Ukraine

[Holman]

I can't imagine that we would risk open war with Russia over Ukraine. There are still too many other options for long-term resolution, even after a full Russian occupation and forcible restoration of the deposed Ukr. leader.

There's an interesting set of maps from the NYT here.

[paulbaxter]

I can't imagine that we would risk open war with Russia over Ukraine. There are still too many other options for long-term resolution, even after a full Russian occupation and forcible restoration of the deposed Ukr. leader.

There's an interesting set of maps from the NYT here.

I always wonder in these discussions why Americans always make the discussion about America. Why not ask what the Ukrainian military will do? Or Poland or France? What about a total EU trade embargo?

[Holman]

I can't imagine that we would risk open war with Russia over Ukraine. There are still too many other options for long-term resolution, even after a full Russian occupation and forcible restoration of the deposed Ukr. leader.

There's an interesting set of maps from the NYT here.

I always wonder in these discussions why Americans always make the discussion about America. Why not ask what the Ukrainian military will do? Or Poland or France? What about a total EU trade embargo?

I don't think anything will happen militarily without U.S. cooperation as these are NATO front lines. A total EU trade embargo is just the kind of thing I had in mind under "other options," but again I think this would be done in cooperation with the U.S. (because Russia).

I don't know the status of the Ukrainian military, but I assume it is as divided as the rest of the country. That certainly complicates things.

In any case, peace is definitely the goal; if there's fighting, the suffering for Ukrainians (not for Putin or Yanukovych) will be horrific. A forced restoration only returns the status quo of several weeks ago, except that the world now sees the situation and the need for economic and diplomatic pressure.

[Rip]

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.

[Kraken]

I don't think it's clear that we even have a dog in this fight if Crimea wants to be Russian and the Russians are happy to welcome them.

[El Guapo]

I can't imagine that we would risk open war with Russia over Ukraine. There are still too many other options for long-term resolution, even after a full Russian occupation and forcible restoration of the deposed Ukr. leader.

There's an interesting set of maps from the NYT here.

I always wonder in these discussions why Americans always make the discussion about America. Why not ask what the Ukrainian military will do? Or Poland or France? What about a total EU trade embargo?

(1) Because Americans participate, at least to some degree, in the politics of America and not of Poland, France, etc. I assume that people in other countries consider world events in light of their impact upon their countries and their countries' probable responses to such events

(2) Because the response of the United States is uniquely important given the relative power projection of countries. If the U.S. does not respond militarily, then it is highly unlikely that any other country will. Absent U.S. support sanctions probably would not happen either, though that would be more feasible without the U.S.

And what the Ukrainian military would do in response to a full Russian invasion is not so hard to guess. How well it would fare is another. How the Ukraine would respond to an undeniable Russian incursion into the Crimea is an interesting question.

[Rip]

I can't imagine that we would risk open war with Russia over Ukraine. There are still too many other options for long-term resolution, even after a full Russian occupation and forcible restoration of the deposed Ukr. leader.

There's an interesting set of maps from the NYT here.

I always wonder in these discussions why Americans always make the discussion about America. Why not ask what the Ukrainian military will do? Or Poland or France? What about a total EU trade embargo?

(1) Because Americans participate, at least to some degree, in the politics of America and not of Poland, France, etc. I assume that people in other countries consider world events in light of their impact upon their countries and their countries' probable responses to such events

(2) Because the response of the United States is uniquely important given the relative power projection of countries. If the U.S. does not respond militarily, then it is highly unlikely that any other country will. Absent U.S. support sanctions probably would not happen either, though that would be more feasible without the U.S.

And what the Ukrainian military would do in response to a full Russian invasion is not so hard to guess. How well it would fare is another. How the Ukraine would respond to an undeniable Russian incursion into the Crimea is an interesting question.

Russia would roll over Ukraine faster than we rolled over Iraq considering Russia doesn't need to transport troops and equipment there. That would be like us attacking Mexico....or Canada. It would be over and nothing left but cleanup in under a week. We are talking nearly a ten to one advantage without even considering tech advantage.

[Rip]

Good article on the military issues both the good and the bad.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... sia-crimea

But a Russian takeover of the Crimea could turn out to be disastrous in the long run. The Kremlin would be underestimating the impact of the sizeable population of Tartars who were forcibly deported from the Crimea by Stalin in 1944 and not allowed to return until the beginning of Perestroika in the 1980s.

