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

[OUTLAW 09]

So - duplicity is a trait of a rogue state?

AP----let's take the Wikipedia definition as a starting point.

Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

1. Ruled by authoritarian regime---would argue that Putin with the new anti Maidan and internet laws has in fact established an authoritarian regime
2. Sponsor terrorism—would argue that the initial Georgia and Moldavian adventures started out as “terrorist” activities against ethnic Russians—was really a false flag used as the geo political reasoning for armed invasions, Crimea was in fact along the same lines and one could in fact define the sending of irregular/mercenary manpower/weapons into eastern Ukraine as both terroristic in nature and or an armed irregular invasion
3. Proliferation of WMD—one can in fact argue that weapons such as the BMs 21/27 used against civilian targets are in fact WMD, one can argue the use of a Buk missile system to down a civilian airliner killing 298 is in fact WMD, one could argue by using irregular/mercenaries inside another country and randomly well maybe not so randomly killing, torturing, pillaging/plundering and destroying key infrastructure as WMD

Heck AP we define a home made bomb in Boston as WMD these days so why not a Buk or BM 21/27?

A common presumption applied to rogue states is that they do not necessarily behave rationally or in their own best interests. In political theory it is generally believed that a stable nation, ruled by a leadership that is subject to broad scrutiny (though not necessarily democratic scrutiny), will tend to act in its own best interests and will not take actions that are directly contrary to its own interests, particularly not to its own survival. Rogue states, however, may not be subject to this assumption and, as such, relations with them may be more complicated and unpredictable.

Would argue that Russia has not acted rationally since the Georgia events –actually even before that in their direct violation of the INF. Why did they violate the INF—it came out yesterday in a number of press releases after the US charges—the treaty hurts Russia, the treaty is not good for Russia etc. The underlying assumption by the hardliners is ---that was done under weak SU leaders and we are strong thus want to change it now.

We can go further back and look at their violation of the OSCE treaties they signed for the destruction of a set amount of tanks and APCs—they argued to the OSCE that they could not accomplish it due to the ongoing jihadi issues in the ‘stans. But that was over eight years ago and no one has called them on it.

Those OSCE scheduled to be destroyed T64s that Russia agreed to are now fighting in eastern Ukraine.

Then we can look at how their violated the Memorandum on the Ukraine which they signed.

If you really look deeper into these events you will find a single argument—these agreements were done by weak SU leaders in a weak period of the SU and that hurt the new Russia so therefore we no longer hold to them.

NOTE: Stalin one said at a private high level CP meeting---yes we will sign treaties and agreements but and this is critical but we can/will change them when we want to in order to fit the new environment. AP see the continuance of thoughts from Stalin until 2014? So AP then what treaties/agreements that Russia has signed since 1994 do they hold to be valid now in 2014 or better yet will in fact Russia hold to any treaty they sign based on past performance?

The follow on assumption then is we the "new Russia" do not think that former leaders of the SU concluded a “good deal” for the now Russia so therefore we will do what we want to restore the now Russia to renewed superpower status.

Was and or is that not the argument Putin used in annexing the Crimea in a number of his statement just before and after the annexation and still is using when he talks about never giving back the Crimea?

This whole argument about NATO enlargement is a smokescreen and has always been a smokescreen as well as the argument about containment has been a smokescreen since the 60s. It is a smokescreen that allows for increasing their military and strengthening their internal authoritarian population controls.

Since 1994, countries in Europe were free to go their separate ways and conclude agreements that were beneficial to their populations—now we have rouge nation who is redefining the concept of ethnicity/culture/language as a smokescreen for imperialistic nationalistic expansion under the guise of “we want to play again with the big boys” BUT we do not want to play “big boy games” meaning accept responsibility for our actions in the international relations game.

Did you notice that in both the Korean airliner shot down and now MH17 the then SU and now Russia has in fact copied the exact playbook—“ain’t our responsibly” even if somehow someone ran a Buk missile system through our “enhanced border security” that was guarded by both the FSB/GRU and Border Security Services.

If “those independence fighters” are Russians carrying Russian passports---“ain’t our responsibility”, if the international community cannot get to the crash site---it’s the fault of the Ukrainians “ain’t our responsibility”, the fighting is killing civilians then it is the fault of the Ukrainians because we “told” them to negotiate and settle on our terms ie Federated States---ain’t our responsibility” , those T64s/BM21/27/Buks crossing our border--"ain't our responsibility", what somehow we are being blamed for our Army troops shelling Ukrainian positions---"ain't our responsibilty', and the list goes on.

