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

[OUTLAW 09]

The strategy on Ukraine is pretty clear. Economic isolation of Russia in partnership with the EU. Rather you agree with that is another issue. However, what we are doing is clear.

BW---if in fact the strategy is as clear as muddy water then explain to me and the rest of the commenters---is in fact the sinking of naval vessels of one country by the air force of another country in territorial waters of the first country---is what an "incursion", a "vacation", an "invasion" or simply all out warfare---- what we in the West would if not using a really thick dictionary---simply "war".

If after watching this YouTube video of the attack and sinking by the Russian Air Force of two Ukrainian naval vessels---tell me and the other commenters---sanctions are working ....right?

And that is the great "strategy"?

#BREAKINGNEWS RUSSIAN AIR FORCE JETS ATTACK UKRAINIAN COAST GUARD SHIP NEAR #MARIUPOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9YlU06zu7s … pic.twitter.com/jkO4oNhrur

#Russia'n airstrikes destroyed
two #Ukraine coast guard vessels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjyLFg61UIA

BW---you cannot really believe that the current sanctions are working and they will cause Putin to what--- negotiate?

[OUTLAW 09]

BW--first Putin gives a TV interview clearly stating in the recorded event the term "New Russia and statehood", then his press manger pedals backwards as fast as he could denying it was said so , then the RIA rushes this statement into the media as fast as they could.

Again Putin does not make "slips of the tongue".

Really worth reading to understand the current Russian "altered state of reality".

CHELYABINSK, August 31 (RIA Novosti) – Russian President Vladimir Putin in his Sunday’s interview called for inclusive negotiations inside Ukraine, not granting statehood to Novorossiya, the union of Donetsk and Luhansk republics in the east of the country, the Russian leader’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

"The inclusive negotiations, which should determine the relationships [of Kiev] with eastern regions, that is, negotiations inside Ukraine on the internal Ukrainian order with respect for the interests of the country’s eastern regions, the interests of Novorossiya - the way, extent and mechanisms of this process. That’s what the president meant," Peskov said.

The Kremlin spokesperson added that giving some status to Novorossia was totally out of the question, which “becomes clear after reading the president’s statement.”

BUT both Putin and his press manager uses the tern "statehood".

“The president, as a matter of fact, was referring to the need of the inclusive talks, the earliest beginning of which had been emphasized way back in documents and signed in various formats, including the document signed by foreign ministers in Berlin,” Peskov added.

Earlier in the day, Putin talked about Ukraine in an interview with Russia’s Channel One television channel. The president called on Kiev to start substantial talks on deescalating the crisis in Ukraine, cease hostilities and start infrastructure rehabilitation works in southeastern regions to prevent winter deaths.

[OUTLAW 09]

Interesting comment by a Ukrainian blogger that is if one really thinks about it---correct and goes a long way in explaining the lack of action by the US, Germany, UK, France towards Russia.

The West disarmed #Ukraine via the Budapest Memorandum. Arming it now means admitting the failure of a 'liberal international order'.

Let's admit it--disarming the third strongest nuclear power behind the US and Russia was the actual driver for the Budapest Memo not the defense of the Ukrainian sovereignty. Kind of a typical Mafia move in eliminating a nuclear competitor.

The Germans are attempting to hang onto the NATO Russian Accord from 1997 thus their unwillingness to expand any NATO bases/forces eastwards and they fear the Reunification 4 plus 2 agreements to be in danger as well if they challenge Russia ---not to count the loss of business.

[OUTLAW 09]

Sometimes we need to go back and reread the commitments made by the three major signatories to the Budapest Memorandum that was signed by the US, UK and Russian with China and France committing to lesser points.

According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
1.Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2.Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3.Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4.Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5.Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6.Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

Since Russia has violated points 1, 2, 3, and they definitely did not consult with the other signatories prior to annexing the Crimea and marching troops and heavy weapons into eastern and southern Ukraine.

I ask again why then the massive reluctance to call Russia's action not an "invasion" and why not even harder sanctions independent of the EU which did not sign the Memorandum?

Notice this:

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated as a political agreement. It refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee of intervention.

