Ukraine

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:05 am

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014 ... lash-point

In 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave Ukraine a gift: Crimea. At the time, it seemed like a routine move, but six decades later, that gift is having consequences for both countries.

The transfer merited only a paragraph in Pravda, the official Soviet newspaper, on Feb. 27, 1954. The story was one long sentence and dense with detail. Here's what it said:

"Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic."
And with that, a region that had been part of Russia for centuries was "gifted" to Ukraine.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:06 am

How Ukraine's Presidential Documents Got Online So Fast.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ne-so-fast

Revelations from the documents will likely seep out in the weeks to come. And because of an arrangement that seems to have evolved on the fly, many Ukrainian journalists will work from virtually the same set of data. That's because instead of hoarding papers for their own news agencies, a large and informal group of reporters decided to share the information.

The group also called for help — from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project and from the state archives, which sent an expert along with a heat lamp, to help dry out the documents. Volunteers also worked to sift through the papers; some had been destroyed or damaged too badly to save.

Even as one team worked to separate water-logged papers, a separate group was designing and building a website to handle the mass of documents they were saving.

And that's how the website Yanukovych Leaks was created. Just days after nearly 200 folders of documents had been tossed into the water, images of the papers began appearing on the website.

Dozens of people pitched in, Sullivan says. But he notes reporters Dmytro Gnap of Slidstvo/TV Hromadske, Vlad Lavrov from the Kyiv Post and Oksana Kovalenko from Ukrainska Pravda were the first to arrive and set the tone for collaborating to preserve the records.

Their work began in a boathouse, near what looks to be a small hovercraft. But they needed more space — so they moved into a luxurious guest house, using the space to lay out the salvaged documents.

"The guest mansion was the most closed-up place in Ukraine and maybe all of Eastern Europe," Lavrov tells Sullivan. "It's a place where Vladimir Putin was hosted and it's been turned into an investigative center by journalists and volunteers that are seeking transparency and accountability. Can you imagine? If someone told me that would be the case a week ago, I'd say they are crazy."

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:05 am

It's looking more likely that the new Crimean local government (Crimea is an "autonomous republic" within Ukraine, not an independent nation but not completely integrated like a U.S. state) will declare its independence from Ukraine and ask for Russian protection. This move would be popular in Crimea.

This makes for a very muddy narrative. Images of Russian troops being cheered by Crimean crowds won't look very much like an invasion.

What a mess.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:49 am

Another interesting sequence of maps.

There are 22 of them.

paulbaxter · Post by **paulbaxter** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:29 am

Holman wrote:Another interesting sequence of maps.

There are 22 of them.

Not to be critical, but that's like history without the history. I would presume that most would remember the Mongol invasions from history, but who here knows anything the Khmelnitski uprising, the Union of Lublin, or the Battle of Poltava, all of which are reflected on those maps. There aren't any shortcuts to making sense of history. The idea that those maps "explain the centuries long conflict" is just ridiculous.

I can highly recommend a couple of one volume histories of Ukraine. One is by Orest Subtelny, and the other by Paul Robert Magosci. If you just want to skip to modern times, Andrew Wilson's book is pretty good. It's called Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation. Anna Reid's book Borderland is also excellent as a short introduction.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:53 am

Putin calls the bluff, ask Russian Parliment for permission to use troops in Ukraine.

Your move Barry.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:57 am

Rip wrote:I think we are to afraid of antangonizing Russia to actually do anything of substance. We are still under the delusion that they will do something to help stabilize the situation in the middle east and we have already invested much political capital into getting some progress there.

I think we are seeing now this is a failed policy. I think it was worth a try but sometimes you do your best and it doesn't work out. Putin showed his true colors in Georgia and nothing was done and he's showing them again. He's fostered "breakaway" republics in Moldova and Georgia and I believe the Crimea will be no different. Just another page from the same playbook.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:58 am

As a Seinfeld fan I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't inform you...