Sutyagin, who is at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, said: "The Tartars are very anti-Russian. They will do anything not to be under the Russians. They will be determined to fight for Ukraine. It would be a second Chechnya. There are a lot of mountains in Crimea, just as in Chechnya."

Many of the soldiers fighting in the Ukrainian army are ethnic Russians but it would be a mistake to assume they might desert or turn on their officers rather than take on Russian forces. Sutyagin said loyalty to the idea of an independent Ukrainian state would top their ethnicity.

"The entry of Russian troops would be a deep humiliation for Ukraine. Ukrainians do not want to be occupied. It is a mistake by Russian politicians who think ethnic Russians are Russian," Sutyagin said.

[El Guapo]

I don't think it's clear that we even have a dog in this fight if Crimea wants to be Russian and the Russians are happy to welcome them.

As Rip's post hints, what "Crimea wants" is not super clear-cut. It's majority ethnic Russian, and there appears to be a lot of pro-Russian sentiment. However, there aren't really any opinion polls you can exactly trust, and it's not like anyone's going to allow a referendum on the issue anytime soon.

[El Guapo]

I can't imagine that we would risk open war with Russia over Ukraine. There are still too many other options for long-term resolution, even after a full Russian occupation and forcible restoration of the deposed Ukr. leader.

There's an interesting set of maps from the NYT here.

I always wonder in these discussions why Americans always make the discussion about America. Why not ask what the Ukrainian military will do? Or Poland or France? What about a total EU trade embargo?

(1) Because Americans participate, at least to some degree, in the politics of America and not of Poland, France, etc. I assume that people in other countries consider world events in light of their impact upon their countries and their countries' probable responses to such events

(2) Because the response of the United States is uniquely important given the relative power projection of countries. If the U.S. does not respond militarily, then it is highly unlikely that any other country will. Absent U.S. support sanctions probably would not happen either, though that would be more feasible without the U.S.

And what the Ukrainian military would do in response to a full Russian invasion is not so hard to guess. How well it would fare is another. How the Ukraine would respond to an undeniable Russian incursion into the Crimea is an interesting question.

Russia would roll over Ukraine faster than we rolled over Iraq considering Russia doesn't need to transport troops and equipment there. That would be like us attacking Mexico....or Canada. It would be over and nothing left but cleanup in under a week. We are talking nearly a ten to one advantage without even considering tech advantage.

Yeah my assumption has been that Russia would definitely win, I just didn't really have a great sense of how fast.

[Rip]

There is one clear winner here no matter what happens though.....CNN. Just what they needed to shore up alarmingly poor ratings.

Also something I was just pondering having been discussing Biden in the randomness thread. I think this is one situation I would feel more comfortable with Joe leading the way than Obama.

[NickAragua]

I'm going to guess, based on historical data (e.g. Georgia 2008, Hungary 1956), that the global response to any aggression by Russia into the Ukraine will be, at most, to write "strongly-worded letters of protest" and maybe a few token economic sanctions.

According to this daily beast article, the guys taking over the airports aren't actually russian military, but "security contractors". Cute.

[Rip]

I'm going to guess, based on historical data (e.g. Georgia 2008, Hungary 1956), that the global response to any aggression by Russia into the Ukraine will be, at most, to write "strongly-worded letters of protest" and maybe a few token economic sanctions.

According to this daily beast article, the guys taking over the airports aren't actually russian military, but "security contractors". Cute.

Yea, that is code for special forces. They go to bed one day as part of the military and wake up in the morning as "contractors" same folks that have been active in areas of Georgia for some time.

I can think of two things I would strongly consider doing right away.

1. Push the Georgian NATO membership through with the additional initiation of using NATO resources to help remove any "foreign militia".
2. Reinitiate the Czech missle defense system that had been cancelled.

[JSHAW]

I'm watching the 6pm (est) Fox News coverage of the Ukraine situation and for some strange reason seeing the shots of
the military troops at the airports and talk of the troops in the Black Sea fleet area it's making me flashback to
the Gene Hackman/Denzel Washington movie Crimson Tide.

Part of that plot involving the Russian military, Russian subs, a takeover of a nuclear base by radical military forces.

Part of me is wondering IF Obama will change the U.S. military's DEFCON level with these recent developments of talk
of Russian military forces moving into the area. Perhaps he already has? I don't know, have no connections IN the
US military.

Troops at airports? Are they trying to prevent ousted President Viktor Yanukovych from leaving the country?

