Ukraine and Russa

[Miserissima]

Ridgerunner,

I agree that if we were truly interested in Ukraine, the US would have helped to build / train its forces – not in the ‘School of the Americas’ way, either. thumbsup:

But, sadly, I have to say that the Ukrainian soldiers who are barricaded in (and the second group from whom their weapons had been confiscated by the "unmarked military), took their orders not to resist from ‘someone.’

This ‘someone,’ either pro Russia or was ordered not to engage / incite in order to demonstrate peaceful intentions, we may never know who it is.

 

[nmgauss]

This situation reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Here the Russians were threatening the U.S. right off our coast. When Kennedy was tough with Khruschev, he backed down. This was brinkmanship extraordinaire. The U.S. Navy blockading Cuba helped a lot.

Has anybody been tough with Putin? If we set up missile launching sites pointed his way, what do you suppose he would do? If we blockaded his ports, he would probably blockade our ports. Except he has very few ports, whereas the West has hundreds.

His only ports are the Crimea behind the blockable Strait of Bosporus, Kaliningrad separated from Russia by Lithuania, St. Petersburg up the Gulf of Finland and past the blockable Kattegat and Skaggerak straits, Murmansk in the far north, and Vladivostok in the Far East. We could bring his economy down to a standstill if we chose.

Interesting!

 

[Ridgerunner]

We didn’t because we didn’t have a crystal ball. It’s very easy to say what we should have done after the event has happened, but this event was not foreseen.

Do we invest and train the forces of every small nation that could potentially become prey to a neighbouring larger nation? And do we even do this when the larger nation was apparently on good terms with us prior to the aggression?

Are you suggesting that we now invest in developing crack armies for places like Latvia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijhan, Uzbekistan, Estonia, and anywhere else that has substantial concentrated populations of ethnic Russians? Do you think the US tax-payer would be willing to fork out huge amounts to fund this?

I rather imagine Latvia is interested in beefing up its defensive capabilities. Lithuania sure is. The U.S. taxpayer once forked out a lot more for global defense than the current government is willing to fork out even to defend the U.S. Anyone trying to improve America’s global capabilities is going to face an uphill battle, just as JFK did and just as Reagan did. So it’s not impossible. Even the current administration gave modern tanks and fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood when it ruled Egypt, so it isn’t as if there is no capacity at all to do it.

And it might not be too difficult to get Western Europe to chip in. After all, Lithuania is very, very close to Germany and borders on Poland. Of interest from “The Telegraph” is the following:

“Poland’s defence ministry has announced it will re-launch plans to establish a joint Polish, Ukrainian and Lithuanian military brigade. The ministry said defence ministers will meet this week to discuss the formation of the brigade that would straddle Nato’s eastern border and bring Ukraine’s armed forces closer to the Western fold.”

But I think the U.S. approach would vary. Belarus is already part of the New Russian Empire, in effect, with Russian forces building there at the invitation of Belarus’ leadership.rt.com/news/belarus-planes-nato-poland-594/

But Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are, like Poland, NATO members, and we’re obligated by treaty to aid in their defense. The “stans” are not NATO members, nor is Belarus.

Azerbaijhan, Usbekistan and Kazakhstan would all be “more Chechnyas” for Russia to have to subdue, and one questions whether Russia would be moved to try to resorb them.
Putin probably doesn’t need three more Chechnyas, at least not for the foreseeable future.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This situation reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Here the Russians were threatening the U.S. right off our coast. When Kennedy was tough with Khruschev, he backed down. This was brinkmanship extraordinaire. The U.S. Navy blockading Cuba helped a lot.

Has anybody been tough with Putin? If we set up missile launching sites pointed his way, what do you suppose he would do? If we blockaded his ports, he would probably blockade our ports. Except he has very few ports, whereas the West has hundreds.

His only ports are the Crimea behind the blockable Strait of Bosporus, Kaliningrad separated from Russia by Lithuania, St. Petersburg up the Gulf of Finland and past the blockable Kattegat and Skaggerak straits, Murmansk in the far north, and Vladivostok in the Far East. We could bring his economy down to a standstill if we chose.

Interesting!

I would certainly not favor blocking any Russian ports. That’s an act of war.

Probably the most effective thing the U.S. could do to “punish” Russia and reduce its ability to project power, would be to lean heavily on the Western European countries to develop their own gas shale deposits. The Netherlands, in particular, has enormous deposits, sufficient to provide Europe with natural gas for decades. Poland and whatever will remain of Ukraine have promising deposits that, with western aid and expertise, could be developed.

 

[nmgauss]

I would certainly not favor blocking any Russian ports. That’s an act of war.

This reminds me of what happened prior to Pearl Harbor when Franklin Roosevelt authorized an embargo of American oil to Japan in response to Japan’s attempts at embargoing all imports to China with which they were at war, including war materiel purchased by China from the U.S.

