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

[AmericanPride]

AP---seeing how you never seem to have your own opinions

Given your relentless 'coverage' of Putin's information campaign, I would have thought by now that you'd understand that repeating a falsehood incessantly does not make that falsehood true.

For example - here is my opinion on why focusing on the Russian stock market is problematic. By the way - how has the European market fared with the most recent sanctions?

Here's my opinion on the cause of the crisis. And my view on a viable political outcome. And my opinion on Russia's foreign policy drivers. And this page contains this post, another post, and this third one describing my views on Russia's intentions. And buried somewhere in these 99 pages are several posts in which I describe a possible political outcome to resolve Ukraine's political and economic crisis.

Think about it for a moment if Russia did not have nuclear weapons would we be really all that concerned?

I am all for far more financial sanctions ie cutting all abilities to get short term credit lines of 90 days are less and cutting the ability to deal in investment quality bonds issued by Russian companies and sovereign fund bonds as a start.

So your solutions it to plunge a nuclear power into economic chaos? Do you remember all the security concerns about loose nukes and rogue scientists selling their wares the last time Russia experienced an economic calamity? You know - with senior U.S. officials roaming the former Soviet Union inspecting WMD sites only to find stuff missing. Russia's control over its nuclear arsenal (and other WMD) is far weaker than many people realize and I do not think it's a useful policy to test the limits of that control under the conditions you wish to impose.

I am starting to suspect that your position is less concerned with Ukraine's territorial integrity and more with punishing Russia for diverting from your perception that it ought to stay within the nice political and moral lines you have drawn for it.

[OUTLAW 09]

Given your relentless 'coverage' of Putin's information campaign, I would have thought by now that you'd understand that repeating a falsehood incessantly does not make that falsehood true.

For example - here is my opinion on why focusing on the Russian stock market is problematic. By the way - how has the European market fared with the most recent sanctions?

Here's my opinion on the cause of the crisis. And my view on a viable political outcome. And my opinion on Russia's foreign policy drivers. And this page contains this post, another post, and this third one describing my views on Russia's intentions. And buried somewhere in these 99 pages are several posts in which I describe a possible political outcome to resolve Ukraine's political and economic crisis.





So your solutions it to plunge a nuclear power into economic chaos? Do you remember all the security concerns about loose nukes and rogue scientists selling their wares the last time Russia experienced an economic calamity? You know - with senior U.S. officials roaming the former Soviet Union inspecting WMD sites only to find stuff missing. Russia's control over its nuclear arsenal (and other WMD) is far weaker than many people realize and I do not think it's a useful policy to test the limits of that control under the conditions you wish to impose.

I am starting to suspect that your position is less concerned with Ukraine's territorial integrity and more with punishing Russia for diverting from your perception that it ought to stay within the nice political and moral lines you have drawn for it.

AP---see again you assume you know the former SU---are you actually proposing that Russia has not been actually in economic tumult since 1994---I would argue they never have come out of it especially since their economy has never moved past a state owned/run capitalist/corporate concept which never did die out.

Secondly have you again looked out the window and seen the "peacekeeping troops" parked within three kms from the Ukrainian border which first started out to be 4K and now is over 21K and you then tell me you think you are seeing a "friendly neighbor" who just "wants" to help---come on AP.

You are seeing a rouge state that once it goes down a particular path is incapable of pulling back in the face of reality.

We use to call that nationalism but that ell out of favor in the 70s.

Again AP outside of two raw resources and nuclear weapons what does Russia really offer the West outside of a hard time these days?

This is how crazy Russia is internally--the Office of Transportation threatened to deny western airlines the overflight rights across Russia to Asia WITHOUT understanding that Areoflot gets money for those flights and just the rumor of the cancellation sent Areoflot shares down 8% and then opens the Russian airlines to be denied any overflight rights basically parking all their aircraft on the ground.

Now AP does that sound like a sane government to you or a government out of control internally?

So again the question AP outside of oil and gas and that oil is slowly diminishing by 2020 what does Russia really offer the global market and the rest of the world?

