Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[JMA]

We haven't been tested. They're playing games in their backyard, which we didn't even bother to declare to be our backyard so far.

That argument rings a bell from 70 odd years ago.

Definition of appeasement:

Appeasement, the policy of making concessions to the dictatorial powers in order to avoid conflict...

Germany and the EU may not have been tested militarily but certainly psychologically.

With Georgia being round one, Round two to the Russians (in Ukraine).

Remember this?

To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. -- Sun Tzu

But it is supreme excellence when nobody will admit you have done anything worth getting excited about while you chew up territories one at a time.

The Ukraine is in the geographical Europe, but it's not in the institutional Europe; it's neither EU nor associated nor NATO. Eurovision Song Contest; I think they participate in that. And European sports championships. Can't remember them participating in European football competitions, though.
An attack on them is not an attack on Germany, France, UK, Poland, Romania, Italy, Spain, ...

Yes, yes, yes... I'm sure you can come up with 100 reasons why what happens in Ukraine has - will have - no impact on Europe... (just like we heard what happens in Syria will have no impact on the Middle East).

You're working on the assumption that "security policy" matters, that is the messing around with military strength in various places. The folks who mistake the small European air tanker capacities for a defence weakness make the same mistake.

This paragraph is incomprehensible...

"security policy" isn't "defence policy". "security policy" is messing around, while "defence policy" is about securing oneself and one's allies (the actual ones, which signed and ratified an alliance treaty).

What do you mean by messing around?

What I will say is that in the case of Germany this is no ability to defend against any military threat either to Germany itself or any NATO or EU ally. So obviously Germany will always underplay the threat and then seek so other solution to the threat - (see appreasement definition above).

Our defences were never tested. We prove to be relatively disinterested in playing games abroad, sure - but that's no "defence" failure or "defence" weakness by a long shot. In fact, it would be a failure if we wasted more resources on preparing for and playing such games than we already do.

If your defences were to be tested - militarily - what would you be able to do about it (without the help of the US)? Zip, nothing, nada.

What is clear from Russian actions in first Georgia and now in Ukraine is that there is indeed a potential military threat - more to some than others - from Russia right now.

Does Germany accept that such a threat exists, to itself or other European states? If so what deterrent does Germany have to prevent any Russian military adventurism? I put it to you that this is the reason why Germany underplays the threat from Russia - as there is nothing they can do about it (without begging the US to help them).

Look at the Americans; they fool around a lot, spend insanely every year on their baseline military budget, spend insanely most these years on additional mil budgets, and what do they get?

The best and most capable militray in the world.

An economy that's failing them, thousands dead, ten thousands crippled, trillions wasted on a pointless war (one of several), avoidable hostility in much of the world, a distraction from challenges at home.

Military expenditure is the scapegoat for 'social' expenditure which is spiralling out of control. But yes misguided wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not helped.

And then they go on and whine how they foot the bill that almost nobody else wants to exist in the first place. And they complain about how everybody else didn't go nuts as much as they did and paid as insanely as they did on what's largely unnecessary government consumption.

"American spending comprised 72% of all NATO defense expenditures in 2013"

Little wonder they are pulling out...

It's time for Europe to grow up and start to take responsibility for their own defence.

So our defence was not tested; at most our motivation to fool around in East Europe was tested.

Not militarily maybe... but your resolve was and collectively Europe failed. Disgraceful.

Just as the Americans' motivation to fool around in Russia's periphery was tested during the South Ossetia conflict.

... and they (the US) and Europe failed... and set the scene for Ukraine - McCain warned you as did Romney/Palin and you laughed at them. Whose laughing now?

Fact is, Western "security policy" folks have become too greedy and moved to too many places. Some fools took them seriously and actually believed that Westerners were (even) more into the messing around hobby than they actually are. But Americans wanted Georgia as a make-believe part of a faux coalition and as auxiliary troops providers. they never intended to actually help Georgia.