Then when Japan took over French Indo China, Roosevelt froze Japanese assets in the United States and the Philippines. Britain and the Dutch East Indies followed suit. The result: Japan lost access to three-fourths of its overseas trade and 88 percent of its imported oil.

All this was done without any overt acts of war between the U.S. and Japan. A lot can be done without actually going to war.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I have yet to see any English person waving a banner of Henry VII at a political rally. If this sort of thing has happened then kindly point me to the evidence for it.

So what’s happening in Crimea now. Russia has taken over military bases in Sevastapol, disarmed and disbanded the Ukranian forces there and apprehended the senior officer. Putin has fully recognised the recent referendum in Crimea as being legally valid, and has since declared that Crimea is an inseparable part of Russia. Crimea is in the process of being annexed and absorbed into Russia. The Crimea was gifted to the Ukraine by Russia. If the Ukrainians do not willingly relinquish it then Russia’s actions are illegal.

This is what Putin stated yesterday in his address to the Russian Duma.

"Members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, today, in accordance with the people’s will,** I submit to the Federal Assembly a request to consider a Constitutional Law on the creation of two new constituent entities within the Russian Federation: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol,** and to ratify the treaty on admitting to the Russian Federation Crimea and Sevastopol, which is already ready for signing. I stand assured of your support.

March 18, 2014, 15:50 The Kremlin, Moscow"

It’s not about Europe of the USA, it’s about NATO. This isn’t some inferior opponent that can easily be stopped by sending in a few planes and tanks. This is Russia. This is a probable resumption of the Cold War. When has the USA ever used force to try to stop Russia? When you have an equal opponent, also armed with nuclear weapons, and engaging in conflict in his own backyard, you cannot stop him by using military force, particularly when you are based thousands of miles across the ocean from him.

I’m well aware of what Russia is capable of. I’m also sure that they could have gotten along just fine with the Crimea in the hands of the Ukraine. Deals could have been struck to ensure their warm water port in Sevastopol. But that didn’t work for Vlad Putin.

I have a hard time believing that NATO would act without the leadership of the USA.

ATB

 

[phil19034]

One thing to keep in mind is that Crimea used to be part of Russia. Then, during the Soviet Union days, the Soviets moved it from Russia to the Ukraine. When the Soviet Union broke apart, Crimea was part of Ukraine.

Wikipedia has some good info about that area.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

 

[Brendan_64]

The Crimea was gifted to the Ukraine by Russia. If the Ukrainians do not willingly relinquish it then Russia’s actions are illegal.

And you really think that Putin is bothered about that? The West has carried out acts in contravention to international law (the war in Iraq being one) why should Russia be any different in this regard? Putin has already stated in the Duma that Crimea is an inseparable part of Russia, it is pretty clear what he thinks of international law in this case.

I’m well aware of what Russia is capable of. I’m also sure that they could have gotten along just fine with the Crimea in the hands of the Ukraine. Deals could have been struck to ensure their warm water port in Sevastopol. But that didn’t work for Vlad Putin.

Because the new Ukranian government (which is quite dodgy itself in terms of legitimacy and legality) had made it clear that it was looking towards the EU rather than to Russia, and Putin was not prepared to let 8 million ethnic Russians be cut adrift from Russia and pass into the hands of the EU, and let Ukraine (and particularly Sevastapol) become under the military umbrella of NATO.

Through his actions Putin has annexed Crimea gaining full control of Sevastapol from now onwards, secured the ethnic Russians of Crimea, and sufficiently scared the EU from ever considering Ukraine as a possible EU member.

I have a hard time believing that NATO would act without the leadership of the USA.

That is correct, but the logistics involved and the time taken for a military response to be made would make such a move ineffective. NATO will not be able to get its act together to do anything to stop Putin in the Crimea, and NATO is not going to go to war with Russia over this and Putin knows it.

What this could very possibly lead to is an end to the ceasefire in the Cold War between Russia and the West.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

And you really think that Putin is bothered about that? The West has carried out acts in contravention to international law (the war in Iraq being one) why should Russia be any different in this regard? Putin has already stated in the Duma that Crimea is an inseparable part of Russia, it is pretty clear what he thinks of international law in this case. I think the difference lies in motive. We acted to liberate IRAQ from a brutal dictator. Russia is enlarging it’s borders. I think that is a pretty large difference.

Because the new Ukranian government (which is quite dodgy itself in terms of legitimacy and legality) had made it clear that it was looking towards the EU rather than to Russia, and Putin was not prepared to let 8 million ethnic Russians be cut adrift from Russia and pass into the hands of the EU, and let Ukraine (and particularly Sevastapol) become under the military umbrella of NATO. No, I wouldn’t expect that.