AP recognize by the way the actual events mentioned above?

Now ask yourself the following question and I would like you now to answer it since you wanted a definition of rouge state---does this sound like the actions of a sane, rationally clear thinking participant country in either Europe or Eurasia? Or a sane rational acting country at all?

Thus my statement they are a rogue nation—you can throw in the criminal just based on the Yukos event and the resulting court decision, the killing of the former KGB COL in the UK who was a bitter critic of Putin, and the cyber activities which have never stopped since 1994.

By the way concerning cyber and it is getting worse by the hour and that is why I today have a company combatting it—actually Russian criminals are a great job enhancer these days—check the arrest of a Russian citizen who is now in Guam---and whose mother is the Deputy Duma leader and close supporter of Putin. Then check the Russian citizen recently arrested in Italian---check the amount of personal financial damage done to US citizens/companies.

AP--from Interfax today --another great "it ain't our responsibly" by a Russian sanctioned company. By the way in the current Russia there is some distinct difficulties based on Russian laws and countless shadow/fake companies just who owns these companies or are they in fact just new forms of the old Soviet style state owned companies?

Almaz-Antey chief reacts to company's inclusion on EU sanctions list.

MOSCOW. July 31 (Interfax-AVN) - The European Union's sanctions against the joint-stock company (JSC) Concern Almaz-Antey prove the great importance of the company's products in providing national defense, said Yan Novikov, the General Director at Almaz-Antey.

"The EU decision to impose sanctions against JSC Concern Almaz-Antey causes a dual feeling. First of all, a sense of pride for the company in relation to such a rating of its importance for the country," he said, according to a company's press release obtained by Interfax-AVN on Thursday.

At the same time, "there is a sense of regret for this hypocritical EU decision," he said. "With no evidence of possible involvement of militias, let alone Russia, in the tragedy of the Malaysian Boeing 777 above the Donetsk land, they resort to all sorts of tricks by blaming the designer of the weapon for what happened," Novikov said.

Rouge has been now answered. Debate concluded.

[AmericanPride]

AP----let's take the Wikipedia definition as a starting point.Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

Right of the bat you confirm that "rogue state" is a political definition. So - let's look at your definitions of a "rogue state":

1. Ruled by authoritarian regime
2.Sponsor terrorism
3.Proliferation of WMD

The characteristics are problematic. Why? They do not offer any objective value to understanding the behavior of states. Sure - they provide good political commentary, hence the "controversy" of using the term in the first place. If you were to compare the U.S. list of rogue states with all the states in the international community that meet the three characteristics you provide, there is a significant discrepency. The implied definition excavated from your statement is that a rogue state is a state that does not conform to the currently established norms of international conduct in the U.S.-led international system. Now - the real question is this: why is that relevant?

Heck AP we define a home made bomb in Boston as WMD these days so why not a Buk or BM 21/27?

That's a qood question. I'd have to double check, but there's something like over 100 definitions of weapons of mass destructing between local, state, federal, and international law. In some of those definitions, large explosives are classified as WMD. Now - what are the legal implications of classifying conventional military systems as WMD? If the Buk, why not the Patriot missile system? If the BM 21, why not HIMARS?

A common presumption applied to rogue states is that they do not necessarily behave rationally or in their own best interests.

That is a presumption with which I disagree. More often the case, the presumption is the result of a failure of analysis by the one making the presumption.

In political theory it is generally believed that a stable nation, ruled by a leadership that is subject to broad scrutiny (though not necessarily democratic scrutiny), will tend to act in its own best interests and will not take actions that are directly contrary to its own interests, particularly not to its own survival. Rogue states, however, may not be subject to this assumption and, as such, relations with them may be more complicated and unpredictable.

Regime type (authoritarian, democratic, etc) does influence state behavior but authoritarian states are not less 'rational' than democratic states. They are responding to different stimuli in their domestic politics.

Would argue that Russia has not acted rationally since the Georgia events –actually even before that in their direct violation of the INF. Why did they violate the INF—it came out yesterday in a number of press releases after the US charges—the treaty hurts Russia, the treaty is not good for Russia etc. The underlying assumption by the hardliners is ---that was done under weak SU leaders and we are strong thus want to change it now.