Georgia had and still has the right to national self-determination just as Germany does. In an act of cowardly appeasement the US and the EU/NATO turned their back on them in their time of need.

the peom by Martin Niemller reminds us of the cowadice of German intellectuals back then... seems not much has changed.

Nor are West Europeans fans of the idea of going to war with Russia over a non-allied petty territory such as the Crimea where about 90% of the population prefer Russia over the Ukraine. We did low-level messing around with support for some pro-Western/pro-"democracy" political movements there, and that's about it.

LOL... you mean you bought the results of that referendum? You serious?

The Russians are merely calling some bluffs at times.

As the Germans once did ... and aslo getting away with it.

[wm]

Georgia had and still has the right to national self-determination just as Germany does. In an act of cowardly appeasement the US and the EU/NATO turned their back on them in their time of need.

A couple of points:

First, the existence of a people's right to self-determination does not entail a correlative duty on others to ensure those people are able to exercise that right. In fact, on some definitions of a right, one only has rights insofar as they are able to exercise them without the help of others.

Second, I replaced Georgia from JMA's post with people--Georgia as a nation is not a people--it is a collection of different peoples. The nation of Georgia may have a right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty, but again, having that right does not entail that other nations have a duty to protect the exercise of that right. The correlative duty only exists when other nations have made pledges/promises to defend infringements of the right. The NATO treaty is an example of such a pledge or promise, but it extends only to the treaty's signatories/member nations.

The "responsibility to protect" (R2P) justification that the US and Russia have both used recently is not universally binding, either morally legally. Acting on this responsibility is only permissive, not required. On both the Syria thread and this thread, some have claimed that the US has failed in its duty/responsibility to protect. Why is it only the US that must act on this responsibility? Is this a 21st Century version of the 19th Century "White Man's Burden" argument (which by the way was used to override the very right of self-determination now being touted)? If R2P is a required action, why are not Austria, the Republic of South Africa and every other nation in the world not also required to ante up? Why are these other nations not equally derelict in their responsibilities to the rest of the world's people? Absent a prior promise to help, which in the US means a treaty ratified by the Congress, R2P is just a bunch of feel good mumbo jumbo.

[carl]

This is just a minor thing, not germane to WM's main point but with regard to this statement

Second, I replaced Georgia from JMA's post with people--Georgia as a nation is not a people--it is a collection of different peoples.

so is the US, so is Canada, so is Switzerland, so was Rome etc.

[carl]

Putin's being a genius or being astute, maybe one, maybe the other, the result is the same. And it goes back to events of 6 or so years ago in Georgia and our decision not to put a ABMs in Poland and the Czech Republic. I think at that time Putin looked at the West and at the US in particular and decided that he could base a strategy of conquest upon nothing more than a read of the psychology and therefore the very likely reaction of NATO. NATO would do nothing.

That NATO would do nothing was particularly based upon a read of the United States and its chief executive. Whether we like it or not and complain about it or not, whatever physical and especially moral strength NATO has or rather had is given to it by the US. Without the US, no NATO. But the US is a disciplined representative republic and in foreign affairs the strength, especially the moral strength of the US depends upon the character of our chief executive. Our system is structured like that and it won't be changed anytime soon.

I think that Putin decided back then that the chief executive of the US had no moral strength. No matter the degree of the provocation, that lack of moral strength of our chief executive would prevent any response. Events in the years since have only confirmed his assessment.

Putin as I said built a strategy upon that, it is a pretty safe strategy and almost foolproof. Just push, but push slowly and wear a mask. That is exactly what he is doing, and will continue to do (though he's only human and may get excited and push faster, a mistake that would be). It is a simple strategy and it is based upon something simple, an astute judgment of your enemy's character. But I think the genius is to take decisive action based upon that. There are not many who will do that and not many who can do it successfully. That is where the genius comes in.