Through his actions Putin has annexed Crimea gaining full control of Sevastapol from now onwards, secured the ethnic Russians of Crimea, and sufficiently scared the EU from ever considering Ukraine as a possible EU member. I don’t agree with your assesment here. I think you’ll see Ukraine move into EU membership.

That is correct, but the logistics involved and the time taken for a military response to be made would make such a move ineffective. NATO will not be able to get its act together to do anything to stop Putin in the Crimea, and NATO is not going to go to war with Russia over this and Putin knows it. We’ve waged war in Europe before with much less technology. We could do so again, as needed.

What this could very possibly lead to is an end to the ceasefire in the Cold War between Russia and the West. I agree here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What this could very possibly lead to is an end to the ceasefire in the Cold War between Russia and the West.

Not just possibly. This is the re-ignition of the Cold War; a war the west thought was over, but which Russia’s rulers did not. While the Obama administration undoubtedly feels some political heat from this, but undoubtedly consents in its heart of hearts to Russian imperialism precisely because it’s anti-western, the Obama administration will not always be in power. Nor will the leaderless West always be leaderless.

The west will be supine in the face of Russian revanchism for a time, but it will not always be so. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the Ukrainians may pay an even greater price for it than they have so far.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think the difference lies in motive. We acted to liberate IRAQ from a brutal dictator. Russia is enlarging it’s borders. I think that is a pretty large difference.

So it is OK to break the law so long as you think that you are motivated to do so by your relative opinion of what you conceive to be a greater good? And so long as you are powerful enough to be able to do so and get away with it? Putin is also acting illegally and doing so for what he perceives to be a greater good. And, like the USA, he too is powerful enough to get away with it.

Are you arguing that international law is invalid? Or are you arguing that it is valid, but that nevertheless it is still OK to break it so long as the party breaking it views breaking the law as necessary to achieve what it (from its relative position) views to be a greater good?

I don’t agree with your assessment here. I think you’ll see Ukraine move into EU membership.

It isn’t down to Ukraine whether or not it joins the EU. To be accepted into the EU, every single EU member has to agree to this. The EU will only admit Ukraine if it is in its economic and political interests to do so, and every single member would have to agree this (there are 28 member states, all sovereign nations, and all very different in terms of culture, politics etc.). The EU isn’t going to admit a new member on ideological grounds, Europeans don’t operate like that. It might be in Ukraine’s interest to be part of the EU, but is it in the interests of every single EU state to admit Ukraine? Admitting a new member that is engaged in hostilities with Russia would not be touched with a bargepole by the majority of EU members. Unlike the USA, Russia borders many EU states, there is no way the EU would risk a war with Russia, Russian tanks rolling across the borders of the EU and occupying EU territory is not something anyone in the EU would risk.

We’ve waged war in Europe before with much less technology. We could do so again, as needed.

Well it’s a bit late now as far as Crimea is concerned, don’t you think? Unless you are advocating an invasion (and ‘liberation’) of Crimea, which Russia has now incorporated into its territory. And there is also the fact that the vast majority of people in Crimea actually want to be part of Russia. You’d be trying to ‘liberate’ people who don’t want to be ‘liberated’. What would you do afterwards if you did ‘liberate’ these pro-Russian people? Enforce their ‘liberation’ through deploying a huge occupying force for the foreseeable future, as well as employing forces along the entire EU border with Russia? It would simply not be possible to do this. It’s just not going to happen.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

So it is OK to break the law so long as you think that you are motivated to do so by your relative opinion of what you conceive to be a greater good? And so long as you are powerful enough to be able to do so and get away with it? Yeah, pretty much. Putin is also acting illegally and doing so for what he perceives to be a greater good. And, like the USA, he too is powerful enough to get away with it.

Are you arguing that international law is invalid? Or are you arguing that it is valid, but that nevertheless it is still OK to break it so long as the party breaking it views breaking the law as necessary to achieve what it (from its relative position) views to be a greater good? Again, I’m all about the greater good.

It isn’t down to Ukraine whether or not it joins the EU. To be accepted into the EU, every single EU member has to agree to this. The EU will only admit Ukraine if it is in its economic and political interests to do so, and every single member would have to agree this (there are 28 member states, all sovereign nations, and all very different in terms of culture, politics etc.). The EU isn’t going to admit a new member on ideological grounds, Europeans don’t operate like that. It might be in Ukraine’s interest to be part of the EU, but is it in the interests of every single EU state to admit Ukraine? Admitting a new member that is engaged in hostilities with Russia would not be touched with a bargepole by the majority of EU members. Unlike the USA, Russia borders many EU states, there is no way the EU would risk a war with Russia, Russian tanks rolling across the borders of the EU and occupying EU territory is not something anyone in the EU would risk. I understand that the Ukraine has a lot of repair work to do. Before it can be admitted into the EU. I’m sorry if I implied that it was a simple thing. But having said that. I believe they will be admitted in the future.

