The Ukraine Situation

[bran]

Interesting how Putin is taking the ask questions later approach. I wonder why he's not giving any chance of diplomacy right now before the situation escalates?

i think right now the world and russia are playing a big game of chicken. if putin and russia decide to attack the mainland of the ukraine i think downzy is right and we will see a much different response to the situation.

[T.wa.T]

Interesting how Putin is taking the ask questions later approach. I wonder why he's not giving any chance of diplomacy right now before the situation escalates?

i think right now the world and russia are playing a big game of chicken. if putin and russia decide to attack the mainland of the ukraine i think downzy is right and we will see a much different response to the situation.

As in what? A military response?? That's a hell of a game of chicken. I think Obama has run out of chances to blink, he needs to channel his inner Kennedy and use brains over braun.

[downzy]

An interesting take from the author of "“The NATO-Russia Relationship in the Twenty-First Century.” Far too often aggression is considered a demonstration of strength when in reality it can represent weakness.

Putin’s dangerous misadventure: A ‘Greater Russia’ or a ‘Great Russia?’

AUREL BRAUN

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/putins-dangerous-misadventure-a-greater-russia-or-a-great-russia/article17186071/

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to deploy additional Russian military forces in Ukraine’s Crimea, combined with the unanimous vote of his rubber-stamp Federation Council to potentially allow the use of military force throughout Ukraine, looms as a stark demonstration of the Russian leader’s brazen flexing of military muscle in pursuit of his strategic goals. In reality, it is much more a sign of desperation and weakness, with Mr. Putin disoriented and fearful.

Just a few months ago Mr. Putin successfully bullied and bribed the now ousted corrupt and feckless president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, into forgoing his promise to sign the Eastern Partnership association agreement with the European Union. Instead Ukraine would move toward joining the Russian-controlled Eurasian Union which Mr. Putin views as the centerpiece of his legacy in his quest to restore Russia to superpower status by rebuilding a 19th-century style Russian Empire.

The “Maidan Revolution," which led to the truly ignominious collapse of Mr. Putin’s client regime in Kiev, has now put in jeopardy Mr. Putin’s entire dream of imperial restoration. Further, that revolution, in Mr. Putin’s perception, poses two specific great dangers.

First, the new government in Kiev, built on the sacrifices of the Ukrainian people, may face down Russian pressure and might in the future put at risk Russia’s strategic position in the Crimea where Moscow has based its Black Sea fleet and from where it sends the vital military supplies that help keep the Syrian regime in power.

Second, if the long-suffering Ukrainian people succeed in achieving their goal of building a modern society that guarantees the rights and dignity of Ukraine’s citizens in a prosperous and stable political order, this “Ukrainian virus” could well spread to Russia where opposition leader Boris Nemtsov has already suggested that a Russian “Maidan” is inevitable. That would be a direct danger to the increasingly repressive and often risible regime of Mr. Putin, which has long wasted its opportunities for desperately needed fundamental reform in favour of an odd mix of fantasy and increasingly limited reality, what we may call political magical realism, that too often entails an evasion rather than a resolution of key problems.

In the foreign policy version of this we are witnessing an attempt by Mr. Putin to use 19th-century style military imperialism to try and battle 21st century Ukrainian aspirations.

He has responded to the sacrifices and dreams of the Ukrainian people for dignity, democracy, and prosperity with brutal intimidation and disruption. Moreover, he seems to believe that he can induce a kind of controlled chaos in Ukraine that would destroy the new government and force the country back on to a path that would both lead it to become a Russian vassal and pivotally aid Russian superpower restoration.

Though the Federation Council authorized the use of forces throughout Ukraine, Mr. Putin so far seems to be focused on Crimea where additional Russian forces have and are being deployed. He is undoubtedly though exploring his options in the rest of Ukraine. Mr. Putin seems to work under the belief that just as since 2009, when Washington’s failed “reset button” basically gave Russia a free pass on his 2008 invasion of Georgia, the West, rhetoric to the contrary, will remain largely disinterested and impotent.

Sadly for Mr. Putin, though, the bane of international relations has often been misperception and many plans and policies have fallen victim to miscalculation. Though Mr. Putin may have acted with considerable impunity internationally and within Russia for a number of years this is more the result of Western disengagement rather than of genuine Russian power and efficacious policy.

Ukraine, moreover is not Georgia. It is a vast, strategically crucial, country with 46 million people, the majority of whom, despite Russian-inspired and emboldened disruptions in Donetsk, Kharkiv, or Mariupol, (where there are predominately Russian-speaking Ukrainians), have not sacrificed so much to again become vassals of Moscow. The acting President of Ukraine and its new Prime Minister have ordered full military mobilization and the safeguarding and security of Ukrainian airports, nuclear facilities, and strategic sites and warned conditions are “on the brink of disaster”. They indicated that that there would be mass resistance to a Russian attempt to take over the country.

