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

[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.

[JMA]

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.

Slap the news is all bad...

Carl says wait for 2017... but if the head is used more than the heart it will be 2024 - after two terms of Hillary.

By then it will be all over for the US as a super power.

[AmericanPride]

Carl says wait for 2017... but if the head is used more than the heart it will be 2024 - after two terms of Hillary.

By then it will be all over for the US as a super power.

The U.S. remains far ahead of any (near) peer competitor in both economic performance and military capabilities. That won't change over the next ten years. America's first rank superpower status is not at risk any time soon - what's changing is that other countries are approaching super-power status and they're not particularly pleased with the structure of the international system. This is made evidently clear by Russia's intervention in Ukraine. Just because the U.S. does not have the hegemonic power to unilaterally dictate terms to all other states does not mean the U.S. is not (or no longer) a super-power.

[OUTLAW 09]

The U.S. remains far ahead of any (near) peer competitor in both economic performance and military capabilities. That won't change over the next ten years. America's first rank superpower status is not at risk any time soon - what's changing is that other countries are approaching super-power status and they're not particularly pleased with the structure of the international system. This is made evidently clear by Russia's intervention in Ukraine. Just because the U.S. does not have the hegemonic power to unilaterally dictate terms to all other states does not mean the U.S. is not (or no longer) a super-power.

AP--you really believe that the US is not a declining power?

[JMA]

You don't get it do you?

Yes the US has military and economic power and probably will maintain its position in this regard... but what the US have already lost and which will never be regained is the moral stature of a super power acting for the 'good'.

It is the likes of your generation AP, who have squandered the legacy and sacrifice of your Greatest Generation and taken the US not to the next level of greatness but rather an unprecedented level of arrogance.

The U.S. remains far ahead of any (near) peer competitor in both economic performance and military capabilities. That won't change over the next ten years. America's first rank superpower status is not at risk any time soon - what's changing is that other countries are approaching super-power status and they're not particularly pleased with the structure of the international system. This is made evidently clear by Russia's intervention in Ukraine. Just because the U.S. does not have the hegemonic power to unilaterally dictate terms to all other states does not mean the U.S. is not (or no longer) a super-power.

[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]

dayuhan/AP---here is where the conversation gets sidetracked deliberately most of the time by AP on the term rouge.

I stated a number of times use the somewhat simiplied term rouge state as defined by Wikipedia as a basis and then expand or reduce in the debate.

There are three core reasons that must be filled in order to be defined a rouge state---and I do not use it in the neo con way.

If you then look at the definition and one notices that word WMD is used as one of the three reasons I would and have argued the shooting down of a civilian airliner and killing 298 with a SAM is in fact the usage of WMD---just as the random shelling of civilian targets by the Russian irregulars via the BM21 and 27s are also in fact the reflect the use of WMD.

This is where JMA is coming from and I have actually shifted to the same view after watching Putin the last six months.

Had the west gone immediately to the sanctions that were just handed out Putin would have side stepped and stopped as it has shown him that yes even the west is willing to be hurt economically in the process.

But by dragging it out and appearing indecisive Putin continued on---and that is where JMA is coming from--there was absolutely no decisive actions taken by the EU nor for that matter Obama and company.

The only one who saw the West's weakness's but was then throttled back by the WH was the NATO Commander Breedlove who called it exactly right straight from the beginning.

See Putin thought the response by the West to the Crimea was weak, he believed there would be far more support from his fellow Ukrainian Russians than actually did occur and he made the fatal mistake of really believing his own propaganda so in the end he has to move on the Ukraine as he literally maneuvered himself into a corner and has been unwilling to accept the exit shown him six different times by both the EU and the US.

The world I am afraid at least in power politics is still defined by perceptions and in the case of Putin's his perceptions are running counter to reality.

So whether you or AP like the word rouge that is exactly what the actions being taken by Putin really reflect.

By the way so me based on the Wikipedia rouge definition just how many more countries could you name using that definition-none--Dayuhan you are wrong on the comment and thus this is why these comments from you and AP go nowhere.

I would argue Putin totally miscalculated and had no Plan B thus invasion is fast becoming his Plan B if he wants to be reelected.

If you had access to Russian media and spoke Russian you would have been amazed at the outpouring of comments yesterday in Russia simply saying we need to protect even with the Army our fellow Russians in the Ukraine---sound vaguely similar to the Crimea?

So much for Putin's view that Russia also protects Slavs.

[Dayuhan]

dayuhan/AP---here is where the conversation gets sidetracked deliberately most of the time by AP on the term rouge.

The term is rogue. R-o-g-u-e rogue. Rouge is a sort of make-up. I know it's petty but seeing the word misspelled 50 times a day is making the copy editor in my brain a little crazy, and if you're going to use it that often you might as well spell it right.

I stated a number of times use the somewhat simiplied term rouge state as defined by Wikipedia as a basis and then expand or reduce in the debate.

