Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Fuchs]

Fuchs, I was used to your good habit to call things with their right names and your attempts to go to the roots of problems. Now you have twice rejected my comments, that there were Russian toops in Crimea (even Putin admitted this), you still have word "paramilitary" in your blog, I just don't understand you.

About cadre. Crimea case is best case study, which shows worst case scenario. This took place in favourable circumstances. In less favourable circumstances this cadre acts just like spoiler among allies in EU and NATO. There are several scenarious between those I named. I just don't understand why some European countries underestimate Russians. Today we see that Russians can act very efficently. In January Barroso and van Rompuy told Putin "Mind your own business" and told him about Ukraine's independent choice. Today Europe is happy that OSCE observers are freed in Slavyansk by FSB guy. How can you say that Putin is happy or unhappy? Do you know what makes him happy? It would be really intersting to hear.

Oh, you meant the blog.
Well, again - I don't see much of a difference between paramilitary and military. Neither was legally allowed to be there, so I'm not downplaying anything. I wonder why you see much of a difference between a military man with an AK-74 and a paramilitary man with an AK-74. The difference is especially marginal in Russia with its USSR traditions. The KGB operated a coast guard that included anti-submarine and air defence systems, after all. Warsaw Pact 'worker militias' were always meant to be auxiliary military forces in the event of war.
German paramilitary Cold War border guards were by defined as becoming combatants in the event of war.
There's really not that much difference between military and paramilitary.

And frankly, I'm not inclined to look up unreliable sources only to see whether the one or the other word is more accurate.
_________

The Slawjansk hostage episode was a show for the media. I doubt that the foreign politicians were stupid enough to fall for it and spend much time and effort on it.

What's going to be interesting is what the Ukrainians do once they have FSB guys captured. We might see some old school "confession"-style videos which could be very dangerous to Putin's racket and I think he might be very concerned about this.
I noted that the reports about the fighting in that town mentioned that the town was encircled. I wonder whether the encirclement is tight enough to really use it as a trap for the FSB personnel. They will likely not fight to the last man, after all.


I suppose right now it's about time to offer Putin a face-saving way out. He's already at his culminating point.
Let him build some more on his Crimea success (for Crimea is gone for good anyway), give him some political victory (such as Svoboda kicked out of government, something which the EU should like to see as well) and then he gets to write off the continental Ukraine.

Then in the next years the West can demand concessions from Putin for not inviting the Ukraine into NATO (but merely equipping its army). Such as a satisfactory (to us) solution to the Abchasia and South Ossetia conflicts, ratification for the border treaty with Estonia, withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria, no S-300s for Iran and no arms exports to the Caucasus that could fuel a new war over Berg-Karabach.
The best about this is that the threat of inviting them could be held up indefinitely. It's a self-regenerating bargaining chip.

[Firn]

I pretty much agree with kaur. I'm all for a diplomatic solution the big question is how to achieve it. For over two months Putin got plenty of time, tiny sanctions and mostly very diplomatic language to exit the conflict in internal triumph. Instead he continues to fan the flames of war in Ukraine. Looks like the unopposed occupation of Ukrainian territory went all too smoothly with the Ukrainians behaving all too nicely. Harsher economic sanctions as a sign of strenght seem so far sadly be the better path to 'de-escalate' the conflict in which Putin has factually escalated and escalated.

Overall it is of course much easier to start a bloody conflict then to end it. Even Putin should now that.

[Ulenspiegel]

@Firn

My take was and still is:

1) Russsia needs the Krim for military reasons.

2) Russia needs some parts of the Ukraine for military and economic reasons.

3) The western Ukraine was a glacis for Russia.

3) Russia faced the problem that they may lose all this to a combination of (stupid) western political actions and soft power (EU).

Result: We saw already the occupation of the Krim and IMHO we will see the occupation of parts of eastern Ukraine in the future.

OTOH Despite the nice Russian performance, I have problems to sell this as real Russian strategic success, Putin had to choose between pest and cholera. He had to invest to maintain the status quo, that is a loss when the opponent had to invest much less.

And to sell Putin as extremly gifted strategist ignores the basic fact, that Russia was not able to control her backyard in the last years and will be unable to provide something that has a chance against the eroding soft power of the EU. Putin is good in his field (ex-KGB), but he stinks when we are talking about the creation of stable and competitive society. Good fever curve is the emmigration of well educated Russians, I bet it will will continue.