Again AP you make countless comments--what would you personally suggest to Putin is his exit ramp?

Basically it sounds like you would simply give the entire Ukraine to him, and declare his arguments to be correct and heck why not give back the Baltics, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Poland as well as that is what his view of Russian nationalism is all about.---the recreation of the Soviet Empire as defined by Russian nationalists.

Come on AP post you suggestions to Putin---you know mine let's see yours?

Forgot---here is an article written about what Russia produces---author is heavy on the M17 helicopter thing but he forgot that the Russian M17s and most of their helicopters fly with Ukrainian engines.


We don’t think the president really meant it when he said the Russians don’t make anything. But we still came up with a few items—including those Mi-17 helicopters the Pentagon bought.During an interview this month with The Economist, President Obama made what seemed like an offhanded comment when asked about recent tensions with the Russian government over Ukraine and the failure of his administration’s “reset.”“Russia doesn’t make anything,” the president said. “Immigrants aren’t rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity…And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively regional challenges that Russia presents.”That comment is in line with previous Obama statements seeking to diminish the threat that Russia poses to the United States. “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors—not out of strength but out of weakness,” he said at a March press conference.Of course, the president wasn’t really saying the Russians make and export nothing; that’s obviously not true, though Russia’s manufacturing sector isn’t all that competitive internationally and is generally geared toward domestic consumption.But if only for the sake of adding to our general knowledge, here are a few things Russia does make and export:*Semi-finished iron *Diamonds *Chemical fertilizers *Sawn wood *Copper wire *Radioactive chemicalsHere’s something else Russia makes that Obama should be aware of: the dozens of Russian Mi-17 helicopters that the Pentagon bought for Afghanistan’s security forces, at a price of more than $1 billion. - See more at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article....86gohELw.dpuf

[AmericanPride]

are you actually proposing that Russia has not been actually in economic tumult since 1994---I would argue they never have come out of it especially since their economy has never moved past a state owned/run capitalist/corporate concept which never did die out.

The conditions of an economy (i.e. "in tumult") and the structure of an economy (i.e. "state owned") are two different things. By nearly all indicators of a healthy economy (e.g. GDP), the Russian economy has significantly improved since 1994, your bias notwithstanding.

Again AP outside of two raw resources and nuclear weapons what does Russia really offer the West outside of a hard time these days?

I've already answered this question.

Now AP does that sound like a sane government to you or a government out of control internally?

It sounds like bureaucracy.

So again the question AP outside of oil and gas and that oil is slowly diminishing by 2020 what does Russia really offer the global market and the rest of the world?

So a country needs to offer something to the "global market" for you to consider it a rational actor with clearly defined interests that should be considered when making policy towards said country?

Again AP you make countless comments--what would you personally suggest to Putin is his exit ramp?

I've already answered that question.

Basically it sounds like you would simply give the entire Ukraine to him, and declare his arguments to be correct and heck why not give back the Baltics, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Poland as well as that is what his view of Russian nationalism is all about.---the recreation of the Soviet Empire as defined by Russian nationalists.

Are you going to accuse me of being a Russian plant next? Anyway - you're confusing arguments here. Understanding Russia's arguments is not the same as accepting them. And if "simply [giving] the entire Ukraine to [Putin]" advanced U.S. security, it's not something I would dismiss from consideration (and to be clear in case you misinterpret my comments again, I don't think that 'solution' would advance U.S. or even Russian security).

I don't think "economic chaos" is the goal of sanctions, and it would take much more aggressive sanctions to even come close to that outcome. The goal appears to be more modest: to impose enough economic pain on the oligarchs that they will pressure Putin to revise his policies. Stretching that to "economic chaos" is somewhat over the top.

I agree - my comments were directed at Outlaw, who seems fixated on destroying Russia.

[JMA]

... - my comments were directed at Outlaw, who seems fixated on destroying Russia.

And what exactly is the problem with that?

Had the collapse of the Soviet Union been effectively managed this would not have happened. Bush #41 must take responsibility for that.