With the above in mind I don't think Maidan had much at all to do with this. I think they have been building their forces in accordance with this strategy in mind and were waiting for the appropriate time to begin to implement it, as that time will always come.

This situation will exist for at least three more years. The hole we will be in at that time will be very deep. As I said at the Journal, professional military men in the US had better start doing some hard thinking about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it. The front line states have already started I'll wager.

[Tukhachevskii]

..... its good to see the world whilst wearing the other chap's moccasins.

[Stan]

The annual Estonian Internal Security Service (ISS, also known as KaPo) report was published today, with a blue-yellow design as a nod toward Ukraine.

The yearbook focuses on NGOs with loose ties to Russia - - and some not as loose - and organizations in Russia set up for external purposes.

These organizations, according to the IS, aim to promote three messages:
1) Estonia supports Nazism
2) Russian-speaking people are discriminated against in Estonia en masse
3) Estonia is a dead-end state that only causes problems for its Western partners

The report says Russia had refrained from taking openly aggressive steps before Ukraine, to avoid international isolation, but that is no longer a priority.

The ISS is tasked with national security, counterintelligence and investigating large-scale cases of corruption.

The full text of the review is available here.

[Stan]

Yep, a bit egotistical to quote myself herein, but what the hay

Going back to the link, click on the 2013 pdf in English.

The use of soft power only attracts the attention of national security institutions if it forms a part of the influence operations of a foreign state, and the understanding of the Russian authorities of what soft power means is an example of that.

One method in Russia’s influence operations is to use extremists to
achieve Russia’s foreign policy goals.

The annual Estonian Internal Security Service (ISS, also known as KaPo) report was published today, with a blue-yellow design as a nod toward Ukraine.

[wm]

This is just a minor thing, not germane to WM's main point but with regard to this statement



so is the US, so is Canada, so is Switzerland, so was Rome etc.

Carl,

Big difference for two of those countries--US and Canada-is that the majority of their citizens are not natives--they are descendants of relatively recent immigrants (except for the Native Americans, Aleuts, etc.) The peoples of Georgia are descendants of ethnic groups that have been there for millennia. If you want to compare Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians to Sioux, Algonquin and Cherokee, I'll accept that point.
Rome is another case all together. The original Romans were part of the tribe of Latins. So, if you want to make the comparison to say, Italy--you might be right in terms of comparing them with Samnites, Sabines, Etruscans, Campanians, etc. If you mean Rome after, say the, Samnite Wars, then the comparison is not really valid,even though some of the inhabitants of the Italian Peninsula later revolted. This revolt was the Social War (90-88 BC), a fight between Rome and the Socii, Latin for allies. The Soci lost that war and hence were unable to restore their "right" of self-determination. BTW, some of the battles/wars that Rome later fought were R2P type wars to protect other kingdoms from Parthia, Persia, etc. But once Roman armies showed up, it was usually likely a visit from the Borg--those being assisted were soon "assimilated." Of course the Persians and Parthians , even Pyrrhus of Epirus and Phillip V of Macedon, used R2P type arguments to try to curb Rome or expand their own land.

I'm not sure about the allusion to Switzerland, AKA the Swiss Confederation. Could you say a little more by way of explanation. Seems to me the folks living there have been in place at least as long as the Franks, Lombards and Burgundians in Italy and France

[carl]

Carl,

Big difference for two of those countries--US and Canada-is that the majority of their citizens are not natives--they are descendants of relatively recent immigrants (except for the Native Americans, Aleuts, etc.) The peoples of Georgia are descendants of ethnic groups that have been there for millennia. If you want to compare Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians to Sioux, Algonquin and Cherokee, I'll accept that point.
Rome is another case all together. The original Romans were part of the tribe of Latins. So, if you want to make the comparison to say, Italy--you might be right in terms of comparing them with Samnites, Sabines, Etruscans, Campanians, etc. If you mean Rome after, say the, Samnite Wars, then the comparison is not really valid,even though some of the inhabitants of the Italian Peninsula later revolted. This revolt was the Social War (90-88 BC), a fight between Rome and the Socii, Latin for allies. The Soci lost that war and hence were unable to restore their "right" of self-determination. BTW, some of the battles/wars that Rome later fought were R2P type wars to protect other kingdoms from Parthia, Persia, etc. But once Roman armies showed up, it was usually likely a visit from the Borg--those being assisted were soon "assimilated." Of course the Persians and Parthians , even Pyrrhus of Epirus and Phillip V of Macedon, used R2P type arguments to try to curb Rome or expand their own land.

