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

[AmericanPride]

Then if "realpolitik" then there is no need to negotiate if I recall---as we know the end state---right?

Whoever said that realpolitik does not include negotiations when negotiations achieve the interests of the state?

"Realpolitik" if you are referring to the German term as it was used by Brandt--entails a totally different meaning that just plain being stupid as a foreign policy.

If Russia has material interests, and if its actions achieve those material interests, then how is its foreign policy "stupid"?

1. Putin will have to take care of the south-east region for months to come---meaning food, water, jobs and get the electricity and water flowing much like he had to do in the Crimea but now cannot do

I'm fairly confident the Russians have already considered this; hence their reluctance to outright occupy or annex the region in the first place. And since the region is still de jure a part of Ukraine, it will legally be Kiev's responsibility to manage the problem, and the Russians I'm sure won't have any issues in offering their aid and advice.

2. he has to get the economy going when he is having problems with that in the Crimea otherwise the locals will truly doubt it was worth it--plus the looting, robbing, killing and torturing by the separatists not the Ukrainian Army

Why do you assume that the local population will blame Moscow and not Kiev for their problems?

3. if literally driving the Ukraine out of it's non aligned status and fully into the EU---great goal there

That remains to be seen - there's a wide gulf between potential and performance. Ukraine is not in the political or security situation to join EU or NATO without serious internal turmoil. And if a third of the country is occupied by the Russian army, NATO won't be inclined to invite Ukraine into the organization.

4. if finally awakening NATO and fully focusing NATO on the from Russian out loud spoken nuclear threats---great move there as well

Russia wants to be recognized as a great power, so how is that a criticism?

5. if convincing most Europeans that Russia cannot be trusted on anything--well another great move

What does trust have to do with realpolitik? The fundamental problem in international security is that there is no trust, and that the actions and statements of other states cannot be validated. And this is clearly evident in Russia's consistent distrust in the intentions of NATO since the collapse of the USSR.

So again what do you mean by "realpolitik"? As I see nothing of that in the Russian current strategy.

Of course you don't - you've been on an anti-Russian screed since the start of the crisis. Sure - Russia's behavior is not in the best interest of the U.S., but that does not mean that Russian leaders are living in an "altered state of reality" or that they are "irrational". Ignoring the facts that Russian elites do have goals, and have tied specific strategies and resources to these goals, is an "altered state of reality" that serves no useful purpose.

[OUTLAW 09]

Whoever said that realpolitik does not include negotiations when negotiations achieve the interests of the state?

Then AP you are fully aware of what is going on inside the combat zones right now---and yes in the towns and villages still under UA control after retaking them---even the ethnic Russians were happy to see them..

You have got to get out more often.

If I recall correctly you were the one appealing for "understanding Russian concerns and for totally negotiating correct---and what has that gotten you?

So with six off ramps for Putin---and he is still attacking the Ukraine and funneling in more troops and equipment and what has negotiations gotten you?

Does it honestly strike you Putin even wants an off ramp?

You do remember I stated a number of times he is coming across the border--that much was clear from his Duma speech if you took the time to reread it---all there to be fully understood.

Your not making much sense.

[AmericanPride]

So with six off ramps for Putin---and he is still attacking the Ukraine and funneling in more troops and equipment and what has negotiations gotten you?

Right - because the alternative to continued Russian escalation is what exactly? On the one hand you are claiming that Putin is an "altered state of reality" and is "irrational" but then on the other, you are condemning him for not making what you think is a rational decision to comply with Western demands. How much sense does that make???

If Putin is irrational and lives in an "altered state of reality", why do you think sanctions or military escalation by the West would produce predictable results or de-escalation? You seem most frustrated that Putin is not behaving in the way that you desire.

[AmericanPride]

Interesting article from the National Interest on Chinese perceptions of the Ukraine crisis:

With respect to Moscow’s ultimate aims in the current crisis, Colonel Fang seems to believe that Russia has seized Crimea as a “bargaining chip.” He suggests that the ultimate resolution of the crisis might be for the Crimea’s status to resemble that of South Ossetia (formally separate from the Russian Federation, but enjoying a high level of autonomy within a neighboring country). In an apparent expression of support for Russian actions, Colonel Fang asks that given the power vacuum in Kiev, “… who can say what is legal?” In addition, he writes: “[The Ukrainian opposition] … went too far … not anticipating that Russia would have such an intense reaction.”

For Colonel Fang, Russia has the initiative. The U.S. lacks military options, and “Russia does not fear,” according to this Chinese analysis. Russia’s “actual control” over Crimea is a decisive factor in the present crisis that the Chinese have not missed. True, some other Chinese analysts have been more circumspect, pointing to the prospect of major losses to the Russian economy (国际问题研究, April 2014), but many others, such as a Xinhua Russian expert writing in May 2014, seem to follow Colonel Fang’s interpretation and admire “Russia’s rejection of the West’s global leadership, its defense of its core interests, and its lack of hesitation in becoming the enemy of the West.”