Furthermore, the 1994 treaty that was signed by Russia, the UK, and the U.S., which bound all to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty places legal obligations on the West, and Ukraine’s government has called on the U.S. to help. U.S. President Barack Obama has characterized Russian actions a “violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty” and warned that “there will be costs” and Secretary of State John Kerry has labelled Moscow’s moves as an “incredible act of aggression”.

Perhaps the West will not go beyond rhetoric, but it should be kept in mind that today Russia is but a pale remnant of the Soviet Union with a uni-dimensional economy and a per capita GDP roughly that of Barbados. Its economy is increasingly stagnant and large-scale political dissatisfaction in many parts is smouldering just beneath the surface. Ensnared in his own political fantasy, Mr. Putin has failed to transform Russia into a modern state, has wasted vast resources, missed all historic critical opportunities, and depleted Russian international prestige by trying to save the murderous Syrian government, defend Iran’s genocidal regime, and coddle Belarus’ repugnant dictatorship. Russia is very vulnerable to economic sanctions and international ostracism.

There is an alternative though to confrontation and escalation. “Losing Ukraine” could be a blessing in disguise for Mr. Putin if he were to give up his delusionary imperial ambitions and focus instead on transforming Russia itself into a modern democratic state that the Russian people deserve and would welcome. Rather than try to prevent a Russian “Maidan” through repression, Mr. Putin could change tack and try to create a Russia on par, for example, with Japan. In short, Mr. Putin could opt for a “Great Russia” rather than a “Greater Russia.” If he continues to insist on the latter, however, his sordid military adventure in Ukraine is likely to bring nothing but grief for everyone, including the people of Russia.

You mean the situation where Kerry allowed wiggle room to avoid a military confrontation and Syria and Russia took it?

That's not how it went down and I imagine you know it.

Care to explain? I agree the U.S. fell backwards into avoiding its direct involvement, but only since the notion of Bachar of voluntarily handing over his entire chemical stockpile seemed so far fetched at the time.

Edited March 4, 2014 by downzy

[T.wa.T]

That was a good read thanks for posting downzy.

[Heisenberg]

Not only that I believe, but I know from the facts. Do you want evidence?

Not really...I am fully aware of what happened in Serbia. And I rather not get into a debate with someone who is actually defending Milosevic. It's (almost) the equivalent of getting into a debate with someone defending Hitler.

If you really want to have that debate, I recommend starting a thread about it...this thread has plenty of worthy discussion on its own.

Obviously you are not. It can be easily concluded from the figures you mentioned. On the whole territory of the former Yugoslavia was not more than 140.000 dead including soldiers in the period from 1991 to 1999. Please stop twisting my words. I never defended Milosevic nor do I intend. But, comparing Milosevic to Hitler you showed your ignorance and malice again. You serve exaggerated, one-sided, a fictional propaganda stories.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Heisenberg

[magisme]

If memory serves, when it appeared as if Syria would disarm per Russian instruction/negotiations, USG began scrambling, trying to find a reason for a short time to say that military action could be justified regardless. They were all over the place from day to day. It was impossible to actually understand what their position was beyond their insistence that POTUS had the right to act without Congress even though he didn't want to. It was only toward the very end of the crisis that USG accepted that Russia really had settled shit, and that it would look awful stupid to continue with the alarmist, imminent military action rhetoric they had established.

[foghat43]

...while the U.S. loses the moral high ground?

LOL! Are you referring to the moral high ground of backing the terrorists "rebels" (some were even affiliated with Al Qaeda) and who were chopping the heads off of Christians in Syria...is that the moral high ground that we were at risk of losing?

Edited March 4, 2014 by foghat43

[OmarBradley]

...while the U.S. loses the moral high ground?

LOL! Are you referring to the moral high ground of backing the terrorists "rebels" (some were even affiliated with Al Qaeda) and who were chopping the heads off of Christians in Syria...is that the moral high ground that we were at risk of losing?

Sec. Kerry estimated roughly 15% of rebels maintain extremist views. It's not a small amount, but it's nowhere near the amount you're implying. Unless you're saying the fact that any of them are associated with al Qaeda renders them all undeserving of help?

Edited March 4, 2014 by OmarBradley

[foghat43]

...while the U.S. loses the moral high ground?

LOL! Are you referring to the moral high ground of backing the terrorists "rebels" (some were even affiliated with Al Qaeda) and who were chopping the heads off of Christians in Syria...is that the moral high ground that we were at risk of losing?