In the wake of the Crimea / Ukraine invasions certainly the plan must be to emasculate Russia to the extent that it can never again threaten neighbouring states.

How could that ever be achieved with the current Whitehouse and EU governments is the big question.

[AmericanPride]

And what exactly is the problem with that?

Oh let me count the ways... starting with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Had the collapse of the Soviet Union been effectively managed this would not have happened. Bush #41 must take responsibility for that.

The Bush administration did not want the collapse of the Soviet Union, recognizing all of the problems that would be unleashed. Events on the ground - the hardliner coup, Yeltsin's nationalism, etc - overtook policy. And how exactly would the U.S. have "effectively managed" the implosion of the USSR anyway? What does "effectively manage" actually mean in practice?

In the wake of the Crimea / Ukraine invasions certainly the plan must be to emasculate Russia to the extent that it can never again threaten neighbouring states.

Because that worked so well with the German Empire? How do you propose to "emasculate" a nuclear-armed country?

You have these broad, sweeping policy ideas but no detail on how it would actually be implemented.

How could that ever be achieved with the current Whitehouse and EU governments is the big question.

Whatever their faults, I trust they're smarter than to become involved in the "emasculation" of Russia (whatever that means).

[Dayuhan]

Come on AP post you suggestions to Putin---you know mine let's see yours?

I'd be more curious about your suggestions for Obama. We can all see what the Russians are doing... since you're the expert on the field here, what exactly do you think the US response should be?

Personally, I don't see many options beyond what's already being done: focus on economic pressure, work in concert with Europe as much as possible, and apply gradually escalating sanctions. Not ideal by any means, but who has a better (and realistic) proposal?

[JMA]

I'd be more curious about your suggestions for Obama. We can all see what the Russians are doing... since you're the expert on the field here, what exactly do you think the US response should be?

Personally, I don't see many options beyond what's already being done: focus on economic pressure, work in concert with Europe as much as possible, and apply gradually escalating sanctions. Not ideal by any means, but who has a better (and realistic) proposal?

One understands that US options are limited due to the reticence of EU countries to act - especially Germany - where some economic scrifice is required in so doing. But the US inability to 'influence' EU countries to act more decisively is an indication of the steady implosion of US power and influence... which Putin has realised and is exploiting.

All that said their is serious doubt that the US would have acted decisively anyway. Obama has serious limitations but when one looks at Kerry one can only be horrified how close it was that he became president. Anyone watching China?

[Dayuhan]

One understands that US options are limited due to the reticence of EU countries to act - especially Germany - where some economic scrifice is required in so doing. But the US inability to 'influence' EU countries to act more decisively is an indication of the steady implosion of US power and influence... which Putin has realised and is exploiting.

Does that really represent an "implosion of US power and influence"? Has there ever been a time when the US could simply compel Europe to accept US-dictated policies that the Europeans do not believe are in accordance with their interests? What Putin is exploiting is less an implosion of US power than a simple divergence of perceived US and European interests. That's actually not working out very well for Putin, as decision to introduce graduated sanctions in graduated steps does seem to be bringing the Europeans on board to some extent. How far they will be willing to go is of course another question, but reaching for too much too soon would have almost certainly left the US with no support at all.

As Outlaw has pointed out, this is not going Putin's way. His proxies are failing, and he's stuck with a choice between walking away and betraying them or going with a direct intervention with potentially catastrophic consequences for his own economy and for the support he receives from the oligarchs. The oligarchs may be afraid to openly challenge him, but that doesn't mean they can't make their disapproval felt. I don't see how assertive US action is needed at this point.

All that said their is serious doubt that the US would have acted decisively anyway. Obama has serious limitations but when one looks at Kerry one can only be horrified how close it was that he became president. Anyone watching China?

That would depend largely on whether or not there was an opportunity for decisive action that was likely to accomplish anything positive. If decisive action is poorly thought through it can do more harm than good. I watch China all the time, being in the neighborhood, and I don't see much of an opening for decisive US action that would also be productive.

[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.

[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.