Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[TheCurmudgeon]

Stan,
My 50-year-old better half says that not even the Baltic States understand Putin and his protection rationale.

The Estonians watch the Simpsons in English !

I am sure that Putin's comments are for internal consumption and is code for protecting ethnic Russians. It is the kind of rational that most Russians can get behind. I believe it was stated elsewhere that the Russian Constitution even includes language requiring the government to protect Russians even when they are abroad. The comments probably bolster his ratings and help justify military action in the minds of many Russians.

Outside of Russia it probably sounds like he is out of his mind.

I do think it is interesting that Family Guy is better in Russian. Apparently being fat and selfish tranlsates well ... or Stewy reminds them of Putin.

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan/David---the tanks are I believe are in fact Russian T80s with modifications ie the second photo but with no protective skirt over the roller wheels which might be a shipping thing but it appears they are loading at a railhead and the first photo appears to be the T90 as the side skirt is straight and level through the entire side of the tank whereas the T80 has a wave shape (along the first three rollers) at the front portion of the side skirt. Both carry the same config in reactive amour.

The Ukrainians have the T80s as well but have not shown them in photos up on the border as they have them hidden for protection or bunkered in fixed locations only displaying the turret.

There was a exact replica of the tank on the railcar recently in the Kiev Post depicting Russian armor on the Crimean border.

The Russians had a Naval Marine unit on the Crimea with heavy tanks---the Russians have signaled they will return equipment but I agree with you that heavy weapons are probably not on that list and they have not stated when they will return the equipment.

[OUTLAW 09]

One has to a least appreciate the Russian insistence on whatever it is they are talking about even if it flies in the face of reality. Or maybe it was an April Fool's joke by the Russian Foreign Ministry. BUT one has to admire their alternate state of reality.

Taken from Interfax today;

April 01, 2014 17:30 Russia didn't violate Budapest Memorandum with regards to Ukraine - Foreign Ministry
MOSCOW. April 1 (Interfax) - Moscow rejects all claims it has violated its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum of December 5 1994.
"Concerning claims that Russia is demonstrating an unreliable nature of the concept of 'negative' security 'guarantees' for nonnuclear states, thus 'destroying' the nuclear nonproliferation regime, it should be underscored that the pledge not to use and not to threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states alone constitutes the common element of the Budapest Memorandum and of the 'negative guarantees' concept in its classical understanding. Russia has in no way violated this obligation with regards to Ukraine," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.


NOTE: the following are the six points of the Budapest Agreement signed by Russia.

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.

[OUTLAW 09]

Firn---seems like Putin is a bit of an economist along with his other abilities.

Looks as if his KGB past was helpful in getting research materials for his thesis.


DID PUTIN PLAGIARIZE HIS DOCTORAL THESIS?
"The Washington Times" reported on March 25 2006 that two scholars at the Brookings Institution have demonstrated that parts of President Putin's 1997 doctoral dissertation were lifted verbatim or with minor changes from a Russian translation of a management study written at the University of Pittsburgh in 1978 (see "Russia: U.S. Academics Charge Putin With Plagiarizing Thesis"; rferl.org; March 27, 2006). Putin's thesis discusses how the state should best manage its wealth in natural resources.

Taken from the Washington Post March 18 2006:

Russia has a really big plagiarism problem. So many businessmen, academics and high-ranking government officials — President Vladimir Putin included — have been found to have plagiarized their college and doctoral theses that Russia’s education minister just denounced the revelations, saying they were hurting Russia’s reputation.

“People not versed in this topic will get the idea that all academics are cheats and liars,” Education and Science Minister Dmitry Livanov just told the Kommersant newspaper, according to a Russian news agency. ”It’s a severe reputational problem for Russian science.”

Firn---maybe this is why they overlooked the impact of the sanctions affecting them economically---"it's a severe reputational problem".

[Stan]

NOTE: the following are the six points of the Budapest Agreement signed by Russia.

