Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 19:46:52 GMT -5
Yes, that's a problem. Poor Ukraine. It seems to be a victim of geography, destined to always be conquered by somebody and never independent. (Russia wasn't their first conqueror, you know.) They really shouldn't have handed over their nukes, in exchange for the promise from "the world" that their borders would remain sacrosanct. I'm sure Putin's getting a chuckle out of THAT one! (See also: North Korea and Iran. Pakistan, too, for that matter, and India--and what weaponry everyone suspects Israel has.) Where does this lead? How in hell is Ukraine OUR problem? I don't think it is. The Ukrainians will have to decide whether to fight Russia or surrender. (It's probably too late for them to learn that electing kleptocrats isn't a good idea, since it's unlikely they'll ever get the stolen cash back into the treasury. But they do, now, have a lovely "museum to bad taste" in the fake rococo mansion their latest leader built for himself. That's pretty kewl, no?) Truth, I don't see what you, I, Obama, Merkel, or ANYONE can do to keep Ukraine independent. Perhaps they need to bring back their Cossacks? Where does it lead is really the critical question kemmer. Is eastern Ukraine next, to the Dneiper? While keeping their warm water port on the Black Sea would be nice, two such ports, one in the Crimea and one in Georgia would be better. The Baltic States are, I bet, a little nervous with a Bear on the prowl. The funny part is, I agree that at least in the short term, US interests are not affected. But that is a VERY short term look and any sense that a resurgent Russia would not like to rebuild her sphere of influense is a mistake. I think the next few weeks need to be very carefully managed. What can be done to keep Ukraine independent? For the Crimea, likely nothing, but for the Ukraine, establishing a mutual defense treaty with Poland might be a good move. I think NATO needs to wake up, now, and step up force levels and readiness in eastern Poland. I think the Turks needs to be seen as becoming very good friends and more importantly, very visible friends of Georgia. I think the President needs to signal that he is not only expecting the Congress to change his defense budget to a higher number, he needs to indicate that he is ready to sign that higher number. I think he needs to get off his hands and approve Keystone - and any other project that puts energy supplies into the market place and reduces Russian influence in that area. I think he needs to get Russia out of the G8. That makes a lot of sense. Russia can be emboldened- to some extent this is a local issue. But Russia needs to have it made clear it can go no further.
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Mar 19, 2014 21:47:40 GMT -5
Where does it lead is really the critical question kemmer. Is eastern Ukraine next, to the Dneiper? While keeping their warm water port on the Black Sea would be nice, two such ports, one in the Crimea and one in Georgia would be better. The Baltic States are, I bet, a little nervous with a Bear on the prowl. The funny part is, I agree that at least in the short term, US interests are not affected. But that is a VERY short term look and any sense that a resurgent Russia would not like to rebuild her sphere of influense is a mistake. I think the next few weeks need to be very carefully managed. What can be done to keep Ukraine independent? For the Crimea, likely nothing, but for the Ukraine, establishing a mutual defense treaty with Poland might be a good move. I think NATO needs to wake up, now, and step up force levels and readiness in eastern Poland. I think the Turks needs to be seen as becoming very good friends and more importantly, very visible friends of Georgia. I think the President needs to signal that he is not only expecting the Congress to change his defense budget to a higher number, he needs to indicate that he is ready to sign that higher number. I think he needs to get off his hands and approve Keystone - and any other project that puts energy supplies into the market place and reduces Russian influence in that area. I think he needs to get Russia out of the G8. That makes a lot of sense. Russia can be emboldened- to some extent this is a local issue. But Russia needs to have it made clear it can go no further. "Ok adolf.....as long as you stop at the sudetenland". Have we learned nothing? There should be a strong, forceful (not necessarily military) and unified response from nato AND the un and china MUST be a part of it. China is the key....but, then again, they're having their own little contretemps now aren't they? Geopolitics hates nothing more than a power vacuum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 7:49:43 GMT -5
That makes a lot of sense. Russia can be emboldened- to some extent this is a local issue. But Russia needs to have it made clear it can go no further. "Ok adolf.....as long as you stop at the sudetenland". Have we learned nothing? There should be a strong, forceful (not necessarily military) and unified response from nato AND the un and china MUST be a part of it. China is the key....but, then again, they're having their own little contretemps now aren't they? Geopolitics hates nothing more than a power vacuum. Well, to be fair, Ukraine was not independent for a long, long time- and Crimea is majority Russian, with critical Russian bases there. It's more like if Austria was part of Germany, broke away, and Germany took a part back. I think this is war bluster from US to distract from upcoming election so that folks will rally around President. What nation would allow critical military bases to fall into the hands of a now unfriendly government? We wouldn't let Cuba seize Guantanamo. I don't think this is step on in a resurgent Russian empire. If we really want to exercise geopolitical power in a way to scare the Russian, we need to stomp hard on their ally Iran.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 22, 2014 5:27:44 GMT -5
This is a long way from over yet between Ukraine and Russia.
