exceptionalism is what keeps certain politicians in office. To admit that we have lost ground in the world and leveraged our entire budget doing it is to admit the failure of the Bush administration. Not going to happen.




What is Moscow losing that it doesn't want or need in the first place? Washington is not in any position to dictate to Moscow, and Brussels is firmly tied with Moscow economically. Berlin and Paris specifically are less interested in confrontation with Moscow than Warsaw or any of the Baltic states. Moscow also has leverage in Tehran and Damascus than Washington notable lacks -- aside from the threat of military force, which is not politically feasible given America's domestic political and economic situation. There are clear divisions in NATO vis-a-vis Moscow policy, so it may be in hindsight that the expansion of NATO in the 1990s could become a political liability for the credibility of the alliance.

Moscow has always had an interest in keeping NATO at bay. They liked the protection the satellite states gave them. They liked having their "near abroad" as a buffer to the Western world. They have lost that now, unless they can somehow influence the Ukrainians to once again join their orbit.

I think that, perhaps, Putin realized that he had lost the Ukraine and was going to grab what little he could in the Eastern states to maintain that buffer. But I don't believe he has the ability to risk all out war in Western Ukraine. I could be misreading this, but his actions have been measured. He did not try to take all of Georgia. I don't think he will try to take all of the Ukraine.

carl
03-02-2014, 09:12 PM
I don't know how all this will turn out. It mostly depends on if Vlad pushes north of the Crimea and how inclined the Ukrainians are to fight. And I don't really know how inclined they are to fight.

But I found this interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-I7DMSz9Hs

Firn
03-02-2014, 09:17 PM
I suspected that Merkel would not use the same words and take the same actions as the USA, France and Britain. Maybe it is a good thing, although it certainly doesn't look a strong reaction to the Russian aggression.


In a telephone conversation during which Merkel expressed concern about developments in Ukraine, she and Putin agreed that Russia and Germany would continue consultations in bilateral and multilateral formats to seek the "normalisation" of the situation, a Kremlin statement said.

Note it is a Kremlin statement. But the German FM has already said that he wasn't in favour of throwing Russian out of the G8. According to the guardian:


Merkel to Putin: Russia breached international law

Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has accepted a proposal by the German chancellor, Angel Merkel, to set up a “fact-finding mission” that would pave the way for some form of political dialogue in the crisis.

That’s according to a spokesperson for the German government, who has been giving Germany’s account of a conversation earlier between the two leaders.

The mission would possibly to be led by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Merkel is also said to have accused Putin of an “unacceptable Russian intervention” and of breaching international law.

Might the fact-finding group allow some face-saving for those involved?

-----------

I usually don't read the WP but I agree fully with this part of the commentary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-putins-ukraine-gambit/2014/02/27/93ca1b26-9fe0-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html)


The point is for the United States, leading Europe, to counter Russian pressure and make up for its blandishments/punishments until Ukraine is on firm financial footing.

Yes, $15 billion is a lot of money. But it’s less than one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent of the combined E.U. and U.S. GDP. And expending treasure is infinitely preferable to expending blood. Especially given the strategic stakes: Without Ukraine, there’s no Russian empire.

Putin knows that. Which is why he keeps ratcheting up the pressure. The question is, can this administration muster the counterpressure to give Ukraine a chance to breathe?


I wrote a long time ago that a €30 billion loan spread over a couple of years would be a good start. Even a €100 billion one is not much if financed by the EU member states and the US. This is not a time to do ridicule the own interests by comitting pitful sums.

While I would steer well clear of any military confrontation, the financial power can be easily brought to bear.

carl
03-02-2014, 09:56 PM
One thing people should keep in mind is highlighted by something George Will said on one of the Sunday shows this morning. He said Russia is a third world economy with a first world army. That may be overstating things but not by much. The main point is they don't have an economy that matches Vlad's ambitions. Their GDP is eight in the world, just a smidgen above that of Italy. They can't really back up what they are doing and will depend upon Vlad's baleful stare into cowing others into passivity. If that doesn't work, they will be in trouble.

And all that isn't to mention their woeful demographic problem.

carl
03-02-2014, 10:07 PM
Very true... and also very true that Germany doesn't have a single LNG terminal, so even if they did have a sudden impulse to replace Russian gas with imports from the US, the ME, or elsewhere, it would take years and billions before the impulse could be indulged without relying on terminals in Belgium and France

The point I was trying to make to Carl was that while the Europeans can reduce their reliance on Russian gas (with time, commitment, and considerable expenditure), the US has no magic lever it can throw and reduce that dependence.

Enjoy your snow... we just got back to the mountains after a bit of beach time :D

Dayuhan:

Not to put too fine a point on it, no kidding.

Russia gets it leverage over countries not contiguous to it from energy supply (and chutzpah). If those countries have alternatives, their leverage goes down. No kidding that building the infrastructure will take years. But the years do actually go by and if those countries want to do it, all they have to do is start. Perhaps recent events might make them want to more.

Russia could find other customers but that is where the shale gas technology comes into play. Because of that tech the overall world price of gas will come down, has to. And as it does there will be less money for Vlad to make mischief with. Besides if Russian did find customers in the east as you suggested, they may have to build infrastructure to get the gas there.

Oh I don't know. Looking at how much gas we have in the country and how great the price differential can be between here and Europe, I figure we may just supply them with quite a bit over the next decade or so once things get up and running. Take that Vlad, you corrupt killer!

AmericanPride
03-02-2014, 10:26 PM
They can't really back up what they are doing and will depend upon Vlad's baleful stare into cowing others into passivity. If that doesn't work, they will be in trouble.

Russia isn't a third-rate power; it's not the superpower it once was, but it's also not a backwards third-world tribal state either. This is the second time in six years Moscow has successfully projected military power beyond its borders -- with the added bonus of co-opting European interference and precluding American intervention. It's about time the West wakes up to the fact that Russia has sufficient economic and military weight to not be glibly ignored when formulating policy. The measure isn't whether Moscow can successfully wage war against the West; that's not the point. The point is that Moscow does not have to because it still maintains a credible nuclear arsenal as well as the political unity and military strength to assert its interests beyond its borders. Russia's vulnerability is that it's not yet so fully integrated into the Western system that it can use its indispensability as a threat, like China.


I wrote a long time ago that a €30 billion loan spread over a couple of years would be a good start. Even a €100 billion one is not much if financed by the EU member states and the US. This is not a time to do ridicule the own interests by comitting pitful sums.

I don't see this happening without painful conditions attached. Whatever the criticisms of the political system in Russia, it enables Moscow to deliver these kinds of incentives without complicated domestic negotiations. In Washington, in contrast, there are so many competing private and public interests that often the incentives are woefully insufficient or tied to unreasonable conditions. The IMF offer of loans on the condition of austerity measures unpopular in the rest of Europe is one example; its acceptance would bring Ukraine it to the West but at great domestic turmoil that in itself could threaten the stability of the government in Kiev. There is not a clear alignment between the financial interests here and the democratic interests; it will potentially give more credibility to the "fascist" elements in Ukraine (like in Greece and elsewhere in eastern Europe) that Moscow is already using as part of its justification for intervention. Ukraine, unlike Russia, will not be able to independently escape the problems imposed by this kind of shock treatment to its economy imposed by the international community.

TheCurmudgeon
03-02-2014, 10:59 PM
I would love to see us revisit the issue of whether Russia is the legal successor of the prior Soviet Union's permanent seat on the UN Security council.

carl
03-02-2014, 11:06 PM
Outlaw 09 over at the Blog is doing a bang up job on this situation in the comments section of Nato Needs to Move Now on Crimea article. Between him and Firn it is like having your own intel squad without having to pay them.

Below are a list of Outlaw's suggestions of things that can be done, Right Now, to pressure Russia. They are mostly economic steps and they seem quite doable and effective. They get their power from the fact that Russia's economy is weak and can be got to.

"Step 1:
HAS anyone ever seen on any given day the amount of Russian truck traffic on the German A10 highway coming out of the Russian economy via Poland that is so dependent on EU trading? Thousands per month---NOW stop the traffic-- in fact the Ukraine as well as Poland can stop the traffic and see what the reaction will be---immediate!

The Russian economy is spiraling downward, they need foreign investment and many foreign companies are in fact leaving, and the Rubel is sinking---Russia itself is struggling economically so use the economic weapons available.

Step 2: Stop the next G8 meeting and institute a removal of Russia as they had for years fought to get in---so make it now painful to continue in the "Club". Go to the WTO and file charges for manipulating their gas prices via Gazpom to gain undue economic advantages.

Step 3. Enforce a total economic freeze on all Russian oligarch accounts outside of Russia for the entire length of time Russian remains inside the Ukraine---in fact the recent actions to freeze accounts of proRussian Ukraine oligarchs in Eastern Ukraine by Austria and Switzerland and rumored the UK was a shock wave that is now causing some of them to turn "moderate" in their comments. Watch the reaction by the oligrachs-immediate! Institute travel/visa restrictions on all Russian citizens worldwide.

Step 4. Place every Russian naval vessel that leaves the Black Sea under nearby constant surveillance and start patrolling outside territorial limits for the length of the Russian stay in Ukrainian territory.

Step 5. Review of all Russian commercial flights into and out of the EU and the US/Canada---then reduce them for the length of time the Russians remain inside the Ukraine.

Step 6. A constant calling in and discussing the issue with the Russian ambassadors stationed in EU/NATO/US countries.

Step 7. Curtail the blossoming military to military meetings between the US Army and Russian Army.

Step 8. Call for the former Ukrainian President to be arrested for murder of civilians and the theft of over 70B from the Ukrainian people."

carl
03-02-2014, 11:20 PM
Russia isn't a third-rate power; it's not the superpower it once was, but it's also not a backwards third-world tribal state either. This is the second time in six years Moscow has successfully projected military power beyond its borders -- with the added bonus of co-opting European interference and precluding American intervention. It's about time the West wakes up to the fact that Russia has sufficient economic and military weight to not be glibly ignored when formulating policy. The measure isn't whether Moscow can successfully wage war against the West; that's not the point. The point is that Moscow does not have to because it still maintains a credible nuclear arsenal as well as the political unity and military strength to assert its interests beyond its borders. Russia's vulnerability is that it's not yet so fully integrated into the Western system that it can use its indispensability as a threat, like China.

You're wrong. Russia is a third rate power, and what I agreed with was Will's comment that it was third world economy with a first world military.

Russia's GDP is barely above that of Italy. Russia's population is around 143 million and Italy's is around 60 million. An economic powerhouse it ain't.

In 2008 they fell on little contiguous Georgia and just now they took Crimea where they had a preponderance of military force already in place. Neither one of those is anything to brag about. They have had an insurgency in their south for many years that they can't get a handle on. In my view they got mostly nerve with no economy to back it up. Plus that pesky demographic problem.

Russia can be hell on its contiguous neighbors if they are small enough and they don't fight. Ukraine has about 45 million people. If Russia can't cow them into inaction and a fight starts, the Russian economy probably can't handle it, especially if the sanctions of Outlaw 09 listed above were to be effected.

Firn
03-02-2014, 11:37 PM
@carl: All I do is trying to understand the situation and sometimes offer my opinion on it. Tomorrow I will for obvious reason not be able to devote a tenth of my time to whole situation.

I think it is important to bat as long it is possible in the own confort zone and to the own strenghts. The EU and the USA reacted slowly before it picked up pace, which is quite understandable as I doubt that even a small number of political or military insider saw this brazen Russian invasion coming.

Putin on the other hand has prepared this totally unexpected attack on the Ukraine for at least a week and had his forces nearby. I have written before that this was something out of a Soviet textbook minus the killing - till now.

The council of the Luhansk Oblast seems to get played in the same way the Crimean was. After the Russian actions in the Crimea who are we to rule out that they have done so under massive, maybe armed threat? With the Russian troops prepared on the frontier it is absolutely feasible that Russian tanks might roll over the border to 'protect' the Russian ethnicity there. Who knows, but who dares to rule such an action out?

The West has considerable leverage over the Russian elite and economy and considerable ressources to easily support the Ukraine. Some of the steps mentioned above are very painful indeed.

I also think that Russia might underestimated the willigness of the great majority of the Ukrainians to defend their country of the Russian aggression. It will take considerable time but the Ukrainians might be able to increase their military power a great deal over the next weeks.

Maybe I will tomorrow comment again but now I will have to get some sleep. I'm sure I never spent so much time in front of the PC on a Sunday in a long long time. But it was a very important day in the history of the Europe and the World. I hope that it won't become a tragic, bloody story...

Good night.

carl
03-02-2014, 11:56 PM
Firn:

You're efforts are well appreciated.

AmericanPride
03-02-2014, 11:57 PM
You're wrong. Russia is a third rate power, and what I agreed with was Will's comment that it was third world economy with a first world military.

Eighth of 193 countries places Russia in the top 5% of countries by GDP. That's not something to snub your nose at - and, arguably more important, Russia ranks first in the size of a country's total nuclear arsenal.


Russia's GDP is barely above that of Italy. Russia's population is around 143 million and Italy's is around 60 million. An economic powerhouse it ain't.

Does that make Italy (9th), India (10th), and Canada (11th) also "third-world" economies? Your definitions and understanding are very loose in their application.


In 2008 they fell on little contiguous Georgia and just now they took Crimea where they had a preponderance of military force already in place. Neither one of those is anything to brag about. They have had an insurgency in their south for many years that they can't get a handle on. In my view they got mostly nerve with no economy to back it up. Plus that pesky demographic problem.

If "neither one of those is anything to brag about", why is everyone up in arms? Why is NATO divided in its response? Why was Washington caught flat-footed a second time now by Moscow? You just stated that Russia has a "first-world military". Moscow's success here, politically and militarily, is no less important for it than Washington's in Libya and Serbia. What does the "demographic problem" have to do with seizing Crimea? Moscow has never had overseas ambitions so how is Georgia's proximity relevant?


Russia can be hell on its contiguous neighbors if they are small enough and they don't fight.

Georgia didn't fight? The 1,200+ dead and wounded Georgian soldiers (or their families) would disagree. Strong powers don't pick on other strong powers - that's the point here. And that's why Washington has no meaningful options. Washington has had problems imposing universal sanctions in the past - Cuba, Iran, etc where economic interests diverge. Why would Europe (specifically Berlin) go along with sanctions on the world's 8th largest economy?

The Obama administration's reply here will be relatively minor compared to the coup pulled off by Moscow, and much of the angst in the United States is because we are powerless to stop it. And because of this superpower complex in Washington, any constructive political outcome will likely come from Europe instead. The US is not a position to escalate relations with Moscow into Cold War 2.0; not with the current state of the economy and the pending demobilization of the armed forces.

AdamG
03-03-2014, 12:16 AM
@AdamG: There is no doubt that confused Ukrainian forces gave up their weapons more or less readily after heavily armed masked men turned out in ever greater number. Some, mostly of Russian ethnicity might even have willingly gone over. The Russian invader came through the fog of war like a thief in the night and caught them completely unprepared. Who knows what happens now to those who surrendered their weapons. I'm pretty sure they will get pressured to work for the Russian propaganda.

It is likely that with the strategic surprise gone and resolve growing that quite a few units in the Crimea will hold out for now. Obviously they just have no real military value but a symbolic one.

Then again, the defectors could just self-identify as Russian more than Ukrainian and 'gone over' quite willingly.

The Ukrainian Naval Infantry garrison hold-outs don't want to start the shooting, as much as the Russians don't want to start shooting. First side to pull a trigger loses.

AdamG
03-03-2014, 12:19 AM
Putin on the other hand has prepared this totally unexpected attack on the Ukraine for at least a week and had his forces nearby. I have written before that this was something out of a Soviet textbook minus the killing - till now.
.

Huh? The US gave a warning about meddling in the Ukraine on 22Feb14, but.. well, read this;

Russia watchers say military manoeuvre was long in the making
. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a8833b6-a230-11e3-87f6-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2uqXrrTRd


Now, as Russian troops stand in Ukraine, those worries appear prescient. Military experts say the way Russia moved against its neighbour shows all the signs of an operation prepared meticulously over a number of weeks, with the participation of the FSB, the successor of the Soviet Union’s KGB security service, where Mr Putin and many of the most influential members of his administration started their careers.

*

Sources familiar with the Russian security services and military believe that FSB agents have been working in Ukrainian cities for at least several weeks to prepare for what played out over this last weekend.

“They probably played a role in setting up some of those pro-Russian militias in Crimea, and they certainly had a big hand in organising the pro-Russian demonstrations and anti-Maidan rallies,” says a foreign diplomat in Moscow who handles his country’s liaison with the Russian security services.

He also believes that Russian agents participated in the Maidan demonstrations – both on the side of the protesters and among the Berkut, Ukraine’s riot police, to facilitate an escalation of events.

*
Foreign intelligence officials now lean towards the theory that Mr Putin decided even before the Olympics to remove Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich from power as he had come to believe the former leader would eventually ruin Ukraine’s economy and could not be trusted to keep Kiev in Russia’s sphere of influence.