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.

Not to intentionally be picky herein, and while I see your point, there's a bit more to the Budapest Agreement

The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The Joint Declaration by the Russian Federation and the United States of America of December 4, 2009 confirmed their commitment.

[Stan]

Firn---seems like Putin is a bit of an economist along with his other abilities.

Looks as if his KGB past was helpful in getting research materials for his thesis.

Outlaw,
It get's better yet !

In 2007 Putin decided to rewrite grade school history books too

The manual's choice of period is suggestive: from Stalin's victory in the “great patriotic war” to the victory of Mr Putin's regime. It celebrates all contributors to Russia's greatness, and denounces those responsible for the loss of empire, regardless of their politics. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not seen as a watershed from which a new history begins, but as an unfortunate and tragic mistake that hindered Russia's progress. “The Soviet Union was not a democracy, but it was an example for millions of people around the world of the best and fairest society.”

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan---the core issue is how Russia is now spinning reality in the repeated face of comments that the Crimea annexation was done legally and in accordance with Russian law.

There is a nice quote from Stalin where he basically states that there comes a time in everyone's life as a person or country that one simply can ignore signed treaties/agreements/contracts.

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan--good catch on the history book---did not see that one before.

Dayuhan---I have a number of times stated that Putin moved into the Crimea for two reasons.

1. rebuild the Czarist dream of a greater Russia
2. rebuild the former empire of the Soviet Union

Both being driven by Russian nationalism--cultural and imperialistic.

This comment taken from Stan's quote goes to point 2.

"The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not seen as a watershed from which a new history begins, but as an unfortunate and tragic mistake that hindered Russia's progress. “The Soviet Union was not a democracy, but it was an example for millions of people around the world of the best and fairest society."

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan---went back and read your linked article and this stood really far out there and it goes again to my previous comments on nationalism and how the West and the US have simply missed the "indicators" on how deep it has been in the current Russia.

Taken from following link: http://www.economist.com/node/10102921

The decade after the collapse of communism was notable for the absence of any official ideology. Weary of grand designs, the Russian elite preferred pragmatism and enrichment. Asked about his national dream in 2004, President Vladimir Putin said that it was to make Russia competitive. But Russia's new oil-driven strength and its aspirations to be a world player have once more created a demand for something more victorious and uplifting. And as Mr Putin looks for ways to stay in power after his second presidential term expires next March, his ideological comrades are placing him in a gallery of Russia's great leaders, a quasi-tsar.

“The attitude towards the past is the central element of any ideology,” Yury Afanasyev, a Russian liberal historian, has written in Novaya Gazeta. Indeed, in Russia arguments about history often stir greater passions than do debates about the present or future. What kind of country Russia becomes will depend in large part on what kind of history it chooses. And that is why the Kremlin has decided that it cannot afford to leave history teaching to the historians.

Putin has indeed chosen the new Russian path and it started in Georgia, then Moldavia and now the Crimea ------ then it will be Belarus, the Baltics and eventually Finland.

Still feel he wants the two pieces of the Ukraine as icing on the cake in the rebirth of greater Russia---then he will be de facto "a quasi -tsar" in Russian history books.

[OUTLAW 09]

Firn---taken from 30 March 2014 Motely Fool concerning the use of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive down Russian oil prices.

Interesting idea----in fact it goes to Russians inherent weakness in being just a raw resource seller of just two main products---gas and oil.

Wonder if the WH spoke about this with the Saudi's recently when they were there?

The world's most powerful weapon: Oil
For several years, the United States' Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, has rarely garnered any attention, mostly because it is used so sparingly. Since 1977, when it was implemented, there have been only a handful of times that it has tapped, the last being in 2011, when President Obama authorized the release of 60 million barrels in response to the crisis in Libya.

That is what makes the recent "test sale" of 5 million barrels of oil so intriguing. This is the first time since 1990 that there has been a test sale from the SPR, which just happens so coincide with the time there was concern that Iraq could invade Saudi Arabia. While correlation does not always mean causation, the release of those 5 million barrels coincided with a 2.7% drop in crude oil prices.

