Ukraine: non-military aspects (August 2014-December 2015)

Quote:

---

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Window on Eurasia: Five Questions Western Leaders Should Be Asking Themselves about the Crisis in Ukraine - But Don’t Appear to Be

Paul Goble

Staunton, August 26 – The leaders of major Western countries declare that they are seeking to find an answer to the crisis in Ukraine, but in order to find an answer, it is important that they begin to ask the right questions. It is all too clear that many of them are not doing so – and the consequences for Ukraine and the world may be dire as well.

---

http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.be/...questions.html

An official Swedish report (FOI or Defence Research Agency) 'A Rude Awakening. Ramifications of Russian Aggression Towards Ukraine':http://www.foi.se/report?rNo=FOI-R--3892--SE

The Abstract:

Quote:

---

The main purpose of this study is to examine the wider implications of Russia's aggression against Ukraine with a broad analytical perspective. While the effects of the crisis in the region of Crimea and eastern Ukraine have received much attention, there has so far been less analytical focus on the effects beyond the region and on the possible ramifications for the international system. In this study, we put forward the proposition that there is no way back to a status quo ante. The contours of a new situation in strategic affairs can be clearly discerned, but the long-term impacts and effects are yet to be seen. The study can be read in several ways. The first chapter summarises some of the possible effects of the crisis and asks to what extent we are facing a systemic shift in world affairs. The rest of the study is divided into two main parts. Part one: Setting the Scene, gives a background and analysis of the underlying factors and drivers of the crisis from a Ukrainian, Russian and an EU perspective. Part two: Implications, firstly analyses Russian military operations in Crimea, followed by consequences for the Ukraine. A thematic approach, in the areas of international law, economy, energy and sanctions, follows. The next chapter explores the security policy and strategic consequences. Lastly, we analyse some implications for key actors, regions and conflicts.

---

Note the download PDF failed to work here.

Now begins the slow but ever increasing crash of the Russian economy.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/busi...on-362628.html

Russian spent years trying to get into the WTO;

#Russia mulls leaving the #WTO .... Russia Direct -
http://www.russia-direct.org/content...ssia-leave-wto … #tradewars

Now this is in fact a massive restrictive sanction suggested by the UK:

The UK’s plan for new sanctions on Russia would effectively cut off Russian businesses from the rest of the world
http://read.bi/1rECU2x

Moving this to the non-military aspects bin, where it belongs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09

Dayuhan---that pointing this out to you as you sometimes while looking at the picture see the small things not what is staring you in the face. By the way the comments I had on oil in fact came from one of the best oil commenters in the business not from the blog world.

---

Who? Citation, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09

Secondly oil---have you honestly checked how the current prices for sour crude are dropping and fast---Russia defines their needs last week to be 104 per barrel actually up from their previous statement of 95.

Sour crude is expected to drop to the support range of 90 and if it breaks through that then the bottom cannot be seen. Right now in the face of massive intl political events which should be driving the prices up they are in fact sinking on their own---ever wonder why?

---

What specific benchmark or index are you tracking as "sour crude"?

Russia doesn't have a benchmark of its own, though it has been pushing for one, but 80% of Russian exports trade on the RTS as "Urals Blend". The same product used to trade as REBCO (Russian Export Blend Crude Oil) on the NYMEX, but has been dormant for some time: effectively the price of Urals Blend is what Russia gets for its oil. Urals blend typically trades a bit below Brent but above WTI or the US-traded Light Sweet Crude index.

Just for reference, a 6-month chart showing Brent and Urals Crude prices:

http://www.nesteoil.com/default.asp?...,538,2035,5193

And a chart of the spread between Brent and Urals Crude, back to 2009:

http://www.nesteoil.com/default.asp?...538,2035,13741

You will notice that the spread moves within a fairly narrow band. If there was a specific attempt to push Russian oil prices down, and if that attempt succeeded, the spread should be increasing. It's not.

Oil prices across the board have been decreasing. That has nothing at all to do with the Ukraine, it's just markets doing what they do. Oil has been consistently above $100 for pushing 4 years. That price level has spurred a lot of investment in new production, particularly in the US, and has also pushed major consuming countries to get serious about conservation and alternatives. As a result, prices drop. They will drop until consumption rises and/or economically marginal fields go off line, and which point they will go up, seeking an equilibrium. Of course there is never perfect equilibrium, given the number of factors involved, but there is absolutely no serious evidence to suggest that the US can control, let alone weaponize, oil prices.

Some recent discussion of forecasts:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-output-surges

Of course it is also true that the Russian energy industry is in deep scheisse and was in it even before the Ukraine affair began. An oil price decline will of course exacerbate that trouble. Sanctions can too, if they are multilateral. Again, both in practical and psychological terms it is critically important that the US and Europe move together and show a united front on sanctions. Any indication that the US is willing to go out alone will just encourage Europe to sit on their hands and let the Americans do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09

Think about it---all banks--global in nature have to clear their USD accounts through NYC and for that they must get a US license to do business---even if just clearing USDs.To clear even USDs for a Russian sanctioned person or companies risks that bank losing it's US license and if lost they cannot clear USDs regardless where those dollars reside and if they cannot clear that means a business disaster for them.

---

If only it were that simple.

