Ukraine: military (Aug '14 to mid-June '15) closed

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--I am assuming you read this particular sentence in Putin's recent WW1 speech.

It would be good if we could learn to see at least one step ahead," President Vladimir Putin said recently in a speech on the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I. .

So AP what is Putin's next step he seems to not be able to see nor understand?

Particularly telling for a decision maker who controls nuclear weapons is it not AP?

The sentence tells me he thought he was going to win across the board on both the Crimea and eastern Ukraine and now he has no Plan B.

So AP since you are good at questioning just what should Putin's Plan B be since he is both arming and sending in irregular fighters -- the EU/NATO

nor the US did either the last time I checked. The only thing and JMA will agree one can accuse the EU/NATO/US is they were asleep at the wheel in the Crimea nor do they have a plan now if Russian invades under the guise of "peacekeeping".

Here is Polish views on Plan B---I will offer a third version---invasion under the guise of "peacekeeping" which we all know what happens ie Georgia and Moldavia.

So if that happens will you finally stop and rethink everything you have previously stated and redefine your thinking concerning "rouge" states.

By the way Russia is asking the UNSC today for an emergency meeting---here comes the "peacekeeping" invasion ---if the UN does not act then Russia will state that it will--AP you have got to expand your views.

[Dayuhan]

The sentence tells me he thought he was going to win across the board on both the Crimea and eastern Ukraine and now he has no Plan B.

I don't think anyone here knows with any certainty what Putin thought or thinks, or what his plans are. Speculation on the subject may be entertaining, but it's still speculative.

The only thing and JMA will agree one can accuse the EU/NATO/US is they were asleep at the wheel in the Crimea nor do they have a plan now if Russian invades under the guise of "peacekeeping".

We don't know what plans the EU/NATO/US have. It's reasonable to assume that the fairly obvious possibility of invasion under the guise of peacekeeping has been discussed, but we have no way of knowing what the planned response would be. It's obviously not something that will be advertised.

Invasion under the guise of peacekeeping could of course be preempted if the Ukrainians isolate the remaining separatists, then offer them some sort of deal that will allow the Russians to go home and the bulk of the indigenous soldiery some kind of amnesty. That would not make the Ukrainians happy, but backing the separatists into a corner and trying to exterminate them would provide a strong pretext for intervention. Ultimately that's a decision that has to be made by the Ukrainians, not the US or the EU.

So if that happens will you finally stop and rethink everything you have previously stated and redefine your thinking concerning "rouge" states.

Rogue. Please.

By the way Russia is asking the UNSC today for an emergency meeting---here comes the "peacekeeping" invasion ---if the UN does not act then Russia will state that it will.

We'll see.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---rouge yes if the following comment is valid---when Russia annexed the Crimea they used the NATO/US response to both Kosovo and Libya as examples of no UN cover and the West running amok --so they will use the same argument hey the UN did not go along with us and we now will use exactly the same arguments the West used before when they did not use the UNSC--Russia tends to forget that in both countries there had been an ongoing irregular fight that Russia blocked all UN actions on.

They have been false flagging it over the last two weeks and have been called on it---their response---hey ain't us- it is the Ukrainians---they went rouge on the KAL downed flight just as they did on MH17---both times arguing it ain't us.

Russia has a track record of abusing the term 'peacekeeping' as a cover for unlawful military intervention and occupation," the official said. "Given its unlawful attempted annexation of Crimea, which we do not recognize, it is deeply troubling to hear any discussion of Russian 'peacekeepers' in Ukrainian territory. Such statements are destabilizing and unhelpful."

Dayuhan--here is the problem Russia/Putin are having---they want an urgent UNSC meeting on humanitarian reasons in the Ukraine and quote they ar in contact to the ICRC about the problem with the Ukrainians terrorizing proRussians in Donetsk.

THEN along comes their own irregulars and captures three ICRC reps and their drivers and the DNR actual Russian leader Girkin in a voice intercept says thrown them in a hole--check the link for the voice intercept.

Seems like Putin cannot control the ghosts he called up.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/08/0...presentatives/

[OUTLAW 09]

AP---so who is actually smoking dope in Moscow these days--Putin or his Defense Ministry?

And you really want to convince me they are not a rouge state? Well maybe not a rouge state but evidently in an alternated state of reality which is far more dangerous as then they do not fully understand the reality of their problems and that is dangerous especially if they control nuclear weapons.

