Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[AmericanPride]

How can that be good?---if in fact the Maidan was not an outburst against the rule of law and good goveranance what was it? ---the neo Nazi nationalist takeover that Putin and Co. claim it was or was it an undercover Western land grab to takeover the raw resources of the country?

I think it can all be true simultaneously. There is nothing contradictory about Washington using the cover of ousting a corrupt president to seize control of Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence. And just because Yanukovych was corrupt and had authoritarian tendencies, it doesn't mean his successor is any better by default. I think Yanukovych had to go, but the West did itself no favors in the method that it orchestrated his departure; nor with the installation of Yatsenyuk as president. There were political routes available for a more agreeable transition as well as candidates with policies with more appeal among the public. But I suspect that wasn't the real aim in the removal of Yanukovych who, only months ago, was being enticed by the West for an EU association agreement. But after he rejected the terms of the agreement, suddenly his long known corruption becomes justification for his unconstitutional removal. That's politics, but let's do ourselves a favor and not pretend that the West is innocent in all of this.

The Maidan regardless of what one thinks was an expression of the population and we at a distance should accept that simple fact and provide them any support in getting their economy and country moving again all the while an invasion army sits on their borders, the Russian special forces and GRU are in the country and the Russian backed President raped the country.

It was the expression of a small segment of the population, and even that segment of the population is not head over heels in favor of Yatsenyuk and his policies. It's for this reason that revolutions have multiple stages - see Egypt as the most recent example. But the West is not interested in a democratic outcome in Ukraine (or Egypt) but instead with pushing through a range of policies over the objections of the Ukrainian people (if necessary). Hence the push from the unelected Yatsenyuk to implement policies he publicly admits are difficult and unpopular. He's not responsive to the public will.

[AmericanPride]

Was the far right a threat before it was not a threat before it was a threat again?

At a parliament session on Friday, Mr Turchynov, called the Right Sector rally outside parliament "an attempt to destabilise the situation in Ukraine, in the very heart of Ukraine - Kiev. That is precisely the task that the Russian Federation's political leadership is giving to its special services".

...

"We will avenge ourselves on [Interior Minister] Arsen Avakov for the death of our brother. The shooting of Sashko Bily is a contract killing ordered by the minister," Right Sector member Roman Koval was quoted as saying by the Ukrayinska Pravda website.

...

The Right Sector played a prominent role in the Kiev protests - and the clashes with police - which led to the removal of Mr Yanukovych from power. Its main support base is in western Ukraine.

Was the far right an agent of the Russian "specical services" while the Right Sector "played a prominent role" in the protests "and removal of Yanukovych from power"? So Moscow triggered the coup against it's own man in Kiev to justify seizing Crimea? I thought Russia was a third-rate power on the verge of economic collapse.

[OUTLAW 09]

wm---the estimates of the Russian military strength in their so called exercise is climbing---today at the least the US is admitting to 50K on all borders of the Ukraine and if one reads the various open source materials that are out there the Ukrainian estimate of 100K might in fact be the more accurate number.

So is Putin going for it or just a threat?---am picking ---going for it as the Russian economy is now after the first round of sanctions starting to struggle and it is going on the long haul to be hurt far more.

By the way it is just not me seeing the moves being made------
http://time.com/39705/russia-invasio...=MB.03.27.2014

Going for it now allows for all the hits to come and then they can bunker in and wait it out.

This thing is so far from an exercise---go back to a lot of the Cold War military articles---the key that the analysts look for are the stock piled supplies for an extended operation---they are in place and increasing.

For speed they need the copter transportation ---in place---they need their heavy attack copters ---are in place and they need the armor, airborne, spatnaz and GRU security forces---all in place. All fighter air cover and AWACs are in place as well.

Secondly, if they are just to threaten the Ukraine to keep the pressure on---- then a brigade parked 50 miles away is enough---not though 100K within a 30km striking distance and in some cases less than 2kms.

Based on their own Interfax PR it was to be a CPX to test out new forms of commo and intel and then home---they are still there and growing.

Even Obama warned Russia today to pull away from the border areas as it could be misinterpreted.