This all follows a pattern that has become common around here, though still less common than it is in many places on the Internet: imagine that the US government has a set of global superpowers, like control over oil prices and currency movements, and then get all irate that the government is not using these powers in the manner that those doing the commenting desire. It must be terribly frustrating, a frustration akin to that of a child who can't figure out why The Avengers do not actually show up to save the day.

I expect there's a whole lot of negotiating going on right now among the US and the major EU players, aimed at determining how far sanctions will be upgraded. We'll see what they come up with: some will think it too much, some will think it too little, which is the nature of negotiation. What impact it all has on Russia we also don't know, but it is pretty clear that there is not going to be a military response and that the US has no intention of moving to a unilateral response. Personally I think that's a good thing, but I'm sure many will disagree. It does seem worth considering that in several regions the US seems to be taking steps aimed at forcing regional allies to step up and carry their share, which seems to me a policy goal well worth pursuing. Does anyone think that Merkel would be as engaged as she is if the US had elbowed its way to the front of the pack and dominated the response to the Ukraine crisis? Would the Japanese be moving to re-arm and take a more active role in regional security if the US had charged in with security guarantees for all regional allies? Sometimes it's necessary to hold back to get others to do their share. The mantra of "let the Americans deal with it" has got to stop.

One old speech.

Quote:

---

In these States control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. It is not our duty at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.

---

Quote:

---

A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organisation intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising tendencies.

---

Quote:

---

The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.

---

Etc

http://history1900s.about.com/od/chu...on-Curtain.htm

A lengthy Swedish commentary via John Schindler's blog (which I citre frequently, second time today):http://20committee.com/2014/09/12/ti...n-the-kremlin/

Apart from the main body the author advocates an option that would wake up Russia:

Quote:

---

The time has arrived for some good, old-fashioned treatment of Russian intelligence operatives. We have to expel them from the West. A coordinated US/European counterintelligence operation, in which every suspected Russian operative is sent home, sends a very powerful message into the heart of the security state that Russia regrettably has become. It also disrupts operations going on in our countries, where officers from the FSB, GRU and SVR are directing illegals, trying to influence people in high places while recruiting more to secretly work for Moscow.

---

Long ago the UK did this, expelling just over a hundred accredited Soviet diplomats. The world did not end, yes it was frosty for awhile.

Analysis of elections in Crimea this weekend:

Quote:

---

Now that Crimea is firmly under Russia’s control, its formal political structures will most likely mirror that of Russia’s State Duma – dominated by United Russia with the other parties competing for scraps; and with the real power operating behind the scenes.

---

Ukraine and Belarus GDP per capita comparison


http://tinypic.com/r/5vdj7q/8



databank.worldbank.org/data/Popular_indicators/id/af3ce82b

These comments and linked article is extremely telling as it appears that the Ukrainian adventure by Putin has been planned for a long while.

So in fact the trend here concerning one must negotiate one's self out the current Ukrainian crisis flies in the face of existing Russian thoughts back in 2013.

Journalist referenced is with the Moscow of The Guardian as a correspondent.


Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7

It's all there. I even remember thinking carefully about how to phrase the piece as it all sounded so bonkers at the time.

"Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed to Moscow."

Shaun Walker @shaunwalker7 · 2h

One of 1st stories a year back was Glazyev threatening UKR faced "potential collapse". Thought he was nuts at time.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...n-trade-russia …

Begs the next question what was it the West was hearing and seeing that Russia was doing in September 2013 that should have told them where Russia was heading?

Below taken from the article is actually the current Russian blueprint for the eastern Ukraine.

Glazyev, speaking on the sidelines of the discussion, said the exact opposite was true: "Ukrainian authorities make a huge mistake if they think that the Russian reaction will become neutral in a few years from now. This will not happen."

Instead, he said, signing the agreement would make the default of Ukraine inevitable and Moscow would not offer any helping hand. "Russia is the main creditor of Ukraine. Only with customs union with Russia can Ukraine balance its trade," he said. Russia has already slapped import restrictions on certain Ukrainian products and Glazyev did not rule out further sanctions if the agreement was signed.

The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void.

"We don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people," said Glazyev. "But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.

"Signing this treaty will lead to political and social unrest," said the Kremlin aide. "The living standard will decline dramatically … there will be chaos."

It seems those that commented here about understanding the Russian complaints about their need of a sphere of influence and negotiations was the way forward failed to fully understand the "Putin Doctrine" as he expressed it in his Duma speech--namely the right to defend Russian speakers regardless of where they reside.

After his moves on the Crimea and eastern Ukraine now come the Baltics---and he is not interested in rebuilding the former Soviet Union?

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has called for the protection of the rights of the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic States.

The Russian Ministry Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, Konstantin Dolgov, has appealed to the international community to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Latvia and Estonia. He made his announcement at the regional conference of Russian compatriots of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia on September 13, reports Ukrainska Pravda, September 15.

“We will not tolerate the creeping attack on the Russian language that we observe in the Baltic States. We consider the well-known steps by the governments of Latvia and Estonia aimed at the infringement of the status and position of the Russian language a gross violation of human rights,” Dolgov declared.

Dolgov added that he considers unacceptable the fact that representatives of national minorities in the Baltic States are not able to use their own language in topographical names.

“More than 50% of the population residing in the largest Latvian cities are Russian in their ethnic composition. This is a glaring example of the flagrant trampling of human rights in the heart of civilized Europe,” Dolgov said.

