Russia/Ukraine

[AUTailgatingRules]

Opine

[Snaggletiger]

Opine

I will opine that we need to stay the hell out of it. 


We won't, though.

[AUTiger1]

Opine

You talking about that protest thing that started the first week of Dec, but our media only really picked up a little over a week ago?

We should stay out. 

Putin wants a pro-Russian Ukraine.  It's what separates him from the Black Sea, Eastern Europe and oil pipelines.  I don't anyone who should be surprised that he was making a power move by sending in private military boots so he could say that he didn't order but set up the stage for an invasion if those private military guys or Crimean citizens come under attack from anti-Russian Ukrainians.  Now that he has the approval of the Chinese Government and it looks like the Ukraine's have called up military reserves to send to the Crimean Peninsula he may get his wish.

Make no mistake, Putin is an old school KGB and communist, he wants nothing more than to restore it back to good ole "Mother Russia" the way it used to be.  He also has played Obama for a fool and will continue to do so as long as he wants. 

[dallaswareagle]

You talking about that protest thing that started the first week of Dec, but our media only really picked up a little over a week ago?

We should stay out. 

Putin wants a pro-Russian Ukraine.  It's what separates him from the Black Sea, Eastern Europe and oil pipelines.  I don't anyone who should be surprised that he was making a power move by sending in private military boots so he could say that he didn't order but set up the stage for an invasion if those private military guys or Crimean citizens come under attack from anti-Russian Ukrainians.  Now that he has the approval of the Chinese Government and it looks like the Ukraine's have called up military reserves to send to the Crimean Peninsula he may get his wish.

Make no mistake, Putin is an old school KGB and communist, he wants nothing more than to restore it back to good ole "Mother Russia" the way it used to be.  He also has played Obama for a fool and will continue to do so as long as he wants.

That list continues to grow.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

You talking about that protest thing that started the first week of Dec, but our media only really picked up a little over a week ago?

We should stay out. 

Putin wants a pro-Russian Ukraine.  It's what separates him from the Black Sea, Eastern Europe and oil pipelines.  I don't anyone who should be surprised that he was making a power move by sending in private military boots so he could say that he didn't order but set up the stage for an invasion if those private military guys or Crimean citizens come under attack from anti-Russian Ukrainians.  Now that he has the approval of the Chinese Government and it looks like the Ukraine's have called up military reserves to send to the Crimean Peninsula he may get his wish.

Make no mistake, Putin is an old school KGB and communist, he wants nothing more than to restore it back to good ole "Mother Russia" the way it used to be.  He also has played Obama for a fool and will continue to do so as long as he wants.

Hell, the Olympic opening ceremony was an ode to "things were better under Stalin"

[AUChizad]

I don't love that we have to step in, but we have to step in.

Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum. A treaty in which we and Britain agreed to protect Ukraine if they'd fork over their nukes in 94.

[Townhallsavoy]

I don't love that we have to step in, but we have to step in.

Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum. A treaty in which we and Britain agreed to protect Ukraine if they'd fork over their nukes in 94.

Not quite.

We agreed to discuss protecting Ukraine. 

Here's one article discussing it:

In the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged that none of them would ever use economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine to their own interest.

They specifically pledged they would refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or engage in other uses of force in violation of international law.

All sides agreed that no such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal and that the signatories would "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments."

http://www.voanews.com/content/the-budapest-memorandum-and-crimea/1862439.html

It's not an exclusive agreement for protection.  Russia's violating it by using force as a means of coercion, but I don't believe the USA is obligated to step in besides diplomatic talks.

I've ambivalent.  On one hand, I fear that Russia is taking a very pro-(cue the end of the discussion according to Kaos)Hitler stance on this matter.  Putin is thinking solely of protecting the standard of living of Russian people living in the Ukraine.  He is going to use force to invade, take over, and rule an entire country merely because his own people are involved.  They could always go back to Russia.  But he's thinking Russian sovereignty truly extends beyond its current borders.  This is a dangerous precedent especially if Ukrainian citizens decide to not give in to Russia's demands.  There will be a lot of bloodshed. Because of that, I'd hope we would step in to prevent a crime against humanity. 

On the other hand, we cannot police the world, and a war with Russia is a severe depletion of resources.  Is the Ukraine worth it?  Are we in a war of strategic locations with Russia?  Are we willing to send Americans to die over this when the Ukraine is an economic disaster? 