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:04 am

Rip wrote:1. Push the Georgian NATO membership through with the additional initiation of using NATO resources to help remove any "foreign militia".

That's insane. You want NATO to help Georgia retake South Ossetia and Abkhazia? THat would lead to war with Russia - it ain't happening.

2. Reinitiate the Czech missle defense system that had been cancelled.

Yeah that I would agree with.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:09 am

Rip wrote:[It isn't so much about the Ukraine itself, the implications of allowing Russia to bitch slap them and take what they want will be felt globally and much like Obamacare will be nearly impossible to reverse. Say hello to the return of the Cold War.

If Putin intervenes in Ukraine a new cold war is inevitable.

.

..if we are lucky. It could make the Cold War look like a border skirmish many years down the road if the path fails to meet any real resistance.

This is hyperbole and doesn't match history. Did we intervene in Hungary when the Soviets invaded? Did we intervene in Czechoslovakia when the Soviets invaded? No, not at all. But the Cold War didn't become a shooting war. Because each side knew where the red lines were. And this is no different.

All I'm going to say is that I'm pretty sure the Baltic states are thanking their lucky stars that they got into NATO since they also have large Russian minorities.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:13 am

Rip wrote: We can blocakade ports/establish no fly zones that would greatly limit Russia's real contribution to their efforts/government.

That is insane. You want to get in a shooting air war with Russia? And fyi, a blockade is an act of war under international law. You want the US to get in a shooting war with the Russian Black Sea Fleet?

I'm mad at the Russians too and I think we need to take the strongest actions short of war in these circumstances but your ideas are just plain crazy

xwraith · Post by **xwraith** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:16 am

Putin asked for and has received a unanimous vote in the Russian Parliament for military authorization:

“Due to the extraordinary situation that has taken shape in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, and the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation who are deployed on the territory of Ukraine (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) under an international treaty, I hereby introduce, under Clause (g) of Part 1 of Article 2012 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, an appeal for the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine pending the normalization of the social and political situation in that country.”

BREAKING: Russian legislators vote unanimously to approve the use of military force in Ukraine. CNN (@CNN)

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:20 am

Rip wrote: I would suggest had we already admitted Georgia they would not be pulling this shit in Ukraine for fear they would join NATO next.

The European countries don't want to admit Georgia into NATO. They don't want a confrontation with the Soviets over the break away regions. It was the US and the Eastern European states pushing for Georgian membership while the Western European members dithered.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:25 am

xwraith wrote:Putin asked for and has received a unanimous vote in the Russian Parliament for military authorization:

“Due to the extraordinary situation that has taken shape in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, and the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation who are deployed on the territory of Ukraine (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) under an international treaty, I hereby introduce, under Clause (g) of Part 1 of Article 2012 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, an appeal for the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine pending the normalization of the social and political situation in that country.”

BREAKING: Russian legislators vote unanimously to approve the use of military force in Ukraine. CNN (@CNN)

That's it, game over. Putin has had several conversations with Western European leaders by phone saying that he would not intervene, and his foreign minister has said the same. Now he's a liar and he lied directly to other national leaders. The only question I have now is what will be the extent of Russian intervention - just the Crimea or will they go for the eastern Ukraine or will they occupy Kiev itself. This is a sad day but it was inevitable. If Putin was going to invade Georgia over South Ossetia, then he certainly wasn''t going to let Ukraine get away.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:31 am

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:1. Push the Georgian NATO membership through with the additional initiation of using NATO resources to help remove any "foreign militia".
That's insane. You want NATO to help Georgia retake South Ossetia and Abkhazia? THat would lead to war with Russia - it ain't happening.

2. Reinitiate the Czech missle defense system that had been cancelled.
Yeah that I would agree with.

Then just bring them into NATO and give them a few billion in arms and let them take it themselves. I don't think they have a problem committing the manpower, it is the money and equipment they lack.

I really doubt Russia is going to go into a full head on war with all of NATO over a couple of provinces however. The cost of a war with NATO would be more than the GNP of all of Georgia for decades.

