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

[JMA]

An interesting article in light that the large number of videos hitting the web indicating large numbers of Russian tanks, SAM10s, APC, GRADS and artillery have been crossings since 29 Jul coupled with Russian soldiers blogging from inside the Ukraine.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-invasion.html

Outlaw, once again for the US and the EU to accept that what is happening in eastern Ukraine is a Russian invasion would require a response. No balls for that in those places.

[OUTLAW 09]

JMA---fully agree--that is why I have said at the beginning of the Crimea event here in SWJ--the US should have called out the Russian INF violation as well as the failure to disarm under OSCE agreements.

Only now are they calling it out--still though not on the OSCE violations.

A solid read on the Russian INF issue. The article is interesting when one goes back and reads up on the new Russian nuclear doctrine since about 2012.


http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...r-11001?page=2

[Firn]

@JMA: I think those in question are mostly those with some German background whose ancestors, called by the Tzars, emigrated a long time ago to settle down in Russia. Germans made arguably the biggest contribuition to the Russian economy, culture and military in the last centuries of all other ethnic groups. The 'right to return' was very attractive to escape the economic ruin and political prosecution in their homelands, 3 millions used that possiblity from 1988 onwards.

Certainly a huge demographic gain for Germany, especially since the intergration was relatively easy. At most three out of so many isn't much.

[AmericanPride]

Unraveling US-Russian relations from New York Times:

Now, both sides are slipping back toward habits reminiscent of the Cold War. The joint atomic projects have declined substantially. Last week, Washington accused Moscow of violating a major arms treaty on missile technology. After the negotiation of the modest New Start treaty in 2010, progress toward another round of nuclear warhead reductions is dead in the water and unlikely to be revived during President Obama’s term in office.

Even though I've asked JMA and Outlaw repeatedly to what extent does the U.S. pursue the Ukraine issue at the expense of a functional relationship with Russia, I've yet to receive an answer. Ukraine is one part of a larger picture - what do we want that larger picture to look like?

[OUTLAW 09]

AP---here is the hole in your Russia/US thoughts that an aircraft carrier can maneuver through.

Right now Russia operates on a two track process; 1) one track is the maintaining of legally binding business agreements which they hold to even if they go over the cliff and 2) they "use" to hold to signed international treaties/agreements and or memorandums signed since 1994.

I have probably as none on this thread have--- worked closely with the Russian Peacekeeping Brigade Staff/Russia National Military Academy and one of their BNs during to two major command/staff exercises in 2012 and 2013 and wrote together with the Russians a joint Brigade operations concept together with the related joint reporting concepts. Hours and hours of massive negotiations in four days over sometimes the definitions of single words.

By the way I was the first here in SWJ to state cut all joint military planning, exercises and joint education programs---immediately which was done by DoD.

At the end of the planning sessions a joint PowerPoint briefing would be signed and that established for the Russians an "agreement" that they would hold to during any future meetings and if we changed something then they would wave the "signed agreement" and conduct what I would state was subtle pressure on us to come back to the "agreement".

So you see they place "great faith" in agreements so why have they been since 2012 constantly violating them?

Back to their holding to signed agreements since 1994---the current hardliners as well as Putin are adamant in overturning all signed agreements since 94 as they view those agreements to have been pushed on a "weak" Russia and not fitting for a superpower.

If you actually go back and really seriously look at Putin's actions on each and every previously signed agreement he has either violated them , side stepped them, ignored them or demanded they be renegotiated.

Since 2008---the INF, the Memorandum on the Ukraine, the OSCE disarmament agreements, invaded Georgia, and Moldavia taken the Crimea and entered into eastern Ukraine. So AP what your call that track record?---a friendly inclined nice to work with country or simply a rouge country which ignores all agreements and one who does not care what the world thinks?

Now not knowing what world you come from but that defines a rouge country if you finally go back to the Wikipedia definition that I asked you to accept and if not then modify.

So why if a rouge country is not accepting international agreements, annexes territory when the rest of Europe has since 1994 moved on and actually shells and crosses troops into the Ukraine which some would call an invasion in any language.

Now explain to me how you would treat a rouge country as shown above other than through isolation until such time as the current leadership either wakes up and or continues on the path.