So in fact Obama has indicated no US troops are to be involved---but when the Ukraine needs weapons, intel, and trainers in order to defend themselves using their own troops---why then does the US refrain and tap dance on weapons/intel deliveries while at the same time driving to get weapons into Iraq which the last time I checked the IS is not a strategic threat.

What ---fear of triggering Putin---from his actions he does not seem to care what is done as long as he achieves his defined end state---a "New Russia", a weakening of the Ukraine, pulling the Ukraine back into the EEC, the splitting of the US from the EU, the defeat of perceived decadent liberal Western values, and the weakening of NATO.

Seems like Russia has delivered weapons, fighters/military personnel, and money in to the Ukraine in effect placing themselves in violation of the agreements and the West is what to do what--refrain?

Since Putin has achieved his medium goals of getting Russian boots on the ground inside the Ukraine as he did in Georgia and Moldavia---just what is he going to give up via negotiations? They are still negotiating in Georgia and Moldavia the last time I checked and it has been six years and still nothing?

Well it took 45 years for the Wall to come down--- maybe in another 45 years the Ukraine issue might be resolved and the Wall coming-- took no negotiations.

[BrentWilliams]

BW--first Putin gives a TV interview clearly stating in the recorded event the term "New Russia and statehood", then his press manger pedals backwards as fast as he could denying it was said so , then the RIA rushes this statement into the media as fast as they could.

Again Putin does not make "slips of the tongue".

Really worth reading to understand the current Russian "altered state of reality".

CHELYABINSK, August 31 (RIA Novosti) – Russian President Vladimir Putin in his Sunday’s interview called for inclusive negotiations inside Ukraine, not granting statehood to Novorossiya, the union of Donetsk and Luhansk republics in the east of the country, the Russian leader’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

"The inclusive negotiations, which should determine the relationships [of Kiev] with eastern regions, that is, negotiations inside Ukraine on the internal Ukrainian order with respect for the interests of the country’s eastern regions, the interests of Novorossiya - the way, extent and mechanisms of this process. That’s what the president meant," Peskov said.

The Kremlin spokesperson added that giving some status to Novorossia was totally out of the question, which “becomes clear after reading the president’s statement.”

BUT both Putin and his press manager uses the tern "statehood".

“The president, as a matter of fact, was referring to the need of the inclusive talks, the earliest beginning of which had been emphasized way back in documents and signed in various formats, including the document signed by foreign ministers in Berlin,” Peskov added.

Earlier in the day, Putin talked about Ukraine in an interview with Russia’s Channel One television channel. The president called on Kiev to start substantial talks on deescalating the crisis in Ukraine, cease hostilities and start infrastructure rehabilitation works in southeastern regions to prevent winter deaths.

Putin's goal isn't the issue. His policy goal has always been pretty clear. His methods are terrible. It is a lesson in how to maximaze damage to oneself. Whatever the result from this, Russia is still a weaker state once it is all done.

[OUTLAW 09]

Putin's goal isn't the issue. His policy goal has always been pretty clear. His methods are terrible. It is a lesson in how to maximaze damage to oneself. Whatever the result from this, Russia is still a weaker state once it is all done.

BW--again you miss the mark---what Putin has done starting a year or so before Crimea--he has implemented the new Russian military doctrine of UW in support to political warfare first in the Crimea which went rarely well for him and then in eastern and southern Ukraine which did not go so well.

Really reread the new eight phase doctrine and then come back and let me know exactly what phase he is in and you will see he is not stumbling and bumbling along.

Now the doctrine what I first called here as the Putin Doctrine and so commenters did not like it and now an accepted term has been written first in their own internal articles, then exercised and then implemented---so from his point of view he has been rather successful if you ask me.
The only way now to stop the Putin Doctrine from ever occurring again is in fact to stop it and if sanctions do not work then one steps up the leverage next being the supplying of weapons and heavy equipment and if that does not work then on to actual force.

Putin is his school interview basically stated he is going to expand the Putin doctrine to Kazahkstan--which pushed back immediately.