Sec. Kerry estimated roughly 15% of rebels maintain extremist views. It's not a small amount, but it's nowhere near the amount you're implying. Unless you're saying the fact that any of them are associated with al Qaeda renders them all undeserving of help?

And you trust Sec.Kerry? I don't. And, no, I don't think we should have been backing them.

Edited March 4, 2014 by foghat43

[OmarBradley]

...while the U.S. loses the moral high ground?

LOL! Are you referring to the moral high ground of backing the terrorists "rebels" (some were even affiliated with Al Qaeda) and who were chopping the heads off of Christians in Syria...is that the moral high ground that we were at risk of losing?

Sec. Kerry estimated roughly 15% of rebels maintain extremist views. It's not a small amount, but it's nowhere near the amount you're implying. Unless you're saying the fact that any of them are associated with al Qaeda renders them all undeserving of help?

And you trust Sec.Kerry? I don't. And, no, I don't think we should have been backing them.

I trust him more than I trust you. He has a top secret security clearance, and access to all sorts of streams of information that most people could never dream of. So you don't think we should have been "backing" (I used the word helping) them because of a minority's ties to terrorist groups? Or for other reasons?

[magisme]

I seem to remember no ties to terrorist groups was good enough to go after Saddam, so 15% deserves a nuke, right?

[OmarBradley]

I seem to remember no ties to terrorist groups was good enough to go after Saddam, so 15% deserves a nuke, right?

I'm not necessarily saying we should have done anything. I am curious as to why others feel that we should have done nothing.

[Broskirose]

Game Of Thrones

[bran]

Game Of Thrones

putin is littlefinger

[foghat43]

So you think he could/would admit it if a large % of them were extremists or associated with Al Qaeda? ...wouldn't it be kinda hard to explain that to the American public. I mean after all, we're allegedly fighting a "war on terror" and Al Qaeda is the boogey man...right? And, yet, we are their allies in Syria? C'mon, he would have to say it was a only a small %. So, no, I don't trust him.

I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy...we should stop meddling in other countries' affairs and trying to police the world. So my opinion about not backing them had nothing to do with their ties to terrorist groups. I just thought the idea of the US having any kind of "moral high ground" was amusing.

I seem to remember no ties to terrorist groups was good enough to go after Saddam, so 15% deserves a nuke, right?

But Saddam had all those stock piles of WMDs and the "smoking gun" aimed at the US ...that's why we invaded Iraq...oh, wait...nevermind.

[Heisenberg]

[downzy]

...while the U.S. loses the moral high ground?

LOL! Are you referring to the moral high ground of backing the terrorists "rebels" (some were even affiliated with Al Qaeda) and who were chopping the heads off of Christians in Syria...is that the moral high ground that we were at risk of losing?

The moral high ground in not using direct military intervention like it lost in Iraq.

[Ace Nova]

This thread is amazing. We have a bunch of members comparing (almost justifying) what Russia is doing now to U.S. intervention in Iraq, Serbia, etc....and then they criticize the U.S. for not intervening in Syria...

The utter hatred and bigotry towards the U.S. is prevalent. Why don't some of you just admit that you hate the U.S. and no matter what the U.S. does in this situation, you will find a way to criticize us. Be honest with yourselves...at least try to save some face.

[magisme]

I really don't know who you're talking about, KK. I don't see anyone who fits your description.

[downzy]

If memory serves, when it appeared as if Syria would disarm per Russian instruction/negotiations, USG began scrambling, trying to find a reason for a short time to say that military action could be justified regardless. They were all over the place from day to day. It was impossible to actually understand what their position was beyond their insistence that POTUS had the right to act without Congress even though he didn't want to. It was only toward the very end of the crisis that USG accepted that Russia really had settled shit, and that it would look awful stupid to continue with the alarmist, imminent military action rhetoric they had established.

But the Syrian deal only happened because of a throwaway comment by Kerry. It was made under the pretence that Syria would never agree to it. Russia supported it as an alternative to escalating the war from a civil war to one that involved foreign nations in a direct manner. I'll admit that Syria and Russia's acceptance caught the State Department and White House off guard, but let's not pretend that it was Russia's idea all along. Russia helped broker the deal, but to suggest that Russia "settled shit" is a bit of a reach.

[Ace Nova]

I really don't know who you're talking about, KK. I don't see anyone who fits your description.

Not you bud....

Others that have been critical of Obama for not intervening in Syria, stating that Putin is making him look like a fool....then saying that Russia is basically doing the same thing the U.S. has done in the past.

So how do people want it? Do they want the U.S. to police the world or not?