Dolgov also expressed concern about the growth of neo-Nazi and xenophobic sentiments in Europe, citing the example of events in Ukraine after the “anti-constitutional coup” and the “armed seizure of power.”

“The position taken by Ukrainian ultra-radicals and neo-Nazis on building an ‘ethnically pure’ Ukrainian state has always been clear. This is confirmed by many concrete facts and evidence, (as outlined) in two editions of the “White Book” that we have prepared on Ukraine,” he said. (Russia’s Foreign Ministry has published two editions of its “White Book” on “the most heinous human rights violations perpetrated by Kyiv in Ukraine’s east” .

NOTICE--Dolgov seems to not have seen the eight different Russian ultra radials ie Nazi's who are actively fighting in the Donbas with the separatists and now with the Russian troops.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/ru...ension#3acondr

Outlaw -

Poroshenko provided clarity on what he is prepared to offer the separatists in his negotiations to end the conflict:

Quote:

---

President Petro Poroshenko on Monday proposed a series of major concessions to end the uprising by pro-Russian rebels in restive eastern Ukraine, offering the separatists a broad amnesty and special self-governance status for territories they occupy.

The proposal also includes protections for the Russian language and would allow the separatist-controlled regions to elect their own judges, create their own police forces and cultivate deeper ties to Russia — while remaining part of Ukraine.

---

So, there will be two major issues: (1) can Poroshenko sell this to the hard-liners in his own parliament and (2) does Russia have sufficient control over the separatists to enforce their compliance pending an agreement? Of course, answers to both questions will seriously call into question the validity of your arguments about Russia's goals, 'rationality', and so-called "altered state of reality". Poroshenko has already delayed Ukraine's treaty with the EU - so it appears that the "irrational" "rogue" Russian state is getting one over on everybody. How are those sanctions doing by the way? Any indication that it will reverse Russian's gains any time soon?

So after all the fighting and destruction, it appears that Kiev is willing to offer the separatists what they had demanded from the very beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Outlaw -

Poroshenko provided clarity on what he is prepared to offer the separatists in his negotiations to end the conflict:



So, there will be two major issues: (1) can Poroshenko sell this to the hard-liners in his own parliament and (2) does Russia have sufficient control over the separatists to enforce their compliance pending an agreement? Of course, answers to both questions will seriously call into question the validity of your arguments about Russia's goals, 'rationality', and so-called "altered state of reality". Poroshenko has already delayed Ukraine's treaty with the EU - so it appears that the "irrational" "rogue" Russian state is getting one over on everybody. How are those sanctions doing by the way? Any indication that it will reverse Russian's gains any time soon?

So after all the fighting and destruction, it appears that Kiev is willing to offer the separatists what they had demanded from the very beginning.

---

See again AP---you simply do not get it---the Ukrainian President is only a bit player in a side show.

The main show is the Putin Doctrine---meaning any Russia speaking person in any bordering country to Russia is fair game to be annexed back into the Russian empire. It goes to the heart of the new Russian Fascism revival I call now ethno national neo imperialism.

AP--see you never seem to read Putin's speech's, TV comments, and or his press releases--it has been there for all to see since 2001--clear as a bell but the West assumed he was for one thing all the while he headed in a different direction and the West "what" never saw it coming---they did but did not want to believe it.

I take it you now noticed the unspoken actually "outspoken" threats voiced yesterday at the Baltics---pray tell.

Secondly, you still are missing what the main show is ---the Putin Doctrine and it's coupled UW in support to political warfare is a strategy to achieve the following set of end goals or end states. And by the way coupled to a very strong nuclear threat that is often outspoken as a shock effect technique.

Oh and let's not forget probably one of the best run informational warfare operations in the history of the world right now or have you by chance missed it---including Ron Paul and his Institute.

1. the splitting of the EU from the US
2. the neutralization and overall weakening of NATO as a potential military threat to Russia
3. the over all weakening of the EU why--because it has a set of economic regulations that is contrary to the way the Russia with it's State owned and run businesses operate---namely as monopolies and as a State directed weapons system ie gas.

The Ukraine was picked in order to drive the above three points nothing more nothing less.

If you go back to my comments from the very beginning--you would have seen a strong demand for immediate and hard sanctions of the type that has finally been passed---but now in effect far to late---or have you not been tracking on the Russian economy thread the massive economic impact they have made just in the last three weeks?

If Putin had been faced and knew the damages he is now seeing--the question is open as to whether he would have done what he did knowing the end result is a badly damaged economy that will take years to recover to the state of say even 2010.

So again I ask you pray tell what negotiations achieved?---even you admit the annexation of south eastern Ukraine and a land corridor to Crimea is a done deal---right that is what you actually admitted in your comments.

Negotiations achieved what?
1. timely turnover of all POWs---that was not achieved and why--the separatists want de facto results on the ground under protection of Russian troops
2. even you stated they have achieved what they wanted ie what Russia wanted--a "New Russia" achieved via the Putin Doctrine

Noticed today that the NPR announced they are going to the Ruble and both Republics stated yesterday they will not honor the agreement and they will be both independent==at first they even denied signing the agreement until their signatures were released.

3. Russian troops especially the 15th Peacekeeping Brigade are now fully inside south eastern Ukraine and there is an old fisher wifes tale--were the Russian Army plants itself they never seem to leave ask eastern Europe at the end of WW2 or ask Moldavia or Georgia since 2008.

AP--take heed of this comment and ask yourself a "rational and or irrational statement"?