See right now the world only "hears" words from the US/NATO/EU but sees no "actions"---therein lies the big mistake for actions always speak louder than words.

[OUTLAW 09]

Petrov---here is a perfect example of the Russian "altered state of reality"---read closely comrade.


Russia has a history of offering humanitarian corridors to troops and then ambushing and killing of them---check Petrov your own history before you rant here.

Ukrainian statement to the shooting at the "humanitarian corridor killing even captured Russian soldiers---notice Petrov "captured Russian soldiers".

In the convoy of the ATO Forces, which was cowardly shot at by Russian troops during the passage by the so-called «humanitarian corridor», were dozens of captured Russian paratroopers. Some soldiers were killed during the shelling. An aide of the governor of the Dnipropetrivsk region Boris Filatov wrote about this on his Facebook page.

«Russians gave a word of the officer that they will let them pass. But started to fire. The point is not even in the word. There were dozens of captured Russian paratroopers in our convoy, some were wounded. They were also killed. Russia, you can continue to be silent,» — he wrote.

Filatov assures that there were no militants in the area where the convoy was passing, there was only Russian army there.

Russian Foreign Ministry statement to events in the "humanitarian corridor".

© AP Photo/ Sergei Grits

Kiev Reluctance to Use Humanitarian Corridors Shows How They Value Soldiers Lives - Moscow

By refusing to use humanitarian corridors in eastern Ukraine, Kiev authorities showed how they value lives of their soldiers, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s special representative for human rights, Konstantin Dolgov, said Sunday.

And that is not a Russian "altered state of reality"?

So if you cannot trust a Russian field commander how can one trust what Putin states?

[BrentWilliams]

BW--again you miss the mark---what Putin has done starting a year or so before Crimea--he has implemented the new Russian military doctrine of UW in support to political warfare first in the Crimea which went rarely well for him and then in eastern and southern Ukraine which did not go so well.

Really reread the new eight phase doctrine and then come back and let me know exactly what phase he is in and you will see he is not stumbling and bumbling along.

Now the doctrine what I first called here as the Putin Doctrine and so commenters did not like it and now an accepted term has been written first in their own internal articles, then exercised and then implemented---so from his point of view he has been rather successful if you ask me.
The only way now to stop the Putin Doctrine from ever occurring again is in fact to stop it and if sanctions do not work then one steps up the leverage next being the supplying of weapons and heavy equipment and if that does not work then on to actual force.

Putin is his school interview basically stated he is going to expand the Putin doctrine to Kazahkstan--which pushed back immediately.

See right now the world only "hears" words from the US/NATO/EU but sees no "actions"---therein lies the big mistake for actions always speak louder than words.

He has used a UW campaign. I agree with that. However, he has used it in a way that as been overt and dragged Europe into deeper economic sanctions that will have lasting harm on Russia. He is doing it in a way in which his objectives may not be attained and he has alienated the population of East Ukraine. He has put things on the table for the West, actual military aid, that I never thought would be.

This is for an objective he could have seized in a week and faced a few screams from the west?

[OUTLAW 09]

He has used a UW campaign. I agree with that. However, he has used it in a way that as been overt and dragged Europe into deeper economic sanctions that will have lasting harm on Russia. He is doing it in a way in which his objectives may not be attained and he has alienated the population of East Ukraine. He has put things on the table for the West, actual military aid, that I never thought would be.

This is for an objective he could have seized in a week and faced a few screams from the west?

BW---it is far deeper than UW--and by the way you did notice that the Russian soldiers are in fact defense contractors so therefore he can actually argue which he does "there are no Russian soldiers in the Ukraine"--notice no one asks the question well what about defense contractors---he would not answer it anyway as you will notice he does when the questions get to close to the reality.

By the way the use of defense contracting "companies" are part and parcel of his new UW strategy which was published for all to see and read in 2013.

This is an excellent article by the current Director of the Carnegie Center Moscow and goes to what he is calling the New Russian National Strategy going forward which is interesting if one matches it to the New Generation Warfare and the New Russian Nuclear Strategy from late 2012.

http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?i...ign=buffer#top

There is a paragraph that grabbed my attention like a red flag---Stalin once told a high level group of Soviet Communist Party members in 1939 after the German/Russian agreements---roughly the following---yes we will sign agreements and yes we will hold to them--BUT if it goes against us then we will ignore them.