While I think the sanctions are having some effect on the financial status of Putin's inner circle, that circle has the wealth of a nation at its disposal. The Russians are a fiercely nationalistic people. According to FOX.com this morning, there is a substantial increase in anti-US propaganda in the Russian media. Stirring up the masses by creating a boogeyman is a critical step for a nation about to do something risky. Russian troops are popping up along long reaches of the border with Ukraine, though only in quantities sufficient for smaller actions; an "annexation" as opposed to a full scale invasion, even against a lightweight like Ukraine.
I hope someone is keeping a close eye on the Georgia - Russia border. If you start seeing an increase in Russian submarine activity in or near the approaches to the Black Sea, it could well be a very hot summer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 6:52:05 GMT -5
This is a long way from over yet between Ukraine and Russia. While I think the sanctions are having some effect on the financial status of Putin's inner circle, that circle has the wealth of a nation at its disposal. The Russians are a fiercely nationalistic people. According to FOX.com this morning, there is a substantial increase in anti-US propaganda in the Russian media. Stirring up the masses by creating a boogeyman is a critical step for a nation about to do something risky. Russian troops are popping up along long reaches of the border with Ukraine, though only in quantities sufficient for smaller actions; an "annexation" as opposed to a full scale invasion, even against a lightweight like Ukraine. I hope someone is keeping a close eye on the Georgia - Russia border. If you start seeing an increase in Russian submarine activity in or near the approaches to the Black Sea, it could well be a very hot summer. Odd that, there is a substantial increase in anti - Russia propaganda in the US and European media. Stirring up the masses by creating bogeymen. Both sides are a bad as each other in indoctrination. Seriously, tell me, do you really think that Russia should just hand over its Black Sea fleet and abandon the greater majority of Crimeans that do consider themselves Russian? Instead of cranking up another cold war we should be butting out,the Crimea is not our problem.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 22, 2014 10:13:04 GMT -5
First of all eagle, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the Russian Fleet was at risk. The lease payments from Russia to the Ukraine for use of thier port to homebase the Black Sea Fleet was a major revenue source for the Ukranian government. They had no interest in losing that revenue stream. In addition, and as we have clearly seen over the last three weeks, the Ukranian military did not pose the smallest of risks to Russian forces. Your thought that the Black Sea Fleet was being abandoned in some way is factually incorrect.
Second, no where did I suggest that Crimea should or should not be a part of Russia. Frankly, I couldn't care less. What you don"t seem to want to acknowledge is that the rule of law and the existence of Ukranian borders formally recognized by the Russian Federation should mean something. Apparently, that is not the case in Russia. Negotiating at the threat of attack is not negotiating and an annexation vote, conducted in ten days, without debate and under threat is not a legitimate vote. Should the Crimea be part of Russia? Based on language and culture - probably. But that does not afford Russia any legitimacy in their actions here. And if you the leanguage status as affording legitimacy, you lend credence to my comments on Georgia and NATO's actions.