Hit 'em where it hurts -- their wallet
It's no secret that Russia is one of the world's leading exporters of oil and gas. It exports about 8.5 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined petroleum products, as well as 19.3% of the worlds natural gas exports. What is less known is Russia's nearly crippling dependence on oil and gas revenues to pay the bills. The $662.3 billion petroleum industry in Russia represents 26.5% of GDP, and over 50% of the federal government's revenue comes from royalties. Unfortunately for Russia, its oil doesn't come cheap. Even with oil at $100 per barrel and current production levels, the country projects only 1.8% GDP growth, and if oil were to fall any lower it would force massive federal budget cuts.

So what exactly would releasing oil from there do? Let's say U.S. production and imports from Canada and Mexico were to hold place. The U.S. would need to release about 950,000 barrels per day to meet all of the United States' current demand. Based on the SPR's 727 million barrels in storage, we could do this for well over two years and drive down global prices significantly. Surprisingly, though, we don't even need to go to that extreme. According to economist Phillip Verleger in a recent Quartz article, if the U.S. were to release only 500,000 barrels per day from the SPR, it would lead to a $10 drop in oil prices and would cost Russia $40 billion in sales. At this pace, we could maintain this pace for more than four years and could potentially cause Russia's GDP to drop by 4%.

We've done it before, but it will be harder this time
There are two ways to describe the collapse of the Soviet Union: The storybook version is about the arms race that eventually bankrupted the USSR and led to its evenutal collapse. The one that doesn't get told as much, though, is the other half of what caused the bankruptcy: cheap oil. In a coordinated effort with Saudi Arabia to increase global crude production, inflation-adjusted oil prices fell 69% between 1981 and 1988. This resulted in massive revenue shortfalls for the USSR and became a critical piece that eventually led to its downfall.

[Stan]

Stan---went back and read your linked article and this stood really far out there and it goes again to my previous comments on nationalism and how the West and the US have simply missed the "indicators" on how deep it has been in the current Russia.

The West calls it Putinism, the Estonians call it Russian mafia !

If you're fat and happy in a pile of Sierra, then a little repression is OK.

[OUTLAW 09]

Seems Sweden and Finland are getting second thoughts after the recent Russian moves.

New York Times
Europe

As Russia Growls, Swedes, Finns Eye Defence Options, NATO

By REUTERS APRIL 1, 2014, 11:27 A.M. E.D.T.

Still, some politicians are already making noises they may one day have to go further.

"I think it would be good to have an open debate about NATO already now and I hope that everyone would participate in it, even those who oppose the membership," Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen told online newspaper Verkkouutiset last week.

In a sign of the times, while Finland cut unemployment and child benefits in a March budget, defence got off lightly.

Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Jan Bjorklund called last month for a "doctrinal shift" in defence policy after the Crimea crisis. Calling Russia "a bit more erratic and unpredictable", Finance Minister Anders Borg called for "a substantial scaling up" of defence spending.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---who taught you that taking sentence by sentence making your own comments is a form of dialogue?

Citations from the post replied to are a standard convention in internet discourse. When you're replying to a post that could be a page or two back on a busy thread you need a point of reference, and reproducing the entire post is cumbersome.

Back to nationalism---these is also two new forms of nationalism that just cropped up in the Russian dialogue as seen in Interfax this morning from last night and over the last few days.

Economic/political nationalism are now political tools being used by Putin---as I mentioned to you earlier in comments directed to you Putin is jammed up right now by his earlier moves in the Crimea. So how does he come out of the jam---he uses nationalism in new undefined forms and it appears to the West just to be "politics". We have since the Cold War days in the West looked at the "politics", but we never did understand the underlying nationalisms that was driving those "politics" we were "seeing".