[Holman]

Troops at airports? Are they trying to prevent ousted President Viktor Yanukovych from leaving the country?

He's already hanging out with Russian hosts.

[JSHAW]

Troops at airports? Are they trying to prevent ousted President Viktor Yanukovych from leaving the country?

He's already hanging out with Russian hosts.

Ok, so what's the deal with the airports? Why the beefed up military presence in that area?

[Rip]

Troops at airports? Are they trying to prevent ousted President Viktor Yanukovych from leaving the country?

He's already hanging out with Russian hosts.

Ok, so what's the deal with the airports? Why the beefed up military presence in that area?

To control key strategic areas that will be used for transporting military assets in and out. It would seem (my guess) they are anticipating a support or inducing of Crimea breaking away from Ukraine.

edit: As now evidenced by Russian helicopters in the skies over Crimea.

[paulbaxter]

I don't think it's clear that we even have a dog in this fight if Crimea wants to be Russian and the Russians are happy to welcome them.

As Rip's post hints, what "Crimea wants" is not super clear-cut. It's majority ethnic Russian, and there appears to be a lot of pro-Russian sentiment. However, there aren't really any opinion polls you can exactly trust, and it's not like anyone's going to allow a referendum on the issue anytime soon.

That strikes me as exactly correct.

[paulbaxter]

I'll pull another quote from my friend Maia. She's the one who I've quoted previously in this thread. She's an extremely intelligent person with connections all over the country. She's also become a stringer for CNN lately. Anyhow, this is from her earlier today:

While situation in Crimea remains tense, reading the news list this morning I see some news that show the process of changes in Ukraine is going in right direction. Parliament just voted to cancel all the privileges of parliament members (that will amount to $10 million of economy a year!), they are also discussing taking away all the privileges of other government officials! I also saw that new minister of economy arrived to his workplace by subway today! Knowing Pavlo Sheremeta from my days in KMBS the news of course doesn't surprise, but still it's encouraging to know that some very deeply set paradigms are beginning to change! Switzerland and Austria are freezing accounts of Ukrainian politicians suspected in corruption. If they return money to Ukraine, we will not be in such a bad shape!

[Rip]

I would suggest it would be wise for the Ukranian government to seize the opportunity to shine and be inclusive of ethnic Russians in the new government. I have heard (although certainly have no way of knowing) that they have pretty much frozen the Russian leaning political groups out of the new government process and that will only add justification to their crys for Russian intervention.

[Rip]

It would seem that we are certain to see whther the wanings are a bluff or whether this time there will be some teeth to them.

[Holman]

What would a foreign policy genius like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney do in this situation?

[Rip]

What would a foreign policy genius like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney do in this situation?

I think the President of Georgia layed it out pretty well on The Five on foxnews as I was watching just a short time ago. I would think the most important thing is they would not have allowed the continued occupation of parts of Georgia to have continued not only without repurcussions but with a friendly reset and naive approach that delusionally thought that the "We can all just get along" approach would desuade Putin from his path.

Putin has made it no secret that he felt the breaking up of the Soviet Union was the worst thing to happen in history and he has been methodically and steadly pursued rectifying that while putting on a nice "we can be buddies" facade to limit repurcussions. I have to applaud him as I don't think any other strategy would have allowed so much progress towards that goal in such a short time, and I am far from convinced we have any intentions of stopping him now.

As his/Russia's influence has expanded, ours has declined.

Well played Mr Putin, well played.

At this point,

Bring Georgia into NATO ASAP.
Expel Russia from the G8
Ramp up opposition to Syria/Iran and their relationship with Russia.
Restart the missle shield program for Czech.
Build a NATO/EU coalition of support to make life difficult for Russia financially if not militarily.
Start working on seizing of international assets of Russia/Russian players as well as sanctions.

There is also some things you could do as far as repositioning Naval assets as Bush did to stop Russia from invading Georgia totally as they had clearly intended to do before he left office and Obama gifted them a reset. Perhaps even consider some blockading of Russia and her allies but that would really escalate the situation to another level but could certainly put some butthurt on Syria/Iran/Venezula etc.

I am sure there are more I am missing, but we are in no position to involve troops at this point, let alone how woefully unable we will be to do it after cutting 70K troops next year.

[Holman]

Realistically speaking, could anyone expect Russia *not* to flex its influence in its own backyard after the fall of the Soviet Union? They weren't going to become Switzerland, after all.