The only reason they are even there is because we have shown over and over again that we talk heavy costs and in reality there are no costs and if anything we give things to them just to get them to take a pause in their aggresive actions. They have ZERO fear in what we threaten to do, and only consider what we actually do, which when it comes to their aggression has long been pretty much nothing.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:35 am

Rip wrote:Then just bring them into NATO and give them a few billion in arms and let them take it themselves. I don't think they have a problem committing the manpower, it is the money and equipment they lack.

Duh, surely you realize that a nation of 3 million people cannot defeat a nation of 150 million people no matter how many billions we give them

I really doubt Russia is going to go into a full head on war with all of NATO over a couple of provinces however. The cost of a war with NATO would be more than the GNP of all of Georgia for decades.

NATO doesn't want war over a couple of break away regions in Georgia. Americans, Brits, French and Germans don't see the point of sending their boys over to die for South Ossetia and I can't say I disagree.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:37 am

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:[It isn't so much about the Ukraine itself, the implications of allowing Russia to bitch slap them and take what they want will be felt globally and much like Obamacare will be nearly impossible to reverse. Say hello to the return of the Cold War.
If Putin intervenes in Ukraine a new cold war is inevitable.

.
..if we are lucky. It could make the Cold War look like a border skirmish many years down the road if the path fails to meet any real resistance.
This is hyperbole and doesn't match history. Did we intervene in Hungary when the Soviets invaded? Did we intervene in Czechoslovakia when the Soviets invaded? No, not at all. But the Cold War didn't become a shooting war. Because each side knew where the red lines were. And this is no different.

All I'm going to say is that I'm pretty sure the Baltic states are thanking their lucky stars that they got into NATO since they also have large Russian minorities.

Now they are about to intervene in Ukraine. For the record you are wrong, there won't be a new cold war. Just some rhetoric. Ukraine should have never given up those nucs, because this would never have happened if they still had all of those missiles. Shame on them for trusting Russia and believing in us.

Any nation going forward that doesn't have a nuclear weapons programs is foolish.

I would think Saudi Arabia and Egypt will see the light and will have a full on program before Obama even gets out of office. I know I would. It is the only way to be sure

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:44 am

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote: We can blocakade ports/establish no fly zones that would greatly limit Russia's real contribution to their efforts/government.
That is insane. You want to get in a shooting air war with Russia? And fyi, a blockade is an act of war under international law. You want the US to get in a shooting war with the Russian Black Sea Fleet?

I'm mad at the Russians too and I think we need to take the strongest actions short of war in these circumstances but your ideas are just plain crazy

Russia is about to invade Ukraine, is that not an act of war? When they dismantled their nuclear weapons did we not sign on to a security agreement to convince them to do it? So how is that working out for them?

Therein is the problem, Russia knows they can commit acts of war because we will do nothing. How many acts of war are we willing to let them commit before we are willing to commit some acts ourselves?

Do you think if they are allowed to do this in Ukraine that they won't be taking something else a little farther down the road?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:52 am

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:Then just bring them into NATO and give them a few billion in arms and let them take it themselves. I don't think they have a problem committing the manpower, it is the money and equipment they lack.
Duh, surely you realize that a nation of 3 million people cannot defeat a nation of 150 million people no matter how many billions we give them

I really doubt Russia is going to go into a full head on war with all of NATO over a couple of provinces however. The cost of a war with NATO would be more than the GNP of all of Georgia for decades.
NATO doesn't want war over a couple of break away regions in Georgia. Americans, Brits, French and Germans don't see the point of sending their boys over to die for South Ossetia and I can't say I disagree.

Then NATO can only blame themselves as he begins gobbling up pices of the Soviet Union and rebuilding it. Sooner or later you have to take a stand or NATO is as useless as the agreement that got Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons. I know if I were Putin I would already be thinking about what I wanted to take next, because thusfar it is obvious we are no more interested in stopping him than we were in stopping Hitler.