#Ukraine's DM had previously said that #Russia threatened to use tactical nukes. His deputy now says Russian nuclear artillery is in Ukraine.

By the way I did not post the net comment that the Russian 240mm self propelled mortar system that is in fact capable of firing a tactical 2KT nuclear weapon has now been seen inside the eastern Ukraine--three of them by the way.

NOW ask yourself has NATO moved any strategic and or tactical nuclear weapons systems up to the border of Russian in say the last 30 years--no.

AP--widen your thinking---you field of vision is to narrow.

And your comments are going in circles because of the narrow vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09

See again AP---you simply do not get it---the Ukrainian President is only a bit player in a side show.

The main show is the Putin Doctrine---meaning any Russia speaking person in any bordering country to Russia is fair game to be annexed back into the Russian empire. It goes to the heart of the new Russian Fascism revival I call now ethno national neo imperialism.

AP--see you never seem to read Putin's speech's, TV comments, and or his press releases--it has been there for all to see since 2001--clear as a bell but the West assumed he was for one thing all the while he headed in a different direction and the West "what" never saw it coming---they did but did not want to believe it.

I take it you now noticed the unspoken actually "outspoken" threats voiced yesterday at the Baltics---pray tell.

Secondly, you still are missing what the main show is ---the Putin Doctrine and it's coupled UW in support to political warfare is a strategy to achieve the following set of end goals or end states. And by the way coupled to a very strong nuclear threat that is often outspoken as a shock effect technique.

Oh and let's not forget probably one of the best run informational warfare operations in the history of the world right now or have you by chance missed it---including Ron Paul and his Institute.

1. the splitting of the EU from the US
2. the neutralization and overall weakening of NATO as a potential military threat to Russia
3. the over all weakening of the EU why--because it has a set of economic regulations that is contrary to the way the Russia with it's State owned and run businesses operate---namely as monopolies and as a State directed weapons system ie gas.

The Ukraine was picked in order to drive the above three points nothing more nothing less.

If you go back to my comments from the very beginning--you would have seen a strong demand for immediate and hard sanctions of the type that has finally been passed---but now in effect far to late---or have you not been tracking on the Russian economy thread the massive economic impact they have made just in the last three weeks?

If Putin had been faced and knew the damages he is now seeing--the question is open as to whether he would have done what he did knowing the end result is a badly damaged economy that will take years to recover to the state of say even 2010.

So again I ask you pray tell what negotiations achieved?---even you admit the annexation of south eastern Ukraine and a land corridor to Crimea is a done deal---right that is what you actually admitted in your comments.

Negotiations achieved what?
1. timely turnover of all POWs---that was not achieved and why--the separatists want de facto results on the ground under protection of Russian troops
2. even you stated they have achieved what they wanted ie what Russia wanted--a "New Russia" achieved via the Putin Doctrine

Noticed today that the NPR announced they are going to the Ruble and both Republics stated yesterday they will not honor the agreement and they will be both independent==at first they even denied signing the agreement until their signatures were released.

3. Russian troops especially the 15th Peacekeeping Brigade are now fully inside south eastern Ukraine and there is an old fisher wifes tale--were the Russian Army plants itself they never seem to leave ask eastern Europe at the end of WW2 or ask Moldavia or Georgia since 2008.

AP--take heed of this comment and ask yourself a "rational and or irrational statement"?

#Ukraine's DM had previously said that #Russia threatened to use tactical nukes. His deputy now says Russian nuclear artillery is in Ukraine.

By the way I did not post the net comment that the Russian 240mm self propelled mortar system that is in fact capable of firing a tactical 2KT nuclear weapon has now been seen inside the eastern Ukraine--three of them by the way.

NOW ask yourself has NATO moved any strategic and or tactical nuclear weapons systems up to the border of Russian in say the last 30 years--no.

AP--widen your thinking---you field of vision is to narrow.

And your comments are going in circles because of the narrow vision.

---

AP--if you read a recent comment of mine---I do believe that since the south east Donbas is now fully annexed and that it will never go back to the Ukraine---it is time to cut it off from the main Ukraine.

NOTICE this from the net this morning--interesting comment.
#Breaking Ukr. border guards are building a "boundary line" between the occupied areas and the "peaceful" parts of Donbas.

But it takes the Ukraine to hold onto the ports of Mariupol and Odessa to remain an economic viable state--BUT even Russia sees that thus the drive to take Mariupol and Odessa to create a land bridge to the Crimea.

Without the two ports Ukraine will remain weak and thus dependent on Russia.

And it achieves again the Putin Doctrine.

BUT cutting the south eastern regions off brings a massive new chance for the Ukraine---

1. they do not have to rebuild what the Russians and separatists destroyed
2. gives them a chance to build an new 21st economy which they have a massively capable young generation ready for that
3. easier to integration in the EU and NATO
4. easier to rebuild their military on the NATO model
5. does away with the "frozen model" that Russia needs in order to control/influence the Ukraine
6. take in all Ukrainians who want to come over--remember the ethnic Russian population was only 39-40-% of the actual Donbas population
7. by cutting the region then Ukraine can sell them water, electricity, and stop any economic payments to those that wish to reside in the New Russia--tons in money savings for the Ukraine--just as they did in the Crimea
8. and here is the beauty--they can take Russia to the international courts and demands repayments for years to come on what Russia illegally annexed/sized/nationalized

Let Russia support another "failed state" which is really what the Crimea is now---economically they cannot even support the Crimea even with all their bluster during the annexation after Russia stated they were going to do for them as the "benefits" in joining the RF.