[Fuchs]

But the original strategic decision to place themselves in a position of dependency for energy from Russia was clearly an error and damaging to the German ability to act according to - what one would believe is - their conscience.

This decision must rank along with the decision to invade Russia in June 1941.

This only confirms what I already thought of you.


Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

[AmericanPride]

Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

I'm in agreement with you. People seem too caught up in their own propaganda. What has happened in Crimea (and South Ossetia) is not very different from similar actions by the West in Yugoslavia and to some extent even Libya and Iraq. There should not be any surprise that other states, particular ones with perceived injustices done against them, are equally dismissive of international law. Putin used the same Kosovo precedent in 2008 in Georgia as he did in 2014 in Ukraine, and six years later people are still shocked and surprised that he's using it? That ranks high in negligence in my book.

Unfortunately, Washington is very short-sighted in its policymaking, and that has been the case for some time. The short-sightedness is very destructive in building international norms and functional mulitlateral mechanisms to solve international problems, especially with states that do not have close economic or social linkages with the United States. There was no strategic forethought exercised in Washington about Ukraine in the Russian context.

[Stan]

wm---the estimates of the Russian military strength in their so called exercise is climbing---today at the least the US is admitting to 50K on all borders of the Ukraine and if one reads the various open source materials that are out there the Ukrainian estimate of 100K might in fact be the more accurate number.

Could you provide a link to this ?

So is Putin going for it or just a threat?---am picking ---going for it as the Russian economy is now after the first round of sanctions starting to struggle and it is going on the long haul to be hurt far more.

The Russian economy would barely feel any immediate effects of some Obama created financial barriers. They hit Georgia with so-called border built up troops. Not sure I see the differences. Care to expand ?

By the way it is just not me seeing the moves being made------
http://time.com/39705/russia-invasio...=MB.03.27.2014

Going for it now allows for all the hits to come and then they can bunker in and wait it out.

This thing is so far from an exercise---go back to a lot of the Cold War military articles---the key that the analysts look for are the stock piled supplies for an extended operation---they are in place and increasing.

Imagine what the North Koreans think every year when 50,000 troops come in with aircraft and tanks within 2 miles of their borders, not to mention huge naval ships ? Stock piles ? Ever served in Korea ? Ever been to Norway's (NATO's) stock piles ?

Even Obama warned Russia today to pull away from the border areas as it could be misinterpreted.

You mean this warning from the POTUS ?

Obama said any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be "deeply destabilizing, and he warned "the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."

C'mon already !

[Firn]

It was the expression of a small segment of the population, and even that segment of the population is not head over heels in favor of Yatsenyuk and his policies. It's for this reason that revolutions have multiple stages - see Egypt as the most recent example. But the West is not interested in a democratic outcome in Ukraine (or Egypt) but instead with pushing through a range of policies over the objections of the Ukrainian people (if necessary). Hence the push from the unelected Yatsenyuk to implement policies he publicly admits are difficult and unpopular. He's not responsive to the public will.

I think one should be careful indeed not to get caught up one's own propaganda, as you wrote. Ukraine is not an islamic nation and the times of communist insurgencies are long gone. So far pretty every Eastern European country which became a stable democracy turned West attracted by it's qualities and it's back on Russia. Look in contrast at the governments and strongmen composing Putin's Eurasian Union dream, not much democracy there. So even if there would be only cynical geopolitics at work in the EU or USA, aiming at extenting their sphere of influence, a democratic outcome seems to be ideal in the long run.

As somebody who was against the Iraq war form the very beginning, is highly critical of military interventions abroad I see the opportunity costs of such actions clearly. Still nobody should get fooled by the Russian rhetoric which makes use of the very different case Kosovo, but is in the tradition of Soviet Union which argued in quite similar fashion. See the Afghan war or the crushing of popular uprisings. In any case the key difference between the recent Western interventions is that occuption is seen as temporary mean, while Russia has annexed the occupied territory. They also made such a joke out of the referendum that even if, and this is a big if, the majority wanted indeed to be part of Russia that they threw away any good legal claim of it.

[JMA]

Not a smart response Fuchs.

Thought you would understand the need to define just who is a Crimean and therefore qualifies for a vote in any election or referendum.