I'm not sure about the allusion to Switzerland, AKA the Swiss Confederation. Could you say a little more by way of explanation. Seems to me the folks living there have been in place at least as long as the Franks, Lombards and Burgundians in Italy and France

A country is a people and a people a country if they figure they are and are willing to fight to back up the point. That's all. If you throw in natives vs recent immigrants you are throwing in an infinitely variable factor which depends solely on personal opinion, eg. my native is your recent immigrant which is somebody else's returned rightful owner.

One of the main causes of the Social War was the Italian allies were offered Roman citizenship and then the offer was withdrawn. One of the ways the Romans ended that war was by giving the allies Roman citizenship. So the allies fought the Romans for the right to be Roman and lost the war but became Romans. All those different peoples fighting to become part of Rome.

And Roman citizenship was conferred upon most of the residents of Roman territories in 212 AD. So you had very many different peoples becoming Romans, from Syria to the Atlantic to Sahara to the North Sea. The empire lasted rather a long time after that.

As far as the Swiss go, they figure they are a nation or a people or whatever and they will fight to back it up. Since there are three languages spoken there which I am guessing represent three different cultures, sort of, and histories but they decided they are Swiss, live in Switzerland and will shoot you in the heart if you mess with that arrangement.

[Stan]

Carl,
Some salient points in both posts.

There are literally 100s of links warning against comparing WWII to the Ukraine, some very good, some not so.

They are as follows (those that I cared to read)

The Daily Beast
Not one of my info sources, but well written

Aljazeera
Requires reading between the lines to root out BS, but also well done

History News Network
Reminds me of the 80s and govt controlled wire feeds.

and

The LATimes
No comment

[carl]

Stan:

I figure the biggest event in the history of humans still has a lot of lessons to teach. I figure too that some people may not want to look at the biggest event in the history of the humans for lessons because what they see may not be what they want to see, especially if it involves doing something more than hoping hard and in a pious manner.

Let's leave the Teutons out of it for a second. When the Italians went on their adventure in Abyssinia they did it only because the Brits let them. I remember reading if the RN had indicated even a slight willingness to stop them, Benito wouldn't have chanced it and sailed on back. That would have had an effect.

The unfortunate plain truth of the matter is that sometimes, you actually gotta do something. A lot of influential people don't want to hear that.

[Stan]

As far as the Swiss go, they figure they are a nation or a people or whatever and they will fight to back it up. Since there are three languages spoken there which I am guessing represent three different cultures, sort of, and histories but they decided they are Swiss, live in Switzerland and will shoot you in the heart if you mess with that arrangement.

Carl,
Being 50% Swiss and having read some of their govt's reactions to sanctions, I beg to differ with you. There are actually four distinct cultures and languages not counting minorities like the Amish.

But the Swiss are in a bind and not so innocent nor prepared to give up their wealthy trade.

Switzerland treads careful path over Russia sanctions

But Switzerland, also a hub for private banking and a popular destination for Russia's wealthy elite, is reluctant to take measures it fears could compromise its cherished neutrality or damage closely nurtured trade relations with Moscow.

Switzerland not to use visa restrictions against Russia over Ukraine crisis

If other countries of the Schengen Agreement impose visa restrictions, Switzerland will not follow such measures, the Swiss ambassador said.