You answered your own question. I highlighted it in bold. The nationalists and realists have gathered strength during the second Putin administration, pushing the technocrats and liberals (what's left of them) aside. As I've stated in previous posts, the Russian elite is gaining in confidence and capability, and there's also disenchantment with the dissonance between Russia's ascribed and perceived status. So - if Russia has the means, motive, and opportunity, how are they acting irrational?

now we have rouge nation who is redefining the concept of ethnicity/culture/language as a smokescreen for imperialistic nationalistic expansion under the guise of “we want to play again with the big boys” BUT we do not want to play “big boy games” meaning accept responsibility for our actions in the international relations game.

The basic tenant of realist IR theory is: "the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." Why would Russia "acceptable responsibility" for actions for which they do not want to accept responsibility, and why is Russia's decision to not accept responsibility any more objectionable than any other powerful state that refuses to accept responsibility?

Now ask yourself the following question and I would like you now to answer it since you wanted a definition of rouge state---does this sound like the actions of a sane, rationally clear thinking participant country in either Europe or Eurasia? Or a sane rational acting country at all?

Yes - as described in this post and previous posts, Russia has the motive, means, and opportunity to act as a spoiler in the international system. Motive - insecurity caused by the difference between perceived and ascribed status. Means - improving military capabilities relative to other great powers. Opportunity - Georgia, Ukraine, et. al. Again, if all three are present, how is the Russian elite acting irrationally?

Rouge has been now answered. Debate concluded.

And so here we come full cycle. It's clear that Russia has the motive, means, and opportunity to act as a spoiler. But why now? As I've discussed in previous posts, states are concerned with relative power with other states. There's a perception (not completely unfounded, and certainly not helped by U.S. politics) that the U.S. is in retrenchment. That does not necessarily mean U.S. power is diminishing. It just means that U.S. capabilities are diminishing or is perceived to be diminishing relative to other major powers (namely China and Russia, and to a smaller extent, Japan, India, Germany, and perhaps a few others).

But what's the context of this retrenchment? It follows a period of unilateral policies that have aggravated and sowed distrust in the international community through the Bush Doctrine. The retrenchment of military capabilities could not be patched over through diplomatic efforts because the trust and goodwill simply did not exist. So now - after 8 years of the Bush doctrine championing the U.S.' right to unilaterally act as it pleases internationally, we have the Obama doctrine which attempts to preserve the less objectionable aspects of the Bush era while also simultaneously withdrawing from many foolhardy commitments. But that has only opened the opportunity for states like Russia, chomping at the bit to get back in the game as you said, to act. The U.S. escalated conflict through the War on Terrorism and other Bush doctrine policies; now we're trying to de-escalate. However, other states, namely Russia, have taken our cue (Iraq, Syria, Libya, and so on), and have also decided to escalate. That's the problem and why we're caught in this compromising foreign policy position.

Now - you've said that Russia is an irrational state. That's clearly not the case. They have the means, motive, and opportunity. You've also said that Russia is a "rogue state" - well, that's a matter of perspective since "rogue" implies the existence of an overarching international regime of norms and institutions to which one is bound. If the strong do what they can, and Russia has the means to do what it can, how is it a "rogue" state for acting in its own interests?

Lastly - my concern here has never been defining Russia's aggression. Russia is clearly interfering in the affairs of another state. My dispute with you is (1) your claim that this interference is irrational, (2) that this interference is uniquely objectionable compared to the behavior of other states, including the U.S., and (3) that the U.S. priority should be the salvation of Ukraine, regardless of the consequences to the U.S.-Russian dyadic and the overall stability of the international system.

[Dayuhan]

And so here we come full cycle. It's clear that Russia has the motive, means, and opportunity to act as a spoiler. But why now?

The simple answer to "why now" is that Russia isn't choosing their own time. Certainly Russia is acting as a spoiler in both Syria and the Ukraine, but in both cases the Russian involvement is reactive, not proactive. The Russians didn't initiate the Syrian crisis: the 2011 attempt to expand the Arab Spring into Syria was not their doing. They reacted when one of their very few external allies was threatened. The Russians didn't initiate the Maidan revolt either: they reacted to the perceived threat of having a border state that they've long considered part of their natural sphere of influence move firmly into the Western orbit.