Russia has restored a save game from the pre-Bolshevik days. They're no longer an ideological threat, but they retain the thuggish regional dominance they've always had. No one today is quite sure how to deal with Russia's nineteenth-century game. No one was sure back then, either.

[Rip]

Realistically speaking, could anyone expect Russia *not* to flex its influence in its own backyard after the fall of the Soviet Union? They weren't going to become Switzerland, after all.

Russia has restored a save game from the pre-Bolshevik days. They're no longer an ideological threat, but they retain the thuggish regional dominance they've always had. No one today is quite sure how to deal with Russia's nineteenth-century game. No one was sure back then, either.

A Navy flagship sailed toward Georgia with a cargo of humanitarian aid, ignoring Moscow's complaints, and the Bush administration committed $1 billion to help the crucial Caucasus ally recover from war with Russia.

Vice President Dick Cheney, visiting Azerbaijan, said the U.S. has a "deep and abiding interest" in the region's stability. Cheney is due in Georgia on Thursday on a swing through potentially vulnerable former Soviet republics close by Russia's underbelly.

The command ship Mount Whitney, the flagship of the Navy's 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean, crossed through the Dardanelles and Bosporus into the Black Sea, which Russia shares with three NATO nations and two others seeking to join the alliance: Georgia and Ukraine.

Russian leaders have lashed out at the U.S. for sending humanitarian aid to Georgia aboard military ships, part of their campaign portraying the United States as a belligerent troublemaker that pushed Georgia into war and continues to compromise security in a volatile region.

The appearance of the Mount Whitney was likely to stoke Russia's ire further. As the command ship of the fleet based in Naples, Italy, it has special electronic and communications equipment it uses to transmit orders and information.

Two other U.S. military ships — a missile destroyer and Coast Guard cutter — have delivered aid to Georgia since the five-day war in early August, which prompted the worst crisis in Russia's relations with the West since the Cold War.

"We don't understand what American ships are doing on Georgian shores," Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Tuesday. "The second question is why the humanitarian aid is being delivered on naval vessels armed with the newest rocket systems."

Putin warned of an unspecified Russian response.

President Bush is sending $1 billion in new economic aid to Georgia to help the pro-Western former Soviet republic rebuild after Russia's invasion. Bush made the announcement Wednesday in a statement obtained by The Associated Press.

http://www.navytimes.com/article/200809 ... ed-Georgia

In essence how they would respond I would think would be pretty much how they responded to the Georgian crisis. I would contend had they stayed in office Georgia might by this point be free of Russian troops and a full member of NATO. Which may well have dissuaded Putin from taking this action realizing exactly how it would likely play out, which is to say exactly the same or worse.

President Bush on Wednesday announced $1 billion in new economic aid to Georgia to help the pro-Western former Soviet republic rebuild after Russia's invasion.

"Georgia has a strong economic foundation and leaders with an impressive record of reform," Bush said in his statement on the aid package that was obtained by The Associated Press. "Our additional economic assistance will help the people of Georgia recover from the assault on their country, and continue to build a prosperous and competitive economy."

Vice President Dick Cheney, due in Georgia on Thursday, planned to make the massive aid package a major highlight of his discussions with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. Cheney, in Azerbaijan on Wednesday, is on a tour of three former Soviet republics that are wary of Russia's intentions in what Moscow likes to call its "near abroad."

The administration is delaying an announcement on some sort of punishment of Russia for its actions against Georgia and its refusal thus far to comply with a French-brokered cease-fire. However, the decision to shower tiny Georgia with such substantial aid and have Cheney talk about it in Moscow's backyard would likely be seen by the Kremlin as highly provocative, if not a punitive measure in and of itself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-offers-1 ... o-georgia/

But short answer is we don't have to guess, we have been here beforeand Bush was President at that time.

[JSHAW]

With all due respect to the POTUS, I'm really not understanding why the need for the comments today about "the costs" of Russia
interferring in the situation.

Awhile back there was the talk about "hitting the reset button" with US/Russian relations, and now to me, it seems like POTUS
is back to drawing lines in the sand and saber rattling, for a lack of a better phrase.

What is POTUS prepared to do IF something that he's not satisfied with, goes down?

Economic Sanctions?
U.N. resolutions against Russian actions?

As I've been thinking about the situation I ask myself if the U.S would be better off just stating that we are "monitoring the situation, and if assistance is requested we'll offer it at that time", rather than making statements about "the costs to be paid" for interference, which seem to be threats in my opinon.