[Kaos]

I don't love that we have to step in, but we have to step in.

We don't. 

[AUTiger1]

Saw this posted elsewhere and feel it's pretty much spot on.

There are few, if any, feasible options for doing anything to stop Putin on this.

Diplomatically, Obama has zero credibility with him; Syria and the Snowden amnesty proved that before any of this even became an issue. Militarily, we aren't going to risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, no matter what the Bupapest Memorandum says, which will fuck us over on any future nuclear nonproliferation talks with other countries of concern (Iran, North Korea, etc.). We could do some economic stuff, freezing assets, cutting Russia out of the G-8, etc., but that could put the rest of Europe, who depends on Russia for energy, in a bind.

Putin has us by the balls on this one and he knows it.

[Townhallsavoy]

Saw this posted elsewhere and feel it's pretty much spot on.

Let's not forget though that this isn't the first step he's taken to restoring the type of power and influence the USSR had in the 20th century.  Georgia waves from their obliterated villages to the US officials who promised to protect them. 

First Georgia, then the Ukraine.  Why not Belarus and Poland next?  Why not Azerbaijan?  Kazakhstan?

There's growing tension between Russia and China too as China has eyed a piece of land in Siberia to help alleviate congestion among their own population.

Russia's actions are very unnerving.  Though, I'm sure the rest of the world felt the same way when we collapsed the government in Iraq to put in our own. 

[Buzz Killington]

So, if we don't step in and Russia takes them over, the only thing between the great bear and Israel is Turkey.  Anyone read Ezekiel 38 and 39 lately?

[CCTAU]

Would this have happened under Bush's watch?

[dallaswareagle]

Would this have happened under Bush's watch?

No, but the MSM would be blaming him for something. All the while turning a blind eye to what the "ONE" doesn't do.

[Townhallsavoy]

No, but the MSM would be blaming him for something. All the while turning a blind eye to what the "ONE" doesn't do.

You all really think George Bush would have prevented a Ukrainian uprising that led to a new government supported by anti-Russian civilians which then led to Russia wanting to protect its military interests in Crimea?

Exactly what has Barack Obama not done that you feel he should have done?

[AUTiger1]

Let's not forget though that this isn't the first step he's taken to restoring the type of power and influence the USSR had in the 20th century.

I haven't forgot, just saying that post was spot on for this current situation.  It's a big shit sandwich and we are all gonna have to take a bite.

First Georgia, then the Ukraine.  Why not Belarus and Poland next?  Why not Azerbaijan?  Kazakhstan?

One of these things is not like the others!  That would be the NATO member.  Putin would never go after a member of NATO, but the others would be fair game.  He is not going to risk a war with the entirety of NATO.  Instead he will keep it away from the western Ukraine that he doesn't even wanna fuck with anyway.  Not a single shot will be near Poland.

His spin machine has been brilliant and laughable all at the same time. 

http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-12-putin-prepares-an-invasion/

2200 GMT: The UNSC meeting is now closed – A quick analysis — Russia has finally spelled out exactly what its given justification for invading Crimea is. According to their logic:

The EU, the UK, and the US incited the protests and fueled the revolt.

Yanukovych signed a deal with the opposition politicians that would keep him in power until, at least, early elections in December.

The “armed militants” broke this agreement by taking over government buildings, therefore:
Yanukovych is the legitimate leader of Ukraine and the people in charge are radicals,
   
“Kiev,” the catchphrase for these radicals who are now running the country, is sending provocateurs to takeover government buildings in Crimea (interjection — there is literally no evidence that this is true). Therefore:

The government of Crimea has asked Russia to send troops to restore order, and Russia has done so unilaterally because the West helped conspire to remove a democratically-elected government and put these radicals in charge.

The bottom line: the international community needs to help remove the radicals and enforce the February 21st agreement (which, by the way, would require reinstating Yanukovych back as President).

If this is not done, Russian troops will defend Crimea, and possibly attack Kiev to make it happen.

There's growing tension between Russia and China too as China has eyed a piece of land in Siberia to help alleviate congestion among their own population.

There may be tension, but China has given Russia and Putin two red commie thumbs up for his handling of this situation and supports them attacking the Ukraine.

http://news.sky.com/story/1219922/russia-and-china-in-agreement-over-ukraine

Now what really may concern China is the fact they have purchased land in the Ukraine too and they want to protect their investment if shit hit the fan hard.  http://www.channel4.com/news/china-ukraine-farmland-food-security-investment-overseas Of course they have probably bought more than enough in South America here lately to cover it.