[carl]

Carl,
Being 50% Swiss and having read some of their govt's reactions to sanctions, I beg to differ with you. There are actually four distinct cultures and languages not counting minorities like the Amish.

But the Swiss are in a bind and not so innocent nor prepared to give up their wealthy trade.

Stan:

I yield to superior knowledge.

My point though was a little different. Because the Swiss nation can be as feckless and stupid as the Americans and the Brits nowadays doesn't mean they aren't a nation. They are even though they have four distinct cultures. That was my point to Wm.

[wm]

Carl,
Part of your post is about the myth by which folks justify giving up personal freedom to some government or other. The most common myth is the old social contract. You are right about Rome and the Soci. Rome did not live up to the terms agreed to by everyone. The Swiss are a different story. The land we call Switzerland is a confederacy of regions called cantons, not a single nation. Most of those cantons are geographically isolated due to the terrain. They are more like the ancient Greek leagues than a nation like France or Italy.

A country is a people and a people a country if they figure they are and are willing to fight to back up the point. That's all. If you throw in natives vs recent immigrants you are throwing in an infinitely variable factor which depends solely on personal opinion, eg. my native is your recent immigrant which is somebody else's returned rightful owner.

One of the main causes of the Social War was the Italian allies were offered Roman citizenship and then the offer was withdrawn. One of the ways the Romans ended that war was by giving the allies Roman citizenship. So the allies fought the Romans for the right to be Roman and lost the war but became Romans. All those different peoples fighting to become part of Rome.

And Roman citizenship was conferred upon most of the residents of Roman territories in 212 AD. So you had very many different peoples becoming Romans, from Syria to the Atlantic to Sahara to the North Sea. The empire lasted rather a long time after that.

As far as the Swiss go, they figure they are a nation or a people or whatever and they will fight to back it up. Since there are three languages spoken there which I am guessing represent three different cultures, sort of, and histories but they decided they are Swiss, live in Switzerland and will shoot you in the heart if you mess with that arrangement.

[carl]

Carl,
Part of your post is about the myth by which folks justify giving up personal freedom to some government or other. The most common myth is the old social contract. You are right about Rome and the Soci. Rome did not live up to the terms agreed to by everyone. The Swiss are a different story. The land we call Switzerland is a confederacy of regions called cantons, not a single nation. Most of those cantons are geographically isolated due to the terrain. They are more like the ancient Greek leagues than a nation like France or Italy.

The test of that then would be if Switzerland was invaded, would all the Swiss turn out to kill the invaders. Nobody has cared to test them out on that in a very long time. For practical purposes, they are peoples who are one nation. The important thing is, will they fight as one? They will.

I don't understand which part was a myth.

[JMA]

Look at these stats: Demographics of Georgia

At the time of the last full census in 1989 70% identified themselves as ethnic Georgians. That's good enough to speak of the Georgian nation.

It appears that one has to be careful of the dates of movements of peoples in these countries as there was an influx of Russians during the Soviet era. In the main it was Russians inwards and others such as the Tartars from Crimea out.

This is a subject on it's own.

[mirhond]

17.03.2014

Проект Постанови щодо першочергових заходів у зв'язку з військовою агресією Російської Федерації

Supreme Rada.

Draft on emergency measures due to Russian agression.



text of the draft
http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/w...pf35401=294360

2) на час військової агресії запроваджується смертна кари для зрадників, диверсантів, мародерів, убивць, дезертирів і шпигунів.

In time of military agression death penalty is applied to traitors, saboteurs, marauders, murderes, deserters and spies.

Bolsheviks applaud in the Heaven, Trotzki raises a glass of nectar.

upd.

Ukrainians are hilarious:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...pli=1&sle=true

З початком збройної агресії забезпечити силами військ спеціальних операцій та заздалегідь направлених диверсійно-розвідувальних груп нанесення ударів по військовим об’єктам вглибині території агресора, а також об’єктам управління у його адміністративних центрах (в першу чергу – Москві та Санкт- Петербурзі). За можливості необхідно фізично усунути від влади політичне керівництво Росією – в першу чергу Президента та Прем’єр-міністра.