If I were Georgia I would be on the phone to Putin right away trying make up and get a security alliance with him, he may not give you as much but at least you can count on him to actually defend you. The west not so much.

xwraith · Post by **xwraith** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:55 am

Grifman wrote: That's it, game over. Putin has had several conversations with Western European leaders by phone saying that he would not intervene, and his foreign minister has said the same. Now he's a liar and he lied directly to other national leaders. The only question I have now is what will be the extent of Russian intervention - just the Crimea or will they go for the eastern Ukraine or will they occupy Kiev itself. This is a sad day but it was inevitable. If Putin was going to invade Georgia over South Ossetia, then he certainly wasn''t going to let Ukraine get away.

Yep, Putin has won and will likely not even be slightly inconvenienced in the aftermath. I suspect we will propose to go forward with missile defense in Europe again, but it will be dropped in return for some meaningless concession to the diplomats. The real bad news is that Russia has reintroduced the concept that Russia has a particular interest in ethnic minorities in other countries and has the right to intervene in their interest. Russia can concentrate its military force using interior lines to win local superiority with bordering states and extract political concessions before anyone can react. None of these states has the economic power to resist and Europe doesn't have the resources allocated to counter-balance this. I suspect its now going to be a particularly rough decade all over the world as powers once again have room to maneuver and bring raw force to bear again. My gut feeling is that much of it will be like the Peloponnesian wars where Sparta would invade and setup an oligarchy, sometimes on the smouldering ruins of an Athenian supported democracy.

Vae victis.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:04 pm

Mr. Putin put up that wall.

That will also mean the destruction of those chemical weapons in Syria...not going to happen.

Iranian nuclear weapons program...full speed ahead.

Pretty much every other nation that has anything at all to fear from us, Russia, and perhaps China that can afford it will be looking at a weapons program as well. The era of counting on others to come to your defense has pretty much died. I mean it pretty much died awhile back, but now it is buried and has a nice HUGE tombstone.

At least any doubt anyone in Israel had that we had no intention of coming to their aid in a meaningful way has been laid to rest. Might as well not bother with those peace talks, total waste of time at this point.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:11 pm

I gotta say Rip, you shoulder the burden of being an expert on every topic really well.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:14 pm

Well on this front I would like VERY much to be wrong, but our limp wristed foreign policy keeps making me look brilliant. But by all means let me know which one of these things you think I am wrong about so you can show how much smarter you are on the subject.

Just pick one.

1. Syrian chemical weapons destruction.
2. Iranian nuclear weapons program moving right along.
3. Several other players developing nuclear weapons.
4. Russia moving on other former possesions in say the next decade.
5. Israel peace negotiations being an utter failure.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:19 pm

Rip, you're expecting a lot of instant crisis resolution out of one weekend. Even the strongest and most decisive diplomatic measures are going to take weeks to coordinate. That's how nations work, especially in Europe.

The only swifter action is military. Ukraine's gov't just fell apart; its replacement is in disorder; Crimea is moving to break away and join Russia. Things are moving fast, but escalating this to a shooting war across the entire frontier of Europe is going to cause horrific suffering and promise no resolution.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:19 pm

My implication certainly isn't that I'm "smarter" on this topic. My implication is that like most things, you say words. Lots and lots of words. And it's easy to claim that you are correct when what you were advocating would never be put to the test.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Holman wrote:Rip, you're expecting a lot of instant crisis resolution out of one weekend. Even the strongest and most decisive diplomatic measures are going to take weeks to coordinate. That's how nations work, especially in Europe.

The only swifter action is military. Ukraine's gov't just fell apart; its replacement is in disorder; Crimea is moving to break away and join Russia. Things are moving fast, but escalating this to a shooting war across the entire frontier of Europe is going to cause horrific suffering and promise no resolution.