There was a small economic comment via the net the other day---no coal is being mined and delivered right now from the Donbas region--so the Ukraine went out and purchased South African coal at 85 USD per ton vs the 300 USD per ton they were paying for Donbas coal.

NOW that AP is a pure capitalist decision and an easy one to make if you ask me---

Lastly---if the south east annexation remains in place as does the Crimea then in fact the sanctions remain in place and the longer they go on the more damage to the Russian economy sitting it back 20-30 years---and that is power politics.

ON top of the sinking oil prices right now--signals massive economic challenges for the Russian economy which has been seen in the last two days of economic press releases coming out of Moscow.

Win win for the Ukraine if you ask me---their President just has to sell it that way.

See AP sometimes economic warfare can in fact take the place of actual boots on the ground warfare.

BUT here is the problem western leaders could not realize that fast enough and were played well by Putin--and wasted five months which is a lifetime in politics.

Quote:

---

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault
The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin
By John J. Mearsheimer
FROM OUR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 ISSUE

---

Quote:

---

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: ...

---

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...he-wests-fault

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

the Ukrainian President is only a bit player in a side show.

---

Actually, as the head of state of one of the belligerents in the conflict, he's one of the principal actors. The other major player in Kiev politics at this moment is unabashedly pro-West (and pro-war) Prime Minister Yatsenyuk who opposes the terms of Poroshenko's proposal. So how that plays out will have significant consequences both for Ukraine's political stability as well as its security. Your obsession with Russia's political-military strategy is bordering on shrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

The Ukraine was picked in order to drive the above three points nothing more nothing less.

---

Ukraine was 'picked' because following the collapse of the Yanukoyvch government and the triump of the Maiden Revolution, Russia had few non-military options to rapidly and decisively restore its leverage in the country. That the conflict has now escalated from Ukraine's internal politics to broader East-West relations is an indicator of a failure in conflict management in Washington, Moscow, and the European capitals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

If you go back to my comments from the very beginning--you would have seen a strong demand for immediate and hard sanctions of the type that has finally been passed

---

There is no evidence that the sanctions have or will reverse Russia's political gains in Ukraine. Sanctions have not liberated the Donbas or defeated the pro-Russian paramilitaries operating in the region. The historical data suggests that sanctions rarely have the effect of changing a state's foreign policy. The problem with sanctions is that over time their utility diminishes as states adapt to the new circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

So again I ask you pray tell what negotiations achieved?---even you admit the annexation of south eastern Ukraine and a land corridor to Crimea is a done deal---right that is what you actually admitted in your comments.

---

Negotiations have achieved the cessation of Ukraine's bloody hemorrhaging of territory and treasure which would have continued otherwise. Is your alternative to a negotiated settlement perpetual conflict between Ukraine and Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

even you stated they have achieved what they wanted ie what Russia wanted--a "New Russia" achieved via the Putin Doctrine

---

Yep - and I have stated from the start that the West and Ukraine were severely unprepared for Russia's campaign. When it's recognized that one is in a losing position and can't catch up without significant losses, it's better to make a quick end of it and cut your losses. Every loss in pursuit of defeat is a waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

AP--if you read a recent comment of mine---I do believe that since the south east Donbas is now fully annexed and that it will never go back to the Ukraine---it is time to cut it off from the main Ukraine.

---

And how will that be managed with a negotiation between Ukraine and Russia to determine the terms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

1. they do not have to rebuild what the Russians and separatists destroyed
2. gives them a chance to build an new 21st economy which they have a massively capable young generation ready for that
3. easier to integration in the EU and NATO
4. easier to rebuild their military on the NATO model
5. does away with the "frozen model" that Russia needs in order to control/influence the Ukraine
6. take in all Ukrainians who want to come over--remember the ethnic Russian population was only 39-40-% of the actual Donbas population
7. by cutting the region then Ukraine can sell them water, electricity, and stop any economic payments to those that wish to reside in the New Russia--tons in money savings for the Ukraine--just as they did in the Crimea
8. and here is the beauty--they can take Russia to the international courts and demands repayments for years to come on what Russia illegally annexed/sized/nationalized

---

Looks like you read Alexander Motyl's Foreign Affairs article. But it's interesting now that after your many months of your crusade to demonize Russia, you are willing to write off eastern Ukraine and Crimea and hand it over to them in the name of "realpolitik". Had the pro-West faction in Ukraine's government negotiated an end to Ukraine's internal turmoil in say November, March, or April, Ukraine would not be in this position in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

Win win for the Ukraine if you ask me---their President just has to sell it that way

---

So, Ukraine losing a war, a third of its territory, thousands of lives, and millions of dollars is a "win win"? Now that's an "alternate state of reality". :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

BUT here is the problem western leaders could not realize that fast enough and were played well by Putin--and wasted five months which is a lifetime in politics.

---

Yep - there were opportunities in November, March, and April to resolve this conflict before Russia committed itself fully to this outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

AP--you write about what was and or was not "negotiated" as if something positive was basically achieved in Minsk.

---

Yes - the positive that was "basically achieved" was averting total disaster for Ukraine.

AP--a new question for you---can Putin achieve his "New Russia" dream and annexation before the Russian economy tanks and his population starts to question his world of reality vs their's?