[Townhallsavoy]

One of these things is not like the others!  That would be the NATO member.  Putin would never go after a member of NATO, but the others would be fair game.  He is not going to risk a war with the entirety of NATO.  Instead he will keep it away from the western Ukraine that he doesn't even wanna fuck with anyway.  Not a single shot will be near Poland.

Why not? 

Russia is posturing.  It's not really a secret that Putin is a bull and wants to regain a lot of power that Russia lost with the collapse of the USSR. 

And I did some more reading on China including this article from 2012:

http://hir.harvard.edu/will-china-colonize-and-incorporate-siberia 

Seems that the tension between the two is only potential, and in the mean time, they could form a formidable ally. 

Russia controls a good bit of the energy supply in Europe.  If Russia continues to amass more land and more ports and more opportunities to strengthen its power, who's to say that members of NATO won't act like many countries in Europe prior to WWII?  Who's to say that some of them won't willfully join Russia fearing that Russia's bullheaded approach to investments would lead to devastating losses to infrastructure and casualties? 

[AUTiger1]

Would this have happened under Bush's watch?

Yes, he didn't stop them from invading Georgia and wouldn't be able to stop this either.  All he did was talk tough and put sanctions on them.  Besides, Putin is a megalomaniac and their is no dealing with his kind. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/russia-to-pay-not-so-simple.html


Making Russia Pay? It’s Not So Simple

By PETER BAKERMARCH 1, 2014

WASHINGTON — President Obama has warned Russia that “there will be costs” for a military intervention in Ukraine. But the United States has few palatable options for imposing such costs, and recent history has shown that when it considers its interests at stake, Russia has been willing to pay the price.

Even before President Vladimir V. Putin on Saturday publicly declared his intent to send Russian troops into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, Mr. Obama and his team were already discussing how to respond. They talked about canceling the president’s trip to a summit meeting in Russia in June, shelving a possible trade agreement, kicking Moscow out of the Group of 8 or moving American warships to the region.

That is the same menu of actions that was offered to President George W. Bush in 2008, when Russia went to war with Georgia, another balky former Soviet republic. Yet the costs imposed at that time proved only marginally effective and short-lived. Russia stopped its advance but nearly six years later has never fully lived up to the terms of the cease-fire it signed. And whatever penalty it paid at the time evidently has not deterred it from again muscling a neighbor.

“The question is: Are those costs big enough to cause Russia not to take advantage of the situation in the Crimea? That’s the $64,000 question,” said Brig. Gen. Kevin Ryan, a retired Army officer who served as defense attaché in the American Embassy in Moscow and now, as a Harvard scholar, leads a group of former Russian and American officials in back-channel talks.

Mr. Obama announced the first direct response after a 90-minute telephone call with Mr. Putin on Saturday as he suspended preparations for the G-8 summit meeting in Russia in June. The White House said that “Russia’s continued violation of international law will lead to greater political and economic isolation.”

Michael McFaul, who just stepped down as Mr. Obama’s ambassador to Moscow, said the president should go further to ensure that Russia’s business-minded establishment understands that it would find itself cut off. “There needs to be a serious discussion as soon as possible about economic sanctions so they realize there will be costs,” he said. “They should know there will be consequences and those should be spelled out before they take further actions.”

Mr. Putin has already demonstrated that the cost to Moscow’s international reputation would not stop him. Having just hosted the Winter Olympics in Sochi, he must have realized he was all but throwing away seven years and $50 billion of effort to polish Russia’s image. He evidently calculated that any diplomatic damage did not outweigh what he sees as a threat to Russia’s historic interest in Ukraine, which was ruled by Moscow until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Mr. Putin may stop short of outright annexation of Crimea, the largely Russian-speaking peninsula where Moscow still has a major military base, but instead justify a long-term troop presence by saying the troops are there to defend the local population from the new pro-Western government in Kiev. Following a tested Russian playbook, he could create a de facto enclave loyal to Moscow much like the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia that broke away from Georgia. On the other hand, the White House worries that the crisis could escalate and that all of Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine may try to split off.

Finding powerful levers to influence Mr. Putin’s decision-making will be a challenge for Mr. Obama and the European allies. Mr. Obama has seen repeatedly that warnings often do not discourage autocratic rulers from taking violent action, as when Syria crossed the president’s “red line” by using chemical weapons in its civil war.