These are not new forms of nationalism, nor are they in any way undefined. The political and economic application of nationalism are as old as nationalism itself. Yes, they are politics. They have an impact on politics in many nations, probably most, though often at a somewhat less visible level. Again, though, you're not explaining how the rather obvious reality that nationalism is a factor in current Russian politics and actions leads you to an elevated threat assessment.

Some in the Force have actually understand the concept of "seeing and understanding" but they are few and far between.

I wouldn't know about the Force, but I'd point out that failure to agree with you cannot be equated to failure to see and understand.

The reasons he used there are not working currently as the Ukrainian oligarchs in the east and south have made a decision that business inside the EU is better than the CIS/Russia and are damping down the proRussian groups and the Ukrainian security forces are getting better at fishing out Russian agents/provocateurs and are controlling better the busses coming from Russia.

That's probably one reason, and it makes sense: when facing an opportunist it is wise not to provide opportunities. I expect there are probably other reasons as well: oligarchs in Russia will certainly exploit nationalism but their own loyalty is to themselves and their finances, and they may well be concerned with the possibility of added sanctions. We of course do not know what's going on between Putin and the oligarchs, but it seems unlikely that the position of the Ukrainian oligarchy alone would be sufficient to deter Putin from doing something he really wants to do.

So where to with an argument that sounds "legal" in his head that he thinks he can "sell" the West on---the political and economic nationalism is next.

I don't think he's selling the West on anything: nobody buys his rationalizations or his pseudo-legalisms. Those are more for domestic consumption, with a bit of a message for the Russian enclaves he's like to re-absorb as well.

21:22 Economic woes may put Transdniestria on "unpredictable" path - Russian diplomat

So since you enjoy making individual comments then what is being implied by "unpredictable path".

That's pretty obvious: he wants it and if he gets an opportunity and thinks the penalty won't be too severe, he'll take it.

Different kettle of fish from Crimea of course... in one sense easier, in that the target has been effectively autonomous for some time and there are fairly strong indications that much of the populace actually would prefer to be part of Russia. More difficult in some ways also: Russia doesn't have military facilities in place, as they did in Crimea. They'd have to cross the southern Ukraine to get there, and would have to absorb the southern Ukraine to administer Transdniestria as anything but a remote and inaccessible enclave. I'm sure Putin would do that if he was presented with (or could create) an opportunity, and if he thought the cost would be limited. Whether that's the case is another question.

[OUTLAW 09]

To wm/Dayuhan----in all your comments made on a series of my comments concerning Russian nationalism and the intentions of Putin going forward and on military stationing by Russian forces---read this and tell me then that NATO is not only signaling they "see" now the Russian "intent" and they fully "understand the intent" and are issuing via the media that they are in the midst of responding to the threat which they now view as indeed a threat to the Ukraine, the Baltics, Romanian and Finland and lastly Poland.

wm---there was a true reason for Breedlove to come back and not to hold his Senate hearing ---right? Did not see him fly back on Tuesday.

Firn---the Russian CB press release might just be the signal that they are going to go for it as the CB is indicating that they will provide support in the event of "Political risks are significant now, and they will be particularly relevant if Russian banks and companies encounter limitations for refinancing on western markets"---Why the proactive stance when sanctions have not increased and if "the Russian Army is pulling back as Putin has stated"?

David---there are photos in the article that match the tank rail shipping link you had yesterday---the tanks were being loaded and shipped to the Crimea---the core question is now WHY? Caption states T72s but they really look like 80/90s ---one needs to see the roller wheel skirts in order to have a clean ID--besides the 72s are a far older model and virtually out of service since the 80/90s came in---they really were mostly for export anyway--and the Ukrainians have the 80s as well---notice the photos are at angles in order to make identification harder for the OSINT analyst.

Variations of this article from Mail Online were in the WSJ and carried as well by Reuters for the widest dissemination so that Russia gets the message.