What would you have as a functional relationship with a country that is basically a developing second world country which has two raw resources and nuclear weapons -- while claiming they can assist us in the international world problems such as Syria where they even blocked humanitarian assistance, Iran, and North Korea---what as been achieved with Russia assistance---exactly just what agreements have come out of Russian assistance?

Did you read the INF article I posted and have you read the new Russian nuclear doctrine since 2012?---Now explain to me if the Russian leadership "sounds" normal in their view of the world?

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--one of the core Russia/Putin arguments is that Russia has nothing to do with the separatists/irregulars and now called independence fighters AND they adamantly had nothing to do with the shot down.

They have almost an alternative state of reality with this argument and they have not come off of it.

Then this link---which again disproves this argument as have countless other evidence and yet Putin holds to it---so a rouge country or a sane, clear thinking states or a bumbling country?

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?cHa...3#.U95lQWDlrIX

[AmericanPride]

So you see they place "great faith" in agreements so why have they been since 2012 constantly violating them?

Probably because the favorable conditions under which those agreements were made are no longer present.

Back to their holding to signed agreements since 1994---the current hardliners as well as Putin are adamant in overturning all signed agreements since 94 as they view those agreements to have been pushed on a "weak" Russia and not fitting for a superpower.

And this has already been discussed at length. Again - if Russia has the means (renewed capabilities), motive (desirous of restoring its superpower status), and opportunity (Georgia, Ukraine, et. al), how is Russia's behavior irrational? Even in your own comments you recognize that these conditions for exist yet you insist that somehow Russia's behavior cannot be understood.

a friendly inclined nice to work with country or simply a rouge country which ignores all agreements and one who does not care what the world thinks?

Those are the only two options in diplomacy? Either a country is friendly with us or it is a rogue country? Who again is making the irrational statements? By the way - if "[ignoring] all agreements" and "not [caring] what the world thinks" constitute a 'rogue country', you should add the U.S. to your list. That's the problem with your descriptions of Russia's behavior; it does not establish how Russia's behavior is uniquely objectionable or irrational, nor puts it in the proper context of the international system.

Now explain to me how you would treat a rouge country as shown above other than through isolation until such time as the current leadership either wakes up and or continues on the path.

Russia is not a "rogue" country. The strong do what they can - and Russia's strength is obviously higher than many people anticipated. I do not think it's wise policy to fixate on one issue at the expense of all others. Is Ukraine's territorial integrity the highest U.S. security interest? If not - then there's a limit to which this should be pursued. I've asked you to identify the extent that the U.S. should chase this issue and you haven't answered. Is that because you don't have a clear end-state in mind?

What would you have as a functional relationship with a country that is basically a developing second world country which has two raw resources and nuclear weapons -- while claiming they can assist us in the international world problems such as Syria where they even blocked humanitarian assistance, Iran, and North Korea---what as been achieved with Russia assistance---exactly just what agreements have come out of Russian assistance?

Here's a few: denuclearization of post-Soviet states; building a functional counter-proliferation regime; mutual reduction of nuclear weapons; supplying NATO forces in Afghanistan; Russian ascension to WTO; and other technical agreements in education, science, and space. So - if as you claim that Russia is "basically a developing second world country", why are you hyping it is a major security threat? There's an underlying contradiction in your argument that you have not resolved.

They have almost an alternative state of reality with this argument and they have not come off of it.

It's generally a good idea to take official pronouncements at face value, Russian or others. It sounds like you believe their propaganda more than they do. It's no more absurd than U.S. State spokesman trying to support/not support the coup/not-a-coup in Egypt. It has to be said because it's political - not because anyone actually believes it.

It may be true that Russian confidence and relative capacity is growing, but Russian influence is not. If the Ukraine emerges from this with a firmly pro-western regime (with or without Crimea and Donetsk), Putin's only ally on his western border will be the consummate loose cannon that is Lukashenko. Sooner or later he will fall (they all do) and who knows what happens then? Assad may well remain in power, but Syria will be a broken state and as much liability as asset for Putin for years to come. Chinese influence is growing in the 'Stans. Worldwide, nations that find themselves out of favor in the West are increasingly looking to China, rather than Russia, for support and leadership. It's difficult to argue that Russia is in any way ascendant in the global influence derby. Who do they influence?

That's part of the problem. There's a disparity between Russia's capabilities and desired status with its ascribed status. That gap creates insecurity and frames policy.