Because it's pretty simple....you either do or you don't. If you do, then you can't say a damn thing about U.S. intervention in the past...and if you don't, you surely shouldn't be saying that Obama is weak for not intervening.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Kasanova King

[magisme]

If memory serves, when it appeared as if Syria would disarm per Russian instruction/negotiations, USG began scrambling, trying to find a reason for a short time to say that military action could be justified regardless. They were all over the place from day to day. It was impossible to actually understand what their position was beyond their insistence that POTUS had the right to act without Congress even though he didn't want to. It was only toward the very end of the crisis that USG accepted that Russia really had settled shit, and that it would look awful stupid to continue with the alarmist, imminent military action rhetoric they had established.

But the Syrian deal only happened because of a throwaway comment by Kerry. It was made under the pretence that Syria would never agree to it. Russia supported it as an alternative to escalating the war from a civil war to one that involved foreign nations in a direct manner. I'll admit that Syria and Russia's acceptance caught the State Department and White House off guard, but let's not pretend that it was Russia's idea all along. Russia helped broker the deal, but to suggest that Russia "settled shit" is a bit of a reach.

I can live with that description. Basically, Russia and Syria caught the US pretending not to be warmongering, and the US had to scramble to get it's shit together when what it said it wanted to happen but which we all know it didn't want to happen (disarmament) happened.

[downzy]

So you think he could/would admit it if a large % of them were extremists or associated with Al Qaeda? ...wouldn't it be kinda hard to explain that to the American public. I mean after all, we're allegedly fighting a "war on terror" and Al Qaeda is the boogey man...right? And, yet, we are their allies in Syria? C'mon, he would have to say it was a only a small %. So, no, I don't trust him.

I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy...we should stop meddling in other countries' affairs and trying to police the world. So my opinion about not backing them had nothing to do with their ties to terrorist groups. I just thought the idea of the US having any kind of "moral high ground" was amusing.

I seem to remember no ties to terrorist groups was good enough to go after Saddam, so 15% deserves a nuke, right?

But Saddam had all those stock piles of WMDs and the "smoking gun" aimed at the US ...that's why we invaded Iraq...oh, wait...nevermind.

Actually, the Obama administration retired the phrase "war on terror." Moreover, it's foreign policy has shifted (or in the process of) from one that involved broad military action to targeted strikes.

The both of you are projecting the Bush administration onto the Obama administration. Sure, there are certain policies Obama has maintained (if not expanded), but to argue that Obama is limited to what he can do because of the follies of a previous administration is absurd. A non-interventionist policy makes sense in most cases but not all cases. A power-vacuum often produces chaos.

[downzy]

If memory serves, when it appeared as if Syria would disarm per Russian instruction/negotiations, USG began scrambling, trying to find a reason for a short time to say that military action could be justified regardless. They were all over the place from day to day. It was impossible to actually understand what their position was beyond their insistence that POTUS had the right to act without Congress even though he didn't want to. It was only toward the very end of the crisis that USG accepted that Russia really had settled shit, and that it would look awful stupid to continue with the alarmist, imminent military action rhetoric they had established.

But the Syrian deal only happened because of a throwaway comment by Kerry. It was made under the pretence that Syria would never agree to it. Russia supported it as an alternative to escalating the war from a civil war to one that involved foreign nations in a direct manner. I'll admit that Syria and Russia's acceptance caught the State Department and White House off guard, but let's not pretend that it was Russia's idea all along. Russia helped broker the deal, but to suggest that Russia "settled shit" is a bit of a reach.

I can live with that description. Basically, Russia and Syria caught the US pretending not to be warmongering, and the US had to scramble to get it's shit together when what it said it wanted to happen but which we all know it didn't want to happen (disarmament) happened.

Yeah, it wasn't the smoothest example of diplomacy, but Obama was stuck by declaring a red line many months ago. His secretary of state unknowingly stumbled backwards into an out for Obama. But look at what it achieved: the U.S. stayed out of civil war (good), it removed chemical weapons from a very sensitive area on the map (good), and for once the United States did not come off looking like the bad guy as it has with Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and to some extent, Afghanistan (very good, which goes to my point about reclaiming the moral high ground in this particular situation). Yet people want to label this as a fail for the U.S. That they were "outplayed" by Russia despite getting almost everything it wanted.

Edited March 4, 2014 by downzy

[bran]

This thread is amazing. We have a bunch of members comparing (almost justifying) what Russia is doing now to U.S. intervention in Iraq, Serbia, etc....and then they criticize the U.S. for not intervening in Syria...

The utter hatred and bigotry towards the U.S. is prevalent. Why don't some of you just admit that you hate the U.S. and no matter what the U.S. does in this situation, you will find a way to criticize us. Be honest with yourselves...at least try to save some face.

yeah it is sad.