Again another example of the "ain't me complex".

From Interfax today:

17:19 CLAIMS BY PENTAGON, NATO ABOUT RUSSIA BUILDING UP MILITARY PRESENCE ALONG BORDER WITH UKRAINE ARE BASELESS - RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

This was the expanded Interfax press release:

August 06, 2014 17:33


Pentagon, NATO make baseless claims about Russia increasing military presence along border with Ukraine - ministry


MOSCOW. Aug 6 (Interfax-AVN) - Allegations by Pentagon and NATO officials about the continuing build-up of the Russian military presence along the border with Ukraine are misleading the global community, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

"Such claims can only make the Russian Defense Ministry sympathize with Pentagon, State Department and NATO spokespersons. They seem to be serious people who constantly have to improvise in their speeches in order to lend some seriousness to their claims," spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov told journalists on Wednesday.

"Regular escapades about Russia pulling its troops towards the border with Ukraine are reminiscent of a soap-bubble sale auction where the most important thing is to ask the highest price before the bubble bursts," he said.

"Apparently, this is why there are such big discrepancies in figures cited in statements about the alleged 'massing' of Russian troops," the general said.


So AP NATO/US is wrong about the Russian buildup but somehow someone in Moscow forgot to tell the Germans who are picking the buildup with their intelligence services and are highly concerned of a possible "peacekeeping" invasion.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-984774.html

And somehow someone in Russia ie Putin and the RF MoD does not believe all those NATO/US AWACs flying around using the GMTI sensors are not seeing the buildup as well.

And Russia is not a rouge state come on AP---you never did accept or eject the Wikipedia definition of a rouge state did you as a common ground for this debate.

[AmericanPride]

Dayuhan---rouge yes if the following comment is valid---when Russia annexed the Crimea they used the NATO/US response to both Kosovo and Libya as examples of no UN cover and the West running amok

So, Russia is a rogue country for following the example set forth by other states? Isn't that fundamentally the opposite of going rogue?

Well maybe not a rouge state but evidently in an alternated state of reality which is far more dangerous as then they do not fully understand the reality of their problems and that is dangerous especially if they control nuclear weapons.

That could describe most governments in many fluid, high-stakes environments (i.e. Bush administration during the Iraq War). So even if this point is granted, how does it make Russia uniquely despicable?

So AP NATO/US is wrong about the Russian buildup but somehow someone in Moscow forgot to tell the Germans who are picking the buildup with their intelligence services and are highly concerned of a possible "peacekeeping" invasion.

Again - on the one hand, you are dismissing Russian information operations as delibarate propaganda, and then on the other, you are claiming that the same propaganda is evidence that Russia's leadership is detached from reality. Of course propaganda is detached from reality - that's the point of propaganda!

And Russia is not a rouge state come on AP---you never did accept or eject the Wikipedia definition of a rouge state did you as a common ground for this debate.

See my post dated 31 July.

Invasion under the guise of peacekeeping could of course be preempted if the Ukrainians isolate the remaining separatists, then offer them some sort of deal that will allow the Russians to go home and the bulk of the indigenous soldiery some kind of amnesty. That would not make the Ukrainians happy, but backing the separatists into a corner and trying to exterminate them would provide a strong pretext for intervention. Ultimately that's a decision that has to be made by the Ukrainians, not the US or the EU.

+1

And that's the fundamental problem coursing through this thread; there's a dissonance between the idea that Russia is a third-rate country that can be pushed around and that Russia a major threat to U.S. security. So there's advocacy for aggressive, punitive policies ("emasculation" in the words of JMA) without an honest assessment of how Russia, given its capabilities, will respond.

When faced with unconditional surrender or with ultimatums, how do states respond? The answer to that question depends on that state's perception of its relative strength compared to its adversaries.

[JMA]

And that's the fundamental problem coursing through this thread; there's a dissonance between the idea that Russia is a third-rate country that can be pushed around and that Russia a major threat to U.S. security. So there's advocacy for aggressive, punitive policies ("emasculation" in the words of JMA) without an honest assessment of how Russia, given its capabilities, will respond.

Nah AP, you are way out in left field again.

The problem with this thread is that Outlaw is making the running and offering his take on the situation given the facts (and his career experience) at his disposal... and there are a few Obama apologists chirping from the bleachers.