The sentence is this article is "telling"---do not "panic" Russian population we have a plan........

Deputy foreign minister Alexei Moiseyev sought to put on a brave face, saying authorities were taking steps to curb inflation.

"Don't panic," he said on Tuesday

http://news.yahoo.com/ruble-plunges-...110647010.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Actually, as the head of state of one of the belligerents in the conflict, he's one of the principal actors. The other major player in Kiev politics at this moment is unabashedly pro-West (and pro-war) Prime Minister Yatsenyuk who opposes the terms of Poroshenko's proposal. So how that plays out will have significant consequences both for Ukraine's political stability as well as its security. Your obsession with Russia's political-military strategy is bordering on shrill.



Ukraine was 'picked' because following the collapse of the Yanukoyvch government and the triump of the Maiden Revolution, Russia had few non-military options to rapidly and decisively restore its leverage in the country. That the conflict has now escalated from Ukraine's internal politics to broader East-West relations is an indicator of a failure in conflict management in Washington, Moscow, and the European capitals.



There is no evidence that the sanctions have or will reverse Russia's political gains in Ukraine. Sanctions have not liberated the Donbas or defeated the pro-Russian paramilitaries operating in the region. The historical data suggests that sanctions rarely have the effect of changing a state's foreign policy. The problem with sanctions is that over time their utility diminishes as states adapt to the new circumstances.



Negotiations have achieved the cessation of Ukraine's bloody hemorrhaging of territory and treasure which would have continued otherwise. Is your alternative to a negotiated settlement perpetual conflict between Ukraine and Russia?



Yep - and I have stated from the start that the West and Ukraine were severely unprepared for Russia's campaign. When it's recognized that one is in a losing position and can't catch up without significant losses, it's better to make a quick end of it and cut your losses. Every loss in pursuit of defeat is a waste.



And how will that be managed with a negotiation between Ukraine and Russia to determine the terms?



Looks like you read Alexander Motyl's Foreign Affairs article. But it's interesting now that after your many months of your crusade to demonize Russia, you are willing to write off eastern Ukraine and Crimea and hand it over to them in the name of "realpolitik". Had the pro-West faction in Ukraine's government negotiated an end to Ukraine's internal turmoil in say November, March, or April, Ukraine would not be in this position in the first place.



So, Ukraine losing a war, a third of its territory, thousands of lives, and millions of dollars is a "win win"? Now that's an "alternate state of reality". :rolleyes:



Yep - there were opportunities in November, March, and April to resolve this conflict before Russia committed itself fully to this outcome.



Yes - the positive that was "basically achieved" was averting total disaster for Ukraine.

---

AP---will give you something to think about that is not being talked about in most places---BY the way--check the Russian economy thread here at SWJ---yes the sanctions are in fact deeply hurting right now and their economy is slowly gaining in free fall mode.

JUST how much as the Ukrainian President out "Putined" Putin in his strategies?

Take a good look at his moves and you will see at every turn he has out foxed Putin's moves and stayed one step ahead starting with the first "ceasefire" that held all of five days before the Ukraine went into their ATO campaign.

I would argue that the ATO was carried by the Independent BNs and selected UA/NG units (while a bulk of the Army retrained and refitted and built a second defense line series) and although basically a rag tag army they were actually quite successful and "drove" Putin to react placing Putin further into the sanction regimes that are indeed hurting and further isolating Russia.

I would argue that the Ukrainians wanted Putin to fully commit since they knew he was leaning in that direction from the beginning as many in the west thought he was not leaning towards as they stated his real goal was the Crimea not eastern Ukraine--how wrong was that?

And if one thinks about it--was Russia able to stop the EU Assoc Agreement from being signed---not really, has he stopped NATO and the Ukraine from getting closer together--no, has he stopped other NATO countries from rearming/training the UA--no and he rejuvenated NATO and the Baltics/Poland---yes he has---has he rejuvenated the EU --most certainly. Has he in fact achieved anything on the previous list of three items I posted to you? Nothing, nada, nichts. Has he "defeated" western values and or the EU--nothing, nada, nichts.

And what has Putin achieved---3500 killed Russian soldiers and Russian mercenaries, his economy truly faltering and sinking, he is actually quite isolated from the global community, and he now has to support his "fellow Russians" in all the enclaves and Crimea--does that sound like a really really major political "win"? And he has to deal with the "unintended consequences" ie Cossacks "claiming their own state inside the "New Russia" and that is a major problem--not Ukrainians' problem--- but Putin's.

Have you ever thought that the Ukrainian strategy has been from the beginning to fully isolate and heavily damage the Russian economy--meaning you can annex me and take territory from me but in the end you will pay a far higher price and in the end I come out the other end of the tunnel--smaller maybe but definitely independent from Russia once and for all and you will need 20 or more years to recover.

That is not a negotiation driven concept ---it is a interesting strategy driven end state concept with at least four orders of effects factored into the strategy end state.

This is a brilliant chess game at the highest level between Putin and the Ukrainian President.

Now if the mercenaries turn down the Russian supported, propagandized, and signed agreement Putin the Ukraine has two choices 1) ditch the east and let Putin support basically support another failed state for the whole world to see just how failed it is and 2) the Ukraine moves on and gains EU/NATO status--in both instances again Putin loses. And who gets blamed for the failure of the new eastern laws--the current Rada which is basically pro Russia not the new to be elected Rada.

