Ukraine

[AquaMan]

They invaded an ally and partner.

\

Really? I checked a lot of sources and this is what I found. Kiev is a Russian Ally. Our partner? Ukraine is a member of the Moscow economic union. They want to be in the EU but thats part of the problem. Wiki lists Ukraine as a PfP ally of the US (party and play?).

What source do you have to consider them an Ally and a Partner?

[AquaMan]

Heard on the radio yesterday:

"President Obama's actions regarding the Ukraine are the worst options I have heard so far,...   except for all the others."

"Nobody has the 'right' answer, because it doesn't exist."

About the best political commentary I've heard so far on the situation.

Good remarks. What station?

[cannon_fodder]

Townsend:

I'm with Gas on this one.  To continue to pay Russia foreign aid and military assistance to the tune of at least $250,000,000 a year, is crazy.  Russia has set themselves up to be "anti-America" and is even sending out propaganda that the USA is threatening Russians in Crimea, wants to ban the Russian language, and has infiltrated the new Ukrainian government  (which explains the very odd protests of "Yankee go home" happening in parts of Eastern Ukraine).   Putin is playing the anti-American card as hard as anyone else - and we are funding it?  That makes no sense.  

What are the repercussions?  Putin can do whatever he wants.  Possibilities include:
1) Cutting off gas supplies to Europe (which he does every now and then anyway, and which hurts him economically)
2) Ceasing foreign assets (which he can do whenever he wants anyway, and would hurt him economically in the long wrong.  See, .e.g, Venezuela's economy the last 5 years.  It will also result in a World Bank/IMF judgment and levy against Russia - so it would be pointless. Ignoring the fact he is seizing assets because we stop gifting him money... which is insane)
3) Send his military into a friendly country (which he already does about every 5 years)
4) Obstruct anything the UN is trying to do (which they already do)
5) Help Iran build nuclear technology (which Russia already does)
6) Support a proxy war in Syria (already doing that)
7) Assist other countries that are anti-US (already does that)
Attempt to destroy the economy of eastern Europe (regularly does that by banning imports, cutting off markets, disallowing remissions, and messing with energy supplies)
9) Remove billions of euros from London, German and Swiss Banks (unless the funds are frozen first.  The billions are really money embezzled by cronies anyway - how do you think Putin [who has never worked outside of government] amassed a fortune of $70,000,0000,000.00 while making $187,000 a year as President?  The guys watch collection is worth $1mil. Only Gaddafi stole more from his country.  BUT - this would be costly for the London financial sector.  The UK has always been happy to sell expensive things, harbor assets, and build fancy boats for corrupt oligarchs in exchange for profits )
10) Actual war (this ends very badly for Russia.  The USA outspends Russia 10:1, not counting NATO on our side.  The nuclear option would only be brought up once Putin was defeated and tried to save face.  This is a bad option for everyone, but a horrible option for Putin)

Putin can certainly be a jerk.  But every action he takes has a reaction somewhere else, all which hurt him even more.  We cut off $250mil in aid, so he loses $1 billion in oil revenue to punish us?  

If nothing else, Putin is a rational actor.   Putin does what is in Putin's best interest (note: not Russia's).  I don't think he is too hard to predict, and the USA isn't stupid in this game.  You can hate Kerry, you can think Obama is stupid.  It matters little - we have many people who have done nothing but make and update plans to deal with a belligerent Russia for decades.  

My guess, unless a rogue actor messes it up:  

We keep talking an we keep adding pressure.  Sanctions will happen in some way or another (cutting off aid to Russia, increasing aid to Ukraine, freezing assets...).  Russia will continue a blatantly false propaganda campaign about "home grown security forces" driving around in tanks and artillery from the surplus store, blaming Nazis (while conducting the terror campaign themselves), and the west.  Russia will do everything they can do avoid a shooting war (BUT - whipping up Russian nationalism in the Crimea runs the risk of creating nationalists who actually start shooting).