Well it’s a bit late now as far as Crimea is concerned, don’t you think? Unless you are advocating an invasion (and ‘liberation’) of Crimea, which Russia has now incorporated into its territory. I don’t think there will be an invasion. But I’m not sure I’d object to one. And there is also the fact that the vast majority of people in Crimea actually want to be part of Russia. They can apply for citizenship, and move then. You’d be trying to ‘liberate’ people who don’t want to be ‘liberated’. What would you do afterwards if you did ‘liberate’ these pro-Russian people? Enforce their ‘liberation’ through deploying a huge occupying force for the foreseeable future, as well as employing forces along the entire EU border with Russia? It would simply not be possible to do this. It’s just not going to happen. I’d avoid absolutes If I were you.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yeah, pretty much.

Again, I’m all about the greater good.

So it is OK to break laws that you have signed up to and agree with if you feel that by breaking such a law (that you agree with) you can achieve something that you think is good? Doing wrong so that good may come of it? So long as you are powerful enough to get away with it? So what’s the point of international law then? To keep the weaker nations in line? I wonder how all that squares morally with Catholic Social Policy?

And as far as the EU is concerned, the Ukraine can apply all it wants, but it would not be admitted unless all 28 member states agreed, and this includes many states that directly border Russia. While the Ukraine has a dangerously hostile relationship with Russia, this is simply not going to happen. It would simply not be in the interests of the current EU member states to admit Ukraine.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And you really think that Putin is bothered about that? The West has carried out acts in contravention to international law (the war in Iraq being one) why should Russia be any different in this regard? Putin has already stated in the Duma that Crimea is an inseparable part of Russia, it is pretty clear what he thinks of international law in this case.

I have no pretense to legal scholarship, but it is my understanding that “international law” is a matter of what countries have bound themselves to by treaty. Again, not pretending to interpret it, but I am unaware of any treaty obligation the U.S. had to leave Saddam Hussein in power or to refrain from removing him from power. I am aware that Russia had a treaty obligation to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine with Crimea being part of Ukraine.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

So it is OK to break laws that you have signed up to and agree with if you feel that by breaking such a law (that you agree with) you can achieve something that you think is good? Doing wrong so that good may come of it? So long as you are powerful enough to get away with it? So what’s the point of international law then? To keep the weaker nations in line? I wonder how all that squares morally with Catholic Social Policy?

And as far as the EU is concerned, the Ukraine can apply all it wants, but it would not be admitted unless all 28 member states agreed, and this includes many states that directly border Russia. While the Ukraine has a dangerously hostile relationship with Russia, this is simply not going to happen. It would simply not be in the interests of the current EU member states to admit Ukraine.

Again you are speaking in absolutes. When really all you are doing is making an observation-prediction. Reference International law, like RR said, you’d have to be more specific.

In closing, I’d like to say that Europe had better get used to the idea of hostile relations with Russia. They should also be looking for as many partners with a little fight in them as they can recruit.

God be with you.

 

[Brendan_64]

In closing, I’d like to say that Europe had better get used to the idea of hostile relations with Russia. They should also be looking for as many partners with a little fight in them as they can recruit.

Inviting a member, who is in active conflict with Russia, top join would be absolute lunacy for the existing members of the EU. Your suggestion is easy to make when you do not have a huge land border with Russia. To think that all the EU member states would give their approval to such a nation joining the EU is to fail to understand the EU, its varied member states, and its purpose.

 

[nmgauss]

Inviting a member, who is in active conflict with Russia, top join would be absolute lunacy for the existing members of the EU. Your suggestion is easy to make when you do not have a huge land border with Russia. To think that all the EU member states would give their approval to such a nation joining the EU is to fail to understand the EU, its varied member states, and its purpose.

There is a term, “Rogue Nation”, which applies to countries that thumb their noses at treaties and the United Nations. North Korea has been the most notorious rogue in recent years and nobody is doing anything to counter its threatening activities. Now we have another rogue, except this time it is largest country in area in the world. It also has a seat on the UN Security Council. I wonder if China is beginning to emulate Putin and set its sights on neighboring countries? Mongolia is a prime target. So are Kyrgystan and Tadjikistan.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is a term, “Rogue Nation”, which applies to countries that thumb their noses at treaties and the United Nations. North Korea has been the most notorious rogue in recent years and nobody is doing anything to counter its threatening activities. Now we have another rogue, except this time it is largest country in area in the world. It also has a seat on the UN Security Council. I wonder if China is beginning to emulate Putin and set its sights on neighboring countries? Mongolia is a prime target. So are Kyrgystan and Tadjikistan.

Mongolia maybe. But when it comes to any of the “stans”, China already has one in Xinjiang, and it’s a source of economic loss and mayhem. I’m not convinced China feels the need for another.