Russia will also feel free to withdraw from international treaties and agreements if it concludes that they no longer serve its national interests. In particular, this may apply to the 1987 U.S.-Soviet Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which banned both countries from having a whole class of missile systems, but left the rest of the world free to arm itself with them. Likewise, Russian participation in the European Court of Human Rights is in danger: Moscow considers the court to be too politicized. Neither decision has been taken yet, but warnings have been served. Note: right after the US pointed out the Russian INF violation they complained 1) the accusations should have been in private and not for the world to hear and 2) a top active duty Russian General stated the treaty does us no good---let's simply leave it.

Russia joined all these international organizations to in fact defend themselves and to use them for their own benefit but has since the Crimea they have seen that they can be used against them---ie the Yukos decision, the pending decision in Stockholm on Gazprom's Ukrainian gas price fixing and the lack of support from the WTO against the sanctions.

Read the paragraph---then the questions begs to be asked---what has changed inside Russia in 2014 that was not already there in 1939? Or is basically Russia just a continuation of the Soviet Union just under a new name?

[OUTLAW 09]

Interesting from NATO Commander---and still the US and others use the term "incursion":

According to NATO’s commanding General Philip Breedlove, Russia’s troops can seize southern and eastern Ukraine within three to five days


Lysenko in Kiev: "According to our data, there are no fewer than four (Russian) battalion-tactical groups in #Ukraine." 400 men in each.

[BrentWilliams]

BW---it is far deeper than UW--and by the way you did notice that the Russian soldiers are in fact defense contractors so therefore he can actually argue which he does "there are no Russian soldiers in the Ukraine"--notice no one asks the question well what about defense contractors---he would not answer it anyway as you will notice he does when the questions get to close to the reality.

By the way the use of defense contracting "companies" are part and parcel of his new UW strategy which was published for all to see and read in 2013.

This is an excellent article by the current Director of the Carnegie Center Moscow and goes to what he is calling the New Russian National Strategy going forward which is interesting if one matches it to the New Generation Warfare and the New Russian Nuclear Strategy from late 2012.

http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?i...ign=buffer#top

There is a paragraph that grabbed my attention like a red flag---Stalin once told a high level group of Soviet Communist Party members in 1939 after the German/Russian agreements---roughly the following---yes we will sign agreements and yes we will hold to them--BUT if it goes against us then we will ignore them.

Russia will also feel free to withdraw from international treaties and agreements if it concludes that they no longer serve its national interests. In particular, this may apply to the 1987 U.S.-Soviet Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which banned both countries from having a whole class of missile systems, but left the rest of the world free to arm itself with them. Likewise, Russian participation in the European Court of Human Rights is in danger: Moscow considers the court to be too politicized. Neither decision has been taken yet, but warnings have been served. Note: right after the US pointed out the Russian INF violation they complained 1) the accusations should have been in private and not for the world to hear and 2) a top active duty Russian General stated the treaty does us no good---let's simply leave it.

Russia joined all these international organizations to in fact defend themselves and to use them for their own benefit but has since the Crimea they have seen that they can be used against them---ie the Yukos decision, the pending decision in Stockholm on Gazprom's Ukrainian gas price fixing and the lack of support from the WTO against the sanctions.

Read the paragraph---then the questions begs to be asked---what has changed inside Russia in 2014 that was not already there in 1939? Or is basically Russia just a continuation of the Soviet Union just under a new name?

What has he gained from a strategy of deniability that no one actually believes? What would have been the result of simply seizing Eastern Ukraine and Crimea when this started?

[BrentWilliams]

BW---if in fact the strategy is as clear as muddy water then explain to me and the rest of the commenters---is in fact the sinking of naval vessels of one country by the air force of another country in territorial waters of the first country---is what an "incursion", a "vacation", an "invasion" or simply all out warfare---- what we in the West would if not using a really thick dictionary---simply "war".