Finally, wars start for any number of reasons, but one primary cause is the absence of certainty and the growth of doubt. NATO support of Ukraine against future Russian annexation is clearly in doubt in the eye of Ukraine and Russian certainty that NATO will sit on its hand is growing more certain. That is not a good combination of events. A spreading uncertainty creates more of a vacuum and both nature and politics hate a vacuum.
Considering what one sees on the ground and extrapolating the potential from that reality is not banging the drums for a cold war; it's taking steps to avoid a hot one.
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Mar 22, 2014 12:14:24 GMT -5
Priorities.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Mar 22, 2014 12:15:59 GMT -5
I have to ask, if nature hates a vacuum why is there so much in the universe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 12:24:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 12:28:12 GMT -5
First of all eagle, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the Russian Fleet was at risk. The lease payments from Russia to the Ukraine for use of thier port to homebase the Black Sea Fleet was a major revenue source for the Ukranian government. They had no interest in losing that revenue stream. In addition, and as we have clearly seen over the last three weeks, the Ukranian military did not pose the smallest of risks to Russian forces. Your thought that the Black Sea Fleet was being abandoned in some way is factually incorrect. Second, no where did I suggest that Crimea should or should not be a part of Russia. Frankly, I couldn't care less. What you don"t seem to want to acknowledge is that the rule of law and the existence of Ukranian borders formally recognized by the Russian Federation should mean something. Apparently, that is not the case in Russia. Negotiating at the threat of attack is not negotiating and an annexation vote, conducted in ten days, without debate and under threat is not a legitimate vote. Should the Crimea be part of Russia? Based on language and culture - probably. But that does not afford Russia any legitimacy in their actions here. And if you the leanguage status as affording legitimacy, you lend credence to my comments on Georgia and NATO's actions. Finally, wars start for any number of reasons, but one primary cause is the absence of certainty and the growth of doubt. NATO support of Ukraine against future Russian annexation is clearly in doubt in the eye of Ukraine and Russian certainty that NATO will sit on its hand is growing more certain. That is not a good combination of events. A spreading uncertainty creates more of a vacuum and both nature and politics hate a vacuum. Considering what one sees on the ground and extrapolating the potential from that reality is not banging the drums for a cold war; it's taking steps to avoid a hot one. In essence, Russia had a contingency plan long in place to seize Crimea if they could not have a puppet regime in Ukraine. Per International Law, totally illegal. But as we know- International Law is an utter joke in the face of any serious nation's ambition, esp. a Great Power like US, China, or Russia. The fear-- Putin will now seek to conquer the former Soviet satellite states? I don't know about that.. Putin is nasty dictator, but he's not Hitler- there is no pseudo-religious ideology driving people to madness, this is just pure nationalism. Europe's history is full of these petty types of wars. Do we really want to be involved? Do we really need to be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 12:58:18 GMT -5
First of all eagle, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the Russian Fleet was at risk. The lease payments from Russia to the Ukraine for use of thier port to homebase the Black Sea Fleet was a major revenue source for the Ukranian government. They had no interest in losing that revenue stream. In addition, and as we have clearly seen over the last three weeks, the Ukranian military did not pose the smallest of risks to Russian forces. Your thought that the Black Sea Fleet was being abandoned in some way is factually incorrect. Second, no where did I suggest that Crimea should or should not be a part of Russia. Frankly, I couldn't care less. What you don"t seem to want to acknowledge is that the rule of law and the existence of Ukranian borders formally recognized by the Russian Federation should mean something. Apparently, that is not the case in Russia. Negotiating at the threat of attack is not negotiating and an annexation vote, conducted in ten days, without debate and under threat is not a legitimate vote. Should the Crimea be part of Russia? Based on language and culture - probably. But that does not afford Russia any legitimacy in their actions here. And if you the leanguage status as affording legitimacy, you lend credence to my comments on Georgia and NATO's actions. Finally, wars start for any number of reasons, but one primary cause is the absence of certainty and the growth of doubt. NATO support of Ukraine against future Russian annexation is clearly in doubt in the eye of Ukraine and Russian certainty that NATO will sit on its hand is growing more certain. That is not a good combination of events. A spreading uncertainty creates more of a vacuum and both nature and politics hate a