*

With this force in place and pro-Russian militias milling around in Crimea, military special forces then moved to seize key assets including the parliament building and the region’s two main airports, opening the doors for the paratroopers.

All this was flanked by an aggressive disinformation campaign which appears aimed at justifying a military intervention and goes far beyond the normal practices of Russian state media. In this light, some Russian journalists have started questioning Mr Putin’s decision before the Olympics to replace two respected state media heads with loyalists.

Russian foreign policy officials say the option of using military force against Ukraine was on the table in internal discussions early on, but a fight within the administration over the final decision was raging until a few days ago.

Dayuhan
03-03-2014, 12:38 AM
But there are also other implications. First, it's clear that Washington's power relative to that of other states, specifically Russia, is waning.

The talk of waning US power misses, I think, an important point. The great powers of today, going back to the start of the nuclear age, prefer to avoid direct confrontation, for obvious reasons. That's why the Cold War was fought by proxy. When one great power sets up to intervene, the rival great powers can be counted on to denounce, oppose, issue vague threats, possibly throw in a symbolic act or two (boycotting Olympics or Summits), but they don't directly confront. It's easier and safer to sit back, watch, and hope the other guy steps in a mess and opens an opportunity for some proxy action. Given the complexities and nature of intervention, that very often happens.

This is less "waning US power" than business as usual: it's the way these things have been played out for the last 50+ years. It's the way the Russians and Chinese have responded to US intervention, and the way the US has responded to Russian and Chinese intervention. It's not a new development.

carl
03-03-2014, 02:11 AM
American Pride:

Nope, Russia is a third rate economy. You don't just judge by the total product, you judge by the total product divided by the number of people. So Canada and Italy rate and Russia don't. Besides it is mostly an extractive economy. Not good. Canada by the way has 35 million people and its GDP is about 1.821. Russia has 143 million and its GDP is about 2.029. That doesn't compare too well.

Their military record isn't anything to brag about. If people are up in arms about that they aren't judging it correctly. I think they are up in arms because they invade other countries. They get by so mostly on bluff. You don't have to actually be strong if nobody requires a demo.

I will not explain to you why a demographic problem is important when judging a country's immediate military strength and future potential. You should know.

Sorry I was unclear when I said they do well against countries that are little and won't fight. I should have said they do well against countries that are little OR won't fight. The "or" is important. The big question now is if things get worse, will Ukraine fight? If they do, the Russian military will be better tested but their economy won't hold, in my opinion.

If Europe wants to hand the keys to Vlad, they won't do anything as to sanctions. If they don't they will. And the reason they would is because their economies are much much stronger than Russia's and the Russians would cry uncle long before the Euros. It would take some determination though. We'll see if they have it.

Well if you think we can't handle Russia by various means when we have double the population, eight times the GDP, lots and lots of reasonably good allies, don't have the demographic problem they have and are not plagued by an insurgency that won't go away-then I guess there is no alternative but give Vlad what he wants and hope he won't want more.

AdamG
03-03-2014, 05:25 AM
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — The Russian military set an ultimatum Sunday for Ukrainian army and navy units “to surrender weapons and leave their bases” in the Crimean peninsula, Ukraine’s acting president, Olexandr Turchinov, said in televised remarks.

According to Turchinov, the ultimatum demanded that the troops abandon their bases by 5 a.m. Sunday. But as of late afternoon, the Ukrainian military was still occupying the bases, although they were kept effectively confined to them by Russian troops blocking access.

Turchinev said the ultimatum came from the Russian military’s North Caucasus division. He said his efforts to speak about it with leaders in Moscow had been futile.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-ukrainian-president-russia-ultimatum-crimea-20140302,0,6104716.story#ixzz2us1KMRGo


Ukraine has fired its navy chief, and launched a treason case against him for "refusing to fight Russians, surrendering Sevastopol headquarters, the deputy Secretary of security council told Reuters.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-03-02/ukraine-fires-navy-chief-for-treason-after-surrendering-hq/

Dayuhan
03-03-2014, 05:53 AM
In 2008 they fell on little contiguous Georgia and just now they took Crimea where they had a preponderance of military force already in place. Neither one of those is anything to brag about. They have had an insurgency in their south for many years that they can't get a handle on. In my view they got mostly nerve with no economy to back it up. Plus that pesky demographic problem.

Plus that pesky nuclear arsenal, which makes a difference.


Below are a list of Outlaw's suggestions of things that can be done, Right Now, to pressure Russia. They are mostly economic steps and they seem quite doable and effective. They get their power from the fact that Russia's economy is weak and can be got to.

"Step 1:
HAS anyone ever seen on any given day the amount of Russian truck traffic on the German A10 highway coming out of the Russian economy via Poland that is so dependent on EU trading? Thousands per month---NOW stop the traffic-- in fact the Ukraine as well as Poland can stop the traffic and see what the reaction will be---immediate!

The Russian economy is spiraling downward, they need foreign investment and many foreign companies are in fact leaving, and the Rubel is sinking---Russia itself is struggling economically so use the economic weapons available.

Step 2: Stop the next G8 meeting and institute a removal of Russia as they had for years fought to get in---so make it now painful to continue in the "Club". Go to the WTO and file charges for manipulating their gas prices via Gazpom to gain undue economic advantages.

Step 3. Enforce a total economic freeze on all Russian oligarch accounts outside of Russia for the entire length of time Russian remains inside the Ukraine---in fact the recent actions to freeze accounts of proRussian Ukraine oligarchs in Eastern Ukraine by Austria and Switzerland and rumored the UK was a shock wave that is now causing some of them to turn "moderate" in their comments. Watch the reaction by the oligrachs-immediate! Institute travel/visa restrictions on all Russian citizens worldwide.

Step 4. Place every Russian naval vessel that leaves the Black Sea under nearby constant surveillance and start patrolling outside territorial limits for the length of the Russian stay in Ukrainian territory.

Step 5. Review of all Russian commercial flights into and out of the EU and the US/Canada---then reduce them for the length of time the Russians remain inside the Ukraine.

Step 6. A constant calling in and discussing the issue with the Russian ambassadors stationed in EU/NATO/US countries.

Step 7. Curtail the blossoming military to military meetings between the US Army and Russian Army.

Step 8. Call for the former Ukrainian President to be arrested for murder of civilians and the theft of over 70B from the Ukrainian people."

Yes, these things can be done, right now... if the US, Europe, and Canada cooperate fully and seamlessly. What do you figure the odds are on that? The US cannot simply dictate what the response should or will be, nor can it act effectively alone. I'd guess there's a great deal of talk going on right now aimed at figuring out what courses of action everyone can agree on, and I expect the outcome will be pretty limited.

There's a playbook of unilateral US options, but it's a pretty thin one. The playbook of multilateral options is a lot thicker and potentially a lot more effective, but none of the multilateral options are going to do much unless everybody's on board.

carl
03-03-2014, 07:21 AM
Dayuhan:

Why by golly you're right! I hadn't thought that cooperative action amongst the US and its allies is impossible. Here I thought it was. Too bad for us. There is nothing at all we can do now except hope Vlad will be merciful to the world. I thought too that, as Outlaw 09 says, we have an arsenal of financial tools developed since 9-11 that can put a world of hurt on the Russian oligarchs thereby putting a world of hurt on Vlad. Too bad those won't have much effect either. Sigh :(, there is nothing to be done.

Their nukes do make a difference. Of course so do ours and the Brit's and France's and all the others and all tend to cancel each other out and all of which has nothing at all to do with Russia's conventional capabilities which are what is in play here.

JMA
03-03-2014, 07:41 AM
There's a playbook of unilateral US options, but it's a pretty thin one. The playbook of multilateral options is a lot thicker and potentially a lot more effective, but none of the multilateral options are going to do much unless everybody's on board.

What are these options you allude to? Care to elaborate?

Firn
03-03-2014, 08:09 AM
No time for much writing. This is of course from Euromaidens PR team so handle bit care but it pictures the Russian strategy well:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhwluJ4CEAEDHJn.jpg

I know it is for the internal consumption, but please...

Young, very fit, masked Russian SF or so: You are doing it too professionally, fine trigger control and fire arcs and all.

Meanwhile those pictures seem to fit precious accusations that somebody is paying for having at least additional manpower to stage pro-Russian demostrations

http://storage1.censor.net.ua/images/7/e/8/8/7e88bae0c1b78ce7265bb2539903058b/640x480.jpg

Firn
03-03-2014, 12:50 PM
I posted before about the deep economic links of the Crimea with the other Ukrainian regions and it's reliance on irrigation water, electricity, gas plus the many trade goods coming over the rail & roads from the North. I concluded that the Crimean economy will suffer very badly and that the Russians will have difficulties to avoid a big crisis and to supply it properly.

Now we hear this:


Laura Mills @lauraphylmills

Russian wires reporting that PM Dmitry Medvedev issued an order to build a bridge across the Kerch straights linking Russia and Crimea.

Perhaps part of the progaganda war, but if Russia will continue it's occupation in the long run in a half-away efficient manner a bridge sounds at first like a decent idea.

Firn
03-03-2014, 01:07 PM
After having ticked off the financial impact and the economic troubles it is time to look at the behaviour of the Ukrainian forces.

Ukraine navy officers reject plea to defect to Russian-backed Crimea (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-navy-officers-defect-russian-crimea-berezovsky)


The officers broke into applause as Haiduk read them an order from Kiev removing Berezovsky from his position, and told them that Berezovsky was facing treason charges. When Haiduk had finished his dry but compelling address, the officers spontaneously broke into the national anthem, and some were seen to cry. Berezovsky showed no visible sign of emotion.

"I know my men will stay loyal to their oaths," Haiduk said before the address. "What Berezovsky has done is a matter for him alone. When he brought intruders in here, we did not offer armed resistance as would have been our right, in order to avoid any provocations the other side would like."

Officers at the HQ said Berezovsky had committed treachery twice – the first time when he broke his oath, and the second time on Monday morning when he requested permission to enter the headquarters and let several Russian special forces officers slip in behind him.

I mentioned before that now after the confusion and surprise have ended it will be much harder to convince the remaining Ukrainian forces of the Crimea to defect by words alone.

Ukrainian BMP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkMoER2DIOE) rolling east from the Odessa region.

Not everybody is understandably happy about those movements, there is also a considerable number of Russian speakers in the region. This doesn't mean that there were no Ukrainian speakers there to voice their opinion. Most of the peaceful protesters were old, note the red flag. The tiny barricade was removed within 5 minutes.

The young men jumping up and standing on the movers are clearly joining up. Note the blue armbinds.

slapout9
03-03-2014, 02:19 PM
On another thread I said that the new flash points were likely to be Race,Religion and Language. This is a good example. Putin will protect the "Human Rights" of the Russian speaking people of the Ukraine along with protecting the major seaport for his Navy....the rest can go to the EU.

jmm99
03-03-2014, 05:45 PM
for doing a bang up job on this story. Nice graphics, which often say more than thousands of words.

IMO (and broken crystal ball): If Georgia and Sudetenland I (Sudetenland II being when Adolf gobbled the rest of Cz) are the precedents, then Slap's post just above suggests the eventual diplomatic outcome: a secure Russian naval base in the Crimea, with an ethnic Russian buffer zone in southern and eastern Ukraine following the 2010 election results, leaving the rest of the Ukraine for the EU (at least for now).

JMA: Here's the US playbook on the Ukraine:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/John_Kerry_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait.jp g

aka "All Options Are on the Table (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-military-action-104152.html)" John - doing what he does best: lofty rhetoric (Youtube now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o_KQCWpy5g), and Youtube then (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucY7JOfg6G4)).

Of course, the WH had to "refine" his statements (from Politico's "All Options Are on the Table" article):


Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that “all options” were “on the table” as Washington determines how to respond to the Crimea crisis, but a senior administration official later told reporters he was describing the American “menu” of non-military options.

“We are focused on political and economic and diplomatic and economic options,” the official said. “We do have a wide range of options to include isolation, potential sanctions, relationships between Russia [and other countries]. … Our goal is to uphold the territorial integrity and government of Ukraine, not to have a military escalation. I don’t think we’re focused right now on some sort of military intervention. I don’t think that would be an effective way to deescalate the situation.”

So, don't expect a lot out of NATO Art. 4 and Art. 5 - which is going to be Germany's call anyway.

Ashley Deeks (a reasonable sort) looks at the Russian Forces in Ukraine: A Sketch of the International Law Issues (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russian-forces-in-ukraine-a-sketch-of-the-international-law-issues/), and concludes (after going through the major points):


Russia’s invasion of Crimea provides the latest evidence of two recurrent themes in “use of force” law: That many of its concepts remain malleable on paper, and that certain forcible actions fall within the core understandings of those concepts, such that most credible observers would agree that those actions violate international law.

To which, I can only say - So What ? Recourse to Thucydides (http://www.amazon.com/The-Landmark-Thucydides/dp/1416590870) would seem a more fruitful employment of one's time and effort.

Regards

Mike

AmericanPride
03-03-2014, 07:03 PM
I'd like to focus on the new Ukrainian government that has taken shape. The media has mostly ignored or downplayed the role of right-wing militants in the revolution. However, Svoboda, an openly racist neo-nazi party, holds four ministry posts in the new government: Vice Prime Minister, Defense, Agrarian Policy and Food, and Ecology and Natural Resources. It was quoted somewhere (I'll have to dig up the link) that members of this party view Ukraine's alliance with pro-West activists as not an end, but only a tactic to break the country's relationship with Russia. Given the ethnic and religious history of the region (specifically its experience in World War II; Svoboda leaders memoralize the Ukrainian SS division), I think this is a legitimate concern. Jewish groups in Ukraine certainly take it seriously. It doesn't help that when John McCain visited Ukraine several months ago, he openly embraced the party leader.This party isn't only anti-Russian, it's also anti-West in its ideology.

Now, let's assume that Ukraine turns firmly westward, and to avoid the pending economic crisis, accepts conditional IMF loans (as was offered during the EU negotiations that Yanukovych turned down). These loans are smaller than what was offered by Russia and they're also tied to austerity measures that have proven unpopular in the rest of Europe, and gave rise to far-right parties in those countries. Reactionary organizations frequently appear during times of economic duress. The politics of this situation are not promising, either from Washington or Moscow's perspective.

It was reported this morning that Moscow has demanded of Kiev to return to the unity government agreement of last month negotiated by the EU, but virtually ignored by the protesters who ousted Yanukovych that same day (and ignored by Washington after Yanukovych disappeared). This was followed by a rapid defection from Yanukovych's party in parliament and the consequent take over of the government by the opposition. And Berlin has already offered to Moscow a fact-finding mission to Crimea to help facilitate negotiations. I don't think Washington or Brussels is desirous of a return to the old agreement since their allies are already in power in Kiev.

However, Moscow does have the upper hand in this situation since it physically occupies Ukrainian territory and so far, Washington has only responded with a number of soft threats. Occupying Crimea provides Moscow with far more leverage in the coming negotiation period than the prospect of losing a G8 summit damages Russia's economic standing.

There are calls for secession votes in parts of Ukraine which are forthcoming later this month. So I think we're looking at a couple of scenarios:

(1) the Kiev government, facing collapse, calls new elections. This could mollify secessionist sentiment and keep Moscow honest about Ukraine's territorial integrity. But right now there's strong disincentives for this in Kiev and in Washington.

(2) the secessionist votes go forward. Given the reports of Russian agitation in this regions and the generally favorable view of Russia in the first place, it'll probably be successful. What does that mean for Ukraine and Russia? No idea. Could also lead to a shooting war or at the least widespread civil unrest.

Kiev has to make a decision soon with the pressure of its outstanding financial obligations coming due this month and the votes at the end of the month. The opposition alliance is likely to be strained as a result. With Svoboda in the Defense Minister post, that's also a concern to see what extent he pushes for mobilization and armed confrontation rather than negotiation.

EDIT: Early elections could also bolster the position of the new government internally since polls indicate that Svoboda has suffered in popularity since the last elections and was only bolstered by taking an active role in the protests. However they do have a more visible role in government now, so that could be offset. But new elections offers the opportunity to reduce the influence of this party as well as establish democratic legitimacy for the new government.

AmericanPride
03-03-2014, 08:34 PM
Some more updates:


“Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness, but rather more necessary than ever,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters after an emergency EU meeting in Brussels today.
EU Seeks Dialogue Before Sanctions to Ease Russia-Ukraine (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/eu-seeks-dialogue-before-sanctions-to-ease-russia-ukraine-crisis.html)

No surprise here. As I and others have remarked, the Europeans, particularly Berlin, will be in no hurry to impose economic sanctions destrucitive to their own economic relations with Moscow. Sure, the US can impose unilateral sanctions but that those will be more limited in scope. Importantly for Moscow, this provides an opening for negotiations after the requisite posturing by Europe, Russia, and the US. Paris came through in the Russian-Georgian conflict as a facilitator; my expectation is that it will likely be Berlin this time. I see four major open questions:

1) What will be the political status of Crimea?
2) What will be the political status of other Russian enclaves in Ukraine?
3) How will the Kiev government handle the financial situation?
4) What will be the political conditions for governance of the new Ukraine administration?