If after watching this YouTube video of the attack and sinking by the Russian Air Force of two Ukrainian naval vessels---tell me and the other commenters---sanctions are working ....right?

And that is the great "strategy"?

#BREAKINGNEWS RUSSIAN AIR FORCE JETS ATTACK UKRAINIAN COAST GUARD SHIP NEAR #MARIUPOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9YlU06zu7s … pic.twitter.com/jkO4oNhrur

#Russia'n airstrikes destroyed
two #Ukraine coast guard vessels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjyLFg61UIA

BW---you cannot really believe that the current sanctions are working and they will cause Putin to what--- negotiate?

Calling it not an invasion doesn't mean we don't have a strategy. It means that we are trying to allow Russia the ability to walk this back. Disagreement with a strategy is not the same thing as not having one.

[OUTLAW 09]

Calling it not an invasion doesn't mean we don't have a strategy. It means that we are trying to allow Russia the ability to walk this back. Disagreement with a strategy is not the same thing as not having one.

BW--like your thoughts but you tend to overlook the oblivious.

I have counted using both the EU and US offers roughly six different "off ramps" and "three trial balloons solutions" in order to "help" Putin "save face" or "find an exit".

Have you seen him take those offers--if in fact he was even interested--I for one have not.

One of the remaining serious Russian political scientists with a following in the West stated today in Moscow---Putin has made a clear decision and that is to create the "New Russia"---end of story

In fact the more the West offers in "face saving" the more he doubles down -ie four major aggressive political statements in less than four days all of which are aggressive in tone/word and focused against the Ukraine, the West, and Kazakhstan.

Does that sound like he really wants "an off ramp"?

Again go back and reread his New Generation Warfare and do the same for the topic "political warfare" and you will see where he is coming from---he is definitely not looking for "an off ramp".

If anything it is the US.EU/NATO trying desperately to "find the off ramp" before they have to truly get serious about his aggression in central Europe.

Come on BW---ego or serious threat when Putin tells the EU President he can be in Kiev in two weeks?

I would modify the Russian stance "of it ain't me" sending troops money and mercenaries into the Ukraine to "it ain't about my ego or me not understanding my own strategy".

This is the difference between Putin and say the entire West right now---he has a strategy with an end state and he is executing it to a T---the West has absolutely nothing and that includes this current President and sanctions in itself does not a strategy make.

[BrentWilliams]

BW--like your thoughts but you tend to overlook the oblivious.

I have counted using both the EU and US offers roughly six different "off ramps" and "three trial balloons solutions" in order to "help" Putin "save face" or "find an exit".

Have you seen him take those offers--if in fact he was even interested--I for one have not.

One of the remaining serious Russian political scientists with a following in the West stated today in Moscow---Putin has made a clear decision and that is to create the "New Russia"---end of story

In fact the more the West offers in "face saving" the more he doubles down -ie four major aggressive political statements in less than four days all of which are aggressive in tone/word and focused against the Ukraine, the West, and Kazakhstan.

Does that sound like he really wants "an off ramp"?

Again go back and reread his New Generation Warfare and do the same for the topic "political warfare" and you will see where he is coming from---he is definitely not looking for "an off ramp".

If anything it is the US.EU/NATO trying desperately to "find the off ramp" before they have to truly get serious about his aggression in central Europe.

Come on BW---ego or serious threat when Putin tells the EU President he can be in Kiev in two weeks?

I would modify the Russian stance "of it ain't me" sending troops money and mercenaries into the Ukraine to "it ain't about my ego or me not understanding my own strategy".

This is the difference between Putin and say the entire West right now---he has a strategy with an end state and he is executing it to a T---the West has absolutely nothing and that includes this current President and sanctions in itself does not a strategy make.

I don't think he wants an off ramp, but if your key constraint is Europe, it doesn't hurt any to say that. It allows Europe to build a consensus. And rather he gains "new Russia" or not, an economically isolated Russia is not a threat to Europe or the United States. It is more of a threat to Putin. Maintaining and training a modern military requires a modern economy.