I don't expect it to happen fast, what I am saying is there will be no response of note at all. We will just walk it back. I will note it didn't take Russia long to act, and note not only did Russia act fast, but they spoke about little to no stick and quickly grabbed a big one. We are getting schooled on how it is done.

Don't blame me, blame Putin for knowing how to play the game. He has a much smaller military and much less money but is managing to kick our and the EUs ass all over the globe.

I am glad he doesn't still have the entire Soviet Union to play with. Then we would really be in a dire situation.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:30 pm

Rip wrote: Don't blame me, blame Putin for knowing how to play the game. He has a much smaller military and much less money but is managing to kick our and the EUs ass all over the globe.

It's also his backyard and Russia's traditional sphere of influence, which dampens Western options. The government in Ukraine only became anti-Russian about a week ago.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:34 pm

The Guardian is live-blogging the crisis here.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:34 pm

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote: Don't blame me, blame Putin for knowing how to play the game. He has a much smaller military and much less money but is managing to kick our and the EUs ass all over the globe.
It's also his backyard and Russia's traditional sphere of influence, which dampens Western options. The government in Ukraine only became anti-Russian about a week ago.

I'm guessing that the eventual resolution will be a Crimea absorbed into Russia and a Ukraine that joins the EU and NATO. This is actually a loss for Putin, since Russia always effectively had Crimea anyway.

Dampening the options != no options. Yet what have we and what will we do? Answer not a damn thing. So next time something comes up and he says what will it cost me, he already knows. NOTHING!

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:35 pm

Can't believe after all these years on OO and GG people still resort to ad homs. Anyhoo, Holman linked to a NYT map that had some good information. Specifically: "About 80 percent of Russian gas exports to Europe pass through Ukraine. Europe, in turn, depends on Russia for 40 percent of its imported fuel."

So I think the big question is whether or not Europe is going to be willing to step up the plate. The US could certainly impose sanctions that hurt Russia and it should. But is Europe, with their overall crappy economy, willing to put on its big boy pants and step up? It would be nice to see a united response from the west that puts Russia in its place.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:45 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I gotta say Rip, you shoulder the burden of being an expert on every topic really well.

Ideological prisms bring everything into easy focus.

I'm holding my peace for the moment because events are moving too fast, the situation is too ambiguous, and my knowledge is too incomplete. I could toss out opinions but I can't defend them intelligently. (Not that that always stops me....)

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:45 pm

Rip wrote:Now they are about to intervene in Ukraine. For the record you are wrong, there won't be a new cold war.

Duh, you were the one saying above in a prior post that if nothing was done, it would make the Cold War "look like a skirmish". Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Has someone else taken over your keyboard, or do you have a split personality?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:46 pm

Rip wrote:
Dampening the options != no options. Yet what have we and what will we do? Answer not a damn thing. So next time something comes up and he says what will it cost me, he already knows. NOTHING!

Costing him nothing during the first hours and days of his aggression != costing him nothing.

I believe we're in agreement that we both hope you're wrong.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:49 pm

cheeba wrote:Can't believe after all these years on OO and GG people still resort to ad homs. Anyhoo, Holman linked to a NYT map that had some good information. Specifically: "About 80 percent of Russian gas exports to Europe pass through Ukraine. Europe, in turn, depends on Russia for 40 percent of its imported fuel."

So I think the big question is whether or not Europe is going to be willing to step up the plate. The US could certainly impose sanctions that hurt Russia and it should. But is Europe, with their overall crappy economy, willing to put on its big boy pants and step up? It would be nice to see a united response from the west that puts Russia in its place.

Ahh, but that relationship is a two way street. The leverage works both ways.

Third, dependence is a two-way phenomenon. As stated above, the Russian gas network is 90 percent dependent on European markets. To build new networks, the industry needs to invest labor, money, and time. Russia does not have any new cards to play; it is displaying a tough attitude in gas contract negotiations because Russian negotiators know they do not have a “BATNA” (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Indeed, some 40 percent of Russian public money comes from European oil and gas markets.22 Between 75 and 80 percent of Russian export revenues are directly linked to the European Union energy market.23 Strangely, European leaders do not realize how fragile Russia is when considering their own energy dependence.