Rip, you seem to have a pretty good handle on the situation, WHY does the US need to stick their nose in this situation, at all?

After Iraq & Afghanistan isn't it time to let other countries handle their internal issues and just stay out of their business?

Forgive me for just trying to think in simple terms, but as a citizen of the U.S. I'd really like to see us worry about our own problems for a change. Let other countries handle their issues and see how that works out.

[Kraken]

I don't think it's clear that we even have a dog in this fight if Crimea wants to be Russian and the Russians are happy to welcome them.

As Rip's post hints, what "Crimea wants" is not super clear-cut. It's majority ethnic Russian, and there appears to be a lot of pro-Russian sentiment. However, there aren't really any opinion polls you can exactly trust, and it's not like anyone's going to allow a referendum on the issue anytime soon.

Oh, somebody might.

Members of the strongly pro-Putin Just Russia Party are introducing a bill in the Duma that would make it easier for Russia to annex territories that vote to join the nation. According to the drafters of the bill, the objective would be to "lend a hand" to pro-Russian forces in Ukraine.

According to the UK Telegraph, Just Russia Party second-in-command Mikhail Yemelyanov introduced a bill today that would allow any territory that has a referendum vote or passes a law in their local legislatures indicating a desire to be a part of Russia to become an official territory of the Russian Federation. This would eliminate the requirement that the nation currently calling the territory part of their sovereign land must agree to hand that territory over to Russia.

The bill would make it possible for the Parliament of Crimea, a Ukrainian territory in the South populated heavily by ethnic Russians, to become a part of Russia by simply passing a law or a referendum vote.

Putin has a wide open window of opportunity here, but he's got to play it very carefully to make it look all peaceful and legal and democratic and stuff.

[Rip]

With all due respect to the POTUS, I'm really not understanding why the need for the comments today about "the costs" of Russia
interferring in the situation.

Awhile back there was the talk about "hitting the reset button" with US/Russian relations, and now to me, it seems like POTUS
is back to drawing lines in the sand and saber rattling, for a lack of a better phrase.

What is POTUS prepared to do IF something that he's not satisfied with, goes down?

Economic Sanctions?
U.N. resolutions against Russian actions?

As I've been thinking about the situation I ask myself if the U.S would be better off just stating that we are "monitoring the situation, and if assistance is requested we'll offer it at that time", rather than making statements about "the costs to be paid" for interference, which seem to be threats in my opinon.

Rip, you seem to have a pretty good handle on the situation, WHY does the US need to stick their nose in this situation, at all?

After Iraq & Afghanistan isn't it time to let other countries handle their internal issues and just stay out of their business?

Forgive me for just trying to think in simple terms, but as a citizen of the U.S. I'd really like to see us worry about our own problems for a change. Let other countries handle their issues and see how that works out.

We need to deter Russia from strong arming all of the former Soviet bloc nations from being forced back into a like situation. We profess to believe in the autonomy of nations to deal with their own internal affairs and to support them in obtaining representative governments.

Most importantly in this case we convince Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons and we and many others(including Russia btw) in turn would guarentee their security and autonomy thus removing any need for those weapons. If we fail to meet those obligations then there is no reason any other nation would think they can remain free and have any expectation of not being "consumed" by a stronger nation without the ability to exact a cost preventing that themselves.

Should we fail to protect the autonomy of the Ukraine expect every other nation in the world we try to convince not to pursue a nuclear weapons program to laugh in our face. I can't say I would blame them. In fact if I were say Georgia I would be strongly consider building some nucs myself were the Ukraine to be allowed to fall and the dragging of feet concerning admitting Georgia into NATO to linger.

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 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 very similar to the "it isn't really that important" stance we took with Germany before WW2, not realizing at some point it would inevitably lead to something very important and far harder to put a stop to. Putin is every bit as ambitious as Hitler was without the jewish preoccupation, and with far greater military power, which makes him far more dangerous.

[El Guapo]

At this point,

Bring Georgia into NATO ASAP.
Expel Russia from the G8
Ramp up opposition to Syria/Iran and their relationship with Russia.
Restart the missle shield program for Czech.
Build a NATO/EU coalition of support to make life difficult for Russia financially if not militarily.
Start working on seizing of international assets of Russia/Russian players as well as sanctions.

