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

[OUTLAW 09]

The U.S. doesn't have a strategy outside of sanctions. The traditional tool - military coercion - is ill advised in this situation.



Because bombing IS doesn't invite further escalation from a nuclear armed state that is also capable of spoiling U.S. interests in other parts of the globe. Ukraine is not the exclusive or primary interest of the U.S.



Yes - the Obama administration is not interested in escalating the conflict between the U.S. and Russia to include acts of violence between the two states. Russian acts of war in Ukraine is one thing - inviting military action between the U.S. and Russia is another. This is something I've repeatedly mentioned in this thread and others regarding escalating the conflict.

There are still no viable proposals made to coercivelly reverse Russian gains in Ukraine. Do you have any? The Kiev offensive is probably pretty close to triggering further Russian escalation - we've already seen steady escalation despite sanctions and condemnations. So I'm confident that we are pretty close to a negotiated settlement, with the next round of talks to take place in the coming days between the Russian and Ukrainian heads of state.

So AP let's see your arguments that go like this;

1. Russia is a nuclear power and therefore "owns" central and eastern Europe to do as they will because we the US have no what business interests to the tune of billions which also drives the US economy and we the US have never claimed that we are not somehow leading the western world nor are member of the Altantic Council/NATO and oh by the way we signed a memorandum protecting the sovereignty of the Ukraine that now when we are called out on we what simply say it is not our problem

2. IS is not a threat to the US ---a threat to the existing borders of four countries in the ME yes they are but it is not up to the US to settle that particular area and if you would follow the IS thread you would fully understand I have been along with two others have often stated we fully never understood Iraq nor QJBR/AQI/ISIL/IS and what bombing trucks in the desert is more important than what...?

3. was it not you yourself that argued yes if we just appease and negotiate and understand the Russia desires to reinstate the Soviet Union this whole thing will simply disappear---you never have seemed to fully understand the ethnic nationalist imperialism that Putin and the elites around him have called into being---some would call it a new form of state fasicism

5. some commenters here state often populations have the right to define their own rule of law and good governance but when a population stands up and states their desire and a neighboring country feels "threatened" by that and decides I will unleash my newest military doctrine to curb their stated ROL/GG that is what something to "appease"

Come on AP "understand" the world you claim to be "seeing".

Also still awaiting your stated "negotiating solutions"---and my response was what---"negotiate what".

And AP what was just pulled by Russia yesterday---again my response negotiate what? there have been five different sets of arguments coming out of Moscow by 21:00 last night on why they pulled their aid stunt.

Again go back and Google the terms invasion and what defines a declaration of war.

Go back a reread the Russian New Generation Warfare and then tell me what Phase of that eight phase doctrine Russia is in currently.

Go back and reread the term political warfare and then try to explain to me you are not seeing that in the current Russian actions.

[AmericanPride]

So AP let's see your arguments that go like this;

Let's measures the accuracy of your characterizations.

1. Russia is a nuclear power

Yes, I have stated this fact a number of times. In contrast, you seem to ignore this fact when advocating for continued escalation in confronting Russia or in building an achiveable policy capable of fulfilling U.S. interests.

and therefore "owns" central and eastern Europe

Incorrect. I have not stated that Russia "owns" eastern Europe. I have, however, stated that Russia, as a state, has material interests that it pursues with rational policy, and that these interests should be taken into account when the U.S. develops policy towards Russia.

because we the US have no what business interests to the tune of billions which also drives the US economy

Incorrect. I have stated that Ukraine's territorial integrity is not the exclusive nor most important U.S. interest in the world.

and we the US have never claimed that we are not somehow leading the western world nor are member of the Altantic Council/NATO

Incorrect. I have stated that Ukraine is not a NATO member and by implication, the U.S. has no security obligations towards Ukraine.

and oh by the way we signed a memorandum protecting the sovereignty of the Ukraine that now when we are called out on we what simply say it is not our problem

What material obligations does that memorandum impose upon the U.S. in this situation?

2. IS is not a threat to the US

That would be contrary to the opinion of many leading analysts in government and scholarship.

---a threat to the existing borders of four countries in the ME yes they are but it is not up to the US to settle that particular area

Settling that region's problems is one thing. Securing U.S. interests is another. And yes - the U.S. has to actively protect its interests in the region.

was it not you yourself that argued yes if we just appease and negotiate

Incorrect. I never said 'appease'. I said negotiate. It's fully possible to negotiate without 'appeasment'.

and understand the Russia desires to reinstate the Soviet Union this whole thing will simply disappear

Incorrect. I have said repeatedly that it is important to understand the material interests of the Russian state, and what policies they are pursuing to achieve them. Dismissing them out of hand is an error of the first order.

---you never have seemed to fully understand the ethnic nationalist imperialism that Putin and the elites around him have called into being---some would call it a new form of state fasicism

Incorrect. I have in fact pointed out that all of Russia's conflicts since 1991 have involved problems of ethnic nationalism (and normalizing borders and state building). I have also pointed out that Russia historically was and largely remains an imperial state that does not fully conform to the principles of Westphalian nation-statehood.

Also still awaiting your stated "negotiating solutions"---and my response was what---"negotiate what".

This has already been addressed more than once. Repeatedly asking the same question does not constitute an argument - it's actually a failure to undersand the argument.

Again go back and Google the terms invasion and what defines a declaration of war.

How many wars end with negotiated settlments and how many end with the annihilation of one of the belligerents?

You seem fixated on the idea that I am not aware that Russia has been pursuing acts of aggression of Ukraine. I've acknowledged this many pages ago. It's time to move the argument forward. You have left many questions unanswered about the preferable U.S. outcome, what policy options are available to achieve it, and how to compel Russia to terminate the conlfict.

[OUTLAW 09]

Let's measures the accuracy of your characterizations.