On "our" side we were reminded as Fuchs put is, that we have some ugly gaps in our strategic set up which may here and there lead to a small version of August 1914.

[JMA]

Too much criticism of Putin going on around here I believe.

Putin has only made his move because he believes he will get away with it. That directly means that the US and the EU misread the developments in post-Soviet Russia and now do not have the stomach for a confrontation which will have a negative impact on their – mainly the EU countries individual economies.

Putin made his move in Georgia in the last months of Bush 43’s presidency and now in the year of the mid-term elections. This is more a strategic weakness of the US than genius on behalf of Putin. I will state further that I would have expected the US to pull out of Europe some time ago given that they were funding more than 70% of NATO’s costs.

What is quite obvious is that there was individual and collective incompetence among the US and EU countries in failing to read the warning signs of a Russia morphing into a criminal dictatorial state massively funded by oil and gas revenues. Obama was warned by McCain, Romney and Palin yet was too clever by half. The Germans blinded by the commercial opportunities post-Soviet Russia offered convinced themselves that a commercial inter-dependence would ensure stability. Britain was in no position to do anything other than accept their London financial system being used to launder the Russian oligarchs ill gotten gains. In fact it would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.

It is clear than the US, rather like post-WW2 Britain, has lost the appetite for foreign adventures and entanglements. So better the US stays out of it and let the Europeans deal with trouble their own back yard. This must include the State Department especially that Nuland woman of “f*** the EU” infamy and the CIA.

The EU’s options are limited in options as the sanctions route will be too painful to bear for the sake of the peoples in the sights of an expansionist Russia. You can hear the Germans saying that the self-determination and freedom of the peoples of Crimea, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania etc is not worth the pain of sanctions and the possible loss of 350,000 jobs dependent on Russian trade. When the crunch comes the new supposedly self-styled ‘moral’ Germans will revert to type.

We can complain all we like about Putin but the bottom line is that it has been a massive miscalculation by the US and Germany and other EU countries, which has offered this option to Russia. Putin has exploited obvious weakness… no genius in that.

The two nations Europeans need to keep an eye on are the Germans and the Russians – with historical justification – and both need to be emasculated to prevent history repeating itself. Germany whilst economically strong would not frighten Luxemburg militarily but this is not the case with Russia.

In response to this recent Russian military aggression Russia should be reduced to the level where they will never be able to embark on military adventurism ever again. Sadly there are not enough political ‘balls’ across the whole of ‘western’ Europe and North America to put Russia firmly and finally in its place.

@Firn

My take was and still is:

1) Russsia needs the Krim for military reasons.

2) Russia needs some parts of the Ukraine for military and economic reasons.

3) The western Ukraine was a glacis for Russia.

3) Russia faced the problem that they may lose all this to a combination of (stupid) western political actions and soft power (EU).

Result: We saw already the occupation of the Krim and IMHO we will see the occupation of parts of eastern Ukraine in the future.

OTOH Despite the nice Russian performance, I have problems to sell this as real Russian strategic success, Putin had to choose between pest and cholera. He had to invest to maintain the status quo, that is a loss when the opponent had to invest much less.

And to sell Putin as extremly gifted strategist ignores the basic fact, that Russia was not able to control her backyard in the last years and will be unable to provide something that has a chance against the eroding soft power of the EU. Putin is good in his field (ex-KGB), but he stinks when we are talking about the creation of stable and competitive society. Good fever curve is the emmigration of well educated Russians, I bet it will will continue.

On "our" side we were reminded as Fuchs put is, that we have some ugly gaps in our strategic set up which may here and there lead to a small version of August 1914.

[Ulenspiegel]

Too much criticism of Putin going on around here I believe.

Putin has only made his move because he believes he will get away with it. That directly means that the US and the EU misread the developments in post-Soviet Russia and now do not have the stomach for a confrontation which will have a negative impact on their – mainly the EU countries individual economies.

Putin made his move in Georgia in the last months of Bush 43’s presidency and now in the year of the mid-term elections. This is more a strategic weakness of the US than genius on behalf of Putin. I will state further that I would have expected the US to pull out of Europe some time ago given that they were funding more than 70% of NATO’s costs.