The March 6th deadline for Brussels and the end of month secession votes are forcing mechanisms for Moscow and Kiev, but not strong ones. I think the strongest one is the financial shortfall; how Kiev resolves that problem will determine the fate of the new government. In the way the situation is shaping up, I think holding elections is the only feasible way forward.

Fuchs
03-03-2014, 08:55 PM
For many years people for whom I have little respect claimed that Germany could not make do without its nuclear powerplants (actually non-nuclear reliable electricity production capacity was larger than even German peak electricity consumption and import is always an option).
The Merkel did one of her sudden u-turns on long-held positions of her party and did practically shut down the nuclear powerplants overnight. Germany coped with it and is still an electricity net exporter.

I suppose this may have influenced Russian opinion about German 'dependence' on their gas (there's no dependence on their oil anyway). I criticized the belief in this dependence long ago on my blog (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2008/09/annoyed-old-europeans-rant-about.html); in my opinion it's a typical fear held by insecure, conservative, fearful people. Someone with good knowledge of history would understand that a loss of Russian gas supplies would merely be a major annoyance.

Putin's advisers may have understood this already, and this may bear fruits sooner or later. I've read comments about how the Putin crowd doesn't respect the other European countries all that much anyway, considering them as dependent on the U.S. (a novel and intriguing rumour, not the least in regard to Hollande's France).

AmericanPride
03-03-2014, 10:10 PM
Back to Germany. Here's an article from the New Republic on why Germany is not keen on sanctions (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116836/why-germany-doesnt-want-sanction-russia-invading-ukraine):


According to the Wall Street Journal, Phillip Missfelder, a senior member of the German legislative body, said, “Economic sanctions against Russia would damage Germany itself. Sanctions are always bad for Germany as an export-driven nation.” He later added that they “are currently not an option.” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also said on Sunday that the G7 countries should not kick Russia out of the G8, as the U.S. has threatened.

Currently Berlin is opposed to both punishing sanctions and to expelling Moscow from G8. There was another article discussing the suspension of negotiations regarding Russian visa access to the EU; that would be similar to the EU's response to the Georgian war, suspenion of trade negotiations. In the long-term, Moscow could potentially be economically weakened by sanctions or other reprisals from Brussels and Washington, but events on the ground are moving more quickly. Kiev will be out of cash in several weeks and there is pressure in parts of Ukraine for a secession vote this month.

So I think discussions about how the impact on Russia's economy will compel it to abandon its military operation overlooks several significant developments that not only demand immediate attention, but also will change the situation in such a way that the conditions of Russia's economy won't matter in the outcome.

AmericanPride
03-03-2014, 11:23 PM
According to the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10674503/Ukraine-crisis-UK-prepares-to-rule-out-sanctions-on-Russia-amid-threat-to-global-economy.html):


However, a document photographed in Downing Street suggested that Britain is concerned about the economic impact of any sanctions against Russia. The paper states that the “UK should not support, for now, trade sanctions … or close London’s financial centre to Russians”.

The document also stated that Britain would not support any Nato military preparations and said that the United Nations rather than the EU should take the lead in sending observers to Ukraine. It suggested that ministers were instead considering a more cautious approach including visa restrictions and travel bans on key Russian figures.

It appears like any resolution to this conflict will be led by Europe, not Washington. This has the advantage of allowing Europea to figure out an appropriate solution while enabling Washington to continue to posture without committment. The G7 stated that they are prepared to provide financial support to Kiev, but there are no details. That would stabilize Ukraine but won't dislodge Moscow from Crimea.

TheCurmudgeon
03-03-2014, 11:30 PM
Poland has invoked Article 4 of Nato's founding treaty, under which consultations can be requested when an ally feels their security is threatened. Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski has said that while the Ukraine crisis is not a direct threat to Poland and that the country is safe, Poland wants to enlist Nato as a tool to work for stabilisation in Ukraine.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26413953

I am not even sure what we have left in EUCOM. I know we have no Tanks.

US Army last tanks depart from Germany (http://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-germany-1.214977)

I find it interesting that, as the Army is arguing to maintain their numbers because we can never predict the future, they are not (yet) using this as an "I told you so" moment. Perhaps because there is little they can do in less than 90 days that is sustainable.

Fuchs
03-04-2014, 12:22 AM
The U.S.Army would hardly arrive in time and in force if Russia actually attacked with what little it has nearby. The Ukrainian forces are poorly prepared and have the cohesion and reliability issues so typical for multi-ethnic countries with strong internal tensions.

The East Ukraine is simply too far away for anything but air-deployed forces. The Bulgarians, Hungarians and Romanians have little to no relevant forces capable of a long road march on short notice.
The Poles and Germans have hardly enough to react in tie for a Baltic crisis, and the Ukraine is much farther away. The Poles would also need to keep at least enough forces at home to cope with Russians at Kaliningrad and the forces of Belarus at least for a short time.

The USN is largely irrelevant because it's not going to go through the Bosporus afaik.

The USAF will find relatively few airbases in a fine condition anywhere near the East Ukraine: Some Cold War airbases and international airports in Romania and the also very distant NATO bases in Turkey.

The Greek forces are simply not in a good condition for obvious reasons (the Greek army was a huge paper tiger anyway) and the largely obsolete Turkish forces are rather far away, save for their air force and navy.


NATO never bothered to prepare for a very short-term crisis in Eastern Europe. Our Allies (Baltic, Poland) already bemoaned that during the years of Iraq occupation stupidity. Shinseki's "four day Stryker brigade deployment" fetish was at least reassuring on an improvised basis, but later on nobody seemed to take Eastern European crisis potential particularly serious in Western capitals. Reportedly NATO became only serious about planning for Baltic defence a year or two ago.


So a hot conflict would be more of an embarrassment to NATO than TF Hawk was to the U.S.Army. Then again, plenty other conflicts including Kosovo and Libya were also embarrassing, since NATO air power refused to set up forward airfields and instead worshipped the golden calf of aerial refuelling.

carl
03-04-2014, 12:39 AM
I don't understand why Western conventional response would be a preferred option. There are lots of Ukrainians available to fight the Russians if it comes to that and they are already organized into an army and air force. All they would really need, at least in the beginning, is money, supplies and as much economic mischief (to include cyber ops) directed at the Russians as the West could manage. Those things would give the Russians a lot to handle, maybe more than they could handle.

If that didn't work and the Russians prevailed, what did they just win? They just won tens of millions of thoroughly ticked off Ukrainians who would be thrilled to receive help from the special services of a long list of countries who would love to see the Russians choke to death on their conquest. I imagine that would be right up the alley of guys like Outlaw 09 and Bill Moore. The bear may end up biting off a big chunk of meat that has a grenade inside.

Fuchs
03-04-2014, 12:52 AM
Look at the map.
If the Crimea declares independence or joins Russia, no Ukrainian forces could fight their way through the tiny land bridge without extreme heavy weapons (artillery, bombs) support - and even shiploads of DPICM wouldn't do the trick.

The Ukrainian government needs an operational and loyal divisional equivalent on the Crimea ASAP if it wants to prevail in face of a determined Putin.

Dayuhan
03-04-2014, 12:58 AM
What are these options you allude to? Care to elaborate?

The usual: trade restrictions, travel restrictions, asset freezes... the same economic sanctions that have generally been ineffective elsewhere.

It is of course true that the Russian economy is not exactly a pillar of strength and a really aggressive combines US/EU sanctions regime could do a lot of damage. Since the EU (particularly Germany, which has a major chunk of the economic leverage) is clearly in no mood to go along with an aggressive sanctions package, that reality doesn't mean much. Sanctions would hurt the Europeans as much as the Russians, and the EU economies aren't exactly doing brilliantly either. The European governments have more concerns with public opinion than Putin does, and odds are that they will blink first.

This comment from Daniel Drezner pretty much sums up the sanctions problem

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/russian-sanctions-likely-putin-ukraine-crimea:


Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said that with Europe reluctant to endorse a broad sanctions regime, the kinds of measures being contemplated by the White House were unlikely to be more than an “irritation” to Putin.

“The trade the US has with Russia is pretty minimal,” he said. “And Europe is highly unlikely to restrict the trade that matters – in energy. They can cause Russia a little economic pain but not much.”

Unilateral US sanctions are not going to hurt the Russians enough to make a difference: the economies just aren't that closely linked.

Multilateral sanctions with the EU taking an aggressive position would cause real pain, but the EU is not likely to go along.

Realistically, then, economic sanctions are not likely to make much difference, unless the US and EU act aggressively and in concert. Figure the odds on that.

I'll leave it to others to outline the realistic military options, but so far there doesn't seem to be much on the table.

Realistically, I'd guess that if Putin is willing to stop with Crimea, he'll probably get away with it. If he tries to bite off more... that would depend on how much it takes to get the Europeans agitated enough to make a move. The Economic leverage is with Europe, not the US.

jcustis
03-04-2014, 12:59 AM
If there is anything I learned from studying up on foreign policy in college, and being an instrument of it for over twenty years, it is that Americans have got to get over this fetish for playing zero sum games.

We can't seem to help ourselves as we clamor over which president is weak vs. strong, who is winning the confrontation, and how this is proof of weak foreign policies. This current drama is bringing out the kooks like usual (e.g. McCain), and good lord they are on the embarrassment train with their one-dimensional, one layer deep understanding of the situation.

It's sickitating.

AmericanPride
03-04-2014, 01:27 AM
I don't understand why Western conventional response would be a preferred option. There are lots of Ukrainians available to fight the Russians if it comes to that and they are already organized into an army and air force. All they would really need, at least in the beginning, is money, supplies and as much economic mischief (to include cyber ops) directed at the Russians as the West could manage. Those things would give the Russians a lot to handle, maybe more than they could handle.

If that didn't work and the Russians prevailed, what did they just win? They just won tens of millions of thoroughly ticked off Ukrainians who would be thrilled to receive help from the special services of a long list of countries who would love to see the Russians choke to death on their conquest. I imagine that would be right up the alley of guys like Outlaw 09 and Bill Moore. The bear may end up biting off a big chunk of meat that has a grenade inside.

Ukraine is geographically vulnerable: it's mostly flat with a major river that bisects it, has a long coast, and the Crimean peninsula is very thin (and already occupied). Russian mechanized and airborne movements would be very rapid. Doctrinal mechanized road pace for Russian military is 40 miles a day - that's Kharkiv to Kiev in six days. And there would be some question about the reliability of Russian enclaves throughout Ukraine. Not that a general war is going to happen anyway for all the reasons cited in posts above.

Fuchs
03-04-2014, 01:37 AM
40 miles a day maybe if opposed. A largely unopposed march can be much, much quicker. Even the 40 kph tanks of 1940 managed a 50 km advance during a night while shooting up and overrunning bivouacking French divisions.

Even taking the maintenance needs and durability of T-72s into account, a poorly opposed advance could easily make more than 200 km/day. The advancing forces better have replacement crews for the tracked vehicles flown in after three days at such a pace, though (or with them all the time on trucks for maintenance+driving almost around the clock).

carl
03-04-2014, 02:15 AM
There is doctrine and there is what actually happens. Besides, what happens to the supply columns following? The further the advance, the more vulnerable they are. And spring is coming which means rain which means mud which means advances confined to the roads. I don't see a walkover here if the Ukrainians chose to fight. That is the big question.

If the Russians managed to deal with all that, that still leaves my main point above, they have to occupy the place and it will be filled with millions of very angry Ukrainians.

Like you say though, the Crimea may not be recoverable. All my comments are 'what might be' if they go into the main part of the Ukraine.

AmericanPride
03-04-2014, 02:54 AM
carl,

I don't think Ukraine can organize opposition with sufficient speed. Russian forces are already mobilized and the Russian Army isn't a divided organization like the Ukrainian one. I'm also confident Russia has prepared war plans for this kind of scenario -- does Washington and NATO? Given the geography, strategically speaking Ukrainian forces would be best positioned along the Dnieper and anchored in Kiev to prevent a river crossing - but the Russians wouldn't have to go that far for Ukraine disintegrate. Every Ukrainian position east of the river would eventually face encirclement and probably disruptions from Russian sympathizers. Ukrainian partisan activity would have to be urban in nature and Georgia and Chechnya should instruct everyone what that implies for the safety of Ukrainian cities during Russian combat operations.

There's also the question of defections in Ukrainian forces as well as uprisings in Russian enclaves, particularly Odessa. Russian airborne and naval landings would severely disrupt the support zones of Ukraine. Russia has also a large special operations and light infantry component dedicated to this kind of thing; disrupting enemy forces at all levels (there's already infiltration in Ukrainian cities for political agitation) as well as for police actions securing lines of communication. IMO, it's not a question of quality - but quantity, speed, and geography. Ukraine does not have the resources to fight a mobile war against Russia in open ground.

How fast could NATO mobilize in response and to what extent? As Fuchs mentioned, Poland and Baltic states would be fixed defending their own borders - that means US, German, French, and British forces. By the time they're introduced into theater and make it to the front, eastern Ukraine would be occupied. The key would be getting to the Dnieper before the Russians do, and in this situation, I don't think that's feasible.

Realistically, I don't think it's in Russia's interest to stage a larger intervention beyond Crimea, much less conduct a general invasion of the country.

AmericanPride
03-04-2014, 03:22 AM
I think that, perhaps, Putin realized that he had lost the Ukraine and was going to grab what little he could in the Eastern states to maintain that buffer. But I don't believe he has the ability to risk all out war in Western Ukraine. I could be misreading this, but his actions have been measured. He did not try to take all of Georgia. I don't think he will try to take all of the Ukraine.

I think there's a large element of truth to this. Whatever Ukraine's fate, it will not be the same as the fate of Crimea (and possibly eastern Ukraine). And while I think strictly speaking in a military perspective, Russia could defeat Ukraine rather effortlessly, I don't think the political and economic context will allow for it. Nor do I think Moscow is interested in occupying the whole of Ukraine anyway. The next act to the unfolding drama will be determined by what the Kiev government decides to do about the pending sovereign debt - and what conditions it will impose on Ukraine. Otherwise we are looking at a long-term situation of ambiguity for Crimea's status.

carl
03-04-2014, 03:28 AM
American Pride:

All that may be but, with all due respect, it sounds like a comparison of tables of organization and then drawing conclusions. The last time the Russians faced long term serious resistance, in Chechnya, they weren't too impressive. Initially they were truly lousy.

They may be and probably are much better now but that still doesn't alter the fact that they will be trying to deal with 45 million people some tens of millions of whom will try to kill them at every opportunity. And the Ukrainians have a tradition of insurgency at least judging by WWII and post WWII.

I again bring up the subject of security of the supply lines. I read once the Iranian plan if the US Army invaded was to give minimum resistance to the spearhead forces, just enough that they had to keep together, and concentrate on the following supply columns. The Ukrainians might do something like that.

As I said before, there is no reason at all to involve regular forces of the West. None. There are millions of Ukrainians available who would be very enthusiastic about having an opportunity to slay Russians, during and after an invasion. All they would need is money, weapons and some liaison. Anti-tank missiles and shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles can really foul up supply columns and flights. The Ukrainians have SA-18s and I'll bet if somebody wanted to, they could get some of those Libyan SA-24s that went walkabout.

Another thing I thought of, this is more long term, the life of a Russian soldier is really lousy. Let's say you put it out that if one of them defects with a weapon he gets 10,000 Euros and a Polish passport. That would worry the Russian officer corps I believe.

The Russians have a lot of vulnerabilities.

AdamG
03-04-2014, 04:18 AM
Another blog to bookmark
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-14-could-a-cold-war-turn-hot-today/

It's pretty obvious that the Kremlin's had a "Take eastern Ukraine" staff planning package on ice for awhile.

Note how quickly the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade at Sevastopol stepped out and moved north to seize the Perekop Isthmus & Chongar Peninsula.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/europe/ukraine/crimea/map_of_crimea.jpg

JMA
03-04-2014, 09:01 AM
Having access to RT (the Russian channel) it is bizarre to hear and see two absolute opposite views on the same situation being presented.

Also locally there are questions being asked about how quickly the US forgets about their own Monroe Doctrine and their 'invasions' of Panama and Grenada.

JMA
03-04-2014, 09:11 AM
Certainly Russia realises that Germany - being significantly dependent on Russia - will be the last to sign on for any form of sanctions will be able to push the envelope as a result.

The Brits will also be in no hurry to place meaningful sanctions on Russia.

The US will huff and puff...


Back to Germany. Here's an article from the New Republic on why Germany is not keen on sanctions (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116836/why-germany-doesnt-want-sanction-russia-invading-ukraine):



Currently Berlin is opposed to both punishing sanctions and to expelling Moscow from G8. There was another article discussing the suspension of negotiations regarding Russian visa access to the EU; that would be similar to the EU's response to the Georgian war, suspenion of trade negotiations. In the long-term, Moscow could potentially be economically weakened by sanctions or other reprisals from Brussels and Washington, but events on the ground are moving more quickly. Kiev will be out of cash in several weeks and there is pressure in parts of Ukraine for a secession vote this month.

So I think discussions about how the impact on Russia's economy will compel it to abandon its military operation overlooks several significant developments that not only demand immediate attention, but also will change the situation in such a way that the conditions of Russia's economy won't matter in the outcome.