Fourth, oil and gas are part of a game of blackmail, lies, and fear between Russians and Europeans. Chechnya, human rights in Russia, Kaliningrad, and minorities in the Baltic States are considered minor challenges to Russia in comparison to the issue of energy. Because energy is now a question of life or death for Russian revitalization and prosperity, these issues do not have the same importance in Russian policymaking. For Europe too, access to energy is crucial to its future economic success. This explains why Europeans are cautious when responding to any crisis in Ukraine or around the Black Sea, as they want Russia to continue supplying them with oil and gas.

First, Europe must maintain a stable security situation around its borders to prevent Russia from bullying its neighbors. Instability in Ukraine, the Balkans, or in the Caucasus mountains always has a price. If Russia bullies states such as Georgia, or gains control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline or any project aimed at developing the southern corridor, Europe will lose its already imperiled credibility in the area. The physical control of key infrastructure and oil and gas routes is vital, as is the independence of European refineries, European oil and gas companies, and European plants.

Second, Europe must keep its technological advantage, which is like a form of insurance in the oil and gas game. Protection of innovative technologies and companies able to help limit future energy consumption will give Europe a trump card to play with actors such as Russia and China. France already organizes key-technology exercises to help delineate the line between strategic and non-strategic sectors. The rest of Europe should do the same in the energy field and should examine other ways to protect its technological advantage.

Third, economic security must be reinforced by monitoring money flows. Monitoring is key to preventing financial circulation from Russia to countries known for ranking high on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s list of corruption.24 Switzerland, which is not an EU member, or Cyprus, might be best situated to handle these tasks.

http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/russia-and ... dependence

Russian needs the EU just as much as the EU needs it.

A game of chicken but of course Russia knows the EU will always blink first. Russia always calls our{EUs} bluffs and never falls for ours{EUs}. The trick being you actually have to show the willingness to actually do it.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:52 pm

Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote: We can blocakade ports/establish no fly zones that would greatly limit Russia's real contribution to their efforts/government.
That is insane. You want to get in a shooting air war with Russia? And fyi, a blockade is an act of war under international law. You want the US to get in a shooting war with the Russian Black Sea Fleet?

I'm mad at the Russians too and I think we need to take the strongest actions short of war in these circumstances but your ideas are just plain crazy
Russia is about to invade Ukraine, is that not an act of war?

Not with us it isn't.

When they dismantled their nuclear weapons did we not sign on to a security agreement to convince them to do it?

Yes, but a big but - there was not legal requirement for the US to come to Ukraine's defense.

So how is that working out for them?

The issue isn't how this is working out for Ukraine but what the US should do. You seem to want to go to war with Russia. Sorry, I'm no buying that bill of goods.

Therein is the problem, Russia knows they can commit acts of war because we will do nothing. How many acts of war are we willing to let them commit before we are willing to commit some acts ourselves?

Russia can act in their backyard in non-NATO countries. That's just life and there's nothing we are going to do about it militarily even if we wanted to. We would need NATO permission to mass any aircraft on NATO airfield and it would take weeks to deploy carriers in the Black Sea. And we have no easy way to get thousands of troops there with any speed. So general, what exactly are your plans?

Do you think if they are allowed to do this in Ukraine that they won't be taking something else a little farther down the road?

Everybody knows there are lines that can't be crossed. Everyone knew what they were in the Cold War and it''s no different now. An attack on NATO would be war. And Russia isn't going to cross that line.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:53 pm

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:Now they are about to intervene in Ukraine. For the record you are wrong, there won't be a new cold war.
Duh, you were the one saying above in a prior post that if nothing was done, it would make the Cold War "look like a skirmish". Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Has someone else taken over your keyboard, or do you have a split personality?