I agree with your goal, and that the U.S. should be appropriately aggressive in deterring Russia from toppling the emerging Ukrainian government. As a secondary goal we should try to stop Russia from breaking off the Crimea, but that's way less important than preserving Ukraine's functional independence and democracy, so we should we willing to risk less.

Some thoughts on the solutions:

(1) The main problem with this, assuming that we can convince other NATO members to admit Georgia, is that we would be committing ourselves to fighting Georgia's wars. Are we really willing to fight a land war with Russia, including the possibility of nuclear exchanges, over Georgia? It's one thing to commit to the defense of England or France, but are we really willing to commit to unspecified wars with Russia over Georgia? Russia could well test it by launching an attack on some smallish part of Georgia - and if NATO doesn't respond, its credibility is shot.

As for the Ukraine, it's far from certain what government is ultimately going to emerge from this, so it's far too premature for this to be any kind of an option for the current crisis.


(2) This may be a plausible threat if Russia launches open military strikes against the Ukraine.

(3) I'm for more opposition to Syria anyway, and to Iran to a lesser degree. I don't see how we can influence whether the three countries talk to each other anyway - it's not like Syria and Iran exactly do what the U.S. asks.

(4) I have no thoughts about this, except that this threat seems woefully inadequate to deter Russia from striking at the Ukraine (or Georgia).

(5) This is probably an option if Russia invades the Ukraine. Anything short of that ... well you've seen how many years it's taken the EU to rally around sanctions with Iran, and Iran is way less powerful than Russia.

(6) Maybe when and if Russia invades the Ukraine.

[Rip]

At this point,

Bring Georgia into NATO ASAP.
Expel Russia from the G8
Ramp up opposition to Syria/Iran and their relationship with Russia.
Restart the missle shield program for Czech.
Build a NATO/EU coalition of support to make life difficult for Russia financially if not militarily.
Start working on seizing of international assets of Russia/Russian players as well as sanctions.

I agree with your goal, and that the U.S. should be appropriately aggressive in deterring Russia from toppling the emerging Ukrainian government. As a secondary goal we should try to stop Russia from breaking off the Crimea, but that's way less important than preserving Ukraine's functional independence and democracy, so we should we willing to risk less.

Some thoughts on the solutions:

(1) The main problem with this, assuming that we can convince other NATO members to admit Georgia, is that we would be committing ourselves to fighting Georgia's wars. Are we really willing to fight a land war with Russia, including the possibility of nuclear exchanges, over Georgia? It's one thing to commit to the defense of England or France, but are we really willing to commit to unspecified wars with Russia over Georgia? Russia could well test it by launching an attack on some smallish part of Georgia - and if NATO doesn't respond, its credibility is shot.

As for the Ukraine, it's far from certain what government is ultimately going to emerge from this, so it's far too premature for this to be any kind of an option for the current crisis.

Do you really think Russia would go Nuclear over a couple provinces in Georgia, and anger pretty much the entire world and collapse their own economy. I think not. If they know you are afraid to call a bluff, they will bluff with regularity. I would suggest had we already admitted Georgia they would not be pulling this shit in Ukraine for fear they would join NATO next. It isn't like we haven't already admitted some nations and predictably Russia did jack shit of real consequence. In this case we now have something specific that THEY have done we can point to as causing this when we were reluctant. Ala blame your damn selves.

(2) This may be a plausible threat if Russia launches open military strikes against the Ukraine.

(3) I'm for more opposition to Syria anyway, and to Iran to a lesser degree. I don't see how we can influence whether the three countries talk to each other anyway - it's not like Syria and Iran exactly do what the U.S. asks.

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

(4) I have no thoughts about this, except that this threat seems woefully inadequate to deter Russia from striking at the Ukraine (or Georgia).

This would be more of showing that built up goodwill has been flushed as a punishment. We did this as a goodwill type thing and got dick for it, taking it back, and returning to the previous plan seems appropriate, but yea not a direct detterent in itself.

(5) This is probably an option if Russia invades the Ukraine. Anything short of that ... well you've seen how many years it's taken the EU to rally around sanctions with Iran, and Iran is way less powerful than Russia.

Which is fine but I would strongly suggest to them that failing to do so leaves the resulting problems less of a problem for us as well as current EU problems. Let them know if they think they can deal with Russia another way fine, but don't come crying to us for help when it blows up in your face.