Russia is an even tougher country to pressure, too formidable even in the post-Soviet age to rattle with stern lectures or shows of military force, and too rich in resources to squeeze economically in the short term. With a veto on the United Nations Security Council, it need not worry about the world body. And as the primary source of natural gas to much of Europe, it holds a trump card over many American allies.

The longer-term options might be more painful, but they require trade-offs as well. The administration could impose the same sort of banking sanctions that have choked Iran’s economy. And yet Europe, with its more substantial economic ties, could be reluctant to go along, and Mr. Obama may be leery of pulling the trigger on such a potent financial weapon, especially when he needs Russian cooperation on Syria and Iran.

“What can we do?” asked Fiona Hill, a Brookings Institution scholar who was the government’s top intelligence officer on Russia during the Georgia war when Mr. Putin deflected Western agitation. “We’ll talk about sanctions. We’ll talk about red lines. We’ll basically drive ourselves into a frenzy. And he’ll stand back and just watch it. He just knows that none of the rest of us want a war.”

James F. Jeffrey was Mr. Bush’s deputy national security adviser in August 2008, the first to inform him that Russian troops were moving into Georgia in response to what the Kremlin called Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. As it happened, the clash also took place at Olympic time; Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin were both in Beijing for the Summer Games.

Mr. Bush confronted Mr. Putin to no avail, then ordered American ships to the region and provided a military transport to return home Georgian troops on duty in Iraq. He sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft, assuming that Russia would be loath to attack the capital of Tbilisi with American military personnel present. Mr. Bush also suspended a pending civilian nuclear agreement, and NATO suspended military contacts.

“We did a lot but in the end there was not that much that you could do,” Mr. Jeffrey recalled.

Inside the Bush administration, there was discussion of more robust action, like bombing the Roki Tunnel to block Russian troops or providing Georgia with Stinger antiaircraft missiles. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bristled at what she called the “chest beating,” and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, urged the president to poll his team to see if anyone recommended sending American troops.

None did, and Mr. Bush was not willing to risk escalation. While Russia stopped short of moving into Tbilisi, it secured the effective independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, while leaving troops in areas it was supposed to evacuate under a cease-fire. Within a year or so, Russia’s isolation was over. Mr. Obama took office and tried to improve relations. NATO resumed military contacts in 2009, and the United States revived the civilian nuclear agreement in 2010.

Mr. Jeffrey, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Mr. Obama should now respond assertively by suggesting that NATO deploy forces to the Polish-Ukrainian border to draw a line. “There’s nothing we can do to save Ukraine at this point,” he said. “All we can do is save the alliance.”

Others like Mr. Ryan warn that military movements could backfire by misleading Ukrainians into thinking the West might come to their rescue and so inadvertently encourage them to be more provocative with Russia.

Ms. Hill said the Russian leader might simply wait. “Time,” she said, “is on his side.”

So according to one of his advisers, no, he wasn't willing to do nothing more than talk tough to the Russians.

[Saniflush]

Fuck'em.  When all this shit went down in the early 90's Poland aligned itself with Nato and free markets.

Ukraine aligned themselves with what was left of the Soviet Union.

[AUTiger1]

Why not?

Russia is posturing.  It's not really a secret that Putin is a bull and wants to regain a lot of power that Russia lost with the collapse of the USSR. 

And I did some more reading on China including this article from 2012:

http://hir.harvard.edu/will-china-colonize-and-incorporate-siberia 

Seems that the tension between the two is only potential, and in the mean time, they could form a formidable ally. 

Russia controls a good bit of the energy supply in Europe.  If Russia continues to amass more land and more ports and more opportunities to strengthen its power, who's to say that members of NATO won't act like many countries in Europe prior to WWII?  Who's to say that some of them won't willfully join Russia fearing that Russia's bullheaded approach to investments would lead to devastating losses to infrastructure and casualties?

B/c he is not an idiot.  He will not risk a war with all of NATO for a country that he has no major interest in.  Some may willfully join them, but I can guarantee you that the British, France, Germany, US and Turkey won't.  Those five countries have more than enough firepower to keep the other countries from being too worried.  Will Putin make power grabs in the other non-NATO countries that used to be a prat of the Russian Empire, I believe so, but he will never get it back to where it once was right after WWII and he is more than likely content with that as regaining what he can will give him enough power to stroke his eag and thirst for power.

[Snaggletiger]

I stroked my eag this morningin the shower.