Ulenspiegel
03-04-2014, 12:05 PM
Re sanctions:

In the medium (10 years) or long term (>20 years) timeframe the Russian position is not strong when we consider decreasing demand for NG and oil in Europe, the increasing global LNG capacities, lack of Russian LNG capacity, and the structure of the Russian (export) economy. Most of the NG is used in central Europe for heating of buildings. Fortunately, these buildings have an poor insulation level. :-)

The best answer is to build one or two more LNG facilities in the Netherlands, UK and Germany, to ramp-up refitting programs for buildings (KfW) and simply wait. The goal is to compensate for decline of UK and Norwegian NG production with more non-Russian LNG imports, at the same time, efficiency gains will reduce demand for Russian NG.

As the economy of Ukraine is a mess - it is even worse than the Russian economy - an occupation of more territory than the Crim does not improve the Russian strategic position IMHO.

Firn
03-04-2014, 01:38 PM
3. The economy of the occupied Crimea

See first this (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=152953&postcount=97). I have heard yesterday reports that ATMs and banks are running out of cash - no surprise considering that they were fed by other Ukrainian entities which have been mostly cut off. The stock of other goods should also be decreasing. Now that would be something western reporters should pay a close look at.

More dramatic and harder to solve will be the lack of demand in the tourism sector with it's 6 million overnight stays (IIRC) which one of two pillar of the Crimean economy. Only a quarter from the tourists came from Russia. It is also no surprise that the most often heard question to the speperatist leaderhip in the Crimea was the one about the public salaries. I don't think that that sort of tourists (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/russias-hand-can-be-seen-in-the-protests.html) will help much.

If you see how Crimeans expressing support for Kyiv are often getting treated in front of the camera (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26425281) by the new 'self-defense' forces and pro-Russian protesters or 'tourists', something which seems to get worse, I hardly can imagine that those 40-45% are happy under the Russian boot.

So the economic mess will likely hit most Crimeans badly, and even if massive Russian help steams in I can not see how they run the whole ship efficiently and fairly. In addition those economic problems those who see themselves as Ukrainians first will have to suffer from the Russian occuption.


Time seems to be working against Putin in those regards.

P.S: I will take a closer look at the agriculture later.

Firn
03-04-2014, 01:54 PM
One finger

So far not shot has been fired. Till now (http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/mar/04/warning-shots-fired-ukrainian-troops-crimea-video), as unarmed Ukrainian soldiers march are greeted by Russian soldiers with warning shots.

It just takes one nervous finger on the trigger, one finger for the first wounded or dead.

Fuchs
03-04-2014, 02:29 PM
It's probably best to stop reading or watching anything about the conflict for a month or two and then look at it in retrospective.

All these rumours and speculations smell a lot like entertainment.

AmericanPride
03-04-2014, 02:53 PM
The situation is already stabilizing.

From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/03/04/obama-russia-ukraine-1-billion-putin-crimea/6006759/):


Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the United States has been working with allies on a package to "help the Ukrainian government implement the reforms needed to restore financial stability and return to economic growth."

In a statement, Lew stressed the need for continuing reform in Ukraine: "The United States is prepared to work with its bilateral and multilateral partners to provide as much support as Ukraine needs ... if the new government implements the necessary reforms."

I am curious to see what these reforms will be. The US package is a stop-gap measure until the IMF deal is completed:

From NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=285561867):


In Washington Tuesday morning, the White House said the $1 billion loan guarantee was aimed in particular at helping insulate Ukraine from reductions in energy subsidies. Russia provides a substantial portion of Ukraine's natural gas and U.S. officials said they were also prepared to work with officials in Kiev to reduce their dependence on those imports. The White House said the assistance was meant to supplement a broader aid package from the International Monetary Fund, which currently has officials in Ukraine working with that country's new government.

The same NPR article states that Moscow has "pulled back its forces" from the border, though I have not see that substantiated anywhere else yet. Penalties against Moscow have included a narrow range of suspensions of technical relationships and trade negotiations. So we are transitioning already into the next phase; the aid package buys Kiev some more time while a final agreement with the IMF is concluded. Depending on the contours of the agreement, it'll put Kiev in a stronger position relative to Moscow. But that also provides an opening for a Crimean secession vote and de facto independence.

Kiev is in the strange position that it's political sovereignty and territorial integrity are in contradiction; maintaining the current government excluding pro-Russian stakeholders will guarantee the loss of at least Crimea and perhaps other enclaves; but including them to keep Ukraine intact will mean a new government.

AmericanPride
03-04-2014, 04:41 PM
From Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/ukraine-crisis-putin-eurobonds-idINL6N0M12JK20140304):


"In principle, we would be ready to consider further steps to release more tranches ... but our Western partners are asking us not to do this," Putin told a news conference in his first public comments on Ukraine in over a week.

"They are asking us to work together in the framework of the IMF in order to persuade the government of Ukraine, the Ukrainian authorities, to conduct reforms needed to revive the economy," he said. "We intend to keep working in this channel."


This is what the real battle over Ukraine is about: how to resolve Ukraine's cash problems and therefore subordinate it to East or West. The removal of Yanukovych and the seizure of power by the opposition was a victory for Washington in this regard and I would not be surprised that Kiev is currently receiving the same stern lectures about reform that made Yanukovych balk from the European Union association agreement late last year. The combination of the occupation of Crimea, the revolutionary zeal of the new government that does not include Russian stakeholders, and looming sovereign default all combine to form a wonderful opportunity to push through austerity measures over the objections of the general population. Austerity is painful and deeply unpopular, and economic research suggests that it's not effective in spurning growth (but that's not what austerity is about). It will be interesting to see how far the IMF can push Kiev for reforms and whether the reforms will be politically feasible for the new government.

The occupation of Crimea and the threat of further force gives Moscow a place at the table, which it did not have immediately after the overthrow of Yanukovych's government. This is a corner that the Kiev administration put themselves in by seizing power despite the 21st February unity government agreement made by Yanukovych with Brussels, triggering Moscow's intervention and the suspension of foreign aid and energy subsidies. As prediceted, Washington communicated to Moscow that the old agreement is not acceptable but Washington did state that it could serve as the basis for a new agreement. I'm willing to bet that the new agreement will include, or at least it should include, new elections for the sake of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Fuchs
03-04-2014, 08:33 PM
This is what the real battle over Ukraine is about: how to resolve Ukraine's cash problems and therefore subordinate it to East or West.


And this is where it could get really, really embarrassing.

The EU is busy with its fiscal crisis management. The people of Germany have no appetite for handing out dozens of billions € in money or guarantees to the Ukraine.

The U.S. is in domestic deadlock and barely able to get its own strangled budget alive. It cannot hand out this amount of money either.

This leads to one of the great powers which happened to join that declaration about Ukraine's independence and sovereignty: China. They 'kinda' have this kind of money. In fact, they would barely notice its absence from their accounts.


"East" may end up meaning something entirely different than you thought of.

slapout9
03-04-2014, 08:55 PM
From Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/ukraine-crisis-putin-eurobonds-idINL6N0M12JK20140304):



This is what the real battle over Ukraine is about: how to resolve Ukraine's cash problems and therefore subordinate it to East or West. The removal of Yanukovych and the seizure of power by the opposition was a victory for Washington in this regard and I would not be surprised that Kiev is currently receiving the same stern lectures about reform that made Yanukovych balk from the European Union association agreement late last year.

Yes! That is why Putin is such a dangerous man right now. He is going to lose control of the pipelines which will disrupt his "Eurasian Prosperity Plan."(Halford Mackinder style) He doesn't like being a victim of what he views as the Western Wall Street Gang Tactics (financial manipulations to cause the Ukraine to fail) so he is responding with his own gang tactics.

This is not a War in the making it is a crime in progress!!!

JMA
03-04-2014, 10:17 PM
If there is anything I learned from studying up on foreign policy in college, and being an instrument of it for over twenty years, it is that Americans have got to get over this fetish for playing zero sum games.

We can't seem to help ourselves as we clamor over which president is weak vs. strong, who is winning the confrontation, and how this is proof of weak foreign policies. This current drama is bringing out the kooks like usual (e.g. McCain), and good lord they are on the embarrassment train with their one-dimensional, one layer deep understanding of the situation.

It's sickitating.

McCain?

I don't follow McCain that well but I guess you missed this back in 2008:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4485974/john-mccain-talks-crimea


"This whole thing has got a lot to do with Ukraine, Crimea, the base of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol. And the breakdown of the political process in Ukraine between Tymoshenko and Yushchenko is a very serious problem," McCain said. "So watch Ukraine, and let's make sure that we -- that the Ukrainians understand that we are their friend and ally."

Pity all the 'smart guys' were not listening.

Firn
03-04-2014, 10:18 PM
The Jewish perspective:


I posted earlier that some facts (http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.577114#) are stranger then fiction, ex-IDF soldiers who participated partly under Svoboda command in Euromaidan:


But Delta says the Kremlin is using the anti-Semitism card falsely to delegitimize the Ukrainian revolution, which is distancing Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence.

“It’s bull####. I never saw any expression of anti-Semitism during the protests, and the claims to the contrary were part of the reason I joined the movement. We’re trying to show that Jews care,” he said.

Now we have a chief Ukrainian Rabbi (http://www.jta.org/2014/03/03/news-opinion/world/ukraine-chief-rabbi-accuses-russians-of-staging-anti-semitic-provocations#.UxX-ep39bP0.twitter), vice president of the World Jewish Council who agrees with him and accuses the Kremlin of false-flag operations.


Asked about anti-Semitism among Ukrainian nationalists, particularly two far-right parties that have been included in the new government, Bleich acknowledged concerns but said the Jewish community has received assurances from top government leaders that their safety will be protected.

“The Russians are blowing this way, way out of proportion,” he said, referring to the issue of anti-Semitism among some Ukrainian nationalist factions.

He said that Ukrainians were united in response to the Russian intervention.

“There were many differences of opinion throughout the revolution, but today all that is gone,” he said. “We’re faced by an outside threat called Russia. It’s brought everyone together.”

Of course there are still stark divisions but he is just one of many who said that the Russian attack had also an uniting effect.

Interestingly the same newspaper had an entry about a Rabbi shot in Russia (http://www.jta.org/2013/07/28/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/chabad-rabbi-shot-in-russia-recuperating-in-an-israeli-hospital) several months ago in an attack believed to be anti-semitic. Such a case doesn't mean of course that the even a small part of the Russian population is anti-semitic.

Firn
03-04-2014, 10:33 PM
A Russian soldiers perspective:

An interesting chat with a Russian soldier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Z8ymyhx8A) in the Crimea. With all those reporters and all those soldiers it was just a question of time to get somebody to talk a bit more.

The obviously unverified YT translation sounds pretty much what you would hear from most soldiers in that situation...


Translation for English speakers:

=Dialog with the solder=
-he from Russia.
-they come to Crimea to prevent terrorism. He don't know what kind or who are terrorists.
-he think that this is not Ukrainian territory this is Crimea Republic. But then agree that Ukrainian Law applying here
-they have no intentions to shoot here
-he'v been asked: do you have any information about terrorists in Ukraine, we are from press if you give us that information we can help we can check. Solder answer nothing
-he told they don't ware any identity because they wearing such a kind of uniform
-Did you noticed any crime already? Not yet

Overall the Russian forces have acted from what I could gather professionally and disciplined. The confrontations with western journalists and Crimeans loyal to Kyiv have come all from small pro-Russian crowds and 'self-defense' activists.

A better translation. There are lots of them, and nobody seems to disagree.


Cam: Greeting are you in charge? Introduce yourself
Troop: Introduce? How? Not allowed - We don't have badges see?
Cam: Pretty new uniform! What army?
Troop: You can't guess?
Cam: My business isn't to guess, find facts
Troop: And mine are not to talk
Cam: Who can clarify what kind of military force is in the territory...
Troop: what territory? Who might you be?
Cam: UkrStream
Troop: So Local? Ukrainian?
Cam: Yes, and you're not local? You're Ukrainian?
Troop: We are Russians
Cam: Well then explain what Russian military is doing on Ukrainian Territory if you're in charge of this (brigade / group)
Troop: Protection - So that there are no terrorist acts
Cam: Is there info that there will be [terrorist acts] what kind?
Troop: Well, don't know I can't answer your questions
Woman: Information comes from where? Someone is informing you?
Troop: why are you filming, no need...
Woman: this is a public place.... we have the right to film so explain why we are being approached by men with weapons telling us not to film - do they know Ukrainian law?
Troop: Because you can't film them, - It's Crimean law here.
Cam: This is Ukrainian Territory

davidbfpo
03-04-2014, 11:15 PM
Firn,

The exchange with the Russian unofficial soldier reminds me of the reported conversations in 1968 when the USSR and allies 'fraternally intervened' in Czechoslovakia. Many Czechoslovaks then spoke Russian fluently and so were able to ask why they were there and explain the difference between the official explanation and reality.

There is another parallel to 1968, the Czechoslovak armed forces remained in their barracks and never offered any resistance.

AdamG
03-04-2014, 11:47 PM
With all those reporters and all those soldiers it was just a question of time to get somebody to talk a bit more.

Actually, I've read where the 'interviewer' is the same individual that's made the rounds being a provocative schiesse-stirer, for whatever reason.

Then again, the least-bright soldier is inevitable the one who runs his mouth in front of a camera no matter what uniform he's wearing.

Dayuhan
03-05-2014, 12:45 AM
Certainly Russia realises that Germany - being significantly dependent on Russia - will be the last to sign on for any form of sanctions will be able to push the envelope as a result.

The Brits will also be in no hurry to place meaningful sanctions on Russia.

That's the reality of sanctions: if they aren't hurting the sanctioning party, they aren't going to hurt the sanctioned party either. To deprive the Russians of oil and gas revenue, somebody has to go without oil and gas. To deprive the Russians of manufactured goods, somebody has to forego export revenues. In this case both burdens land largely on Germany, and the Germans aren't likely to go along with it... and if they don't, the sanctions don't work.

Unilateral US sanctions would achieve very little beyond allowing US politicians to say they did something.


The US will huff and puff...

What do you want to see the US do?


In the medium (10 years) or long term (>20 years) timeframe the Russian position is not strong when we consider decreasing demand for NG and oil in Europe, the increasing global LNG capacities, lack of Russian LNG capacity, and the structure of the Russian (export) economy. Most of the NG is used in central Europe for heating of buildings. Fortunately, these buildings have an poor insulation level. :-)

The best answer is to build one or two more LNG facilities in the Netherlands, UK and Germany, to ramp-up refitting programs for buildings (KfW) and simply wait. The goal is to compensate for decline of UK and Norwegian NG production with more non-Russian LNG imports, at the same time, efficiency gains will reduce demand for Russian NG.

Very true, and if Germany wants to send a signal to the Soviet Union, one of the clearest signals they could send would be to announce a plan for a major LNG terminal, the capacity of which would (coincidentally, of course) be roughly equal to Germany's gas imports from Russia.

In the short run, of course, the equation is somewhat different. Germany (and the rest of western Europe) certainly can wean themselves from Russian gas, but they can't do it overnight: there's enough LNG available, but the infrastructure would have to be realigned to support it. That process would reduce Russian leverage and force the Russians to find other outlets (probably very long and expensive pipelines to Asia), but it might also be an incentive for the Russians to try to play the gas card while they still have it.


As the economy of Ukraine is a mess - it is even worse than the Russian economy - an occupation of more territory than the Crim does not improve the Russian strategic position IMHO.

Also true, but this may be less about a specific strategic or economic goal than about an emotional goal, the desire to restore former Soviet territory and lay claim to the "make Russia great again". These actions aren't always entirely rational: look at the Falklands for an example!

Fuchs
03-05-2014, 01:16 AM
Very true, and if Germany wants to send a signal to the Soviet Union,

You made my day.

(And it's barely 0116 here...)

AmericanPride
03-05-2014, 01:24 AM
As expected, gas prices possibly to rise in Ukraine (http://worldpoliticsjournal.com/2014/03/revolution-toppled-viktor-yanukovych-unconstitutional-coup-said-vladimir-putin/):


Also on Tuesday, Alexei Miller, Gazprom chief executive, said that Russia’s gas company would raise natural gas price for Ukraine from the start of the next month. Ukraine paid Gazprom 400 dollars per thousand cubic metres last year. The price was cut to 268.50 dollars under a deal, which was struck in December. Kiev owns Gazprom nearly 2 billion dollars. Meanwhile, John Kerry announced that the US would provide Kiev with 1 billion dollars in new loan guarantees.

I don't want to say that the Ukrainian revolution will turn a single event or another, but I definitely think the gas economics will play a substantial role in how this drama proceeds. This is the modern equivalent to the ancient Roman grain supply. Between price increases and to-be-announced IMF reforms, the Kiev government has some substantial hurdles to overcome in the near future.

