Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Ulenspiegel]

Ulenspiegel---a simple basic question that I do not see often answered concerning the Crimea and the current Russian view towards the Crimea.

Correct me if I am wrong but who in fact "gave" the Crimea "away" and was it not done under a "communist" leader in a "communist legal fashion" in the beginning of say 1954 which if I recall the Soviet Union was still wading through "Stalinism" was it not?

So are we saying that a "communist" country led by not so softie "Communist Party fine tuned in the Stalin days " using "communist" legal terms somehow got it "wrong"?

So now it is up to the Ukraine and the West to do what "take a time out and stand in the corner" and allow another former "communist ie KGB COL" a chance for a "redo" of history say "60" years later?

Does that makes sense to you?

The missed opportunity for the Russian/Soviet government was around 1989, when it would have been possible to reassign the Krim, they did not do it because of political weakness.

I have not noticed a single German political leader nor a single German newspaper actually challenge the above statement---meaning-- are we the West to give Russia a chance to redo history all because someone in the former Soviet Union who was a "valid leader" "made a stupid 1954 mistake" in the "eyes" of the current 2014 Russian leader?

Realistically, the German reunification was only possible because of a temporary weakness in the SU/Russia around 1989. Do you really expect that a German government will oppose the occupatioon as long as it runs without war crimes?

Is that not what the current Putin argument really is all about if one really reads his statements---a chance to correct in his eyes "a stupid Communist mistake from 1954". So are you in fact stating that the "stupid West who said nothing in 1954" should in fact stand to the side and allow another "stupid mistake in 2014 to be made again"?

Heck using that argument Germany could stand up in 2014 and say "excuse me because that stupid Hitler made a mistake in 1939 we want the western portion of Poland back and the western portion of the Czech Republic back because we did not have a chance to correct that stupid Hitler
back in 1939"---so now we Germany also want our own "redo" of history because we Germany did not have a chance to call Hitler stupid back then and stop him.

How do you define realpolitik?

You do realize that is exactly what Putin is saying about the Crimea and you do realize the West is allowing a complete "redo" of history just because a single person feels his nose is disjointed by a former Communist leader who he never knew because he was not born in those times although he himself was a Communist so one might think he would have empathy for that historical time period of the Soviet Communist Party?

But again I have never heard and or seen written anywhere that Putin ever revoked his Communist Party membership and the Party still survives so maybe he is a "hidden member still"---or has anyone writing here seen such a revocation notice?

Some questions for you:

Do you really think that we should do more than some economic sanctions in case of the Krim?

Or do you think that the Krim is worth for the west to play a military game?

Do you think the west holds after 2003 the moral high ground?

What was our and the Ukrainian position when Yugoslavia went south?

Unfortunately, the world is a spectrum of grey, my feeling is, you want to sell a clear black and white scenario that does not exists.

[OUTLAW 09]

Some questions for you:

Do you really think that we should do more than some economic sanctions in case of the Krim?

Or do you think that the Krim is worth for the west to play a military game?

Do you think the west holds after 2003 the moral high ground?

What was our and the Ukrainian position when Yugoslavia went south?

Unfortunately, the world is a spectrum of grey, my feeling is, you want to sell a clear black and white scenario that does not exists.

Here is our difference---at what point does a country or a set of countries respond and how does that response get the attention of in this case an aggressor that upset the basis of the European development as a whole since 1945.

Or did I miss that point?
Secondly, the Russian economy is actually far weaker than most think--and here is the core point most Communists including inside the GDR started to believe their own economic rhetoric in the 70s thus the numbers being reported up the chain by the LPGs and Kombinats etc. were fake and they were added to at every level until it hit the leaders hip and in the end the leadership believed the numbers while those at the bottom knew they were fake.

That is now ongoing in Russian---Putin believed his numbers as did his radical ultra nationalist advisors and it now appears the economic truth has set in---but Putin went way to far out on a limb to safely climb down.

The sanctions should be implemented harder and faster---yes it would hurt the EU but the only way to get his attention is to prove you will accept pain for one's believes the West has not shown that thus he believes he can continue as he wants.

This is not about morals ---this is hard core annexation politics nothing more nothing less and if one is trying to work the morals angle then all is lost---one cannot weigh the Iraq against say Kosovo and Kosovo against the break up of Yugoslavia which actually a large number of people accurately predicted would often---I even got a 1 on a paper on that exact topic in 1977 and actually predicted how each zone would devolve into violence---it was there for all to see many choose not to see.

The Yugoslavian breakup was driven by something new the West had not seen thus the long delay trying to figure it out---the Christian Muslim divide.

And did the West get it wrong just as Putin is struggling with a whole list of Islamic issues vs say the statements coming from the Russian Orthodox Church.

[JMA]

[COLOR="Red"][COLOR="Black"]Some questions for you:

Do you really think that we should do more than some economic sanctions in case of the Krim?

Well what sanctions have been applied and what deterrent effect have they had?

I suggest the response from the West has been pathetic other than from Sweden (Carl Bildt) in a speech at the Atlantic Council:

I can think of only one previous case in modern history when a regime suddenly militarily grabs and annexes another country or piece of territory of another country, claiming some sort of more or less relevant historical justification, and that was Saddam Hussein's invasion, occupation and annexation of Kuwait in 1991. The international reaction then was swift, strong and effective, and I believe this was very important in preventing anyone else, wherever that could have been, from harboring thoughts about making similar dangerous adventures.

With the US sadly we are seeing the last kicks of a dying horse - and how pathetic these kicks are too. As for Germany and the other (cowardly) nations of the EU they are now applying a policy of appeasement towards Russia.

So it is the principle of the matter that counts and not the spin being applied in a pathetic attempt to make cowardly appeasement appear to be an intelligent and logical approach to the annexation of Crimea.

Russia has correctly noted that there is no military ability - jointly - to counter any territorial moves may attempt in the absence of the US.

Bildt again:

In much the same way, I believe it is very important that we stand very firm on what the Russian invasion, occupation and annexation of Crimea really meant and that we are clear on never accepting either its legality or its different consequences. If we should waiver on this, I see a clear risk that further Crimeas could happen further down the road, perhaps not tomorrow, and perhaps not the day after tomorrow, perhaps, but perhaps the day after the day after tomorrow, perhaps not there, perhaps not here, but perhaps somewhere else, and the consequences would be really bad. If we don't see that risk, yes, then history might well see also us as sleepwalkers into catastrophe in the future.

If I disagree with Bildt it is only in the choice of the word 'sleepwalkers', I would have used the word 'cowards', (but then again he is a diplomat). I believe the risk is seen and noted and the specific and deliberate choice has been made to appease the Russians, no sleepwalking involved.

Finally the only people with a military option is the US and clearly the current administration is running scared of any confrontation with Russia and just about anyone else. Putin knows this. Britain has steadily reduced its military to the point that it is incapable of any substantial military effort. Putin knows this. The rest of the EU in military terms is pathetic, this includes Germany. Putin knows this. Even the application economic sanctions seems to be too much for Germany to contemplate. Putin is the one laughing.