Then the Ukraine can turn to the entire world and honestly state---"we tried" and you now can see what Putin/Russia really is a "fascist neo imperialist country" bent on rebuilding the Soviet Union under the guise of the Putin Doctrine. We told you all that countless times and then they go nuclear which they have the capacity to do and no one in the EU could actually deny them that move based on the Russian actions the past six months.

So again the question---was "negotiations" actually just a smoke screen to achieve a longer term strategy that has a defined end state--not as you indicate "negotiations as the means" to get to an end. And no a smoke screen is not "means". The Russian term for "smokescreen" is "camouflage".

So the Ukrainians allowed the "negotiations to "camouflage" their true intentions and Putin jumped on it--notice he has said virtually nothing about it--only his FM is saying anything if at all--they fully realize now what they have signed up for.

You will notice--many of the current Rada members that agreed to the new eastern laws passed today come from the older Russian leaning parties thus carry the burden of failure if all goes south---not the President nor the Maidan groups.

Still say though is headed to Odessa as Putin is way to committed now or he risks an overall total failure especially since the sanctions are hitting hard now if he cannot get something for the Crimea out of this adventure.

You did notice that Russia has virtually nothing on the sanctions side to hit back with and even some Duma members say what is being proposed hurts Russians not the EU/US.

That AP is a surprising new tone from Duma me members and that "new thinking" did not come from "negotiations" but from a hefty sanctions regine.

Think about it?

AP--you still have not recognized just how much Russia is a "fascist" state and how that factors into the Ukrainian events and Putin's views towards the west.

Here is one the most "fascist" of the Russian firebrands that has solid influence over Putin and his inner circle--from an interview of his in April 2014--again notice the time it was given--April 2014.

Shame you do not speak Russian. he basically is calling for Russia to conquer the rest of Europe---now my friend again is that statement "rational and or irrational" and or is he in "an altered state of reality"?

Alexander Dugin: Russland muss Europa erobern:

http://youtu.be/e-oH58VA5Rw?list=LLZ...hhPr5enz2DvpFQ …

Outlaw -

Ukraine's Rada passed the law granting limited autonomy to the separatist regions. Timing is of course an important element in negotiating an end to conflicts:

Quote:

---

Gennady Tsipkalov, the latest prime minister of the self-declared Luhansk People’s Republic, said in a posting on a Russian social media site, Vkontacte, that the special status provided by the law might have been enough if it had been offered when the rebellion first erupted in April. But he said it was no longer sufficient because of the number of people who had since died in the fighting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw

I would argue that the Ukrainians wanted Putin to fully commit since they knew he was leaning in that direction

---

It's interesting that you propose surrendering the Donbas to the Russians despite your rhetoric about Putin wanting to revive the Soviet Union - and if that was the play from the beginning, are you suggesting that the Ukrainians intentionally baited Russia to invade, cause over a billion dollars in damages, and kill thousands of Ukrainians? Is that really the kind of government we want in Ukraine and a part of the EU and NATO? You are twisting yourself into a pretzel in trying to maintain your argument that Russia is operating in an "altered state of reality".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Outlaw -

Ukraine's Rada passed the law granting limited autonomy to the separatist regions. Timing is of course an important element in negotiating an end to conflicts:





It's interesting that you propose surrendering the Donbas to the Russians despite your rhetoric about Putin wanting to revive the Soviet Union - and if that was the play from the beginning, are you suggesting that the Ukrainians intentionally baited Russia to invade, cause over a billion dollars in damages, and kill thousands of Ukrainians? Is that really the kind of government we want in Ukraine and a part of the EU and NATO? You are twisting yourself into a pretzel in trying to maintain your argument that Russia is operating in an "altered state of reality".

---

AP---again your statements tend to be off---you stated the sanctions were not working but they are if you read this. See AP after the Crimea the Ukrainians fully understood Putin was going into the east and you yourself doubted it when I said here he was going.

Answer a simple question---then why was the heavy fighting done by the Independent BNs, the Airborne and SF units and just two Mech Brigades when the Ukrainians could have thrown over 25,000 fighters against just under 12K mercenaries at the height of the fighting before the Russians stepped in. Look at the Ukrainian loses and wounded numbers versus what was being sent by coffins back to Russia---the numbers are extremely lopsided if one is tracking them ---favoring the UA. The UA/NG and Independents never had more than 3 to 4K in the actual fighting at any one time.

Ask yourself the simple question --do you feel the Ukrainians in their push to completely throw out the mercenaries where not constantly assessing the Russian army units on their borders?--if you felt they were not then you do not fully understand their intel abilities--remember they were telling the US/EU and the world the Russians were in far higher numbers on the borders long before NATO admitted the same thing. They also stated for months that Russian SF/GRU units were inside the Ukraine as well but no one else seemed to notice it nor actually did they care.

Ask yourself again the simple question ---why did the previous Ukrainian president drive the Ukrainian army into the ground with so little budget and no new equipment? Why was the UA being systematically destroyed by all previous Ukrainian presidents? Why was the SBU so undermined by the FSB/GRU?---and the Russian move on the Ukraine was what just thought about in the last what six months?--Come on AP think.

There was at the beginning of the Crimea event which you did not participate in the initial comments a Russian former intel FSB type who now resides in London who openly stated the Crimea plans were there years in advance and had to just be pulled and implemented--that easy AP. So into the eastern Ukraine was what just a random plan hastily but together just on short notice?--come on AP think.