REFERENCE the oil weapon article I included yesterday---now see the connection between the "practice run" of flooding the world market with sour crude in order to damage the Russian economy---and if one read the Interfax PR on current liquidity issues now in Russia they are starting to struggle .

IMO Putin will now go for it in the Ukraine as the economics of this thing are getting out of control for Russia especially since the Ukrainian elections are in late May and in the end Russian nationalism will drive this and then Putin will sit back and bunker in as he has what he wanted.

From Mail Online article from today:

Russia has amassed all the forces it needs on Ukraine's border to carry out an 'incursion' into the country and it could achieve its objective in three to five days, NATO's top military commander said on Wednesday.
Calling the situation 'incredibly concerning', NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, said NATO had spotted signs of movement by a very small part of the Russian force overnight, but had no indication that it was returning to barracks.

NATO military chiefs are concerned that the Russian force on the Ukrainian border, which they estimate stands at 40,000 soldiers, could pose a threat to eastern and southern Ukraine.
'This is a very large and very capable and very ready force,' Breedlove said in an interview with Reuters and The Wall Street Journal.
The Russian force has aircraft and helicopter support as well as field hospitals and electronic warfare capabilities.
'The entire suite that would be required to successfully have an incursion into Ukraine should the decision be made,' Breedlove said.
'We think it is ready to go and we think it could accomplish its objectives in between three and five days if directed to make the actions.'

He said Russia could have several potential objectives, including an incursion into southern Ukraine to establish a land corridor to Crimea, pushing beyond Crimea to Ukraine's Black Sea port of Odessa or even threatening to connect to Transdniestria, the mainly Russian-speaking, separatist region of Moldova that lies to the west of Ukraine.
Russia also has forces to the north and northeast of Ukraine that could enter eastern Ukraine if Moscow ordered them to do so, Breedlove said.
Any such actions would have far-reaching implications for NATO, a military alliance of 28 nations that has been the core of European defence for more than 60 years.
'We are going to have to look at how our alliance now is prepared for a different paradigm, a different rule set... we will need to rethink our force posture, our force positioning, our force provisioning, readiness, etc,' Breedlove said.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2xj6pwkX7

[Stan]

... read this and tell me then that NATO is not only signaling they "see" now the Russian "intent" and they fully "understand the intent" and are issuing via the media that they are in the midst of responding to the threat which they now view as indeed a threat to the Ukraine, the Baltics, Romanian and Finland and lastly Poland.

I'm a tad concerned that NATO would use the media to indicate they are in the midst of responding. Estonia's President simply told them to go after the Kremlin’s banks like you’d go after a terrorist’s and question the legitimacy of Russian passports. Like I posted, Estonians think they are all mafia. But, there's little in the Estonian press about feeling threatened and my daily contact with Estonians, ethnic Russians and even three Ukrainians living here doesn't give me any indication of feeling threatened. Got to wonder who's providing all the hype if it's not coming from this country.

Similarly, I hang out with a lot of Finns. Law Enforcement, EOD and military. They doubt Russia wants another Winter War with Finns and choose to drink instead.

Perhaps perceived, but who perceived it ? The 10 USA fighters here are going to convince Putin of exactly what ? A military exercise on his border.

David---there are photos in the article that match the tank rail shipping link you had yesterday---the tanks were being loaded and shipped to the Crimea---the core question is now WHY? Caption states T72s but they really look like 80/90s ---one needs to see the roller wheel skirts in order to have a clean ID--besides the 72s are a far older model and virtually out of service since the 80/90s came in---they really were mostly for export anyway--and the Ukrainians have the 80s as well---notice the photos are at angles in order to make identification harder for the OSINT analyst.

I don't see anything significant in those media pics other than a lack of location and date, regardless of which models they are. Immediately following the incursion with Georgia, we determined that most of what Russia used as both equipment and ordnance was stone age. What a great way to get rid of the garbage ! Not to mention all their aerial bombardment missed targets and hit abandoned airfields.