What is quite obvious is that there was individual and collective incompetence among the US and EU countries in failing to read the warning signs of a Russia morphing into a criminal dictatorial state massively funded by oil and gas revenues. Obama was warned by McCain, Romney and Palin yet was too clever by half. The Germans blinded by the commercial opportunities post-Soviet Russia offered convinced themselves that a commercial inter-dependence would ensure stability. Britain was in no position to do anything other than accept their London financial system being used to launder the Russian oligarchs ill gotten gains. In fact it would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.

It is clear than the US, rather like post-WW2 Britain, has lost the appetite for foreign adventures and entanglements. So better the US stays out of it and let the Europeans deal with trouble their own back yard. This must include the State Department especially that Nuland woman of “f*** the EU” infamy and the CIA.

The EU’s options are limited in options as the sanctions route will be too painful to bear for the sake of the peoples in the sights of an expansionist Russia. You can hear the Germans saying that the self-determination and freedom of the peoples of Crimea, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania etc is not worth the pain of sanctions and the possible loss of 350,000 jobs dependent on Russian trade. When the crunch comes the new supposedly self-styled ‘moral’ Germans will revert to type.

We can complain all we like about Putin but the bottom line is that it has been a massive miscalculation by the US and Germany and other EU countries, which has offered this option to Russia. Putin has exploited obvious weakness… no genius in that.

The two nations Europeans need to keep an eye on are the Germans and the Russians – with historical justification – and both need to be emasculated to prevent history repeating itself. Germany whilst economically strong would not frighten Luxemburg militarily but this is not the case with Russia.

In response to this recent Russian military aggression Russia should be reduced to the level where they will never be able to embark on military adventurism ever again. Sadly there are not enough political ‘balls’ across the whole of ‘western’ Europe and North America to put Russia firmly and finally in its place.

Sorry, we obviously live on different planets. Putin chose the lesser of two evils, that is not a gain but limiting his losses.

The deal in 1990 was, that the west did not destroy the buffer in Russias west. With the events the last 12 months it became clear that we, the west had not remember this part of the deal.

You still sell the affair as if Russian forces have occupied a part of a NATO or EU country. A realpolitiker would remember the Bismarck quote in respect to Serbia and the worth of a Pommeranian Grenadier.

Your "In response to this recent Russian military aggression Russia should be reduced to the level where they will never be able to embark on military adventurism ever again. Sadly there are not enough political ‘balls’ across the whole of ‘western’ Europe and North America to put Russia firmly and finally in its place."
is pure hyperventilation, sorry. The reaction of the former Bundeskanzler Schmidt, who was the main architect of the NATO double track decision in 1979-1982 and who was very pragmatic and a really hard bone when it mattered, should tell you the opposite.

Re economic sanctions: The west is the economically stronger fighter and, in addition, is able to perform an asymmetric economic war. Why your unelegant brute force approach? In my book that means self-inflicted pain, that can easily by avoided.

[Fuchs]

The deal in 1990 was, that the west did not destroy the buffer in Russias west.

It was apparently never written, signed or even ratified as a deal.

In fact, some Western politicians who were supposedly involved deny that any such thing ever happened, and point at how back in '90 the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union still looked quite intact and there was nobody thinking about the possibility of NATO/EC (no EU yet) expanding beyond the Oder river yet.

The only assurances which were proved to have existed were about how many Western troops would be stationed in East Germany (not more than the previous military strength of Est Germany; the Bundeswehr merely maintained a couple formations such as the MiG-29 wing in the East) - IIRC.

[OUTLAW 09]

It was apparently never written, signed or even ratified as a deal.

In fact, some Western politicians who were supposedly involved deny that any such thing ever happened, and point at how back in '90 the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union still looked quite intact and there was nobody thinking about the possibility of NATO/EC (no EU yet) expanding beyond the Oder river yet.

The only assurances which were proved to have existed were about how many Western troops would be stationed in East Germany (not more than the previous military strength of Est Germany; the Bundeswehr merely maintained a couple formations such as the MiG-29 wing in the East) - IIRC.

fuchs---actually go back to the 2 plus 4 treaty agreements concerning Germany and you will notice a number of items that Merkel is still holding which relate directly to German resistance to a stronger NATO response and a real reluctance to impose branch wide economic sanctions that the US is pushing.