The Russian military never does anything on short notice without a long planning cycle that is just how they function these days---actually similar to the Red Army days in their planning cycles--know personally about that as I have planned along side their Brigade staffs in 2012/2013.

Remember the UA as well had little heavy anti tank abilities as well as limited air assets and most of that was shot down.

So if I know all of that in advance one can figure where the fighting is going to end up--so why not drive the costs up for Russia if you sense you cannot hold them back---and here is the catch that you seem to not get--even with a "negotiated agreement" there is no mechanism to force Russian troops back out of the east. You did notice that the US Ambassador to NATO stated exactly that today---the Russians must leave and their equipment must leave---but there is no mechanism to force them out other than sanctions--so much for "negotiations".

Based on your thinking then ask the question just why did the Ukrainian president go all in after the first failed ceasefire---he could have stopped then and rolled over---notice AP he did neither--so ask the question ---why not?"

Here is what you are not seeing about the Ukrainian "negotiations" and todays eastern laws--they made it contingent upon full acceptance by the separatists---if they reject any part then the agreement--then it is off, the fighting starts again, and Putin catches all the heat plus then more sanctions. So ask the question why was that clause placed into the agreement or better why did Putin allow it?

Ever ask the new simple question--why did Putin agree to that concept--he needs an urgent off ramp --remember the large first series of dead Russian bodies were starting to come back just as Minsk occurred. He was suckered into the east and now he has to get out before his economy tanks for good.

AP---you have noticed that there is virtually no comments in the Russian TV or via press releases by Putin since the Minsk agreements---this has been the longest silence phase by him in years--wonder why?

By the way the Russian economy is seriously tanking --far faster than many in the West and even Putin's inner circle and the central bank ever assumed would happen---so what was that comment again on sanctions not working?

Ruble Drops to Record as Russia Sanctions Fuel Dollar Shortage

By Vladimir Kuznetsov and Ksenia Galouchko Sep 16, 2014 11:48 AM ET

The ruble fell to a record for a fourth day as sanctions over the Ukraine crisis exacerbated a foreign-currency shortage in Russia, while the government canceled its ninth straight debt sale. Stocks advanced.

The exchange rate tumbled 0.9 percent to 43.8454 against the central bank’s dollar-euro basket at 7:10 p.m. in Moscow, depreciating for a seventh day to a record low. That’s within 56 kopeks of 44.40, the level that would trigger the central bank to intervene. The Micex Index climbed 1.6 percent to a two-month high, led by OAO Sberbank, the nation’s biggest lender, which was named under expanded U.S. sanctions last week.

Foreign-currency liquidity has come under pressure as the European Union and U.S. imposed new penalties to curtail access of Russian companies to their debt markets. The one-week dollar-ruble swap rate traded at the widest discount to the central bank’s main interest rate in six months today, signaling traders are willing to pay a premium for the U.S. currency.

“Sanctions and closed access to foreign-exchange liquidity from the West” is feeding demand for dollars, Dmitry Polevoy, the chief economist for Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States at ING Groep NV in Moscow, said in an e-mailed note. “The market is now targeting the upper boundary of the ruble corridor at 44.40.”

The ruble, which has lost 15 percent of its value against the U.S. currency this year, depreciated as much as 1.4 percent to 38.9300 per dollar, before trading at 38.7145. It lost 1 percent versus the euro.

Dollar Shortage

The implied yield on a one-week swap fell for a third day to 6.43 percent, taking the spread over the central bank interest rate to minus 157 basis points, compared with minus 105 basis points yesterday.

Foreign-exchange liquidity has “virtually dried out,” with volumes sinking to about $100 million per day, compared with $1 billion to $2 billion previously, according to Natalia Orlova, the chief economist for OAO Alfa Bank in Moscow.
The currency pared declines after Deputy Finance Minister Alexey Moiseev said the ministry and central bank were discussing ways to alleviate the “structural” shortage of foreign currency in the market.

“An injection of dollar liquidity by the central bank could push the ruble higher, back to 38 versus the dollar,” Moscow-based Sberbank CIB analyst Iskander Abdullaev said by e-mail.

Auction Pulled

Companies have $22 billion in dollar-denominated payments to make in September and local banks are “anticipating demand for hard currency from retailers and accumulating additional dollar liquidity,” Abdullaev said.

“The geopolitical background remains unstable,” Dmitriy Gritskevich, an analyst at OAO Promsvyazbank, said in an e-mailed note. The ruble may move “without any serious obstacles” straight to the upper limit of the dollar-euro basket, he said.

Government bonds due in February 2027 climbed, sending the yield down four basis points to 9.66 percent, trimming the increase since President Vladimir Putin started his incursion into Ukraine’s Crimea region in March to 130 basis points. The Finance Ministry cited “unfavorable” market conditions today for pulling a domestic bond auction.

Tougher penalties were announced last week even amid a cease-fire between pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine and the government in Kiev, stoking concern Russia would retaliate with measures of its own and deepen the six-month crisis.

Stocks rose after Ukraine’s parliament approved a law giving special status to two regions controlled by pro-Russian separatists. That boosted optimism the crisis may ease and sanctions would be lifted, Vadim Bit-Avragim, who helps oversee about $4.1 billion at Kapital Asset Management LLC in Moscow, said by phone.