They have far more to lose than we do and if they are willing to let Russia consume half of Europe who are we to drag them bitching and sreaming in an effort to stop it. I think you will however find much of the EU is going to be willing to do far more than we will. Russia is a SHITLOAD more of a threat to them than Iran will ever be.

(6) Maybe when and if Russia invades the Ukraine.

Hello, they already have. Maybe not full scale but Crimea IS defacto Ukraine.

Damn edit button Go To Hell!

[Isgrimnur]

At this point,

Bring Georgia into NATO ASAP.
Expel Russia from the G8
Ramp up opposition to Syria/Iran and their relationship with Russia.
Restart the missle shield program for Czech.
Build a NATO/EU coalition of support to make life difficult for Russia financially if not militarily.
Start working on seizing of international assets of Russia/Russian players as well as sanctions.

I agree with your goal, and that the U.S. should be appropriately aggressive in deterring Russia from toppling the emerging Ukrainian government. As a secondary goal we should try to stop Russia from breaking off the Crimea, but that's way less important than preserving Ukraine's functional independence and democracy, so we should we willing to risk less.

Some thoughts on the solutions:

(1) The main problem with this, assuming that we can convince other NATO members to admit Georgia, is that we would be committing ourselves to fighting Georgia's wars. Are we really willing to fight a land war with Russia, including the possibility of nuclear exchanges, over Georgia? It's one thing to commit to the defense of England or France, but are we really willing to commit to unspecified wars with Russia over Georgia? Russia could well test it by launching an attack on some smallish part of Georgia - and if NATO doesn't respond, its credibility is shot.

As for the Ukraine, it's far from certain what government is ultimately going to emerge from this, so it's far too premature for this to be any kind of an option for the current crisis.


(2) This may be a plausible threat if Russia launches open military strikes against the Ukraine.

(3) I'm for more opposition to Syria anyway, and to Iran to a lesser degree. I don't see how we can influence whether the three countries talk to each other anyway - it's not like Syria and Iran exactly do what the U.S. asks.

(4) I have no thoughts about this, except that this threat seems woefully inadequate to deter Russia from striking at the Ukraine (or Georgia).

(5) This is probably an option if Russia invades the Ukraine. Anything short of that ... well you've seen how many years it's taken the EU to rally around sanctions with Iran, and Iran is way less powerful than Russia.

(6) Maybe when and if Russia invades the Ukraine.

Last edited by Rip on Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

So which is El Guapo and which is Rip?

Rip, I think it's time you get an alt that is divested from admin duties so that the quote and edit buttons aren't so close together.

[Rip]

I think it is time the edit button had a warning like the delte button does. Have you seen me accidently delete any posts? There is a reason.

I have asked FP if one can be added, else I will look at another account. I loathe however the extra work of maintaing multiple accounts.

Else I will see if removing edit of other posts is possible. I don't usually do the spam editing anyway and if I see a post I don't like I would be more likely to just delete it rather than edit.

[El Guapo]

Re: Georgia it's not really the nuclear threat. It's that no NATO member, least of all the United States, is actually going to be willing to fight a full war with Russia over East Abkhfahlzla province. So, Putin does this: (1) send Russian troops into Georgia and start wrecking shit; (2) wait for Georgia to call on NATO; (3) watch as NATO dithers and does nothing. NATO credibility shredded.

There is no rational world in which the U.S. is going to be willing to go to war with Russia over some part of Georgia. Even if Obama was on board, there's no way that Congress would vote for that war. Hence, we should not commit to fighting that war in advance.

Not to mention that admitting Georgia doesn't exactly enhance NATO's overall military capacity.

[Rip]

Re: Georgia it's not really the nuclear threat. It's that no NATO member, least of all the United States, is actually going to be willing to fight a full war with Russia over East Abkhfahlzla province. So, Putin does this: (1) send Russian troops into Georgia and start wrecking shit; (2) wait for Georgia to call on NATO; (3) watch as NATO dithers and does nothing. NATO credibility shredded.

There is no rational world in which the U.S. is going to be willing to go to war with Russia over some part of Georgia. Even if Obama was on board, there's no way that Congress would vote for that war. Hence, we should not commit to fighting that war in advance.

Not to mention that admitting Georgia doesn't exactly enhance NATO's overall military capacity.

You could say that about a number of other NATO countries, yet???

Latvia...really? What make Latvia so much more worth the risk than Georgia?

Latvia has what 20K troops total Georgia 40K.

Heck Estonia only has little over 5K.