There are three core reasons that must be filled in order to be defined a rouge state---and I do not use it in the neo con way.

My question was whether the use of the term actually gets you anywhere in terms of defining responses. Whether rogue or not-rogue, Putin appears to have specific goals and to have calculated that the benefits of pursuing those goals will exceed the cost. He may be rogue. He may be wrong in his calculations. He is not crazy or irrational.

The problem the US and the West face is how to change that calculation without making an even larger mess. If the term "rogue" doesn't help in defining a response, it's not worth arguing over... or misspelling.

Had the west gone immediately to the sanctions that were just handed out Putin would have side stepped and stopped as it has shown him that yes even the west is willing to be hurt economically in the process.

But by dragging it out and appearing indecisive Putin continued on---and that is where JMA is coming from--there was absolutely no decisive actions taken by the EU nor for that matter Obama and company.

Possibly... we have no way of knowing what would have happened in any hypothetical scenario. It doesn't really matter, because the nature of a coalition of peers is that it takes time to negotiate a response that's suitable to all parties. Peer coalitions do have certain advantages, but speed of action and rapid decision making in anything but a major threat situation are not among them. As Putin astutely recognized, there was never going to be a rapid decisive coordinated response. If he assumed that there would never be a coordinated response, he may have been wrong, but he was right in assuming there wouldn't be a rapid one.

It is quite useless to speculate on what might have happened if the US and the EU had produced a rapid, decisive, and fully coordinated response, because it was never going to happen from the start. That's not a consequence of eroding US power, it's just the nature of the US/EU relationship.

By the way so me based on the Wikipedia rouge definition just how many more countries could you name using that definition-none--Dayuhan you are wrong on the comment and thus this is why these comments from you and AP go nowhere.

It was meant as a mildly amusing way of pointing out a persistent spelling error. The definition is of course quite correct, given the spelling.

I would argue Putin totally miscalculated and had no Plan B thus invasion is fast becoming his Plan B if he wants to be reelected.

On this I agree... the question is what can be done to adjust his calculations of cost and benefit I've already pointed out one possibility: for the Ukrainians to offer a cease-fire, amnesty, and a degree of autonomy as a way of pulling the rug out from any claim that peacekeeping forces are necessary. I don't think that's an ideal solution by any means, but if the Ukrainialn forces move into urban areas to root out the separatists it's going to be an engraved invitation to Putin for an invasion under the guise of peacekeeping. Better to not hand them the invitation.

Again, though, the US can only recommend that: I don't think the Ukrainians are taking orders from the US or EU on this.

If you have specific suggestions for what the US, EU, or Ukraine might do at this point to move things toward a better outcome, I'd love to hear them.

If you had access to Russian media and spoke Russian you would have been amazed at the outpouring of comments yesterday in Russia simply saying we need to protect even with the Army our fellow Russians in the Ukraine---sound vaguely similar to the Crimea?

That doesn't surprise me at all. The question is how long those sentiments would remain if things don't go according to plan. The US public was all fired up about the Iraq war early on when things were going their way. Didn't last very long.

[AmericanPride]

If you then look at the definition and one notices that word WMD is used as one of the three reasons I would and have argued the shooting down of a civilian airliner and killing 298 with a SAM is in fact the usage of WMD---just as the random shelling of civilian targets by the Russian irregulars via the BM21 and 27s are also in fact the reflect the use of WMD.

And... I addressed this by raising questions about the implications of classifying conventional weapon systems as "weapons of mass destruction". So - the next time a U.S. drone kills dozens of people in a wedding party, or a U.S. warship downs a civilian airliner, will you argue that the U.S. is a 'rogue' country recklessly using weapons of mass destruction?

On this I agree... the question is what can be done to adjust his calculations of cost and benefit I've already pointed out one possibility: for the Ukrainians to offer a cease-fire, amnesty, and a degree of autonomy as a way of pulling the rug out from any claim that peacekeeping forces are necessary. I don't think that's an ideal solution by any means, but if the Ukrainialn forces move into urban areas to root out the separatists it's going to be an engraved invitation to Putin for an invasion under the guise of peacekeeping. Better to not hand them the invitation.

At this point, this is probably the most realistic outcome with the highest possibility of restoring stability in the region. Kiev needs to find a way to reintegrate the opposition into the political process - that will isolate the radicals and undermine Russian justifications for intervention. What does Ukraine's political landscape look like if it exterminates the armed opposition?

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

Is that like U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo calling for the nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina during the GWoT? There are reckless blowhards in every country. So - if we accept your argument that Russia is a rogue, reckless, criminal, irrational country carelessly throwing around threats of nuclear weapons, why is your proposed response to further provoke it? If there's no connection between the country's interests and its behavior, how can you be certain that escalated sanctions or increased U.S. military presence in eastern Europe won't be met with a nuclear first strike? The very ideas of deterrence and sanctions are premised on the assumption that the targeted state is a rational actor and will respond in a way desired by the other state(s).

[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.