I will go back to the things I have previously posted here---when the West/Europe really wants to get Putin's interest and when he will know the West is serious is when the West suffers economically as well if sanctions are imposed--then you will get Putin's interest and knows the West/Europeans are serious.

By the way there is also a touch of anti Americanism in many of the German actions since 2003 and it is not to subtle these days.

Really reread the treaties and you will fully understand German reluctance.

[JMA]

Sorry, we obviously live on different planets. Putin chose the lesser of two evils, that is not a gain but limiting his losses.

There is the first problem. Why were the post-Soviet Russians allowed to believe that they would be allowed dominate nationalities/peoples/ethnic groups in vassal states to maintain the delusional dream of a 'right' to maintain an empire?

The deal in 1990 was, that the west did not destroy the buffer in Russias west. With the events the last 12 months it became clear that we, the west had not remember this part of the deal.

I hear about this supposed deal but see nothing in writing. If there was then the joke is on them... nobody believes promises made by the US.

You still sell the affair as if Russian forces have occupied a part of a NATO or EU country. A realpolitiker would remember the Bismarck quote in respect to Serbia and the worth of a Pommeranian Grenadier.

Spoken like a great appeaser. It doesn't take a genius to read the writing on the wall about Russia's future intentions.

Your "In response to this recent Russian military aggression Russia should be reduced to the level where they will never be able to embark on military adventurism ever again. Sadly there are not enough political ‘balls’ across the whole of ‘western’ Europe and North America to put Russia firmly and finally in its place." is pure hyperventilation, sorry.

Yes I know there are no balls big enough to confront Russia and dismember the federation and flush out the criminal regime either in Europe or North America.

Regardless if the same had been done with Russia as was done with post 1945 Germany there would not be this problem now. Bush #41 screwed this up Bush #43 and Obama have made a bad situation worse in the process opening the door for Russian expansionism.

The reaction of the former Bundeskanzler Schmidt, who was the main architect of the NATO double track decision in 1979-1982 and who was very pragmatic and a really hard bone when it mattered, should tell you the opposite.

Don't know the detail of that but the point I am making is that had the Russians been emasculated like the Germans were then we would not be having this problem now.

Re economic sanctions: The west is the economically stronger fighter and, in addition, is able to perform an asymmetric economic war. Why your unelegant brute force approach? In my book that means self-inflicted pain, that can easily by avoided.

It is like keeping a lid on a pressure cooker. What I am saying is now is the time to settle the 'Russian problem' once and for all. This will also provide Germany no reason sometime in the future to put a proper military together.

As I said in Europe one needs to keep an eye on both the Germans and the Russians. History has taught the world these two nations are the main protagonists.

[AmericanPride]

It doesn't take a genius to read the writing on the wall about Russia's future intentions.

Crimea is the 4th time since the end of the Cold War that Russia exploited ethnic ruptures for political gain.

Yes I know there are no balls big enough to confront Russia and dismember the federation and flush out the criminal regime either in Europe or North America.

Regardless if the same had been done with Russia as was done with post 1945 Germany there would not be this problem now.

Don't know the detail of that but the point I am making is that had the Russians been emasculated like the Germans were then we would not be having this problem now.

And how would that have been accomplished? The emasculation of Germany in World War I led to World War II. Arguably, the emasculation of post-Soviet Russia is leading to this confrontation.

On the one hand, you are saying that Russia is a third-rate power and needs to be punished. But on the hand, you are saying it is a threat to world peace and harmony. Which is it?

[Fuchs]

@outlaw
I looked up the definition of "to disarm" and I found but one which offered an unspecified reduction of forces as "to disarm", whereas all the other meanings are about to give up forces or the capability to be hostile altogether.
It makes no sense to write "to disarm" when mere reductions in forces are meant, as there are better fitting words. I presumed and still presume that you meant more than an ordinary reduction. The choice of the word "disarm" was meant to imply that Europe made itself impotent militarily.
In that sense, Europe didn't "disarm" at all. To the contrary; the EU countries could overrun Russia up to Khazan with their armies because they reduced their forces to a level very high above what little forces the Russians have in their Western and Southern (Caucasus) regions.
This is a fact and totally tears apart all the repeated stupid talk and illusions about a supposed European military weakness.