What is clear is that Russia would not have attempted what they have - in annexing Crimea and invading eastern Ukraine - unless they were sure they would get away with it. Putin correctly assessed the US ability to influence the EU to the extent of presenting a unified front against the aggressor is a thing of the past. He also correctly understands that the greatest fear in the US is of Russian nukes.

While the incremental sanctions may be having some effect as they are increased they are a day late and a dollar short in preventing the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of eastern Ukraine (and the shooting down of a commercial airliner). That I suggest how the reaction to Russian actions should be assessed. Will they lead to the restoration of the pre-invasion status quo with appropriate reparations?

Once this has been achieved steps should be talken to ensure Russia is in no position to repeat this terriorial aggression ever again.

When faced with unconditional surrender or with ultimatums, how do states respond? The answer to that question depends on that state's perception of its relative strength compared to its adversaries.

Who said anything about "unconditional surrender or with ultimatums"? You are making this up as you go along aren't you.

[slapout9]

This thread is Good example of why Mitt Romney is becoming so popular again. He had and has an excellent grasp of economic and worlds affairs. This competent and accurate world view is completely lacking in the current administration, which seems happy with the continued decline of US power and prestige.

[Dayuhan]

This seems a strange and self-defeating move, if true, simply because it hurts a lot more people in Russia than outside of it. The last thing most governments would want to sanction is their own imports of cheap food. People will overlook many things in the grip of nationalism, but the stomach is pretty close to home.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/russia-ban...231321612.html

Russia bans all U.S. food, EU fruit and veg in sanctions response; NATO fears invasion

MOSCOW/DONETSK Ukraine (Reuters) - Russia will ban all imports of food from the United States and all fruit and vegetables from Europe, the state news agency reported on Wednesday, a sweeping response to Western sanctions imposed over its support for rebels in Ukraine.

The measures will hit consumers at home who rely on cheap imports, and on farmers in the West for whom Russia is a big market. Moscow is by far the biggest buyer of European fruit and vegetables and the second biggest importer of U.S. poultry....

... U.S. poultry has been ubiquitous in Russia since the early days after the Soviet Union, when cheap American chicken quarters sold at street markets were called "Bush's legs" after the president.

On the invasion side, I'm starting to wonder about the point at which it might be advisable for the Ukraine to call a pause, offer a safe return for Russian fighters and a limited amnesty for local rebels, and even offer a degree of local autonomy... obviously not the kind of autonomy Putin wants, with the east having veto power over foreign policy and other features that would give Russia control, but a substantial carrot. Offering Russian Ukrainians the kind of linguistic and cultural recognition that the French enjoy in eastern Canada might be a start, and could be managed without seriously compromising Ukrainian sovereignty.

The idea is not to give in, of course, but to offer enough of a carrot to undercut any Russian contention that peacekeeping forces are necessary. Obviously this is not a move that the US or the EU can take, the Ukrainians have to be on board and up front.

Dayuhan---rouge yes if the following comment is valid---when Russia annexed the Crimea they used the NATO/US response to both Kosovo and Libya as examples of no UN cover and the West running amok --so they will use the same argument hey the UN did not go along with us and we now will use exactly the same arguments the West used before when they did not use the UNSC--Russia tends to forget that in both countries there had been an ongoing irregular fight that Russia blocked all UN actions on.

If selective interpretation if rules and precedents makes a rogue state, there's a lot of rogue states out there.

I don't see how terms like "rogue" (still less "rouge") are really very useful. Does the term get us any closer to a strategy to get the Russians to stop doing what they're doing?

Dayuhan--here is the problem Russia/Putin are having---they want an urgent UNSC meeting on humanitarian reasons in the Ukraine and quote they ar in contact to the ICRC about the problem with the Ukrainians terrorizing proRussians in Donetsk.

THEN along comes their own irregulars and captures three ICRC reps and their drivers and the DNR actual Russian leader Girkin in a voice intercept says thrown them in a hole--check the link for the voice intercept.

Seems like Putin cannot control the ghosts he called up.

Yes, we see this, we see the contradictions and inconsistencies, and we see that Putin has got himself into a corner. What do you think the US should do about it at this point?

The problem with this thread is that Outlaw is making the running and offering his take on the situation given the facts (and his career experience) at his disposal... and there are a few Obama apologists chirping from the bleachers.