Eventually, an agreement is hammered out that Russia goes back to their bases.  By some guarantee (observers maybe?) the Ukraine will say no harm will come to ethnic Russians AND a referendum on Crimean's political future will transpire within X years (2-3 is my guess).  Having stacked the deck, the referendum goes to Russia's supporters and Putin gets what he wants.  And that might not be a bad outcome really... but the manner is what's wrong.

***[warning, history and law deviation]***

Crimea has been heavily influenced by Russia since the defeat of the Tartars in the late 1700's (challenged by everyone from Poland to the Ottomans to  England).  After WWII it was transferred to the Ukraine basically because that's where it belonged.  With the fall of the Soviet Union Crimea voted to become part of an independent Ukraine.  In 1994 Russia agreed to recognize the territorial integrity of the Crimea in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons (to Russia).  The USA, Britain and France were also parties to the agreement. To wit:

Russia, the US, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and relinquishing its nuclear arsenal to Russia, the agreeing parties will:
- Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
- Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
- Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
- Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
- Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

Id' say Putin has violated at least 50% of the commitments.  That can't just stand.  Allowing a "referendum" at this point goes against the entire agreement.  If it succeeds, it follows wanton violations of the agreement that clearly influenced the outcome.

So it isn't the fact that Crimea might break away.  The place has always been a mess.  If ethnic Ukrainians are forced to leave (they will be, if not at gunpoint then with hostility) and ethnic Russian move there from the Ukraine, it could be a stabilizing force in the long run.

The sad fact is, every stable point on the map is that way because at some point one self-identified group destroyed, subjugated, or incorporated the other group(s) in the area. Often creating the very identity that comes to dominate.  "Americans" dominated the English and the Natives.  "Germans" in central Europe.  "Italians."  Nine generations ago there was nothing called an "American."  A "German" or "Italian" didn't exist until 3 or 4 generations ago.   Going way back even "Englishmen" and "French" lacked, and even kind of swapped identities.  Way way back the Chinese and Japanese dominated their respected territories.  South American, Central America and Australia essentially wiped out the natives and started clean.  But the Balkans have always been a crossroads, since the Ottomans and Hapsburg got weak the area has been a mess.  Africa had fake lines drawn and has never sorted itself out.  Again, sad fact - but it seems to hold true.

Wow.  Now THAT was a ramble.  I DARE you to respond  (visa vis Distinguished Gentlemen).

[cannon_fodder]

Here is a fun fact:

According to the State-run polling group in Russia - 73% of Russian's are against intervening in the Ukraine. 

The truth is that most Russians oppose intervention in Ukraine. Even the state-run Russian Public Opinion Research Center found last month that 73 percent of Russians are against it . The unanimous vote by unelected "senators" last week granting Putin's request to use military force in Ukraine illustrates the unrepresentative and authoritarian nature of Russia's political system. Consider the irony that, while Putin's officials justified the invasion by citing the need to "protect Russians in Ukraine," Putin's police forces were arresting and beating Russians on the streets of Moscow and St. Petersburg for protesting against war. More than 300 people were arrested Sunday alone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ukraine-is-putins-not-russias-war/2014/03/04/f587b698-a337-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html   [internal citations omitted]

The article goes on to point out that nearly every war Russia instigates ends badly for them.  From the previous Crimean war through Afghanistan.

[Gaspar]

Sheesh. Here's a newscaster making it all about herself. Click the video for maximum self-absorption.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/03/05/rt-anchor-quits-on-air.html

Rumor has it now that she will be replaced by Piers Morgan, and when confronted on Twitter by none other than Gary Kasperov, Piers is not denying it.
@piersmorgan
Blimey, Grandmaster, that IS amazing > RT @Kasparov63: So CNN fired Piers Morgan but apparently Putin hired him! Amazing.

[Gaspar]

Crimean legislators surrounded by Russian troops "choose" to join Russia. My shocked face:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-parliament-votes-join-russia-201436103034167985.html

[rebound]

Good remarks. What station?