Europe isn't motivated to use more than its left hand's little finger to deal with issues because nobody is even only poking it. The Americans prefer to use their whole left hand, but using a mere little finger only is very different from having no fists.


There's a huge difference between a multi-ethnic state with ethnicities being concentrated in certain regions and thus able to claim independence and a multi-ethnic immigration state in which immigrants can claim to be a majority at most in parts of some cities. The former is no nation-state, while the latter can be (and is in Europe).


You're totally moving goalposts on the money topic. This is what you wrote
"Then the European companies went on a spending and investing binge in Russia as it "appeared" to be the great next business market and they did in fact make great money in their investments"
then I brought forward a source that shows how FDI were only large in a few recent years and mention why and you come back with trade stuff and Cold War trade.
That's bollocks. You wrote about investments in -not trade with- Russia and how these were supposedly "make great money", and you are mistaken. Investments from 2006-2009 are unlikely to have yielded more returns than the original investment already. That would require a ROI of about 15%.

Germany whilst economically strong would not frighten Luxemburg militarily(...).

I want everybody to understand that JMA's contributions here should not be taken seriously. He's merely jesting and never serious. For if he was serious, he would be lying and not merely writing nonsense of a failed kind of humour.
Luxembourg has a mere battalion as an army, of course.

[JMA]

I want everybody to understand that JMA's contributions here should not be taken seriously. He's merely jesting and never serious. For if he was serious, he would be lying and not merely writing nonsense of a failed kind of humour.
Luxembourg has a mere battalion as an army, of course.

Look I understand your humiliation over the state of the German military since around 1945. Seems a lot like Putin's nostalgia over the past Russian/Soviet Empire.

You yourself said here:

One of the central themes of the Bundeswehr is its integration in society - avoidance of becoming a state in a state, a closed sub-society. This is out of a fear that an army could become powerful politically.

Then there was this:

No shooting please, we’re German

I quote:

One way of understanding Germany’s army is that it is a new type of institution, created not so much to wage wars but to atone for the past and make its repeat impossible. Thus the guiding principle of the Bundeswehr is “Innere Führung”. A loose translation might be “moral leadership”, though Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s defence minister, says that this does not do the concept justice.

Exactly!

So while Germany has a number of 'people' going through the motions in the pretense of being a military to satisfy NATO in reality the performance of the German forces in Afghanistan been embarrassingly poor (and I'm being polite here.) Personally I wish it were otherwise but alas...

So Fuchs the sad truth is that Germany is merely going through the motions and together with Britain, France, Turkey and the rats and mice of NATO will not scare Russia even if there was a real chance of mobilisation.

So don't live in the past and dwell on past glories. It is gone, over, finished, kaput.

[OUTLAW 09]

@outlaw
I looked up the definition of "to disarm" and I found but one which offered an unspecified reduction of forces as "to disarm", whereas all the other meanings are about to give up forces or the capability to be hostile altogether.
It makes no sense to write "to disarm" when mere reductions in forces are meant, as there are better fitting words. I presumed and still presume that you meant more than an ordinary reduction. The choice of the word "disarm" was meant to imply that Europe made itself impotent militarily.
In that sense, Europe didn't "disarm" at all. To the contrary; the EU countries could overrun Russia up to Khazan with their armies because they reduced their forces to a level very high above what little forces the Russians have in their Western and Southern (Caucasus) regions.
This is a fact and totally tears apart all the repeated stupid talk and illusions about a supposed European military weakness.

Europe isn't motivated to use more than its left hand's little finger to deal with issues because nobody is even only poking it. The Americans prefer to use their whole left hand, but using a mere little finger only is very different from having no fists.


There's a huge difference between a multi-ethnic state with ethnicities being concentrated in certain regions and thus able to claim independence and a multi-ethnic immigration state in which immigrants can claim to be a majority at most in parts of some cities. The former is no nation-state, while the latter can be (and is in Europe).


You're totally moving goalposts on the money topic. This is what you wrote
"Then the European companies went on a spending and investing binge in Russia as it "appeared" to be the great next business market and they did in fact make great money in their investments"
then I brought forward a source that shows how FDI were only large in a few recent years and mention why and you come back with trade stuff and Cold War trade.
That's bollocks. You wrote about investments in -not trade with- Russia and how these were supposedly "make great money", and you are mistaken. Investments from 2006-2009 are unlikely to have yielded more returns than the original investment already. That would require a ROI of about 15%.