Seems you accept that anyone - in this case read Russians - who happen to be in town at the time can vote. Including all manner of thousands of Russian servicemen, base maintenance support staff and any wives etc. So if US NATO servicemen happened to be in Germany at election time could just show up and vote in any German election? Please now, lets show a little intellectual clarity on this matter.

Then the question is when did these people - who you seem to accept as Crimeans - actually arrive in Crimea? Where they transported in by Stalin or later to fill the gap created by the Tartars who were shipped out?

Now - I know this is painful for one so willingly dependent on mother Russia for energy - what do you think about the legality of the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea?

Seems strange to have to remind you of all people of this quote:

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston Churchill

This only confirms what I already thought of you.

Seriously; the majority of the Crimeans appear to prefer Russia, though likely not anywhere close to 96%.
The referendum was a dumb one; too rushed, no respected foreign observers, thus of little weight internationally.

In general, a right of self-determination exists and clearly favours the Russian case about the Crimea in general, although the de facto invasion was clearly an aggression.
Sadly, UNSC veto right owners and their close friends get away with such behaviour officially. They get to feel the unofficial forms of backlash only later, an then tend to fail to associate it with their previous actions.

[OUTLAW 09]

Stan----article is in German but has better details----


http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...d_3727795.html


Also---

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukra...er-341257.html

[OUTLAW 09]

Great article on leaked Russian instructions of disinformation for Russian TV--

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/0...to-russian-tv/

[JMA]

You mean this warning from the POTUS ?

C'mon already !

U right Stan... your man is failing the test of character in a crisis.

There is one on his side who appears to be trying to show a little backbone:

Time to hold Russia accountable for its aggression

But still no one of consequence has the balls to demand a Russian roll-back.

Seems the dying horse ain't got any kicks left.

[TheCurmudgeon]

American Pride---just curious so in all your comments I hear you saying that a democratically elected president who together with his cronies stole over 70B then fled ---even his dentist son went to billionaire status in under three years---how is that possible---is far better than the street tossing out the former crook and installing an interim individual who seems to have some support from somewhere.

...

Come on AP you are sliding back into the political debate I went through on the FU Berlin in the 60/70s between world communist dominance and the evils of capitalism---the world has moved on and it is now all about the rule of law and good governance and along the way if a country can get an economy moving along that is accepted by the population regardless of how it looks then so be it.

While I generally agree with most of your post(s), those two phrases always trigger the hairs in the back of my neck. "Rule of Law" is just another way of saying that you are following locally interpreted procedural legitimacy - it is always a matter of interpretation. Stoning a woman for being raped is following the "rule of law" in some parts of the world. “Good governance” is almost meaningless since the standard of what is “good” has to be interpreted by those being governed. It is really only relevant if you are trying to correct “bad” governance and then it is only important if it is really bad (like your examples of Yanukovych. I guess I would caution against using terms that may not have a universally agreed upon definition.

That said, I agree, the proof will be in the pudding. Economics matter first and foremost, since a country had a better chance to remain a democracy if it is wealthy.

Recent studies of democratization, most importantly Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub,
Limongi, 2000 (PACL), question the modernization hypothesis that richer countries are
more likely to be democratic. PACL claim instead that transitions to democracy are
unpredictable, but once there, countries can remain democratic with higher levels of GDP
per capita. We retest this hypothesis using an expanded data set and a three-way, rather
than two-way, categorization of regimes: autocracies, partial democracies, and full
democracies. We find that the modernization theory does hold up well, contrary to
PACL’s findings: greater levels of prosperity do predict when countries are likely to
leave autocracy and stay fully democratic. Partial democracies, on the other hand, emerge
as the most volatile and least predictable category of regimes.

[JMA]

That said, I agree, the proof will be in the pudding. Economics matter first and foremost, since a country had a better chance to remain a democracy if it is wealthy.

Unless of course that country borders on a country with delusional dreams of empire.

[Stan]

Stan----article is in German but has better details----


http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...d_3727795.html


Also---

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukra...er-341257.html

Thanks for the links !

I'm 50% Swiss German... No problems.

On the surface the article seems a tad one sided. Then the dolphin story to boot.