Georgia is however key in being a border buffer in the Turkey/Russia/Iran area. It could be key in isolating/monitoring transfer of arms and technology between Russia and Iran.

[Apollo]

...I think you will however find much of the EU is going to be willing to do far more than we will. Russia is a SHITLOAD more of a threat to them than Iran will ever be.

Are you sure about that? With the exception of Great Britain, Europe's response to Russian aggression has traditionally been appeasement. The fact is, if Russia wants Ukraine Russia will get Ukraine. It is not in any nation's national interest to trigger World War III to preserve Ukraine's independence.

[Rip]

...I think you will however find much of the EU is going to be willing to do far more than we will. Russia is a SHITLOAD more of a threat to them than Iran will ever be.

Are you sure about that? With the exception of Great Britain, Europe's response to Russian aggression has traditionally been appeasement. The fact is, if Russia wants Ukraine Russia will get Ukraine. It is not in any nation's national interest to trigger World War III to preserve Ukraine's independence.

You aren't listening, the implications of allowing this to go down go FAR beyond the Ukraine. No nation would EVER EVER considering giving up nuclear weapons after that. Why should they, Ukraine did and it cost them independence. Had they not do you think Russia would even consider such action?

In fact if any nation ever did give up nucs after such a thing happened I would go so far as to call them utterly STUPID.

Not to godwinize the thread BUT.

If germany wants Poland it will get Poland. It is not in any nations national interest to trigger WW2 to preserve Polands independence.

That worked out real well.

[El Guapo]

Ukraine's independence is unlikely to truly be a stake here. It's too risky for Russia - much more likely to trigger a foreign military response, virtually cerrtain to trigger painful sanctions, and too difficult and uncertain for Russia to keep order once it intervenes. And if Russia loses the Ukraine *after* a full invasion, that's a devastating blow to Putin's prestige that he might not recover from.

Crimea is a much more limited, achievable aim, with way, way less risk to it.

[Rip]

Ukraine's independence is unlikely to truly be a stake here. It's too risky for Russia - much more likely to trigger a foreign military response, virtually cerrtain to trigger painful sanctions, and too difficult and uncertain for Russia to keep order once it intervenes. And if Russia loses the Ukraine *after* a full invasion, that's a devastating blow to Putin's prestige that he might not recover from.

Crimea is a much more limited, achievable aim, with way, way less risk to it.

I have said this way too many times.

Crimea IS Ukraine!!!!!!!!

[Rip]

On the bright side allowing Russia to take Crimea from Ukraine and annex it more or less should really give the Democrats a nice big feather in their caps for the coming elections.

Democratic Party foreign policy FTW!

[Rip]

Before voting on accession, Ukraine demanded from Russia, the USA, France and the United Kingdom a written statement that these powers undertook to extend the security guarantees to Ukraine. Instead security assurances to Ukraine (Ukraine published the documents as guarantees given to Ukraine[5]) were given on 5 December 1994 at a formal ceremony in Budapest (known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances[6]), may be summarized as follows: Russia, the UK and the USA undertake to respect Ukraine's borders in accordance with the principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, to abstain from the use or threat of force against Ukraine, to support Ukraine where an attempt is made to place pressure on it by economic coercion, and to bring any incident of aggression by a nuclear power before the UN Security Council.
Ukraine was scheduled to submit its instruments of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear state and formally enter into START at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Budapest in December 1994. The Rada resolution on accession to the NPT, however, was ambiguous as to whether Ukraine was acceding as a nuclear or non-nuclear state, which was unacceptable to the Russians. The compromise reached after intense negotiations was to attach a diplomatic note from the President of Ukraine to the Rada resolution stipulating that Ukraine was acceding as a non-nuclear state.
The Trilateral Statement: Signed in Moscow, 14 January 1994 by the presidents of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine: Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and Leonid Kravchuk. Details the procedures to transfer Ukrainian nuclear warheads to Russia and associated compensation and security assurances. Sets out simultaneous actions to transfer SS-18 and SS-24 warheads from Ukraine to Russia for dismantling and to provide compensation to Ukraine in the form of fuel assemblies for nuclear power stations. It also provides economic support and technical aid from the United States to assist with dismantling the strategic nuclear arms, as well as security assurances to Ukraine from both the United States and Russia, once START I enters into force and Ukraine becomes a non-nuclear weapon state party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we ... nd_Ukraine

Message to the world. Any security assurances you reach with the US isn't worth the paper it is written on.