Conspiracy theories aside, these situations grew out of local conditions that were not created (or in many ways fully anticipated) by the US, by "the West" collectively, or by Russia. The external players are in reactive roles, trying to turn events to their advantage. "Why now" was not determined by a decision from any outside player, the outside players simply responded to local events.

It may be true that Russian confidence and relative capacity is growing, but Russian influence is not. If the Ukraine emerges from this with a firmly pro-western regime (with or without Crimea and Donetsk), Putin's only ally on his western border will be the consummate loose cannon that is Lukashenko. Sooner or later he will fall (they all do) and who knows what happens then? Assad may well remain in power, but Syria will be a broken state and as much liability as asset for Putin for years to come. Chinese influence is growing in the 'Stans. Worldwide, nations that find themselves out of favor in the West are increasingly looking to China, rather than Russia, for support and leadership. It's difficult to argue that Russia is in any way ascendant in the global influence derby. Who do they influence?

[OUTLAW 09]

There has been a rather good series of articles on the Ukraine/Russian running from reporters of the csm.com.

This one is a good reflection of those having lived under the Russian mercenaries and now feel that Russia lied to them ie meaning the propaganda was believed but then the reality of the armed separatists was totally different.

This physiological shift is important in actually countering Russia---when the ethnic Russian target population finally realizes that they are part of their own country and that country pays attention finally to them and that they are not some figment of a dream then Russia is no longer a threat to the Baltics and the Ukraine.

This is the true shift that has to happen--in fact the Russian information war has slid into disarray since the crash as the world just as the eastern Ukraine "saw" the truth, woke up, and questioned.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europ...anipulating-us

[Firn]

It may be true that Russian confidence and relative capacity is growing, but Russian influence is not. If the Ukraine emerges from this with a firmly pro-western regime (with or without Crimea and Donetsk), Putin's only ally on his western border will be the consummate loose cannon that is Lukashenko. Sooner or later he will fall (they all do) and who knows what happens then? Assad may well remain in power, but Syria will be a broken state and as much liability as asset for Putin for years to come. Chinese influence is growing in the 'Stans. Worldwide, nations that find themselves out of favor in the West are increasingly looking to China, rather than Russia, for support and leadership. It's difficult to argue that Russia is in any way ascendant in the global influence derby. Who do they influence?

I share that way. Overall the discussion seems to drift towards the US-Russian relationship.

@outlaw: A good read. While one should remain sceptical it is difficult to see much military local support in this Russian project. Still there was and is some, even if it is difficult to quantify.

So when the rebellion came to Slaviansk, it was welcomed by much of the Russian-speaking population – as it was across eastern Ukraine. But the rebels, whose numbers in the city were estimated between 5,000 and 7,000, had a distinctly non-local, Russian flavor.

Those numbers are far more then anything I have seen before.

[OUTLAW 09]

Not all Ukrainian oligarchs are just sitting this out or funding their own private fighting groups---this oligarch sold his RR and joined the Ukrainian Army and has been in the forward lines from the beginning.

He says the Russian invasion has changed radically his perspectives.

Wonder if similar Americans of wealth would drop everything and join the US Army?

Amazing what Putin has created inside the Ukraine.

http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/v...d_4033086.html

[OUTLAW 09]

Spin, spinning, spun---wonder if Putin includes the Russian historical drive as he stated for strong cordial relations between countries to include the Crimea and eastern Ukraine?

Has Putin now expanded his views of who makes up Russia by expanding it to cover all Slavic populations as well as Russian populations?

RIA from today:

MOSCOW, August 1 (RIA Novosti) – On the eve of the First World War, Russia did everything possible to persuade Europe to resolve the conflict peacefully and to avoid bloodshed, which reflects the character of the state, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday.

According to Putin, Russia has been advocating strong, cordial relations between countries for ages.

“And this is how it was on the eve of the First World War, when Russia went to great lengths to persuade Europe to settle the conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary peacefully. But [Europe] turned a deaf ear to Russian pleas. And it had to confront the challenge and protect the Slavic population, shielding its citizens from external threats,” Putin stressed.

The president added that Russia fulfilled its duty and succeeded in withstanding the onslaught.

[Firn]

German helpers in uniform is a reportage by the German ARD about German citiziens supporting the (Pro)Russian cause. There are supposed to be three Germans fighting on their side of whom the ARD was able to interview one, a certain Nikolaj with a partly Russian background.

More interesting is the way the support campaign is organized and connected to the armed groups. Google translate should help.