Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[jmm99]

Here's a headline from the Washington Examiner, John Kerry: Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine (by Susan Crabtree, MARCH 13, 2014):

Secretary of State John Kerry warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday if last-ditch talks over the weekend to resolve the crisis in Ukraine failed to persuade Moscow to soften its stance.

Kerry will travel to London for a Friday meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ahead of a Sunday referendum vote in the Crimea region to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.

U.S. and European officials argue that Moscow is orchestrating the referendum and waging an intimidation campaign with thousands of Russian troops controlling the region. If Russian-backed lawmakers in Crimea go through with the Sunday referendum, Kerry said the U.S. and its European allies will not recognize it as legitimate under international law.

The U.S. and Europe on Monday would then unite to impose sanctions on Russia, Kerry told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Thursday during a hearing on the State Department's budget. ...

Also, an interesting back and forth with Lindsay Graham (Kerry: "...“we have contingencies – we are talking through various options that may or may not be available.”).

Back to Mr Kerry's ultimatum, where the real sanctioning party is not the US (it doesn't have that much trade with Russia), but the EU which does - and which also will be the party taking the negative effects of the sanctions.

So, does Mr Kerry have all of his EU ducks lined up in a row for Monday, or is he wishful thinking and in effect bluffing ?

Regards

Mike

[Firn]

Back to Mr Kerry's ultimatum, where the real sanctioning party is not the US (it doesn't have that much trade with Russia), but the EU which does - and which also will be the party taking the negative effects of the sanctions.

So, does Mr Kerry have all of his EU ducks lined up in a row for Monday, or is he wishful thinking and in effect bluffing ?

Regards

Mike

There are two important points:

1) I'm pretty sure that the EU will step up the sanctions, especially after the words and actions of Merkel and her FM. Germany is the big country which will suffer the most from an sanctions battle, but from what I have gathered they know that Russia will suffer far more then they and the EU as a whole. The actions of Putin have been overall a couple of steps too far to just go ahead with the daily business. Of course we have to see.

2) For all the harder talk out of the US (republicans) the financial support from the USA to Ukraine has been far inferior to the EU. Yes I know that there should come 3? bn from the IMF, and I believe that the EU has a greater vested interest but the 1 bn is just a fraction of the EU up to 15 bn $. As Mike rightly pointed out the EU will bear the brunt of a sanction war so a more equally shared monetary burden would be rather welcome. Stabilizing and supporting Urkaine politically, financially and economically should have priority. The US gov can cheaply loan and lend money, and hopefully I won't have to write-off much.

More direct military support by armaments and more should not be ruled out but for now much help for Urkaine and tougher sanctions for Russia seems to be the right approach.


P.S: Personally I think that the pictures of the British documents showing that the wanted to keep the City as protected as possible should have resulted in an diplomatic cost.

[Firn]

More informations about the way the Kremlin has icreasingly assumed control over the relevant media, translated by Pierre Vaux and orginially posted on Lentu.ru:

Today, the 12th of March, the owner of the Afisha-Rambler-SUP company, Aleksandr Mamut sacked the editor-in-chief of Lenta.ru, Galina Timchenko. Alexei Goreslavskiy, the deputy director-general for external communications, has been made the new editor-in-chief.

Unfortunately, this is not a staff reshuffle, so it needs some explanation. We believe that this reassignment represents direct pressure on the editorial office of Lenta.ru. The dismissal of an independent editor-in-chief, and the direct orchestration of the reassignment of someone from the Kremlin cabinet, is a violation of the law on media, which discusses the inadmissibility of censorship.

Over the last couple of years, the space for free journalism in Russia has shrunk dramatically. Some publications are directly controlled by the Kremlin, some through supervisors, and others by editors who are afraid of losing their jobs. Some media oulets have closed, others will be closing in the coming months. The disaster is not that we have nowhere to work. The disaster is that it looks like you have no more to read.

We certainly expected them to come for us.

We don’t believe this will last forever. In any case, you, our dear readers, should know about it.

We hope that we’ll meet again soon.

Your dear editors.

This has of course allowed the Kremlin to increasingly control what the great majority sees and hears and allows them to use massive propaganda to brainwash them. If you throw vast quantities of mud around the clock from all sides, something will stick.

On a different note the European political non-opponents seem to be in simplistic terms either on the far right or the far left. The first because they love to hate the EU and the second because the do the same with the USA.

[AmericanPride]

I'm skeptical about the efficacy and sustainability of any sanctions regime against Russia. Given the size of and structure of Russia's economy, sanctions are really small ball tactics at this point; and frankly, nobody thinks Crimea or Ukraine are worth risking torpedoing the global economy as it still slowly distances itself from the recession. Normalization of relations between Europe and Russia is a political necessity that will return in the near future. What this really demonstrates is that despite all the hype about soft power, smart power, et al, at the end of the day hard power is what creates facts on the ground and drives decision-making. Whatever the merit of Moscow's justifications and actions, there's no option of sufficient force to alter their course other than war.

[carl]

I'm skeptical about the efficacy and sustainability of any sanctions regime against Russia. Given the size of and structure of Russia's economy, sanctions are really small ball tactics at this point; and frankly, nobody thinks Crimea or Ukraine are worth risking torpedoing the global economy as it still slowly distances itself from the recession. Normalization of relations between Europe and Russia is a political necessity that will return in the near future. What this really demonstrates is that despite all the hype about soft power, smart power, et al, at the end of the day hard power is what creates facts on the ground and drives decision-making. Whatever the merit of Moscow's justifications and actions, there's no option of sufficient force to alter their course other than war.

I don't think the Poles will agree that it is isn't worth risking economic disruption if Russia moves into the Ukraine north of Crimea. They may just upset the group comity.

[AmericanPride]

I don't think the Poles will agree that it is isn't worth risking economic disruption if Russia moves into the Ukraine north of Crimea. They may just upset the group comity.

Unfortunately, despite Poland's ascendence since the end of the Cold War, it still has not been able to overcome its historical geographic obstacle - namely, being caught between two much stronger centers of power in Central Europe and Moscow. Warsaw has nowhere to turn if Berlin, Paris, and London strike a deal with Moscow that does not satisfy Poland's legitimate security interests. And that's the dilemma created by accepting the entrance of Poland (and the Baltic states) into the EU and NATO.

You wouldn't know it from the various spokespeople and media in Washington and Europe, but the West has no choice but to negotiate. From the New York Times:

The outlines of the sort of political settlement the United States is seeking emerged on Wednesday when President Obama and Ukraine’s interim prime minister, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, suggested that they would be willing to support expanded autonomy for Crimea if Russia were prepared to reverse its military intervention. Mr. Yatsenyuk also said his government would affirm an agreement that permits Russia to maintain a naval base there.

If Washington is in the stronger political position, why is it making concessions to Moscow? The sanctions exist to (1) posture for a better negotiating position, which is desperately needed and (2) signal to the various domestic audiences that action is being taken to save face. I don't think anyone seriously believes that the sanctions will compel Moscow to alter its course. As the 8th largest economy in the world, Russia is in a better position to resist sanctions but also to retailate as well than say, Serbia or Iraq.

[carl]

American Pride:

Your comment about Poland and the Baltic States is interesting. First it seems the Poles are helpless. They may not agree. Second, and even more interesting, is your apparent opinion that the disadvantage of having Poland and the Baltic States in NATO is that it makes it harder to sell them out.

I guess will see if that siloviki kleptocracy that is Russia can weather what may be coming their way.