Fuchs
03-05-2014, 01:33 AM
Winter is about to end.
This is a graph for German consumers, showing a typical household consumption of natural gas:

http://www.swm.de/dms/swm/bilder/privatkunden/kundenservice/rechnung/verbrauchsverlauf-gas.gif
http://www.swm.de/dms/swm/bilder/privatkunden/kundenservice/rechnung/verbrauchsverlauf-gas.gif

I suppose the consumption in the Ukraine will fall sharply soon as well - and the winter was warm in Central Europe, so the underground storage sites are probably well-filled.

The industrial consumption of natural gas is more evenly distributed over the year, of course.

AmericanPride
03-05-2014, 03:28 AM
Fuchs,

Good point. But that would delay the problem, not fix it. I think we have to wait to see what the IMF package looks like. And I think that's what Moscow is waiting for also. The IMF may not be able to deliver a package politically feasible for Kiev (it wasn't acceptable to Yanukovych). So that may mean reaching out to Moscow, the very reason why the opposition moved against Yanukovych in the first place...

EDIT: Who wants to make any suggestions about what this operation might mean for modern state warfare in the nuclear age and the security of Europe?

Fuchs
03-05-2014, 05:03 AM
I doubt that the IMF has enough liquidity to support the Ukraine for the next two years AND maintain enough liquidity to maintain confidence in its abilities.

The IMF may become the agent, but I expect that countries need to raise billions and deposit them at the IMF before it can do this.
So again; EU is busy, US is in deadlock, ...

Note: Kerry didn't promise a billion USD as some headlines claimed, but guarantees for a billion USD so some banks can lend without risk to Ukraine. This is more easily possible legally AFAIK.

JMA
03-05-2014, 10:58 AM
That's the reality of sanctions: if they aren't hurting the sanctioning party, they aren't going to hurt the sanctioned party either. To deprive the Russians of oil and gas revenue, somebody has to go without oil and gas. To deprive the Russians of manufactured goods, somebody has to forego export revenues. In this case both burdens land largely on Germany, and the Germans aren't likely to go along with it... and if they don't, the sanctions don't work.

Unilateral US sanctions would achieve very little beyond allowing US politicians to say they did something.

You are stating the obvious - and probably a product of a Google search.


What do you want to see the US do?

Hopefully nothing. The US tends to get its interventions wrong more often than not. The US remains dangerously politically inept which is a pity because so much could have been achieved after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

JMA
03-05-2014, 11:49 AM
Still waiting to hear the excuse the CIA will offer for missing the ball on this on.

Anyone out there still believe the US is getting the best bang ofr the buck from this outfit?

Firn
03-05-2014, 12:11 PM
Stepping back to look at the big picture it is fascinating to note the role of the political willpower in the various states and alliances.

In Russia Putins will and almost total control over the media has so far shaped up the first part of the conflict. The invasion of the Crimea was the continuation of his politics with military means. Of course as Clausewitz underlined, the military means are just part of the package:

1) The (confusing?) diplomancy hardly never stopped, although the man himself kept quite for a couple of days. A propaganda war gets waged, political provocateurs gets bussed into Urkainian territory, Russians payed to stage protests at home to support the political actions of the Russian leadership and the political allies within the Ukraine.

2) Economic actions like the cancellation of the loans and threats as heard from Gazprom happened. The Crimeas get promised steams of money and honey.

3) Apart form the cover-overt military invasion of the Crimea military exercises get staged and paramilitary 'self-defense' forces are formed, partly from Russian Russians flown in.

Ukrainians rush to join military (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10677080/Ukraine-crisis-Ukrainians-rush-to-join-military.html). This reminds me of Clausewitz comments on the French revolution and the Prussian ability to field far more troops after half of it's area was lost the before. Of course they are absolutely not prepared for all those volunteers and called ups, the training was likely not all that good, it will take a lot of time to prepare, equipment will be lacking but it is quite a change from the first days.



"I want to take part in the fight," said Roman Surzhikov, a 33-year-old engineer and army reservist, one of a steady stream of people going into an army recruitment centre in the city centre on Tuesday, despite a "closed" sign outside.

"Have they declared a general mobilisation yet?" he asked the woman at reception.

....


Television footage showed long queues in front of recruitment centres. The defence ministry declined to tell AFP how many had actually signed up, saying the information was top secret.

Faced with more volunteers than it could take, the recruitment office in central Kiev decided to shut its doors until Thursday.

Volodymyr Bykovski, who works at the office and has already been signed up himself, confirmed he had seen an influx of keen men - young and old - since the weekend.

"Most of them came on their own initiative" rather than being called up, he said, smoking a cigarette outside the centre, which was topped by the blue-and-yellow Ukrainian flag.


This is not just restricted to Kviev, yesterday I looked around and it seems that pretty much all over the country similar events can be witnessed. Of course it might be more in some areas fewer in others, but there is no doubt that many want to serve their country in this crisis.

Firn
03-05-2014, 12:40 PM
Perhaps the most important rumour right now:


11:25:

A top EU official says the organisation is willing to provide Ukraine with a $15bn [not €?] aid package in loans and grants, AP reports.

As I have written before (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=152930&postcount=81) the Russian aggression seems to force the EU (and the USA) to get the big check book out. Now if the USA answers in kind we have roughly the € 30bn (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=152750&postcount=32) I have deemed to be a proper response as a SWAG. We will see.

mirhond
03-05-2014, 02:19 PM
One finger

So far not shot has been fired. Till now (http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/mar/04/warning-shots-fired-ukrainian-troops-crimea-video), as unarmed Ukrainian soldiers march are greeted by Russian soldiers with warning shots.

It just takes one nervous finger on the trigger, one finger for the first wounded or dead.

The most hilarious part of this video are the comments and exclamations of the participants.
I'll just translate my favorites for you, guys:

"America with us!" (1:26)

" Here is a Soviet banner, will you shoot at it?" (1:30)

Don't you find it completely surreal? :rolleyes:

ps. About sanctions. You, Westerners, somehow missed the major point - any sanctions, especially freezing or seizing the financial assets of the ruling classes just give Putin a bit more popular support, because wide-spread attitude here, in Russia, is: "What is bad for crooked cleptocrats, oligarchy and elites - is good for nation", and for Putin of cause, he is still a kinda beloved leader.

AdamG
03-05-2014, 03:29 PM
I truly hope for the Russian people that Putin does not listen to him, for Russia the economic game is already tough enough and scoring own goals is more likely to wreak economic havoc at home.


I would love to hear if and how much money they used yesterday to keep the ruble afloat. However it is quite possible that the Russian Central Bank is already under orders to keep things as much as possible under wraps.

Cash money seems the be the Center of Gravity in the 2014 Crimean Games.


The world’s 300 wealthiest people lost a combined $44.4 billion yesterday as global stocks tumbled the most in a month and the ruble dropped to an all-time low amid Russia’s growing military presence in Ukraine.

The day’s biggest losers were Gennady Timchenko and Leonid Mikhelson, who fell a combined $3.2 billion after OAO Novatek slumped almost 18 percent, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a daily ranking of the richest people on Earth. The two billionaires own almost half of Russia’s largest gas producer after Gazprom OAO.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/russian-richest-drop-13-billion-as-global-stocks-retreat.html

AdamG
03-05-2014, 03:35 PM
Consider this a P.S.A. for those not already watching the political flanks.

See http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=153127

AmericanPride
03-05-2014, 03:39 PM
Still waiting to hear the excuse the CIA will offer for missing the ball on this on.

Anyone out there still believe the US is getting the best bang ofr the buck from this outfit?

That's my question also.

Kerry was "assured" by Lavrov that the military exercises were unrelated to Ukraine, only to have paramilitaries arrive en masse across Crimea the next day. The activated forces were airborne, aerospace defense, and airlift forces, which now in hindsight is obvious why. It was five days from Yanukovych's overthrow (22 Feb) to the occupation of Crimea (27 Feb). The drills started the day before, 26 Feb.

My theory is that (1) Washington was not expecting military action, blinded by its own assessment of Moscow's intentions, and (2) once the drills were ordered, events moved too quickly for Washington to do anything about it.

From the New York Times on IMF conditions (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0):


A team from the International Monetary Fund is in Kiev to study the books and consider a stabilization loan. The fund is expected to demand difficult changes, including the reduction of lavish subsidies on gas prices, so the American and European money is intended in part to help cushion the blow to Ukrainian voters before new elections in May.

...

The loan announcement on Wednesday came from Jos Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, the unions executive arm. He said that the offer of 11 billion euros over the next couple of years included 1.6 billion euros, or about $2.2 billion, in loans and 1.4 billion euros in grants, as well as 3 billion euros in new credit from the European Investment Bank through 2016.

The pending economic changes coming to Ukraine will not help an administration perceived by ethnic Russians to be "fascists"; from Euronews (http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/01/ukraine-violent-clashes-in-kharkiv-leave-dozens-injured/):


Dozens of people have been hurt in clashes in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. Violence reportedly broke out when pro-Russia activists stormed the regional governments headquarters.

Thousands of people had gathered outside the building during a protest against Ukraines new leaders who ousted President Viktor Yanukovych a week ago.

AdamG
03-05-2014, 03:53 PM
As Washington DC prepares to open up the cash faucet (again), I have an uncomfortable rhetorical question: where'd Kiev's gold go?


Speaking in parliament, Yatsenyuk said that the former government had left the country with $75bn of debts. "Over $20bn of gold reserve were embezzled. They took $37bn of loans that disappeared," Yatsenyuk said. "Around $70bn was moved to offshore accounts from Ukraine's financial system in the last three years," he claimed.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/ukraine-search-missing-billions-yanukovych-russia

carl
03-05-2014, 04:23 PM
ps. About sanctions. You, Westerners, somehow missed the major point - any sanctions, especially freezing or seizing the financial assets of the ruling classes just give Putin a bit more popular support, because wide-spread attitude here, in Russia, is: "What is bad for crooked cleptocrats, oligarchy and elites - is good for nation", and for Putin of cause, he is still a kinda beloved leader.

That brings up the question of who constitutes Vlad's real constituency, the ones he actually cares most about, the Russians or the oligarchs? Judging by the state of Russian public health, I'm figuring it isn't the people.

That video may have been surreal, but people die in surreal circumstance too.

Firn
03-05-2014, 07:33 PM
Just a quick look at the a center of gravity, the financial markets as AdamG put it.

The Bank Rossii supported (http://www.nasdaq.com/article/ruble-pressured-by-external-factors-20140305-00373) the ruble with another $ 300m yesterday. Not much compared to Monday, but more the in an usual couple of weeks togheter.


The ruble was affected by "the well-known political factor," Ms. Nabiullina said at a meeting with President Vladimir Putin and members of the government.

To prevent the ruble from declining further, the central bank unexpectedly raised interest rates on Monday and sold $ 11.3 billion on the open market from its currency reserves. This contrasted with daily interventions by the central bank of a few hundred million dollars in previous weeks. On Tuesday the central bank spent $300 million to prop up the ruble, Ms. Nabiullina said.

She said that a prolonged strengthening of the ruble is possible only if Russia's economic fundamentals improve.

The Bank Rossii has still around $ 150B quite readily available but it certainly wants to play it save.

@mirhond: A crashing stock market in Russia, mostly due to a natural market reaction to military conflict, is actually a pretty targeted outcome against the Russian elite and upper class . I doubt that more then 15% of the Russians hold directly shares. The talk of economic sanction has certainly done it's part too. If the occupation flares up again, the Russian shares will obviously bear the brunt.

mirhond
03-05-2014, 07:37 PM
That brings up the question of who constitutes Vlad's real constituency, the ones he actually cares most about, the Russians or the oligarchs? Judging by the state of Russian public health, I'm figuring it isn't the people.

That video may have been surreal, but people die in surreal circumstance too.

No one of those "brave airmen" were in danger, they have already learned that "polite people with guns" are not about to shoot at them. (one of those "polite guys" on the video is a defected civil security guard, hated "Berkut")

on Putin. You are right about his constituency, but look at this from other side - sanctions will give him a tool to break his chains and become truly independent. Old good alliance of the King and the People against the Aristocracy.


@mirhond: A crashing stock market in Russia, mostly due to a natural market reaction to military conflict, is actually a pretty targeted outcome against the Russian elite and upper class . I doubt that more then 15% of the Russians hold directly shares. The talk of economic sanction has certainly done it's part too. If the occupation flares up again, the Russian shares will obviously bear the brunt.

I think my answer to carl answers your note too. Besides, our stock-market is a fairy kingdom, completley misterious to majority of population. I'm not sure about numbers, but I'd rather divide your guess of 15% share-holders by 3. Moreover, financial wellfare of the political elites and upper classes is hardly secured in shares and securities, so they will not suffer a lot.

Firn
03-05-2014, 08:05 PM
I think my answer to carl answers your note too. Besides, our stock-market is a fairy kingdom, completley misterious to majority of population. I'm not sure about numbers, but I'd rather divide your guess of 15% share-holders by 3. Moreover, financial wellfare of the political elites and upper classes is hardly secured in shares and securities, so they will not suffer a lot.

I did not look it up before and wanted to be on the conserative side. 5% sounds indeed more likely.

I actually wrote before that the Russian soldiers are doing generally a fine professional and disciplined job. They can of course increasingly outsources the nasty stuff to those paramilitary types but this doesn't change that they are so far conducting overall a pretty chilly and calm occupation.

Talking about paramilitary guys and pro-Russian crowds how did the following happen:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh-re1EIUAAJVXW.jpg

From ITV James Mates (https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv)


UN special envoy Robert Serry with me in coffee shop. Outside local militia block the door. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/pbotNqCG3i


Very unpleasant incident over. Robert Serry said v happy to leave #crimea if it helped de escalate the situation.

1) Completely spontaneous?
2) A targeted pro-Russian show gone out of control?
3) Planned that way?

The most probable answer seems 2) with some local Crimean leaders not able to handle it properly. A mob with some gunmen won't help the Russian diplomacy. But of course it is impossible to say from the outside.

AmericanPride
03-05-2014, 09:07 PM
I think the emphasis on the Russian stock market is out of place. First, as mirhond noted, there is not a significant amount of stakeholders and there is potentially political opportunity for Putin and his administration. Secondly, how do the losses measure in value and time with the gains desired by Moscow? Market losses are transient; losing Ukraine politically is potentially permanent. I suspect that Washington is significantly more sensitive to market movement than Moscow and this may be affecting perceptions on how Moscow is expected to respond to the stock market.

slapout9
03-05-2014, 09:09 PM
Part of my New Year's eve resolution was to stop looking at these situations through the traditional war analysis viewpoints (Clausewitz,etc.) cause they just don't seem to work IMO. So I am going back to the more traditional Law Enforcement Investigative techniques, in which I case I will view these situation as Crimes in progress and proceed from there.


It is really interesting to view the family history of our Secretary of State. The Direct Family links to some of the most famous names of Wall Street and with his family ties to International business, which have with direct ties back to......Germany and England and numerous International organizations.

My first question would have to be is where exactly is this man's loyalty.

Google the names of John Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz for yourself.


mirhond I like your posts very interesting stuff!!

mirhond
03-05-2014, 09:13 PM
The pending economic changes coming to Ukraine will not help an administration perceived by ethnic Russians to be "fascists"; from Euronews (http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/01/ukraine-violent-clashes-in-kharkiv-leave-dozens-injured/):
Dozens of people have been hurt in clashes in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. Violence reportedly broke out when pro-Russia activists stormed the regional governments headquarters.

Thousands of people had gathered outside the building during a protest against Ukraines new leaders who ousted President Viktor Yanukovych a week ago.


Euronews learned from Goebbels well. What was really happened you may see herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFjIEApn-ZU

Quite funny story lies behind this. Regional government was previously taken and barricaded by mobile group of "maidaneros", but pro-russian locals gathered to confront them, finally they breached inside and beat some #### out of occupants. Under cover of chaos, one guy from Moscow reached the roof of the building, hauled down Ukranian banner and raised Russian one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gq0eVbYB9Q

Firn
03-05-2014, 11:30 PM
I personally don't thinkt that a mob beating up people is funny, nor is the shooting or molotov stuff, but to each his own I guess.

Quite a nasty affair indeed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-QU3QiIfEw). At least a gunmen and a group of guys dressed like a paramilitary, force him to stop and to retreat. Afterwards a couple of shouting protesters moves in and do their thing and chant victory as he drives off. A heroic win for Russian ah Crimean diplomacy, bravely done.

JMA
03-06-2014, 03:00 AM
Maybe an unintended consequence but what is clear is that while Putin can attract people of Russian origin to 'his side' by demanding incorporation into mother Russia he is alienating Ukrainians (and probably all other non-Russians bordering on Russia) for all time.

It seems that Putin is blinded by the history of the Russian Empire from seeing that the only way he will be able to rebuild the Russian Empire is through conquest and subjugation.

How does he think he will get away with this?

A weak US and having had Germany roll over (accepting energy dependency) has obviously emboldened him...

JMA
03-06-2014, 03:14 AM
Having access to RT (the Russian channel) it is bizarre to hear and see two absolute opposite views on the same situation being presented.

Also locally there are questions being asked about how quickly the US forgets about their own Monroe Doctrine and their 'invasions' of Panama and Grenada.