I want everybody to understand that JMA's contributions here should not be taken seriously. He's merely jesting and never serious. For if he was serious, he would be lying and not merely writing nonsense of a failed kind of humour.
Luxembourg has a mere battalion as an army, of course.

fuchs---this was taken from an article posted today in the Moscow Times website---notice the highlighted sentence concerning Europe---an interesting take on Putin's understanding of Europeans if you ask me.

After a lapse of more than a century, the Great Game has begun again — in Kiev of all places.

In the 19th century, the Great Game was the rivalry between the British and Russian empires for Central Asia. England was wary that Russia's relentless expansion would one day threaten the jewel in the imperial crown, India. Both sides vied to dominate Central Asia's markets.

Seizing their "rightful" portion of Kazakhstan would bring Russia great riches and enormous geopolitical advantages.

The game went into a state of suspension during Soviet times. Some commentators spoke of a new Great Game after the Soviet collapse and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, but that was more romanticism than realism.

There was a jockeying among Russia, China and the U.S. for markets, resources and military bases, but what was lacking was any grand geopolitical design or strategic imperative. All that changed with Kiev.

Though the final outcome of the Ukrainian crisis is uncertain, two things are already clear. Russia has revealed itself as non-Western, if not anti-Western. When push comes to shove, Russia will not play by the rules of the West because it does not see the world as the West does.

In Putin's Darwinian mind, the drift of Ukraine into the Western camp would complete NATO's encirclement of Russia, which, from the survival point of view, is inadmissible. Foolishly, perhaps, he is not overly concerned about the economic damage the sanctions will cause.

No doubt he believes that ties with European business are too tight and complex to permit sanctions that bite deep. Putin, the enemy of the rules of globalization, is counting on globalization to save him.

All the same, Putin's not taking any chances. He is aware that something has broken in his relations with the West. It will take time, but the West has already begun weaning itself from Russian energy. And so the main effect of Kiev has been to accelerate Russia's turn to China.

So again what is the European position or better yet the German position on Putin as one cannot really see a German "strategy" other than delay, use talking and then when things go badly talk again.

[JMA]

@outlaw
[snip]

... the EU countries could overrun Russia up to Khazan with their armies because they reduced their forces to a level very high above what little forces the Russians have in their Western and Southern (Caucasus) regions.
This is a fact and totally tears apart all the repeated stupid talk and illusions about a supposed European military weakness.

This is a very strange thought pattern.

It has been discussed before that a deterrent - in this case a military one - only has value if the opossing party believes it will be used. There is no chance that EU countries would ever mobilise for such a purpose. European military weakness is clear and obvious not only in its constituted structure but also importantly that it poses no real deterrent to Russian expansionism because it will never be used.

Europe isn't motivated to use more than its left hand's little finger to deal with issues because nobody is even only poking it. The Americans prefer to use their whole left hand, but using a mere little finger only is very different from having no fists.

What is happening is that your Europe is finding a number of good reasons to see Russian actions - the annexation of Crimea and the on-going proxy war in Ukraine - as nothing to be alarmed about. No doubt they are now figuring out how to get out of NATO commitments to those states in the line of fire - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. I suppose Russian annexation of those states not be considered a threat to Europe either.

Europe has no credible deterrent to Russian expansionism without the US and the US is also trying to sneak out the back door to avoid a confrontation with Russia. That is the truth learn to live with it.

There's a huge difference between a multi-ethnic state with ethnicities being concentrated in certain regions and thus able to claim independence and a multi-ethnic immigration state in which immigrants can claim to be a majority at most in parts of some cities. The former is no nation-state, while the latter can be (and is in Europe).

This whole argument is meaningless unless the dates and reasons for migrations are taken into account.

[OUTLAW 09]

Oh, you meant the blog.
Well, again - I don't see much of a difference between paramilitary and military. Neither was legally allowed to be there, so I'm not downplaying anything. I wonder why you see much of a difference between a military man with an AK-74 and a paramilitary man with an AK-74. The difference is especially marginal in Russia with its USSR traditions. The KGB operated a coast guard that included anti-submarine and air defence systems, after all. Warsaw Pact 'worker militias' were always meant to be auxiliary military forces in the event of war.
German paramilitary Cold War border guards were by defined as becoming combatants in the event of war.
There's really not that much difference between military and paramilitary.

