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

[AmericanPride]

If one reads the international definition of what constitutes a declaration of war and what constitutes what an invasion is defined as----Just what now is the US strategy outside of talking and threatening more sanctions?

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

It seems the US is more interested in bombing the IS and not focusing on central Europe as are the Germans who want to ship anti tank weapons to the Kurds for use against ---what kind of IS armored vehicles do they currently have in their inventory vs say the Ukrainian Army that is seeing countless Russian APCs, T64, T72s and now T90s and they are killing UA personnel.

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.

Does this make sense to anyone?

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.

[carl]

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.

Come back to this statement in 7 days time and 14 days time and lets see how you did. Then in one months time after that.

Can you do that?

[AmericanPride]

Come back to this statement in 7 days time and 14 days time and lets see how you did. Then in one months time after that.

Can you do that?

Sure - conflicts aren't resolved in one sitting. That the Ukrainian and Russian governments are coming together to initiate talks is a good indicator that both sides prefer a negotiated settlement than continuing with Clausewitz's reciprocal actions until one or the other is destroyed. At some point, they will come to terms, whatever they determine those terms to be.

An announcement that weapons are coming would cause Vlad to have a kiniption and threaten all sorts of things.

Probably. The problem is that the Russians are in a position where they can continue escalating the conflict with minimal internal costs.

But he ain't gonna start WWIII over some anti-tank missiles.

No - but he could probably double the amount of Russian soliders operating in Ukraine.

And with money and weapons to the Ukrainians the potential Russki body count goes way up. That is one thing Vlad hasn't had to deal with yet, lots of actual Russki soldiers getting killed.

Interesting you should say that and then also claim that Russian state control of the media distorts the public's perceptions of the actual costs to the state. So how do you reconcile those two points?

But if their contract professional soldiers start dying, things change.

Things change for who?

[davidbfpo]

A group of Anglo-American retired diplomats, with experience of serving in the former USSR, have a short article in National Interest and it ends with:

...Western leaders should not shrink from employing all of their available tools to increase the incentive to Moscow to pursue a negotiated settlement.

Link:http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...-ukraine-11135

[OUTLAW 09]

A group of Anglo-American retired diplomats, with experience of serving in the former USSR, have a short article in National Interest and it ends with:
Link:http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...-ukraine-11135

David---key sentence is here:

In addition to a lack of good-faith participation by Russia, the negotiations have three structural weaknesses: the exclusion of key actors, the narrow scope of the talks and the illogic of pursuing a cease-fire.

There was some interesting comments being made around the bloggers yesterday to this.

There has been a lack of good faith participation by Russia for the simply reason they assume they will win in the end due to their being currently in a phase six of their New Generation Warfare and the West still outside of sanctions has not responded--coupled with the simple fact that since the Russian military has now fully engaged inside the Ukraine they cannot simply pull back as that would be assumed in their eyes and in the eyes of the hardliners as a "defeat". and sine 1945 they have not suffered a defeat---even AFG was spun to be a win.

A defeat is not in the cards as long as the Russian military has it's say in the decision making.

What is not mentioned in the article is how do you negotiate when in fact there are four groups of decision makers in the game---the military, the security services, the oligarchs, and the Russian mob---Putin is just a meditator among them all who has been great at balancing them and driving them forward. Notice all his former liberal tending advisors are not longer around him--all hardliners driven by a hatred of the West and western values.

Also not mentioned in the article---how does the West negotiate when in fact the core driver ethno nationalist imperialism built on a perceived failure by the last Communist leaders is not being addressed inside Russia itself.

Just as in the Sunni/Shia clash until that single driver is fully addressed and worked out internally Russia will remain aggressive in their belief the West is responsible for everything.

One needs to fully understand what is driving Putin and company and we in the West seem to not to want to address that as many feel nationalism under any flag died in 1994 but 20 years later it seems to be still there.

Noticed also a failure in the article to discuss what I feel is the core underlining fact for Putin and company---the 23.8.1939 secret agreement where Stalin virtually annexed five countries--even in Russia this annexation is still being denied for what it was--a blatant land grab not a merging of brotherly communists who wanted to join the SU.

Notice the countries "given to Stalin" and where Russia is pushing now--therein lies for Putin his current legitimacy as he "feels" he is channeling Stalin these days in the revival of the former SU that he has been driving since 1999 if one really goes back and reads all his interviews over the years--it is there to be read---we Americans and many Europeans simply do not take the time.

He is easy to understand--but one must read as it is all there and open source.

Still surprised how little history seems to be considered in the current thread --it is as if the statement one must learn from history is not fashionable these days?

NOTE: There is something more critical that many are not following--when the authors state about NATO and revitalization and potentially moving new bases in and around say the Baltics and Bulgaria---notice how suddenly Germany states no and references the 4 plus 2 agreements.

Really read those agreements and one will then fully understands just where the German politics with Russia go.