POTUS Radio on XM Satellite. 

[Gaspar]

POTUS Radio on XM Satellite. 

More and more, that is becoming a great station if you want to avoid the massive swinging biases of the major networks. 

[Townsend]

 I DARE you to respond  (visa vis Distinguished Gentlemen).

Even if I had any idea what the actual ends would be, what would be the point?

[Cats Cats Cats]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/russia-allowed-to-have-25000-troops-in.html

I guess Russia has a treaty allowing them to have troops in the Ukraine?

[Gaspar]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/russia-allowed-to-have-25000-troops-in.html

I guess Russia has a treaty allowing them to have troops in the Ukraine?

Probably doesn't allow them to occupy airports or navel bases.

Joke:
Russian soldier arrives at Tulsa International, as he is going through customs the customs officer asks him: "Occupation?"
Russian soldier responds: "No, just visiting."

[AquaMan]

Any rational discourse is coming to a fast end. Congressmen now feel safe enough to start criticizing the president more than Putin's actions. They are ready to lead .....the villagers and light their torches. Note to those unpatriotic fools: God still loves you but is a bit concerned about your level of commitment when faced with possible nuclear annihilation and the destruction of his world.

The incredible, visceral hatred that anti-O's have nurtured would hamstring any leader but this group in the house is the definition of fanatical. They know this is conservative manna with an off year election nearing. They desperately want the Senate and would commit troops in Europe to get it. They remind me of groups that yell "Jump!" to suicidal people. Yesterday, an otherwise credible person told me he wished we had elected an American with an American last name like Sullivan or Jones. I guess Hawaii doesn't count.

Still can't find any definitive answer to Ukraine being an ally or a trading partner of ours. Radio talk jocks admit that many of the other former satellites are now allies and members of the EU, but no mention of the Ukraine.  So, that means we are in the position of defending a "potential" ally and trading partner so that our real allies and trading partners will feel more secure. Against a country that now finds itself hemmed in with potential anti-Russian countries. Wonder how we would feel about that.

Must we strut around like Mussolini and Putin to make our points and get our way? Does anyone question anything anymore? Does anyone understand this is not Hitler and Germany 80 years ago? Does anyone remember why Hitler became so popular? It was the severe economic devastation the allies forced on them after WWI that allowed a despot to rally their patriotism, rebuild their military and give themselves respect. You want to give Putin that role?

I don't know that there is an answer to all this bs. It certainly isn't going to come from Congress or this forum. But it will be resolved and those without conscience or morals will use this to get elected and punish us all.

[Gaspar]

Obama and Cameron's "look at me, I'm on the phone" photos trigger some funny responses:


And the Twitter responses started with Captan Picard himself:

"I'm now patched in as well. Sorry for the delay."

[Conan71]

Does anyone understand this is not Hitler and Germany 80 years ago? Does anyone remember why Hitler became so popular?

Someone forgot to tell former Madame Secretary that.

After invoking Hitler at a private fundraiser Tuesday, Clinton largely stood by the remarks on Wednesday. She said she was merely noting parallels between Putin's claim that he was protecting Russian-speaking minorities in Crimea and Hitler's moves into Poland, Czechoslovakia and other parts of Europe to protect German minorities.

"I just want people to have a little historic perspective," Clinton said during a question-and-answer session at UCLA. "I'm not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before."

Clinton added that Putin's goal is "to re-Sovietize Russia's periphery" and said he is "a tough guy with a thin skin" — something she said she knows from personal dealings with him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clintons-putin-hitler-comments-draw-rebukes-as-she-wades-into-ukraine-conflict/2014/03/05/31a748d8-a486-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Someone forgot to tell former Madame Secretary that.

She said she was merely noting parallels between Putin's claim that he was protecting Russian-speaking minorities in Crimea and Hitler's moves into Poland, Czechoslovakia and other parts of Europe to protect German minorities.

"I'm not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before."

Isn't drawing a parallel the same as making a comparison?