vacuum. Considering what one sees on the ground and extrapolating the potential from that reality is not banging the drums for a cold war; it's taking steps to avoid a hot one. In essence, Russia had a contingency plan long in place to seize Crimea if they could not have a puppet regime in Ukraine. Per International Law, totally illegal. But as we know- International Law is an utter joke in the face of any serious nation's ambition, esp. a Great Power like US, China, or Russia. The fear-- Putin will now seek to conquer the former Soviet satellite states? I don't know about that.. Putin is nasty dictator, but he's not Hitler- there is no pseudo-religious ideology driving people to madness, this is just pure nationalism. Europe's history is full of these petty types of wars. Do we really want to be involved? Do we really need to be? I find myself in general agreement with your post. In truth, one would have to be incredibly naive to consider that Russia would or would react in any other way when Ukraine declared its independence from them. Many Western politicians have made complete arses of themselves with their phoney 'shock horror' stances. Instead of cranking up another cold war, we should be butting out of this one.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Mar 22, 2014 16:24:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Mar 22, 2014 17:38:09 GMT -5
Party pooper.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 22, 2014 17:39:49 GMT -5
In essence, Russia had a contingency plan long in place to seize Crimea if they could not have a puppet regime in Ukraine. Per International Law, totally illegal. But as we know- International Law is an utter joke in the face of any serious nation's ambition, esp. a Great Power like US, China, or Russia. The fear-- Putin will now seek to conquer the former Soviet satellite states? I don't know about that.. Putin is nasty dictator, but he's not Hitler- there is no pseudo-religious ideology driving people to madness, this is just pure nationalism. Europe's history is full of these petty types of wars. Do we really want to be involved? Do we really need to be? I find myself in general agreement with your post. In truth, one would have to be incredibly naive to consider that Russia would or would react in any other way when Ukraine declared its independence from them. Many Western politicians have made complete arses of themselves with their phoney 'shock horror' stances. Instead of cranking up another cold war, we should be butting out of this one.Butting out is certainly an option, but when do we get involved? When Russia goes to the Dneiper? How about when they "protect" those who speak Russian in the Baltic States or in Georgia? The Russian Federation, the UK, the US and the Ukraine agreed to the ante bellum borders; is it your position that the agreement was the action of naive parties? If so, what is your reasoning for trusting that the Russians won't go further? The decision to be involved or not be involved in the affairs of the world was made when Teddy sent his Great White Fleet around the world. There is no turning back, nor is it in our interest to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 12:45:49 GMT -5
I find myself in general agreement with your post. In truth, one would have to be incredibly naive to consider that Russia would or would react in any other way when Ukraine declared its independence from them. Many Western politicians have made complete arses of themselves with their phoney 'shock horror' stances. Instead of cranking up another cold war, we should be butting out of this one.Butting out is certainly an option, but when do we get involved? When Russia goes to the Dneiper? How about when they "protect" those who speak Russian in the Baltic States or in Georgia? The Russian Federation, the UK, the US and the Ukraine agreed to the ante bellum borders; is it your position that the agreement was the action of naive parties? If so, what is your reasoning for trusting that the Russians won't go further? The decision to be involved or not be involved in the affairs of the world was made when Teddy sent his Great White Fleet around the world. There is no turning back, nor is it in our interest to do so. At what gain to us are we the world protectors? Will these nations fight for themselves? If Ukraine itself does not fight for its territory, even if it is a losing battle, how can we fight for them? Europeans need to step up and protect their allies and neighbors. If they need our help, honestly they should pay us. If Russia intrudes on any our our bases- well, that's different. Though I honestly think we should pull back there, too. Just as too much of budget goes to domestic entitlements, too much goes to our military to protect allies- allies that skimp on their own defense budgets at our expense.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 23, 2014 17:08:52 GMT -5
We don't need to be the world's protectors, same old, but we must remain engaged - and remaining engaged is risky. We are a nation of the world and for all our flaws, we remain the world's last great hope for ensuring the rule of law. More than weapons, more than economic power, more even, than a too often unshared weak reliance on some ethereal sense of morality, it is is inevitably the rule of law that protects the human condition.