At the beginning of agression strike on the military targets into the depth of enemy territory(especially in Moscow and St-Petersburg). Assasination of president and prime-minuster of Russia is essential, if possible.

Lo and behold, mortals, of the great undertaikings of Maidan!

The wierd thing is that Putin didn't mention once Eurasian union during his last q&a session,

It isn't weird, because there is no such thing as Eurasian Union, unless you follow the philosophic school of subjective idealism

[Stan]

Hey Mirhond !

It would be great if you managed to find an English version from these links, as most of us are not Russian nor Ukrainian, and, while you enjoy only translating two passages, the remainder of those "funny Ukrainian" documents may have something more to tell.

17.03.2014 Supreme Rada.

Draft on emergency measures due to Russian agression.

text of the draft
http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/w...pf35401=294360


In time of military agression death penalty is applied to traitors, saboteurs, marauders, murderes, deserters and spies.

Bolsheviks applaud in the Heaven, Trotzki raises a glass of nectar.

upd.

Ukrainians are hilarious:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...pli=1&sle=true



At the beginning of agression strike on the military targets into the depth of enemy territory(especially in Moscow and St-Petersburg). Assasination of president and prime-minuster of Russia is essential, if possible.

Lo and behold, mortals, of the great undertaikings of Maidan!

[mirhond]

It would be great if you managed to find an English version from these links, as most of us are not Russian nor Ukrainian, and, while you enjoy only translating two passages, the remainder of those "funny Ukrainian" documents may have something more to tell.

No, I won't, because I don't think this stuff is translated, but I could translate the main ideas from it.

first one:

Ukraine will never recognize the annexation of Crimea
president must declare full mobilization of the army and militia and ask for NATO help
break all diplomatic ties with Russia and denounce agreements about fleet and partnership
apply to EU and NATO membership
increase tolls on gas transit
prevent any separatism by iron fist.
forbid Communist and Regions parties as collaborators.
forbid Russian media
criminal liability on anyone who participate in separatist's meetings or create obstructions for army movements
In time of military agression death penalty is applied to traitors, saboteurs, marauders, murderes, deserters and spies.

second one:

Russia is going to invade Kiev, overthrow the regime, occupy South-East and cut Ukraine from the sea. Ukraine can't handle intervention with current shabby armed forces, so it has to create 5 army corps to cover 2 most dangerous directions - Kharkov and Lugansk. So, battle plan is to inflict untolerable losses to enemy by all means and ask for NATO to create air and sea superiority.
At the beginning of agression special forces must strike on the military targets into the depth of enemy territory (especially in Moscow and St-Petersburg). Assasination of president and prime-minuster of Russia is essential, if possible. NATO commandos will take care of Crimea.

By charity foundation "Maidan of foreign affairs" (sic!)

I think the guy who wrote it plays Heats of Iron III too much.

[Dayuhan]

That argument rings a bell from 70 odd years ago.

Indeed it does... and how did that work out? Was Europe overrun? Did US power collapse? Did the west fall?

No to all, of course. Despite initial concessions (appeasement, arguably), Europe and the US found a line they had the means and will to hold. That line was far enough from the Soviet core that holding it didn't provoke a potentially terminal war. Eventually, despite those early concessions, it's the Soviet Union, rotted out from the inside, that fell.

So why should we assume that if the Ukraine goes badly (it already has) or worse, that all is lost, or that the decline is irreversible? Given the overall threat of Russia (less than that of the Soviets in many ways) and the state of the Russian economy, why shouldn't it be possible to manage the conflict in much the same way, without resort to war?

Panic and woe seem hardly useful. All is not lost, there's a fair row to hoe before this is done, and given the precedents it would hardly be wise to count the West out on the basis of what happened and what's likely to happen in the Ukraine.