Much like I learned at Bowling in the early 80s with a Canon AE-1, one uses angles effectively in photography. IMO, what you see in the photos is known as wide-angle distortion.

I think you gave the CNN dude way too much credit for those happy snaps !

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan---believe me when I say the Russian Army of 2014 is definitely not the Russian Army of even 2008.

It is modern, well equipped, well built around modern communications/drones/intelligence and well schooled in our own decision making processes. The officers at the MAJ to COL ranges are well educated and they have a professional NCO corp much as we do.

Reference the tanks--highly important as it indicates they are moving heavy units for a reason-and heavy units have a meaning even in Russian doctrine of 2014--the Russian Army has no T72s as they were not the greatest of tanks even in the 80s--they have multiple versions of the T80s and 90s--regardless of what US Army tankers say about the Abrams---the T90 matches it and is even better than the Abrams especially for Europe.

In the world of international relations using public media to get one's message across is common-- has been common in the past and will be common in the coming years---when one side see's multiple media reports and they do monitor the media ---the stories get reported\straight to Putin who is use of OSINT from his KGB days. NATO/US/EU want Putin to fully understand what they are saying.

By the way the messaging got across and this afternoon via Interfax several high level Russian elites are "complaining" about NATO actions/comments in eastern Europe---quote "not helpful" unquote.

By the way check the Interfax press release on my next comment---if in fact the statement in the last sentence is correct and I am not doubting that it is not correct---Putin will roll in the next week or so. sometimes when Russian do a press release they do not have the best interpreters---so even the sentence was a bad translation attempt or it is the truth that slipped out during the interview.

[CBCalif]

Have you read Dave Maxwell's assessment of Russia's operational methodology in their movement west -- so to speak, appearing in "War on the Rocks" today? Or, in his words ""how Russia has used all of its elements of national power to achieve its objectives." It is rather (IMHO) rather interesting and well written.

And (at least in my opinion) you are quite correct, the Russian Army of today appears vastly improved over the organization the world watched roll into Georgia. What a difference! Russia has clearly invested in its Army.

(Added by Moderator) Link:http://warontherocks.com/2014/04/tak...to-a-gunfight/

[Stan]

Stan---believe me when I say the Russian Army of 2014 is definitely not the Russian Army of even 2008.

Outlaw, links if you please knowing I live right across the border and have been there countless times to include the countries concerned herein.

And (at least in my opinion) you are quite correct, the Russian Army of today appears vastly improved over the organization the world watched roll into Georgia. What a difference! Russia has clearly invested in its Army.

Welcome aboard !

Appears ?

Generally speaking, we back up our Sierra with links or real life scenarios please. David has done that this time.

Regards, Stan

EDIT:

CBCalif,
Please define for me in military terms what this means:

Russia has clearly invested in its Army

[davidbfpo]

Just a thought on the railway movement of Russian heavy armour. Could it be moving armour into the Crimea? Which would give the currently lightly equipped forces heavy armour to cross into the Ukraine proper.

A "dash" to Odessa and beyond is made easier. Curious isn't it that such a horsed cavalry adjective lives on with tanks.

[Stan]

Just a thought on the railway movement of Russian heavy armour. Could it be moving armour into the Crimea? Which would give the currently lightly equipped forces heavy armour to cross into the Ukraine proper.

A "dash" to Odessa and beyond is made easier. Curious isn't it that such a horsed cavalry adjective lives on with tanks.

David,
This a very poor open source for info, but has some decent video.

VIDEO: Russia Invades Crimea with Military Freight Trains

Russia’s military progression into Crimea has been heavily dependent on rail lines in the southeastern part of the peninsula.

Residents in those areas have captured video of trains loaded with Russian equipment moving west toward Simferopol, the Crimean capital .

EDIT:

Would like to clarify that post Soviet heavy armor is rather limited in description to just two tanks. The videos and pics contain all sorts of equipment, but none actually contain any heavy armor under current international descriptions. How heavy is heavy ?