And if not us, who?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 17:49:19 GMT -5
We don't need to be the world's protectors, same old, but we must remain engaged - and remaining engaged is risky. We are a nation of the world and for all our flaws, we remain the world's last great hope for ensuring the rule of law. More than weapons, more than economic power, more even, than a too often unshared weak reliance on some ethereal sense of morality, it is is inevitably the rule of law that protects the human condition. And if not us, who? If we should rule, let us rule with all the power, perks, and responsibility that entails before we fall like other empires. But I fear we take on responsibilities of ruling without the power or perks- and it's bankrupting us while still earning enemies.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 23, 2014 19:21:32 GMT -5
We don't need to be the world's protectors, same old, but we must remain engaged - and remaining engaged is risky. We are a nation of the world and for all our flaws, we remain the world's last great hope for ensuring the rule of law. More than weapons, more than economic power, more even, than a too often unshared weak reliance on some ethereal sense of morality, it is is inevitably the rule of law that protects the human condition. And if not us, who? If we should rule, let us rule with all the power, perks, and responsibility that entails before we fall like other empires. But I fear we take on responsibilities of ruling without the power or perks- and it's bankrupting us while still earning enemies. I didn't post anything about ruling. Sometimes, the unalienable rights endowed by the creator need someone of a more earthly nature, a government instituted by men not to rule, but to ensure the right of self-determination. With great power goes great responsibility, and again I ask, if not us, who?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 19:55:51 GMT -5
If we should rule, let us rule with all the power, perks, and responsibility that entails before we fall like other empires. But I fear we take on responsibilities of ruling without the power or perks- and it's bankrupting us while still earning enemies. I didn't post anything about ruling. Sometimes, the unalienable rights endowed by the creator need someone of a more earthly nature, a government instituted by men not to rule, but to ensure the right of self-determination. With great power goes great responsibility, and again I ask, if not us, who? Why anyone? You're asking us to take on the burden of leadership to the world- most places don't agree with those rights, which means we would need to use force. Empire is the only end to that path. I'd rather us lead be example and show that a free Republic can govern itself successfully, not impose its values and leadership upon the world like all the empires before it.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 24, 2014 5:20:27 GMT -5
Most places don’t agree with which rights, sameold; the right to choose one’s path in the world? The right to be from intimidation? The right to keep the fruits of one’s labors? The right to speak freely? I suspect that more than a few rulers hold those thoughts, but I would expect that many of the ruled would argue differently.
You state we would need to use force and that empire is the only end to that path? While force is unquestionably a possibility, Poland might disagree with your assertion that empire lies down that path. I suspect places like Spain, France, South Korea and Japan would likely join them.
And leading by example has merit, but if that were the only course, we would not long have peace in the world. Example is great; example supported by a brigade of M1A2s is better.
But where do you draw the line, sameold? Poland? The Baltics? Georgia? Boston, MA? What constitutes the threat to which a President Sameold would respond? A regiment in Kiev or Odessa? A battalion in Tbilisi? How about a regiment or two establishing a corroder between Minsk and Kalinigrad to establish a means to protect the Russian speakers in the Kalinigrad? Do you think Lithuania or Poland might object?