Some push back from American hosts on RT:

Russia Today news anchor Liz Wahl resigns live on air over Ukraine crisis (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/russia-today-anchor-liz-wahl-resigns-on-air-ukraine)


Veering off script, Wahl said: "I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin. I'm proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth, and that is why, after this newscast, I'm resigning."

Aslo:

Russia Today Host Abby Martin Goes Spectacularly Off-Message In Ukraine Broadcast (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/04/russia-today-abby-martin-video_n_4894981.html)


Pacing the Washington studio, Martin continued: "Just because I work here, for RT, doesn't mean I don't have editorial independence and I can't stress enough how strongly I am against any military intervention in sovereign nations' affairs. What Russia did is wrong."

carl
03-06-2014, 05:19 AM
on Putin. You are right about his constituency, but look at this from other side - sanctions will give him a tool to break his chains and become truly independent. Old good alliance of the King and the People against the Aristocracy.

Nah, I don't think so. Mainly because the oligarchs have risen to the position they are in during his reign, so I don't see him changing his spots. Besides, he is an oligarch. How many billions is he worth?

"Break his chains"! An "alliance of the king (I didn't know Vlad was a king. Vlad the First) and the people against the aristocracy"! Mirhond you have an interesting way with words. Not so original though. That was the form back in Stalin's day. The inhuman cruelties and the brainless screw ups were always blamed on some functionary. 'Comrade Joe would never do that. If only Comrade Joe knew about this, things would change.' said those poor dumb bastards as they were tormented on Joe's orders. You are using the same form.

Slap is right. Your posts are valuable. We get the unadulterated party line delivered directly.

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 05:59 AM
I'm not going to gloat about the pie in the face over at RT but this comment from WaPo struck me as ironic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/03/05/former-rt-anchor-liz-wahl-to-cnn-outlet-was-promoting-a-putinist-agenda/):


The environment at RT also came in for some punishment: “There’s a form of self-censorship that you learn. Eventually you learn what management likes, what management dislikes. Today, especially with the heightened situation in Crimea, overtly questions are being written, very, very loaded questions. Questions basically to paint the picture and to present the Putin perspective in all of this,” Wahl told Cooper.

Replace "RT" with "[any mainstream US media]" and "Crimea" with "[any US conflict]" and you could describe American media also. Given the performance of the US media in the run up to the Iraq War, I find the gloating at WaPo very humorous. I'm not going to defend RT but let's not excuse the blatant sycophancy and selective coverage of our own media outlets either. But I have two points about this:

(1) As far as I know, no US reporter had the courage to resign on air or to forcefully buck the talking points live since, say, the start of the War on Terrorism. That's not because it's RT but I think it might have to do with the kind of people RT recruited (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116877/most-interesting-part-abby-martins-rt-outburst-its-aftermath) in its pursuit to challenge the US media narrative.

(2) The battle of wills between the Washington and Moscow narratives has become painfully obvious and I think it sheds some light on the nature of information in an environment in which both parties have equal capabilities in broadcasting.

mirhond
03-06-2014, 09:10 AM
Nah, I don't think so. Mainly because the oligarchs have risen to the position they are in during his reign, so I don't see him changing his spots. Besides, he is an oligarch. How many billions is he worth?

"Break his chains"! An "alliance of the king (I didn't know Vlad was a king. Vlad the First) and the people against the aristocracy"! Mirhond you have an interesting way with words. Not so original though. That was the form back in Stalin's day. The inhuman cruelties and the brainless screw ups were always blamed on some functionary. 'Comrade Joe would never do that. If only Comrade Joe knew about this, things would change.' said those poor dumb bastards as they were tormented on Joe's orders. You are using the same form.

Slap is right. Your posts are valuable. We get the unadulterated party line delivered directly.

Looking for enemies, don't you? &:p

on Putin again. I see you dislike a historical metaphor for unknown reason, let's reshape it: Putin is already gaining popular support by removing the most odious figures from power, god knows what bulldogs under carpet are involved. Why you so quickly dismiss the option he'd turn against his coterie? Currently he has 40 bln $ but not so much power, he may trade some of the billions for more power. I, personally, give 5% a priori probability on this outcome. So, carefully prepared and thoroughly inplemented Anschluss of Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine as bonus, also boosts his popularity.

ps. Uncle Joe is irrelevant to the subject, and appeal to emotions is unconstructive.

Firn
03-06-2014, 12:02 PM
I was about to throw a quick glance at the financial markets, especially at what the Ruble is doing but there have been more important news (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26463731) in this conflict.




10:47:Speaking in Kiev, Ukraine's interim Economy Minister Pavlo Sheremeta says: "We're not working out what to do if Crimea joins the Russian Federation because we believe it's unconstitutional."
Breaking News

The Crimean parliament votes to hold a referendum on 16 March in which voters will be asked on whether the region should join the Russian Federation.

10:31:Russian President Vladimir Putin is informed about a decision by the Crimean parliament asking him to allow the region to become part of Russia, the Kremlin is reported by AFP to have said.


10:17:Pro-Russian authorities in Crimea have asked Vladimir Putin to consider a request for the region to join the Russian Federation, which will be put to a referendum on March 16, AFP reports.


10:11:"The parliament of Crimea has adopted a motion for Crimea to join Russia. It has asked the Russian president and parliament to consider this request," a member of the parliament's leadership, Grigoriy Ioffe, tells AFP.
10:09:

Crimea's parliament has unanimously voted in favour of becoming part of Russia, the RIA news agency quoted by Reuters says.
10:08:

The pro-Russian mayor of the Crimean port of Sevastopol says the city will not take part in the Ukrainian presidential election scheduled for 25 May, Interfax-Ukraine news agency reports. Alexei Chaly, elected to the newly created position of chairman of Sevatopol's executive committee by a rally on 23 February, is quoted as saying: "Sevastopol refuses to take part in the election by the illegitimate authorities." (BBC Monitoring).


So a couple of days after the illegal invasion of the Crimea by non-Russian Russian forces which put a autonomous puppet regime in place they duly produced what Putin wanted. It took at least some time to set it up, but it certainly works smoother the the last time when they asked for Putins non-Russian Russian help after the non-Russian Russian forces had already taken over.

Russian De-escalation at it's best.

Frau Merkel will be quite amused by the timing:


10:49 German Chancellor Angela Merkel says a "range of sanctions" will be considered at the EU talks. Germany is believed to want more moderate action than other EU states, and Mrs Merkel says whether sanctions "will need to be implemented" will depend on "how far the diplomatic process" moves forward.

I'm pretty sure that quite that most Eastern European members of the EU and NATO will feel the urge to say: 'Told you so'.


Shaun Walker ‏@shaunwalker7 11 Min.

Now playing "new Crimean national anthem", begins "The island of Crimea is fighting for freedom", continues about Kiev fascists, "#### US"

You hardly can makes such things. They have already spontaneously written a 'new Crimean national anthem'. :eek:

I wrote about an invasion out of an 'Soviet textbook' before (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=152879&postcount=55), minus executions, now the occupation follows the Soviet model as well.

mirhond
03-06-2014, 12:25 PM
So a couple of days after the illegal invasion of the Crimea by non-Russian Russian forces which put a autonomous puppet regime in place they duly produced what Putin wanted. It took at least some time to set it up, but it certainly works smoother the the last time when they asked for Putins non-Russian Russian help after the non-Russian Russian forces had already taken over.

Russian De-escalation at it's best.

So, Putin just spared two million people from civil war?

Firn
03-06-2014, 12:41 PM
So, Putin just spared two million people from civil war?

There is a fair chance that his friendly occupation will cause exactly that in a Crimea which had it's problem but very little violence.

I already wrote about the manyfold economic dependance of the Crimea on Ukraine. It will be hard hit by the demand shock from tourists, internal turmoil and friction. As you pretty much can count on a puppet regime under Russian control to miss-manage the economy, see Transnistria etc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria) I doubt that Russia will be able to do even a decent economic job. Apart perhaps from gifts to the selected ones which played their part in the political game.

Next it would be nice if you stopped using one-liners and at least try to make your case. I sincerly interested in it, as so far I have seen none.


Shaun Walker ‏@shaunwalker7 15 Min.

Crimea politician: This now Russian territory. Only legal troops here russian. any troops of a 3rd country will be treated as illegal bands.

.....

So the non-Russian Russian troops have not invaded the Crimea, the Crimea moved to them to become Russian. Stupid me. :o

P.S: Will the great Putin magnanimously accept the vote of the his puppets that the Crimea is from 'today' Russian or will the great leader wisely cool down his people and insist that they should would for the certain outcome of the the fair and open referendum under the Russian boot.

Firn
03-06-2014, 02:14 PM
@davidbdfo: Can you correct my last entry, I really should not jump so quickly between work and a forum post.

Mao in the little red book:


Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

After all this back and forth about the referendum a joke sums it up perfectly:


Shaun Walker ‏@shaunwalker7 52 Min.

Translated twitter joke via @metkere : Crimean authorities have changed the date of the referendum again. It will now take place yesterday.

I wonder when we will see the western reporters getting invited to leave the occupied Ukraine. Yesterday we had the abuse and threats against the UN envoy, now it seems that 'very professional, very well-trained' gunmen have barred the OSCE observes the entry into the occupied territory.



This is interesting, if currently unconfirmed: AFP reports that the 40-strong team from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were prevented by gunmen from entering Crimea to begin their monitoring mission. The agency cites an unnamed “Western diplomatic source”. The source told AFP:

They are stuck but they are not turning back. They are not being allowed in by two groups of armed people - very professional, very well-trained.

mirhond
03-06-2014, 02:26 PM
Next it would be nice if you stopped using one-liners and at least try to make your case. I sincerly interested in it, as so far I have seen none.


I don't have any case, actually, I care less about all this mess in Ukraine.
Well, I you dont like one-liners, I'll made it two-liner:
Putin spared two million people not only a from civil war, but from the ravages of decaying Ukraninian economy and poor leadership. Reasonable Crimean polititians just calculated net gains/losses and desided to stick to Russia, plain and simple.

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 05:43 PM
It's not just Moscow that has economic obstacles affecting a rational outcome in Crimea. From the National Interest (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116894/republicans-are-blocking-imf-reforms-help-ukraine):


The reforms would allow Ukraine to borrow approximately 60 percent more (from $1 billion to $1.6 billion) from the IMF’s emergency fund. That’s money that Ukraine can use to pay off its debts and avoid a default. In certain scenarios, the IMF makes exceptions and allows countries to access additional funds, as it did with Greece and Ireland after the financial crisis. But there’s no guarantee it would do so with Ukraine. By blocking the passage of the IMF reforms, Republicans are actively making it harder for Ukraine to pay back its loans.

...

“The rest of the world is furious at us,” Ted Truman, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury for International Affairs from 1998 to 2001, said. “For us to say, ‘We just stiffed you in January’ and now we’re turning around to try to ask you to be part of the team helping Ukraine, we look silly.”

“It does undermine our credibility and leadership,” he added. “We look like we’re giving with our right hand and taking with our left hand.”


Of course, there's also the risk that any aid to Ukraine will be stolen anyway (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/wolf-richter-aid-ukraine-will-stolen-former-ukrainian-minister-economy.html):


As always, it’s about preventing a default during which bondholders and lenders, including numerous Western banks, hedge funds, and other speculators, would finally feel the teeth of a free market and be forced to take losses, big losses, perhaps big enough to sink a lender or two, which would be a welcome sign of housecleaning by market forces. But that won’t be allowed to happen. Instead, taxpayers in other countries will be shanghaied into bailing out these bondholders and lenders, but indirectly, under the guise of bailing out the Ukrainian people.

...

But Danilishin’s idea that aid cannot save the Ukrainian economy because the money will simply be siphoned off by pandemic corruption, and that instead the state should go after the oligarchs who plundered the country? It “can’t be implemented because the ‘revolution’ in Kiev has been partially sponsored by the oligarchs who will not let the state become stronger,” Mândrăşescu explained.

From an economic point of view, the revolution in Kiev did Ukraine no favors. In fact, it may have sacrificed whatever remaining stability the Ukrainian economy had. But I suppose Ukraine's territory integrity (there is a vote for Crimean secession planned this month) is a small price to pay to bring the Washington Concensus to Russia's doorstep.

On another subject, DNI made a statement to the effect that they were not "caught off guard" by the Russian intervention because the "decision [to intervene] was made at the last minute". With an open territorial dispute between Ukraine and Moscow (not to mention Russian troops in Crimea), I think the prospects of Ukraine ever entering NATO are at an all-time low. We'll have to wait and see what IMF reforms are proposed and if that's politically feasibility for the new government in Kiev.

carl
03-06-2014, 05:47 PM
Mirhond:

It is good to have a mouthpiece for the siloviki around here. From you we can learn their view of the world and how they want to present themselves to the world. So far we have learned the following.

1. Putin is viewed as a king, not an elected official who will serve a term of office and go, but a king.

2. Putin is worth 40 billion dollars but he is one with the people and is struggling against the oligarchs.

3. Vlad is "kinda beloved leader."

4. Beatings of the right people are quite funny.

5. Stalin is irrelevant to the subject. (Tell that to the east and central Europeans who still remember things like the Katyn Forest and the intentional starvation of millions in the Ukraine.)

6. Getting gobbled up by the bear just improved the lot of the people of the Crimea because they no longer have to be part of the lousy Ukrainian economy and have bad Ukrainian leadership, they get to be part of the Russian economy and have the good leadership of king Vlad.

Keep 'em coming Mirhond. We learn a lot.

AdamG
03-06-2014, 05:51 PM
Just a quick look at the a center of gravity, the financial markets as AdamG put it.

See also:
Ukraine: Goodbye Cold War, hello globalised economy

The days of the 'iron curtain' are behind us; the West can't intervene in Ukraine due to global economic dynamics.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/ukraine-goodbye-cold-war-hello-g-20143645051692739.html?fb_action_ids=6301872570185 69

See also: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/09-27/toc.asp

Suggested reading music: http://youtu.be/oVNc8H4uTYs

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 05:54 PM
Adam and Firn,

The real center of gravity is who controls Ukraine's wealth at the end of this drama. The new government in Kiev has already announced a privatization program (http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/194102.html):


"I'll tell you about the idea of privatization of the energy sector at transparent auctions: Chornomornaftogaz and other companies, which are part of Naftogaz Ukrainy," [the Prime Minister] said at a meeting with the business community in Kyiv on Monday.

carl
03-06-2014, 05:55 PM
From an economic point of view, the revolution in Kiev did Ukraine no favors. In fact, it may have sacrificed whatever remaining stability the Ukrainian economy had. But I suppose Ukraine's territory integrity (there is a vote for Crimean secession planned this month) is a small price to pay to bring the Washington Concensus to Russia's doorstep.

Here I thought the Ukrainian people had something to do with all this, the various demonstrations and all. I figured they were very unhappy with their situation and are trying to change it. I figured too that since they live their they are probably most able to judge whether their situation was/is tolerable or not. Hmm. Upon reflection, I still think so and any crisis that is developing is the result of an aggressive police state invading an neighboring country.

AdamG
03-06-2014, 06:46 PM
Adam and Firn,

The real center of gravity is who controls Ukraine's wealth at the end of this drama. The new government in Kiev has already announced a privatization program (http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/194102.html):

I've always understood Center of Gravity to be a What, not a Who.

Money is still at the root of the problem - had the (former) Ukrainian Kleptocracy not looted the country's coffers to the tune of $20 billion or so, they wouldn't be in this fine mess.

Meanwhile, Kremlin. :cool:

jmm99
03-06-2014, 06:47 PM
For an oldster, it's comforting to see that some aspects of days gone by continue. One can still find TASS (http://itar-tass.com/), Pravda (http://www.gazeta-pravda.ru/) and Izvestia (http://izvestia.ru/). For my next round of comfort food, I'll try to find Cracker Jacks with prizes inside while listening to Moon River.

But, in the meantime, duty calls; and I will footnote an IL note. A prior post briefly noted Ashley Weeks' summary (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russian-forces-in-ukraine-a-sketch-of-the-international-law-issues/) of why Russia's actions were illegal under IL. In her column yesterday (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russia-in-ukraine-a-reader-responds/#more-33021), she posted the Russian response (albeit by a German, Stefan Soesanto (http://csis.org/node/23971) - at very bottom of CSIS Kelly bios).

Its BLUF:


The Russian position for sending troops into Crimea is based upon five legal arguments.

First, the interim government in Kiev is not the legitimate government of the Ukraine as it violently usurped power in a coup d’état.

Second, the interim government is promoting a nationalistic agenda which is threatening the human rights of the Russian minority living in the Ukraine.

Third, given the fear of revolutionary chaos in the Ukraine Russia is facing a potential humanitarian refugee crisis at its border.

Fourth, under Article 61(2) of the Russian constitution, the Russian federation “guarantees its citizens defense and patronage beyond its boundaries.”

And fifth, President Yanukovych and the Prime Minister of the autonomous Republic of the Crimea invited Russia for security assistance to protect and stabilize the Ukraine.
...
[JMM: much more in Soesanto's post getting down into the weeds on these five points]

Again, it's comforting to see that the Cheka's IL department is still alive and well after all of those years. :D

Regards

Mike

Firn
03-06-2014, 07:09 PM
@AdamG: Good links, I quickly read through the Remi Piets article, I liked it in general. It is of course impossible to address all his points.