I wouldn't place much credibility with this as an open source, but that's just me perhaps

You should check out council member Fuchs' blog. Perhaps also considered to be one sided, but he does a much better job of finding and justifying facts.

[Stan]

U right Stan... your man is failing the test of character in a crisis.

There is one on his side who appears to be trying to show a little backbone:

Time to hold Russia accountable for its aggression

But still no one of consequence has the balls to demand a Russian roll-back.

Seems the dying horse ain't got any kicks left.

Hey Mark !

Just spent 2 weeks in Maryland with my sister and her family. You are not going to find many Bama supporters in Maryland, and, I suspect, elsewhere either.

However, in this tiny little place called Estonia, seems far better to call the West home than placing bets on Vova.

Sorry, but I can't strike a comparison with Eastern Europe and Sub Sahara. Seems there's a place for "carrot and stick" and also a place for soft (and fuzzy) diplomacy when it comes to a nuke war involving 2 million soldiers.

Regards, Stan

[JMA]

Hey Mark !

Just spent 2 weeks in Maryland with my sister and her family. You are not going to find many Bama supporters in Maryland, and, I suspect, elsewhere either.

However, in this tiny little place called Estonia, seems far better to call the West home than placing bets on Vova.

Sorry, but I can't strike a comparison with Eastern Europe and Sub Sahara. Seems there's a place for "carrot and stick" and also a place for soft (and fuzzy) diplomacy when it comes to a nuke war involving 2 million soldiers.

Regards, Stan

Yes Stan Russia is a different kettle of fish altogether.

This is why there is a need for really smart guys - supplied with accurate and up to date intel - having a wide range of options - economic, military etc - to bring Russia to heal and roll back the status quo in Crimea to a pre invasion situation.

Not every challenge needs to be met by the use of nukes or 'boots on the ground' ... smart people know that.

[wm]

Outlaw:
I don't want to pile on too much as Stan has already done a good job responding to much of your post, but I too would like to see sources (other than those open source articles you mentioned) for your claims quoted below:

For speed they need the copter transportation ---in place---they need their heavy attack copters ---are in place and they need the armor, airborne, spatnaz(sic) and GRU security forces---all in place. All fighter air cover and AWACs are in place as well.

.

I also wonder about your source for what I&W folks look for, especially since I used to do I&W myself back during that Cold War. Perhaps you could also give us links to the "Cold War military articles" you mentioned.

Finally, Russians hunkering down and sucking it down after the fact of an invasion of Ukraine or Moldova would be much less likely, IMHO, than during the days of the Soviet Union. Not the same folks today--even Russia has its Gen Xers, Gen Yers, and Millennials who could be a potent nucleus for unrest. Based on the government's response to them, it appears Pussy Riot was a big enough threat to the status quo.

[OUTLAW 09]

wm---if you were I&W then you know the term indicators---many here and other places deride open source but in fact open source can and does provide up to 80% of most intel leads/tips then one just has to look harder for confirmation points.

What you missed on the next generation types in Russia comment is shown much by their Facebook and other social media mentions which surprisingly has been both positive and support of Putin's moves. He is at a high of now 80% popularity up from 54%.

That is a major surprise---it IMO goes to the heart of Russian nationalism that Putin has hit the nerve on as the population is still suffering the effects of the breakup---the oligarch's have been great at taking the money and running poor about finally developing the country so that the population sees the effects of billions being made on gas and oil.

In some aspects the population has not liked the in their eyes put down of their image of a superpower much like the Americans do not like being told their days are numbered as a superpower.

So until the Russian population throttles back Putin he will move forward.

Open source articles can in fact be great indicators when one sees mentioned small items that parallel each other but from different sources. The core problem is one must learn to understand the one-sided at times and focus on the small comments--feeling an article as being one sided can actually lose you an indicator.

We learned far more about jihadi's by actually reading their social media and websites---if you had not learned to be neutral one would have turned it off declaring it propaganda which many did and still do.

And yes when we watched the Soviets' ---it was exercises by types, numbers of personnel, followed by number of bridging units, followed by supply abilities with weather overlaid on the whole thing. Do open searches for old newspaper articles released prior to every major Soviet exercise in the 70/80s that were held in central and eastern Europe on a regular yearly basis-you will many open mentions similar to what I find and point out.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---you did see the article written by a former internal Russian political type who in fact alluded to fact that long term plans existed, did exist and were just taken out and implemented.