And frankly, I'm not inclined to look up unreliable sources only to see whether the one or the other word is more accurate.
_________

The Slawjansk hostage episode was a show for the media. I doubt that the foreign politicians were stupid enough to fall for it and spend much time and effort on it.

What's going to be interesting is what the Ukrainians do once they have FSB guys captured. We might see some old school "confession"-style videos which could be very dangerous to Putin's racket and I think he might be very concerned about this.
I noted that the reports about the fighting in that town mentioned that the town was encircled. I wonder whether the encirclement is tight enough to really use it as a trap for the FSB personnel. They will likely not fight to the last man, after all.


I suppose right now it's about time to offer Putin a face-saving way out. He's already at his culminating point.
Let him build some more on his Crimea success (for Crimea is gone for good anyway), give him some political victory (such as Svoboda kicked out of government, something which the EU should like to see as well) and then he gets to write off the continental Ukraine.

Then in the next years the West can demand concessions from Putin for not inviting the Ukraine into NATO (but merely equipping its army). Such as a satisfactory (to us) solution to the Abchasia and South Ossetia conflicts, ratification for the border treaty with Estonia, withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria, no S-300s for Iran and no arms exports to the Caucasus that could fuel a new war over Berg-Karabach.
The best about this is that the threat of inviting them could be held up indefinitely. It's a self-regenerating bargaining chip.

fuchs---you know you are an example of the European education system of the last ten years when you quote the below as you do but then again I have heard the same style of German left arguments in the 1969 timeframe meaning hey if it does not fit my definition of what I am explaining then it does not count---co me on fuchs paramilitary does not mean much in Russia.

1. German paramilitary Cold War border guards were by defined as becoming combatants in the event of war.
There's really not that much difference between military and paramilitary.

2. And frankly, I'm not inclined to look up unreliable sources only to see whether the one or the other word is more accurate.
_________

3. The Slawjansk hostage episode was a show for the media. I doubt that the foreign politicians were stupid enough to fall for it and spend much time and effort on it.

1. The BGS was in fact during the Cold War actually a federalized police force with military ranks as was say the French Gendarmerie in peace time and since there was no war they never did become "combatants"-- BUT are in fact Russian Cossacks holding a active Russian military/police reserve commission as an officer of the GRU actually not really military or just "paramilitary" however you define paramilitary OR--would you call a German reserve MAD unit paramilitary or military---come on fuchs

2. typical German student attempt to sidetrack a debate that one does want to agree with/nor listen would you not admit? You are as bad a responder as is mirhond. Hopefully if you have an actual blog for yourself you do not act in this manner.

3. If the OCSE hostage event was a media show---then for who?-- the proRussians in eastern Ukraine meaning hey EU/OCSE we here in eastern Ukraine can do what we want because we are an "independent republic"---(first of all they are neither independent nor a republic or for that matter democratic) and we can even ignore diplomatic passports if we want to --OR "we will talk with Russia on this event" just after taking the bostages and what then had to happen again for a propaganda show-- Russia sends a personal envoy and it took him a long while to get basically should have been an immediate release under the internal agreements handling of diplomatic passport holders.

So again fuchs do not be a typical German left student who hates another opinion other than their own voices being heard.

AND where are all of those German 1968 left students today in the German culture---all quiet chasing the Euro and handling their own kids in an authoritarian manner driving Ferraris and Audi 8s.

My biggest critique of the current "European"---you guys would demo up to about 1994 for anything if it crossed your value systems and beliefs ---where are the demos today in Germany, Italy of even France? The only thing that seems to motivate some of the left are when the neo Nazis march.

Where are the critical voices in European political parties, where are the critical voices in the culture or in press comments--so fuchs just what is a European these days?

By the way why would you support a position of wanting to help Putin dig himself out of a hole---is it not the current German Grundschule model of allowing the pupil to learn how on his/her terms one gets out of a hole-so why help him as that is not a way for someone to learn and grow--come on fuchs.

Part of the problem you are avoiding in getting to a lower threshold for Russia to understand is in fact the disunity among all 28 European EU members who are more concerned about the loss of profits and taxes from sanctions than setting a lower threshold.

If German students can never get to a common opinion then just how do you proposed getting a total consensus with 28 countries.