Yes, I have stated this fact a number of times. In contrast, you seem to ignore this fact when advocating for continued escalation in confronting Russia or in building an achiveable policy capable of fulfilling U.S. interests.



Incorrect. I have not stated that Russia "owns" eastern Europe. I have, however, stated that Russia, as a state, has material interests that it pursues with rational policy, and that these interests should be taken into account when the U.S. develops policy towards Russia.



Incorrect. I have stated that Ukraine's territorial integrity is not the exclusive nor most important U.S. interest in the world.



Incorrect. I have stated that Ukraine is not a NATO member and by implication, the U.S. has no security obligations towards Ukraine.



What material obligations does that memorandum impose upon the U.S. in this situation?



That would be contrary to the opinion of many leading analysts in government and scholarship.



Settling that region's problems is one thing. Securing U.S. interests is another. And yes - the U.S. has to actively protect its interests in the region.



Incorrect. I never said 'appease'. I said negotiate. It's fully possible to negotiate without 'appeasment'.



Incorrect. I have said repeatedly that it is important to understand the material interests of the Russian state, and what policies they are pursuing to achieve them. Dismissing them out of hand is an error of the first order.



Incorrect. I have in fact pointed out that all of Russia's conflicts since 1991 have involved problems of ethnic nationalism (and normalizing borders and state building). I have also pointed out that Russia historically was and largely remains an imperial state that does not fully conform to the principles of Westphalian nation-statehood.



This has already been addressed more than once. Repeatedly asking the same question does not constitute an argument - it's actually a failure to undersand the argument.



How many wars end with negotiated settlments and how many end with the annihilation of one of the belligerents?

You seem fixated on the idea that I am not aware that Russia has been pursuing acts of aggression of Ukraine. I've acknowledged this many pages ago. It's time to move the argument forward. You have left many questions unanswered about the preferable U.S. outcome, what policy options are available to achieve it, and how to compel Russia to terminate the conlfict.

AP---a lot of words but really nothing said.
there is one simple outcome with a few side steps in it.

1. the current Putin doctrine which can in fact be used now by any country if not stopped is as follows---I can on my own and under no international law declare any of my former and current ethnic citizens in another country to be in "distress and discriminated against" therefore I can without again any international law occupy who I want to in the defense of those perceived distressed ethnic citizens of mine

2. reestablish in central Europe the thesis that national borders as they existed in 1994 and recognized even by the former Soviets now Russians exist and sovereign territories are to not be used for proxy wars which actually was the state of Europe until Russian took control of Moldavian and Georgian territory and then the Crimea and now eastern/southern Ukraine

3. reestablish the simple fact that a major nuclear power actually threatens their neighbors--and understand what drives that threat---ethno nationalist imperialism from an unresolved historical breakup caused not by the West but by their own leaders---see this is the difference between us --you tend to blame the West I tend to say Putin is in fact trying to turn back the clock on decisions made by former Soviet Communist leaders who lead the SU until 1994.

Here is the difference between you writing tons of words and myself--I have read and fully understand their eight phase UW strategy called the New Generational Warfare and I fully understand how they use political warfare. You still have not agreed that Russia/Putin is already in phase six of that UW strategy.

And I different from you fully understand the US/NATO/EU have no general strategy against the current Russian UW as being practiced currently inside the Ukraine.

Answer your question?

By the way noticed you have come off the negotiation bit.

[OUTLAW 09]

Let's measures the accuracy of your characterizations.



Yes, I have stated this fact a number of times. In contrast, you seem to ignore this fact when advocating for continued escalation in confronting Russia or in building an achiveable policy capable of fulfilling U.S. interests.



Incorrect. I have not stated that Russia "owns" eastern Europe. I have, however, stated that Russia, as a state, has material interests that it pursues with rational policy, and that these interests should be taken into account when the U.S. develops policy towards Russia.



Incorrect. I have stated that Ukraine's territorial integrity is not the exclusive nor most important U.S. interest in the world.



Incorrect. I have stated that Ukraine is not a NATO member and by implication, the U.S. has no security obligations towards Ukraine.



What material obligations does that memorandum impose upon the U.S. in this situation?



That would be contrary to the opinion of many leading analysts in government and scholarship.



Settling that region's problems is one thing. Securing U.S. interests is another. And yes - the U.S. has to actively protect its interests in the region.



Incorrect. I never said 'appease'. I said negotiate. It's fully possible to negotiate without 'appeasment'.



Incorrect. I have said repeatedly that it is important to understand the material interests of the Russian state, and what policies they are pursuing to achieve them. Dismissing them out of hand is an error of the first order.



Incorrect. I have in fact pointed out that all of Russia's conflicts since 1991 have involved problems of ethnic nationalism (and normalizing borders and state building). I have also pointed out that Russia historically was and largely remains an imperial state that does not fully conform to the principles of Westphalian nation-statehood.



This has already been addressed more than once. Repeatedly asking the same question does not constitute an argument - it's actually a failure to undersand the argument.



How many wars end with negotiated settlments and how many end with the annihilation of one of the belligerents?

You seem fixated on the idea that I am not aware that Russia has been pursuing acts of aggression of Ukraine. I've acknowledged this many pages ago. It's time to move the argument forward. You have left many questions unanswered about the preferable U.S. outcome, what policy options are available to achieve it, and how to compel Russia to terminate the conlfict.

AP--you talk about negotiations as the way forward---this is from the close advisor to Putin and part of the core hardliners that Putin is being advised by since he threw out all of his previous liberal advisors.

And what negotiations will work with him?

MT @leonidragozin In VK post, #Kremlin ideologist Alexander #Dugin calls 4 "genocide" of #Ukraine "race of bastards" pic.twitter.com/SHNDcBpLtU