A really small comment that was fully over looked was made by Putin in his Duma speech which is one of the most important articles to read if one wants to understand the current events.

Putin quietly stated ---remember Germany we were the ones who allowed and supported your reunification efforts--which if one is honest and correctly looks at western leader statements to include the US---the west was not all that hep to support German reunification.

He used this comment in conjunction on his explanation of the why the Crimea was to be returned to Russia ie similar to German reunification.

[OUTLAW 09]

BW---the Ukrainians are moving but are finding it more and more difficult as the Russian Army is providing direct fire support via artillery, BM27s and
BM21s plus moving heavy MBTs into the Ukraine.

If the Germans and US had simply provided the Ukrainians enough body armor, night vision, and anti tank weapons this would be far easier for them to counter.

I have been extremely interested in the German Kurdish response--they are willing to provide the Milan to the Kurds--but where is the IS armor and to the Ukrainians money and words are about it.

[OUTLAW 09]

Russia continues to play the game of no I am not sending in troops, artillery and heavy weapons plus SAMs.

And what is the West's response---silence if you ask me.

And some commenters believe one can currently negotiate with Putin? He only understands the use of force and or the pain of a financial disaster and he is trying to get facts on the ground for hbis Tuesday meeting before his economy collapses and he has to explain that to his population.

Russian MP Ilya Drozdov: "The sooner the bastardly entity called Ukraine is wiped off the map, the better". pic.twitter.com/tgIOUgLcsx

Battalions "#Donbas", "#Dnepr" & #UA in #Ilovaisk say shelled by #Russian army professionals - 3-4 rounds every 30 sec. 3 WIA, 1 KIA.

Tymchuk: Russian BM-27 Uragan self-propelled rocket launchers fired into #Ukraine from #Russia hitting Kuteinykove, near #Ilovaisk, #Donetsk

A significant increase of Russian mercenaries, so called "Kadyrov Chechens" in particular, is indicated in Horlivka

In #Amvrosiyivka #Russia's soldiers without insignia spotted, 250 armored vehicles built up for a possible attack on #Mariupol, #Novoazovsk

Novoazovsk to Mariupol southern corridor; Sea of Azov (Taganrog Bay, Tahanrozka Gulf) subject to increased Russian drone surveillance #intel

There is a report that the Russian army has moved 250+ armored vehicles & artillery pieces into Amvrosiivka #Ukraine http://news.liga.net/news/politics/3..._istochnik.htm …

Separatists took the district capital of #Telmanove, #Donetsk region, under control overnight, had been shelling #Novoazovsk border point

#Amvrosiyivka, occupied #Ukraine: 250 #Russia armour and soldiers ammassing for pushing deeper into #Ukraine, poss. to attack #Mariupol

[OUTLAW 09]

BW---the Ukrainians are moving but are finding it more and more difficult as the Russian Army is providing direct fire support via artillery, BM27s and
BM21s plus moving heavy MBTs into the Ukraine.

If the Germans and US had simply provided the Ukrainians enough body armor, night vision, and anti tank weapons this would be far easier for them to counter.

I have been extremely interested in the German Kurdish response--they are willing to provide the Milan to the Kurds--but where is the IS armor and to the Ukrainians money and words are about it.

BW--there has been for about three days constant blogging about Russian troops crossing over in large numbers also from the southern border area/

Yes the Ukrainians are killing large numbers but more seem to be coming over.

Then this came up this evening from a site that I have been watching and attempts to present a balance.

Maybe this is why the US is not saying a single word from the intel side.

http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014...n-russian.html

[carl]

Sure - conflicts aren't resolved in one sitting. That the Ukrainian and Russian governments are coming together to initiate talks is a good indicator that both sides prefer a negotiated settlement than continuing with Clausewitz's reciprocal actions until one or the other is destroyed. At some point, they will come to terms, whatever they determine those terms to be.

Probably. The problem is that the Russians are in a position where they can continue escalating the conflict with minimal internal costs.

No - but he could probably double the amount of Russian soliders operating in Ukraine.

Interesting you should say that and then also claim that Russian state control of the media distorts the public's perceptions of the actual costs to the state. So how do you reconcile those two points?

Things change for who?

A KGB guy initiating talks is not a good indicator that said KGB guy prefers a negotiated settlement, unless that settlement is to discuss surrender terms. But maybe the world has changed....no, it hasn't.

They can escalate only at the cost of committing the regular military and that has a very definite internal cost. There are only so many forces available, not to mention those filled body bags going east.

I don't remember claiming media distorts the Russian public's perceptions of the actual costs to the state. But there are many things I forget. But it does, that is true. But it is true also that they can only hide so much. When those body bags start coming home people are going to start talking amongst each other and amongst each other and the gloriousness of the endeavor may begin to fade. King Vlad may not look so good then

Like I said before, if all you are going to think about is what he can do to you, you won't win. You want to win? It is best to follow Grant's advice.

[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