@AmericanPride: If you go back in the thread I already wrote a couple of stuff about the Ukrainian economy, the role of the oligarchs and so forth with some interesting links. It is frankly quite obvious that the political turmoil and the foreign invasion have negative consequences for the economy. On the other hand a closer integration into the European systems has considerable upsides.



The success of neighbours like Slovakia and Poland in the EU had and has of course a huge attraction for many Ukrainians, especially the younger and better educated ones. When I was an active member of an European student organization you could feel the energy and thirst of the members, especially the women, stemming from those countries. Great times. :o

This is of course part of the vast soft power or attraction of the West, which just can not be matched by countries like Russia or China. It is no surprise that many of the brightest and many of the richest vote with their feet and money and decide to come, live, and invest in the West.

I wrote already about some basics of the weak Russian economy. This article (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/ruble-being-punished-for-economy-not-ukraine/495787.html) provides a nuanced opinion on the current situation:


Fear and pain following Russia's military intervention in Ukraine last weekend is obviously a factor. Clearly some market players were expecting some sort of backlash from the world regarding Russia's moves. There was the usual talk of U.S. sanctions, presumably to fall on Russian state banks. When it comes to financial sanctions, it is hard to dream up a government player more scary and dangerous than Uncle Sam, and any action against Russia could leave a lot of folks high and dry. Naturally, smart guys would buy dollars and move them out if they feared sanctions, thus contributing to flush the ruble out. But this is not sufficient to explain the crash.

But the plain fact is that Monday's market turmoil was just a hyperextension of a trend that has been gathering steam for some time. The ruble is being punished for the sins of the Russian economy.

Any banker who is free to talk nowadays will tell you that corporates are simply not borrowing the way they used to. More generally, people are not investing into their own businesses and have not been or more than two years. Increasingly, company directors, entrepreneurs and the like have been "milking" their businesses in Russia and getting the money out of the country any way they can. This is called capital flight with a capital "F" and has been going on in Russia increasingly over the past two years.

As I wrote before in economic issues people are most readily voting with their money. Despite the high interest rates offered in Russia, the smart money has for a couple of years flowing away from Russian and the ruble into the West and the Euro, Swissie, USD or Pound. The Russian aggression against the Ukraine has accelerated the trend and the Bank Rossii had to raise and to sell reserves to slow it down. There have smart guys there but the task to stop the flood is huge.

Firn
03-06-2014, 07:12 PM
@jmm99: Good job. Something for you (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/redefining-territorial-integrity/495785.html), found while I looked at the Russian economy. The first sentences left a deep impressions in a strange way.


In Moscow, I have lived through two ideologies, two Olympics, two revolutions and several economic crises. I have wept through terrorist attacks. I have lost all my savings a couple of times. I am always getting paid in whatever currency is losing value. This week I think: I am getting too old for this.

Konstantin Sonin, a columnist for Vedomosti, professor of economics and vice rector at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow has written this nice&short piece (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/crimean-invasion-is-worse-than-a-crime/495741.html). The quote from Talleyrand is in this occasion much appreciated and fitting. I use it also from times to times.


It is said that after Napoleon committed a particularly shocking and amoral blunder, Foreign Minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord remarked that "it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake." Those are timeless words, and it is no wonder that Talleyrand's political career began earlier and lasted far longer than the emperor's.

The same observation applies to the recent actions of Russia's political leadership. Whatever the legal or moral implications, sending troops into a neighboring country is a tragic mistake. This move ended all hopes of Russia attaining the long-term stability it has been working toward ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, and it will lead to serious political and economic consequences that will continue to affect this country for many years.

Historians will long debate how such a major miscalculation could have happened, but for the moment, other considerations deserve more immediate attention

@carl: It is indeed to stop sometimes and try to look at the issues through the eyes of the people living there. I fear for the Ukrainians and also the common Russians, it is a bad situation which might still result in a shooting war. An Ukrainian officer IIRC described the situation in the Crimean as a powder keg.

slapout9
03-06-2014, 07:45 PM
I've always understood Center of Gravity to be a What, not a Who.

Money is still at the root of the problem - had the (former) Ukrainian Kleptocracy not looted the country's coffers to the tune of $20 billion or so, they wouldn't be in this fine mess.

Meanwhile, Kremlin. :cool:

That is I decided to return to my roots. What a COG is...is pretty worthless IMO as nobody ever agrees on what it is. IMO it is better to go with the idea of PEOPLE cause crimes and they cause wars, don't worry about the stuff involved, it is the folks that control it you need to worry about.

Which leads us to the money or rather who controls the money as the root problem. Kerry is the ultimate 1 per-center and an avowed globalist. Putin with his paltry few billions is nothing compared to the personal history of Kerry, plus Putin is from the peasant class compared to Kerry with his long pedigree to include his wife which is literally a Heinz 57, the ultimate Internationalist.

So this is Kerry and his Banker supported Real Estate Swindle vs. Putin and his KGB street fighters. Don't know WHO (not what) will win.

slapout9
03-06-2014, 07:50 PM
For an oldster, it's comforting to see that some aspects of days gone by continue. One can still find TASS (http://itar-tass.com/), Pravda (http://www.gazeta-pravda.ru/) and Izvestia (http://izvestia.ru/). For my next round of comfort food, I'll try to find Cracker Jacks with prizes inside while listening to Moon River.

But, in the meantime, duty calls; and I will footnote an IL note. A prior post briefly noted Ashley Weeks' summary (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russian-forces-in-ukraine-a-sketch-of-the-international-law-issues/) of why Russia's actions were illegal under IL. In her column yesterday (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russia-in-ukraine-a-reader-responds/#more-33021), she posted the Russian response (albeit by a German, Stefan Soesanto (http://csis.org/node/23971) - at very bottom of CSIS Kelly bios).

Its BLUF:



Again, it's comforting to see that the Cheka's IL department is still alive and well after all of those years. :D

Regards

Mike

Nice legal perspective jm99. No luck with cracker jacks but here is Andy Williams for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_jgIezosVA&feature=kp

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 08:03 PM
Carl and Firn,

The point is that with or without Russian intervention, Ukraine would still be facing this same economic dilemma. And the problem isn't is "West better than East?" Because that's a false dichtonomy. Ukraine's integration into the Washington Concensus will unleash a very painful program on the Ukrainian people that will benefit a few small class of investors and financiers. Whatever his motivations and faults, Yanukovych rejected this program. His government was in an impossible situation given the immense pressure from both Washington and Moscow. A considerable of the portion of the population is in favor of this course of action - another considerable portion is in favor of achieving the status of a Russian protectate. The narrative of a spontaneous freedom-thirsty pro-West Ukrainian revolution is a myth.

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 08:05 PM
That is I decided to return to my roots. What a COG is...is pretty worthless IMO as nobody ever agrees on what it is. IMO it is better to go with the idea of PEOPLE cause crimes and they cause wars, don't worry about the stuff involved, it is the folks that control it you need to worry about.

Which leads us to the money or rather who controls the money as the root problem. Kerry is the ultimate 1 per-center and an avowed globalist. Putin with his paltry few billions is nothing compared to the personal history of Kerry, plus Putin is from the peasant class compared to Kerry with his long pedigree to include his wife which is literally a Heinz 57, the ultimate Internationalist.

So this is Kerry and his Banker supported Real Estate Swindle vs. Putin and his KGB street fighters. Don't know WHO (not what) will win.

I don't agree with the terms but I agree with the sentiment. This is a battle of wills between the neoliberal Washington Concensus and the nationalist-realist faction currently in power in Moscow. The control of Ukraine represents $$$ for both sides, with the Ukrianian activists of all political stripes caught in the middle.

carl
03-06-2014, 08:19 PM
Carl and Firn,

The point is that with or without Russian intervention, Ukraine would still be facing this same economic dilemma. And the problem isn't is "West better than East?" Because that's a false dichtonomy. Ukraine's integration into the Washington Concensus will unleash a very painful program on the Ukrainian people that will benefit a few small class of investors and financiers. Whatever his motivations and faults, Yanukovych rejected this program. His government was in an impossible situation given the immense pressure from both Washington and Moscow. A considerable of the portion of the population is in favor of this course of action - another considerable portion is in favor of achieving the status of a Russian protectate. The narrative of a spontaneous freedom-thirsty pro-West Ukrainian revolution is a myth.

Yanukovych who stole how many millions, billions, was trying to spare the Ukrainian people the pain of closer integration with the West despite the wishes of rather a lot of Ukrainians. Yanukovych the humanitarian philanthropist. You learn something new every day.

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 08:26 PM
Here I thought the Ukrainian people had something to do with all this, the various demonstrations and all. I figured they were very unhappy with their situation and are trying to change it. I figured too that since they live their they are probably most able to judge whether their situation was/is tolerable or not. Hmm. Upon reflection, I still think so and any crisis that is developing is the result of an aggressive police state invading an neighboring country.

Who are "the Ukrainan people"? The few thousand ethnic Ukrainians of Fatherland and Right Sector parties that protested in Kiev? Or the ethnic Russian demonstrators in Donestsk, Kharkiv, and Odessa in opposition to the new government? John McCain, Victoria Nuland, and others in Washington expressed strong opinions about what Ukraine's should be. The crisis would still exist regardless whether Moscow intervened in Crimea or not. The Ukrainian people expressed their popular will through an election that put Yanukovych in office (for a second time and was certified by international monitors as legitimate). Is it a democratic principle for a minority party to force the sitting president from office? Would we find it acceptable in the United States if the Tea Party occupied the White House and Congress until their demands that Obama resign were met? Probably not.

If we're concerned about Ukraine's democratic future, then we need to condemn political agitation by all outside parties, recognize the interests of the ~20% of Ukrainians who are ethnic Russians, and call upon the new government to recognize democratic principles by holding new elections. This month. Not in May or December. Given Ukraine's demographic condition and split idenity, from a foreign policy perspective, the country's best bet is the Austria or Finland model of neutrality. But neither Moscow or Washington or genuinely interested in the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine or the democratic aspirations of any of the Ukrainian people. And until we recognize that fundamental fact, we always be surprised by the actions of others.

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 08:32 PM
Yanukovych who stole how many millions, billions, was trying to spare the Ukrainian people the pain of closer integration with the West despite the wishes of rather a lot of Ukrainians. Yanukovych the humanitarian philanthropist. You learn something new every day.

You have a superficial reading of the situation and at no point did I say Yanukovych was a "humanitarian philanthropist". Quote me. At best, he was corrupt. At worst, a murderer. But that wouldn't make him any different from most of heads of state nor does it have any bearing on the fact of his democratic legitimacy, certified by an election, or the expression of the popular will of the Ukrainian population. Nor does it change the fact that sometime this month the new government in Kiev will approve the same IMF-imposed austerity measures that have failed in Greece, Portugal, and elsewhere and that Yanukovych, whatever his motivations, rejected.

There is sufficient economic data that demonstrates the failure of austerity as a growth policy. Austerity is not about growth. Austerity is about ensuring the gains of a small class of investors and financiers in a dying economy, whatever the costs to the general population. Austerity will not save Ukaine. Austerity has not saved any country. But that's not the goal of austerity. The same pain that has gripped Russia, Greece, Chile, and even Detroit will come to Ukraine. Capitalism is not about democracy. It's about profit. And austerity brings that distinction to the forefront.

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 08:52 PM
This article describes the Latvian experience with austerity (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/michael-hudsonjeffrey-sommers-latvia-the-austerians-potemkin-village.html). This is the "democratic" future of Ukraine if Kiev elects the IMF program:


Latvia’s solid economic growth since its economy plunged by 25 per cent in 2008-10 is billed as a success. Its unemployment during the crisis soared above 20 per cent as the shutdown of foreign capital inflows (mainly Swedish mortgage loans to inflate its real estate bubble) left Latvia with deep current-account deficits.


That said, Latvians strongly protested austerity. On January 13, 2009, in the dead of winter, 10,000 in Riga protested against austerity and corruption. Teachers, nurses and farmers held demonstrations in the months following. The national police were called to suppress protests over the closure of a hospital in Bauska; fearing local police might not do what was “required.”


Demographers estimate that 200,000 have departed the past decade – roughly 10 per cent of the population – at an accelerating rate that reflects the austerity being inflicted. Latvian demographers estimate that at least 200,000 have left Latvia the past decade, Moreover, birth rates declined from already low numbers.

Right Sector and Fatherland will get theirs. So will Washington and Brussels. Moscow's presence in Crimea will also mean they get theirs as well. But those protestors in Kiev who risked their lives for a better vision of Ukraine will be left bankrupt and bitter. Resolving the Crimea situation will not solve Ukraine's fundamental economic problem.

Firn
03-06-2014, 09:03 PM
I actually I agree with the bit about austerity and it would be economic stupidity to demand certain actions to be implemented in the short term. I have written against the bane of austerity during a depression enough in the thread about the European economy.

However it is absolutely wrong to see the integration into the broader European economy just through the prism of the Washington consensus. It is in fact even completely wrong to describe the WC in such a one-sided way. It is important to keep the simple facts in mind. An it is a fact that the reforms in the spirit of the WC did also great good and were one reason why we have graphs like that.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TE6yn3U7C1w/T1ehuGREgiI/AAAAAAAABCw/NE2hXTbRVb0/s1600/gdp%2B18%2Byeras.jpg

http://www.reinisfischer.com/img/ukrainevspolandgdp.png

I think you should try to step back and lookd at the big picture and avoid to see it all the economy in the austerity light. It is very important to avoid a false balance. The world is not black and white but also not a shade of gray right in the middle...

Firn
03-06-2014, 09:10 PM
On a different note, I noted for the first time that indeed a lot of the Eastern and Northern FM are quite active twitter users. The Polish one:



Radosław Sikorski ‏@sikorskiradek

In Narva, Estonia, for V4+Baltic+Nordic FMs meeting, a town with 97% Russians. Can fraternal assistance from Spetsnatz be avoided here now?

TheCurmudgeon
03-06-2014, 09:38 PM
Who are "the Ukrainan people"? The few thousand ethnic Ukrainians of Fatherland and Right Sector parties that protested in Kiev? Or the ethnic Russian demonstrators in Donestsk, Kharkiv, and Odessa in opposition to the new government? John McCain, Victoria Nuland, and others in Washington expressed strong opinions about what Ukraine's should be. The crisis would still exist regardless whether Moscow intervened in Crimea or not. The Ukrainian people expressed their popular will through an election that put Yanukovych in office (for a second time and was certified by international monitors as legitimate). Is it a democratic principle for a minority party to force the sitting president from office? Would we find it acceptable in the United States if the Tea Party occupied the White House and Congress until their demands that Obama resign were met? Probably not.

If we're concerned about Ukraine's democratic future, then we need to condemn political agitation by all outside parties, recognize the interests of the ~20% of Ukrainians who are ethnic Russians, and call upon the new government to recognize democratic principles by holding new elections. This month. Not in May or December. Given Ukraine's demographic condition and split idenity, from a foreign policy perspective, the country's best bet is the Austria or Finland model of neutrality. But neither Moscow or Washington or genuinely interested in the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine or the democratic aspirations of any of the Ukrainian people. And until we recognize that fundamental fact, we always be surprised by the actions of others.

OK … this comment is going to be less about the Ukraine specifically and more about applying political theory to human motivation … let me explain.

This is the second time in as many years that a duly elected leader of a country was removed from office by a “popular uprising” that has been embraced by the American people. The first was Egypt. In both cases the elected leader was cast aside because he appeared to be moving the country towards a identity based collectivist government. In Egypt the group was the Muslim Brotherhood. In the Ukraine it was Putin’s “Russia”. In Putin’s “Russia” the Russian State is the most important thing. It is a collectivist society. Nationalistic. Tied to a common identity.

In both cases it amounted to a choice between a government where the individual people held the power and were the most important political unit, or the Collectivist Group held the power and the group was the most important political unit. Hobbes’ Leviathan.

Don’t get wrapped around the axel over elections. That someone is elected is largely irrelevant. Autocratic, identity based leaders are elected and re-elected by the population they lead all the time. Elections are not the important point. Political ideology, either individualistic or communal, is. So, it does not matter if Yanukovych was elected. He was taking the country where those people of a individualist mindset did not want to go. We Westerners generally agree with that mindset, so we support a non-democratic change of power.

JMA
03-06-2014, 10:09 PM
Mike, these Russian citizens living in Ukraine, are they Russian expats or Ukrainians of Russian origin?

I have heard that the Russians are dishing out passports to prove these people are Russian citizens? This to justify their invasion.

If this is so then you can't be a Russian or a Ukrainian at the same time... if dual citizenship is allowed then the national parliament can - quickly - push a new law through making it impossible for Russian citizens and passport holders to also be citizens of the Ukraine.

Russian citizens would then be required to apply for residence permits and work permits to live and work in the Ukraine. Pretty standard requirements for citizens of another country.