Come on Dayuhan---you write like mirhond did---what is actually your own personal uninhibited opinion?---taking apart anyone's comments is actually easy---writing and defending one's opinion is actually tougher.

As I wrote before, my opinion is that Putin's action in the Ukraine was primarily an act of opportunism. I do not think that Russia instigated the Ukrainian revolution as a pretext. I think in the early stages the events that unfolded were unexpected and not terribly welcome in Moscow, but when they produced a power vacuum and opened a window of opportunity, Putin took it. Whether or not that involved modifying a plan that was already in place or a completely new plan I do not know. It is entirely possible that plans already existed: governments and militaries routinely plan for all kinds of events.

I expect that it is very likely that next time around Putin will try to create his own opportunity, and that bordering nations would be well advised not to provide opportunities.

So what do you think Putin is doing , will do and what his future is to be?

Two points stand out over the last three weeks;

1. he wants to rebuild the greater Soviet Union---that is a given
2. in a Interfax PR released last night he definitely as I alluded to a couple of times fears the "street" breaking into the Russian population---and that is definitely a given

I don't know what Putin plans, and I don't know his future. Neither do you. Neither does anywhere else here. There's a wide range of skills and knowledge represented here, but clairvoyance and telepathy are not among them. We don't know if Putin wants to restore the former Soviet Union, or the pre-Soviet Russian Empire (Ukraine was part of Russia long before the Soviet Union was ever conceived), or to reunite all of what used to be called the "Rus' Peoples", or to re-establish control over areas with Russian speaking populations, or something completely different. I see no basis for the assumption that Putin intends to re-establish the Soviet Union. The only thing we can reliably assume based on recent events is that if Putin is presented with a gilt-edged silver-platter opportunity to take some land from a neighbor, he'll take it.

I don't believe that Putin has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the 'Stans back, regardless of what he may or may not plan or want.

The discussions that try to position this as a confrontation between the US and Russia, or between Obama and Putin, seem to me almost childish. Europe exists. Europe's economy dwarfs that of Russia and combine EU defense spending is far greater than that of Russia. Europe has far greater economic leverage over Russia than the US has. There is no reason whatsoever to cast this as a US - Russia issue, that's a resurrection of an archaic Cold War anachronism. If Putin is facing off with anyone here, he's facing off with Europe.

I do believe that the US should provide Europe with whatever reasonable support is requested in the imposition of economic sanctions, or even placing US military units in Europe, if - and only if - the cost is borne by Europe. The US taxpayer should bot be footing the bill for the defense of Europe, nor should the US be initiating the moves. Leadership does not mean doing everything for everyone, and it does not mean jumping to the top of every pile and the front of every parade. Sometime it means encouraging, or even forcing, those you lead to make full use of their own capacities.

I do not believe that the continued presence of US forces in Europe would have deterred Putin from moving on Crimea. I think he would have concluded, reasonably and rather easily, that the US is not going to war over Crimea, and carried on. I don't think that has anything to do with Obama, either: the same conclusion would have been just as easy to reach, and just as valid, under any other President.

In short: the US has every reason to be concerned, no reason whatsoever for fear, panic, or hysteria. I don't think it's at all likely that Putin can be forced to give back Crimea, but it is likely that he can be deterred from taking another bite... unless he's presented with an irresistible opportunity, which should be avoided. The US needs to work closely with Europe, urge them to adopt harder sanctions if needed, but not try to dictate what the response should be. I think bluster is pointless and counterproductive and that no demands should be made that we haven't the will or capacity to back up with action.

Is that enough opinion, or would you like more?

[JMA]

Is that enough opinion, or would you like more?

That's a good start but a pity it is merely a summary of what is becoming the 'conventional wisdom' being published on the Internet.

A good guideline when you use other peoples opinions is to cite them.

I wait with baited breath for you to comment in detail in the early stages of a developing situation - like Syria, Libya, Ukraine - before you can side with - and regurgitate - the developing prevailing opinion on the Web.