Any time a nation uses such pretense to force a shift in national boundaries, no boundary is safe. Either the rule of law applies or all is chaos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 7:28:43 GMT -5
Most places don’t agree with which rights, sameold; the right to choose one’s path in the world? The right to be from intimidation? The right to keep the fruits of one’s labors? The right to speak freely? I suspect that more than a few rulers hold those thoughts, but I would expect that many of the ruled would argue differently. You state we would need to use force and that empire is the only end to that path? While force is unquestionably a possibility, Poland might disagree with your assertion that empire lies down that path. I suspect places like Spain, France, South Korea and Japan would likely join them. And leading by example has merit, but if that were the only course, we would not long have peace in the world. Example is great; example supported by a brigade of M1A2s is better. But where do you draw the line, sameold? Poland? The Baltics? Georgia? Boston, MA? What constitutes the threat to which a President Sameold would respond? A regiment in Kiev or Odessa? A battalion in Tbilisi? How about a regiment or two establishing a corroder between Minsk and Kalinigrad to establish a means to protect the Russian speakers in the Kalinigrad? Do you think Lithuania or Poland might object? Any time a nation uses such pretense to force a shift in national boundaries, no boundary is safe. Either the rule of law applies or all is chaos. President Sameold would say-- Poland, Georgia, Baltics, France, Germany-- foot your own bill, train your own troops, form your own alliance-- heck, we'll even sell you tons of good weapons cheap for our economy- we're pulling our troops home unless you pay us the billions it costs us to defend you. We have roads to build, bridges to construct, schools to fund, and taxes to lower. Nations of the world- become democracies! Or don't. Just look to us and see how we do, then decide. Russia will only rebuild an empire if Europe allows them to. And if Europe does so- well, it's their land and their people. Go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Mar 27, 2014 0:00:21 GMT -5
PUTIN CONTINUES BUILD UP... Cruz: Russians 'openly laughing' at Obama... drudgereport.com/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 0:31:45 GMT -5
There was a terrific piece in last week's Time Magazine regarding the Ukraine situation. The 19th century is alive and well, it would seem.
Link
You may need a subscription to read the article in its entirety.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 27, 2014 6:07:09 GMT -5
Down this path lies only the surety of war, President Sameold.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 28, 2014 7:02:31 GMT -5
There seems to be a growing sense that things could start getting quite a bit warmer in Europe. CNN is advising of a build up of Russian troops on eastern Ukraine border (it's buried in the artice, but it is there), as is Fox and the BBC. UN resolution Russian troops at borderPresident Obama warnsWe know that Russia sees itself as having a strong relationship with the Transdneistria area of Moldava, a region on the southwest edge of Ukraine, north of Odessa. We know also that Russia and Belarus, on the northern border of Ukraine, continue to strengthen their political relationship. We know that Romania, to the south of Ukraine is politically unstable right now, where Basescu clings to power in a coalition government and at least two attempts to impeach him. Let's do some gaming; a Russian move north into Moldava to protect Russian-speakers in the Transdneistria would clearly de-stabilize Moldava and might lend credence to Basescu's hold on power - increasing internal Romanian political unrest. In such a move, Russia would likely avoid Odessa, at least on the first action, in an effort to mitigate sympathy for Ukraine. Concurrent with the move on Moldava would be a threat, followed by an action move to the Deniper, leaving plenty of room around Kiev, again, with the idea of mitigating sympathy for Ukraine. NATO, seeing the Russian moves into parts of Ukraine and Moldava and the increase in political instability in Romania, increases their defense posture in northeast Poland along the Belarus and west Ukraine border. Poland is particularly insistent on the increased presence and moves her own troops that way as well. With a widened border between Belarus and Russia, Belarus seeks a wider defense pact with Russia, pointing to the NATO/Polish contingent building on the west Belarus border. Russia moves forces out of St Petersburg to the Russian oblast in Kaliningrad, stationing forces on Poland's northern border and threatening Gdansk. NATO responds by moving surface forces into the North Sea and submarine forces in to the Baltic Sea. And we find ourselves one mistake away from another war in Europe.
|
|