For an oldster, it's comforting to see that some aspects of days gone by continue. One can still find TASS (http://itar-tass.com/), Pravda (http://www.gazeta-pravda.ru/) and Izvestia (http://izvestia.ru/). For my next round of comfort food, I'll try to find Cracker Jacks with prizes inside while listening to Moon River.

But, in the meantime, duty calls; and I will footnote an IL note. A prior post briefly noted Ashley Weeks' summary (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russian-forces-in-ukraine-a-sketch-of-the-international-law-issues/) of why Russia's actions were illegal under IL. In her column yesterday (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russia-in-ukraine-a-reader-responds/#more-33021), she posted the Russian response (albeit by a German, Stefan Soesanto (http://csis.org/node/23971) - at very bottom of CSIS Kelly bios).

Its BLUF:



Again, it's comforting to see that the Cheka's IL department is still alive and well after all of those years. :D

Regards

Mike

AmericanPride
03-06-2014, 11:48 PM
Don’t get wrapped around the axel over elections. That someone is elected is largely irrelevant. Autocratic, identity based leaders are elected and re-elected by the population they lead all the time. Elections are not the important point. Political ideology, either individualistic or communal, is. So, it does not matter if Yanukovych was elected. He was taking the country where those people of a individualist mindset did not want to go. We Westerners generally agree with that mindset, so we support a non-democratic change of power.

Several questions:

(1) Is it justified for those of "an individualist mindset" to conduct a "non-democratic change of power"? What if those individuals are not in the majority or are distinctly in the minority? Is the reverse equally justified; can those not of an individualist mindset also execute a "non-democratic change of power"? If tomorrow ethnic Russians in Ukraine conducted a counter-coup and installed a pro-Russian government, is this justified politically or morally?

(2) If the fact of someone's election is "largely irrelevant" and "elections are not the important point", then how do we measure democratic governance?

(3) Is this a useful framework for understanding the events in Kiev and Washington's and Moscow's actions? It seems to me to be a strain of ideological consistency to champion democratic governance on one hand and to install governments in a "non-democratic change of power" on the other. Is that not the opposite of individualism?

TheCurmudgeon
03-07-2014, 12:11 AM
Several questions:

(1) Is it justified for those of "an individualist mindset" to conduct a "non-democratic change of power"? What if those individuals are not in the majority or are distinctly in the minority? Is the reverse equally justified; can those not of an individualist mindset also execute a "non-democratic change of power"? If tomorrow ethnic Russians in Ukraine conducted a counter-coup and installed a pro-Russian government, is this justified politically or morally?

As with any form of governance (democracy, autocracy, or monarchy), who is in the majority (or who was right) is a matter of who wins. Crude, but realistic (but not really "realist"). Often it follows the sentiment of the majority of people but in reality it is the majority who are willing to act in the seat of power, in this case Kiev. The motivation to act is key. The motivation is often set off by a threat to a perceived gain (the Davies J-Curve), or a disjoint between the values of the leader and the values of the people (individualism versus collectivism - system legitimacy), or it is motivated by a feeling that those in power got their unlawfully (procedural legitimacy, or an illegitimate claim to power). People will endure terrible hardship if the feel that the system, even an inequitable one, matches their values and ideals of legitimacy.

Let me provide two examples. A commoner will brag about his king and live in a hovel while the king lives in a palace because the king and the commoner share an identity (English, lets say). The King is the representative of the whole of England. There are good kings, and sometimes bad kings, but the commoner still understands the system, built on a common identity and an obligation of the king to take care of his subjects, and agrees to it. The communal or collectivist ideal. The identity, survival, and advancement of the group, even at the expense of the individual, is what is important.

On the other hand, there is the individualistic ideal. Here every person is his own master and creates his own destiny. If a man builds a company and lives in a palatial house, with and income 100,000 time that of the average worker, that is not inequity. That is the way it should be. Even if I lose everything in a business venture and end up homeless, I do not begrudge the rich man of what he has or expect him to care for me. That is not the system I believe in, even if others might see this as the epitome of inequity. Here the individual is supreme - let ten guilty men go free rather than convict one innocent man.

In is all in what you value, what you believe. And when the values of the people and the values of the government diverge, expect trouble.

As for the reverse, it is happening as we speak in the Crimea. The people there, who share a common identity with Russia and are ideologically aligned with it, will vote themselves into an autocratic state because that is what they want. For those in the West, we will not understand. We will scream that this was Putin stealing the will of the people. But it will be the people exercising their will. They just are coming at the problem from a different set of values and ideals.


(2) If the fact of someone's election is "largely irrelevant" and "elections are not the important point", then how do we measure democratic governance?

Yeah, that one has been a problem for years. Polity (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm) database, Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world#.UxkApl5jAno), and others have tried to come up with reliable measures of democracy, or even just to define the term. If you figure that one out you will be famous.


(3) Is this a useful framework for understanding the events in Kiev and Washington's and Moscow's actions? It seems to me to be a strain of ideological consistency to champion democratic governance on one hand and to install governments in a "non-democratic change of power" on the other. Is that not the opposite of individualism?

It doesn't matter how it comes to power, only how it conducts itself. The US did not come to be through an election. We fought a war. We WERE the rebels.It is not about how you get there, it is about what you are once you are there.

AmericanPride
03-07-2014, 01:18 AM
From the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines):


But US efforts to turn the political tide in Ukraine away from Russian influence began much earlier. In 2004, the Bush administration had given $65 million to provide 'democracy training' to opposition leaders and political activists aligned with them, including paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet US leaders and help underwrite exit polls indicating he won disputed elections.


This programme has accelerated under Obama. In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington DC last December as Ukraine's Maidan Square clashes escalated, Nuland confirmed that the US had invested in total "over $5 billion" to "ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine" - she specifically congratulated the "Euromaidan" movement.

From a realist perspective, there's nothing 'wrong' (in a moral sense) with this practice. And, frankly, from that same perspective, the United States will work to destablize other governments while it has the power to do so. My question is if in the discourse of conflict or in the public discourse this is not taken into account, how can we honestly measure ourselves or our opponents? The faux surprise of Moscow's intervention in Crimea is really another self-imposed example of blowback.

jmm99
03-07-2014, 03:21 AM
Michelle the translator has it right about getting too old for this $hit; but I doubt that she was listening to Radio Moscow in the 50s on this beast:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=615&stc=1&d=1227759050

Those were simpler times - perhaps. :D

JMA:


Mike, these Russian citizens living in Ukraine, are they Russian expats or Ukrainians of Russian origin?

I have heard that the Russians are dishing out passports to prove these people are Russian citizens? This to justify their invasion.

If this is so then you can't be a Russian or a Ukrainian at the same time... if dual citizenship is allowed then the national parliament can - quickly - push a new law through making it impossible for Russian citizens and passport holders to also be citizens of the Ukraine.

Russian citizens would then be required to apply for residence permits and work permits to live and work in the Ukraine. Pretty standard requirements for citizens of another country.

Good points and questions all - I don't know the legalisms; but they won't make any difference in the long run. The Cheka Comparative Law department will come up with answers, which by strange coincidence will correspond with the Putin-Ivanov press releases.

Slap: Thanks for Andy Williams; so, here's Audrey Hepburn for you - Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961).

Regards

Mike

omarali50
03-07-2014, 04:41 AM
Worth reading: a piece on the Crimea by Philosophy professor JEH Smith http://www.jehsmith.com/1/2014/03/crimea.html

carl
03-07-2014, 07:06 AM
Anybody care to guess when the first of those fraternal liberators are killed by Tatar bombs or bullets and what the fraternal liberators will then do?

Firn
03-07-2014, 10:03 AM
A fine perspective (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-russia-andrey-kurkov) from Andrey Kurkov, a reknown Ukrainian novelist living between Kyiv and a small village. I have quoted some but one should really read the whole piece in one go. So click the link and head over!









Really!


These days my children go to school with a little more enthusiasm. They have something to discuss and even debate with their classmates. They follow the news closely and earnestly recount how the Ukrainian officer Yuli Mamchur and his soldiers, all unarmed, set out to retake Belbek, a Ukrainian airbase in Sevastopol that had been occupied by armed Russian troops, and how they advanced, singing the Ukrainian national anthem, in spite of the Russian troops' warning shots. The children know all about the Ternopol, a Ukrainian warship whose captain, in reply to a Russian admiral's command to surrender, said, "Russians do not surrender!", going on to explain that he, Captain Emelyanchenko, was ethnically Russian as were half of his crew. The admiral left empty-handed.

I am also Russian, an ethnic Russian who has lived in Kiev from early childhood. Between 8 and 14 million of Ukraine's 47 million population are ethnic Russians and the word Russian doesn't give rise to any aggression among Ukrainians or spark any glint of hatred in their eyes. My grandfather was the first to arrive on Ukrainian soil. He came in 1943, was killed in the battle to free Kharkiv and is buried in a mass grave at the railway junction of Valki, not far from the city. He died fighting against fascism and now I hear the word fascist used about me because I am against the occupation of my country by Putin's army, because I am against the state of total corruption created by Yanukovich and his clan, because I want the country where I live to be guided by the rule of law. No, I am not a political activist and have never joined any political party and I don't plan to join one. I am simply a citizen of my country.

This part almost seems allegoric about what I called the 'attraction' of the Western wealth and ideals and the 'push' from power politics and kleptocracy...


There are no more government sponsored anti-Maidan demonstrations "supported" by state employees and people who just wanted to earn a bit of extra money. About 30 people from our village have now lost that particular source of income. They were paid 250 UAH (£15) a day to stand in Maryinski park, in front of the parliament, with Party of Regions flags and slogans in support of Yanukovich. They were given tea and food, but the menu was poor so they tended to go down to the Maidan, where volunteer cooks from cafes and restaurants all over Kiev served up hot meals made with products donated by other Kievites. Later when the organisers of the anti-Maidan meeting realised what was happening they closed the passage down to the Maidan and threatened not to pay anyone who went down there.

....

Firn
03-07-2014, 01:59 PM
Perhaps one of the most important articles (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/russian-soldiers-may-be-the-only-tourists-in-crimea-this-year-338716.html) on the Crimean economy:




Currently pre-paid travel packages – a key indicator of expected travel – are down a whopping 90 percent year-on-year, reports Oleksandr Burdonov, director of Kurorty Krymu (Resorts of Crimea), a local tourism industry association.

Acting Minister for Resorts and Tourism of Crimea Alexander Liev told the Kyiv Post that the flow of tourists to Crimea could drop by 30 percent, or to 4.1 million people, because of the ongoing political crisis. This is the most optimistic prediction for the Crimean vacation season this year.

Just a slight difference in perception between the party line and the industry...


Tourism is one of Crimea’s biggest economic sectors, worth an estimated $5 billion annually, according to the Crimean Resorts and Tourism Ministry, and an industry that is especially vulnerable. There are well over 100,000 people employed in tourism-related businesses who rely on four months worth of revenue to cover their yearly income, said Galina Amarando, press secretary of the Resorts and Tourism Ministry. She added that in addition to the 100-odd major hotels and resorts, over 20,000 private flats and cottages, and 4,000 mini-hotels service tourists.

Yet, the estimated annual value of tourism for Crimea is far less than the true number because of massive underreporting of income and low registration of small businesses, said Armarando. The seizure of power on the peninsula by pro-Russian politicians followed by the military occupation threatens to bring this vital industry to a crashing halt.

A record six million tourists came to Crimea in 2012 and 5.9 million last year. Russians make up 25 percent of the tourist flow to Crimea, while Ukrainians comprise 70 percent, according to Liev. In a letter to the new Crimean government Burdonov and several other businessmen charge government officials with being “not only incapable of assessing the situation, but also incapable of answering the calls to deal with the issues facing resorts and tourism.”

As I said before I have a deep trust in the ability of a puppet regime controlled from Moskva to miss-manage an economy. Now that they face what would be a huge challenge for the most capable. We will see what the potentials rivers of money from Russia might achieve in the short and long run.

AdamG
03-07-2014, 03:39 PM
On a different note, I noted for the first time that indeed a lot of the Eastern and Northern FM are quite active twitter users. The Polish one:

I would suggest that any staff planning officers of small-to-mid sized countries within range of Russian Air Force An-124s start Red Teaming how Putin and his Kremlin crew could Georgia/Crimea them within five days (which looks like the New Red Army standard), along with whatever the triggers would be and maskirovka indicators Russian forces would hide behind. That'd be a prudent exercise.

For that poor little O3/O4 in the G3 Section out there suddenly tasked with something like this, have a leg-up;

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA370313&ei=0NgZU9ahHOfn0AHmyILoBg&usg=AFQjCNEjkEJd1z1tL1fG0gICrxxKMruTMQ&sig2=iO7VxaOKZ3kzEJq0xqdcTA&bvm=bv.62578216,d.dmQ

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol14no1/html/v14i1a02p_0001.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=lJ9Gfxo_bxMC&pg

Powodzenia.


Anybody care to guess when the first of those fraternal liberators are killed by Tatar bombs or bullets and what the fraternal liberators will then do?

Flanking actions, baby, flanking actions.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=153127#post153127



BTW the OCSE* storms an Ukrainian shop:

Nice haircuts. :rolleyes:

Firn
03-07-2014, 07:02 PM
@jmm99: A member of maternal grandfathers family actually got in trouble because as teen he was listening to Radio Moskva in the 30s. I no longer know why (a price?) he wrote a cost-free letter back, but that one must have earned him a place on some list, as he could gather through an informal channel. Very low down of course, but it did hamper his career.

@AdamG: The article about the Soviet Deception makes for interesting reading, I will have to take my time on that one.

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

Quite early in this thread I questioned the wisdom of Putins invasion into the Crimea. Vladimir Putin is losing the battle for Ukraine (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/03/vladimir-putin-is-losing-the-battle-for-ukraine/) by Alex Massie puts some of my ideas in far better words:


It is always tempting, in the field of foreign affairs, to suppose we are led by dupes and fools while our opponents enjoy – or endure – leaders of boundless cunning. We are over-matched; they are playing three-dimensional chess. We are weak, they are strong. We are easily distracted, they are single-minded. We compromise, they are implacable. It is easy to over-estimate the opposition while under-estimating our own capabilities.

This attitude and it's consequences were already picked up by Clausewitz as one of the reasons why wars often moved so slowly and carefully. The difficulties and the frictions are all too plain on your side while those of your opponent are hidden. But I disgress:


Moscow, assisted by the blundering Yanukovych, has over-reached itself and in so doing is losing the prize it coveted in the first place. No government in Kiev can submit to Moscow now. Putin has pushed his near abroad further abroad. Russia is forcing Ukraine to make a choice it might prefer not to make. Should Kiev look east or west? By invading the Crimea and threatening eastern Ukraine Putin makes that choice for Kiev. It cannot return to Moscow centre. It must instead, albeit with some trepidation, look west.

That is, Putin is losing hearts and souls. Ukraine may remain a divided country but Russia is helping legitimise the new Ukrainian government. Helping, too, Ukrainians make up their minds. If they were conflicted a few weeks ago they are a little less conflicted now.

Almost nothing is certain, but there is no doubt that Putin has so far undermined the support for Russia of 40+ million Ukrainians to secure so far a bit over a million Russian speakers and the Crimea. It will be highly interesting to see how it plays out.

Firn
03-07-2014, 07:23 PM
Some of the stuff coming out of the occupied Ukraine and Russia is amazing, but it is hard to beat the 'icebreaker of peace' (https://twitter.com/Sochi2014/status/441995744879603712/photo/1) in Sochi 2014.

'Took a wrong turn', '.. and sunk in the Sevastapol harbour' are just a couple of the sarcastic comments.

I found the twitter side refreshing, usually I'm more the article and reports type of guy.

AmericanPride
03-07-2014, 08:32 PM
Firn,

I agree in part about the assessment of the current administration in Kiev's willingness to negotiate with Moscow being affected by the Crimean intervention. But that's not Moscow's angle in my opinion.

(1) When Yanukovych fled, Moscow lost their horse in the race. But now in Crimea, they able to exert influence on the political outcome.That outcome is as much determined by Washington and Brussels as it is by Kiev and now Moscow. By escalating/inventing a dispute with Ukraine, Moscow has created political leverage. Now Moscow does not need to lean on its man on the inside because it is the man on the inside.

(2) The administration in Kiev as it is organized now is likely to be short-lived (here's Yatsenuk's statement on coming to power (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ukraines-new-prime-minister-faces-monstrous-economic-challenges/article17181777/): “To be in this government is to commit political suicide." There will be elections in the summer that may or may not return the same individuals to power depending on circumstances between now and then. The economic crisis remains unresolved and the new administration, already viewed with skepticism by the actual street protesters, will have to find a way to survive the coming hardships with the IMF-imposed austerity program.

(3) Whatever the internal problems and injustices in Russia, it's economic and military size does not subject it to the same pressures of smaller powers when faced with Western pressure. The approach by Washington does not recognize this -- though the inability to dislodge Russia from Crimea makes it painfully obvious. Eventually relations between Washington, Brussels, and Moscow will have to normalize regardless of what happens in Crimea. And by the fact of occupation, that works to the advantage of the Russians.