Actually I have yet to see Outlaw make a concrete statement of what he thinks the US did wrong, what he thinks should have been done instead, and what he thinks the US should be doing now. Haven't heard that from you either.

I don't think the US government's course has been ideal, but I don't see what other realistic options they had under the circumstances. I don't think a Republican administration would have played it much differently under the circumstances.

What is clear is that Russia would not have attempted what they have - in annexing Crimea and invading eastern Ukraine - unless they were sure they would get away with it.

Nobody is ever sure. They obviously believed they would get away with it enough to take the risk. In Crimea they were right. In the Eastern Ukraine maybe not so right, remains to be seen.

Putin correctly assessed the US ability to influence the EU to the extent of presenting a unified front against the aggressor is a thing of the past.

A thing of the past? What past is that? When has the US ever had the power to dictate policy to Europe? If a "united front" is dictated by one party, it's not a united front. The united front of the cold war, to the extent that it existed, was not dictated by US influence, it was there because the US and Europe had similar perceptions of the threat and how it could be countered.

Putin correctly believed that if he grabbed Crimea fast enough he could impose a fait accomplii before the US and the EU could work through their disparate agendas and come up with a response. That worked for him. In the Eastern Ukraine he apparently believed that he could get the same result gradually, through proxies. That doesn't seem to be working out so well.

While the incremental sanctions may be having some effect as they are increased they are a day late and a dollar short in preventing the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of eastern Ukraine (and the shooting down of a commercial airliner). That I suggest how the reaction to Russian actions should be assessed. Will they lead to the restoration of the pre-invasion status quo with appropriate reparations?

We have no way of knowing if any alternative policy would have prevented any of these things. Assessing what might have been is at best speculative, especially when nobody seems willing to say what would have been a better (and realistically practical) course of action.

I don't think it's likely that the status quo ante will be restored in any exact way. Whether or not the new status quo favors Russia remains to be seen. If they gain Crimea but see the rest of the Ukraine end up in firmly pro-Western hands that is hardly a win.

Once this has been achieved steps should be talken to ensure Russia is in no position to repeat this terriorial aggression ever again.

What do you think those steps should be?

[OUTLAW 09]

And that's the fundamental problem coursing through this thread; there's a dissonance between the idea that Russia is a third-rate country that can be pushed around and that Russia a major threat to U.S. security.

See AP you use the term third rate when I use the term second rate "developing" country offering nothing more than two raw resources.

A superpower that can only respond to the EU/US sanctions with what a "blockade of US fruits, grains, vegetables" is what a "superpower"---did you know that after that announcement was made food prices for the "common Russian" jumped 45% in one day---wow what a superpower as Putin stated the day before his "sanctions" were not going to hit the common man in the street---guess what another of his many lies these past five months. Really AP if you believe what is coming out of Moscow and Putin then I can probably sell you prime real estate ie a vineyard in the Crimea.

See AP a rouge country having and threatening the use of nuclear weapons and yes in the early stages of the Crimea nuclear threats were in fact issued by members of the Duma

---I call that rouge my friend regardless of how you define it.

[mirhond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLr77KgJXWA

102 conscripts deserted in Zhitomirskaya oblast' (Central Ukraine)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX0B-3mGALQ

Over 400 Ukrainian soldiers deserted into Russian territory, 130 have returned to Ukraine, the rest stay, afraid of punishment for desertion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQNaeDsYmjw

Ukrainian officer: Generals betrayed us, left to die, to save my guys I brought them to Russia.

[AmericanPride]

The SBU is indicating that the Russian crew got the Ukrainian town names wrong and placed itself in the MH17 flight path not that town which was directly under the Aeroflot flight.

I'm going to need more than the word of a Ukrainian intelligence officer to believe that Russia intended to shoot down an Aeroflot flight in order to justify direct military intervention. (1) Why wasn't this report disclosed earlier? (2) Why would Moscow contrive this justification so late in the game when the Donetsk referendum provided sufficient political cover for occupation?

because actually when you look at their assistance it is almost always against anything we do in those hotspots to include now the latest agreements with Iran?

As I've stated previously, this is the spoiler strategy that Russia is pursuing in its foreign policy.

The problem here is that "Russian security interests in Europe" seem to require an allied or at least neutral Ukraine, and short of outright conquest that no longer appears to be achievable.

I agree with this. The collapse of the Yanukovych government upset the apple cart and now everyone is scurrying to pick up as much fruit as possible.