It will in the long run because the world situation is set to devolve. However this situation itself won't because for it to become a major conflict in and of itself there would need to be an opposition. That being said just like with Hitler leading into WW2 at some point we will be left with no option, but that is still a decade or more off. The near term (next year or two) will be nothing because we will refuse to take a stand. IMHO.

I asume, tell me if I am wrong, that you are saying the near term situation will become a cold war like enviroment.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:56 pm

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Dampening the options != no options. Yet what have we and what will we do? Answer not a damn thing. So next time something comes up and he says what will it cost me, he already knows. NOTHING!
Costing him nothing during the first hours and days of his aggression != costing him nothing.

I believe we're in agreement that we both hope you're wrong.

Certainly, but recent history tells me I am not, and I am pretty sure that is exactly what Putin is reading as well. Nothing on earth I would rather be wrong about but I fear I am not.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:00 pm

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote: We can blocakade ports/establish no fly zones that would greatly limit Russia's real contribution to their efforts/government.
That is insane. You want to get in a shooting air war with Russia? And fyi, a blockade is an act of war under international law. You want the US to get in a shooting war with the Russian Black Sea Fleet?

I'm mad at the Russians too and I think we need to take the strongest actions short of war in these circumstances but your ideas are just plain crazy
Russia is about to invade Ukraine, is that not an act of war?
Not with us it isn't.

When they dismantled their nuclear weapons did we not sign on to a security agreement to convince them to do it?
Yes, but a big but - there was not legal requirement for the US to come to Ukraine's defense.

So how is that working out for them?
The issue isn't how this is working out for Ukraine but what the US should do. You seem to want to go to war with Russia. Sorry, I'm no buying that bill of goods.

Therein is the problem, Russia knows they can commit acts of war because we will do nothing. How many acts of war are we willing to let them commit before we are willing to commit some acts ourselves?
Russia can act in their backyard in non-NATO countries. That's just life and there's nothing we are going to do about it militarily even if we wanted to. We would need NATO permission to mass any aircraft on NATO airfield and it would take weeks to deploy carriers in the Black Sea. And we have no easy way to get thousands of troops there with any speed. So general, what exactly are your plans?

Do you think if they are allowed to do this in Ukraine that they won't be taking something else a little farther down the road?
Everybody knows there are lines that can't be crossed. Everyone knew what they were in the Cold War and it''s no different now. An attack on NATO would be war. And Russia isn't going to cross that line.

So basically what you are saying is any nation in eastern europe that doesn't want to potentially get invaded by Russia should get a nuclear weapons program pronto, because that is the ONLY thing you can hope for that will actually keep them at bay.

That prospect scares the hell out of me, but hey what choice do they have?

My plans would be to start those balls rolling, not even necessarily actually planning to do it, but the mere action would make sure Russia knew it might happen. You might be shocked at just how much weight that carries when they are deciding what to do. But as it stands we have already telegraphed that we wouldn't do anything, making the decision an easy choice for them.

Much like the nuclear detterent, the fear of what you might do carries nearly as much weight as anything you actually do. Something JFK understood very well.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:04 pm

Rip wrote:So basically what you are saying is any nation in eastern europe that doesn't want to potentially get invaded by Russia should get a nuclear weapons program pronto, because that is the ONLY thing you can hope for that will actually keep them at bay.

The only nations in Eastern Europe that aren't in NATO are Moldova and Ukraine. It's a bit late for Ukraine and Moldova doesn't have the money or technical ability.

FYI this is the whole reason all those Eastern European counties such as Poland and the Baltics wanted into NATO - they wanted a security guarantee. Now they have it.

That prospect scares the hell out of me, but hey what choice do they have?

I'm not sure what you are scared of. Even if Moldova and Ukraine got nukes, they wouldn't be aimed at us. It's the Russians who should be worried if that were to come to pass.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:06 pm

And I'm still waiting on Supreme Commander Rip to tell me what realistic military actions he wants the US to take see he seems to intent on getting into a shooting war.