OT: Ukrainian crisis

[jay102]

Putting aside emotional analogy or idealization, international politics is about power and interest. Ukraine(at least the eastern part) is Russia's soft belly. No Russian politician in power would let it slip into western sphere of influence without some resemblance of action. From another side of the coin, isn't it a bit regrettable for Russia that the west can project soft power deep in its backyards that it had to resort to military(which is of course unseemly) to protect its vital interest?

[Terminus]

And isn't it regrettable that Putin has convinced Russia that NATO is an imminent military and political threat?

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I don´t know if I should be happy or sad that people rather watch a snake eat a crocodile than worry about the Ukrainian crisis? [:D]

These are very complex questions. I feel the same. [:D]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]

Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).

[Miller]

The best thing for the west to do is nothing, and they will. Its a very different planet to the one in late 30's. Russia will take back the area they want and the Ukrainians will have to like it or lump it. Not fair or right of course but that's life. The US/EU will moan a bit but it will all soon be forgotten. All IMHO of course.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Pretty much yes. Bullwinkle linked a to a very interesting article on the first page of the thread.

This is another one from the same Politico.com site. ( A very interesting start-up here in the US. Old-school 5-Ws reporting, pretty non-partisan, lots of facts, inside-baseball for political junkies.)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/r ... html?hp=l5

This one is a survey of the oil/gas issue from multiple perspectives. I'm sure industry insiders would say there's a lot more to it, but it was a good primer for me.

Eastern Europe might need to accelerate moving away from a fossil-fuel economy, and western Europe too. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of how that's going in the west. But oil/gas is Russia's Achilles Heel. They don't make much of anything the world wants or needs besides that.

If energy were cut off to Europe next winter could the world cope? Maybe. I think yes, but with huge disruption. Petroleum is a fungible commodity; Russia would sell it elsewhere, at higher transport costs without the pipelines, and the West would buy from other sources. Whether there is sufficient LNG shipping capacity to keep Europe warm I'm unsure of.

I did a little reading over the weekend on US law relative to exporting oil and natural gas, and it's pretty thick. The US has a bit of excess these days thanks to North Dakota and other fracking regions. Congress would need to streamline the procedures to get it where it needs to go. I don't know if that would happen in the current Washington environment.

Outside of oil/gas the economics of this crisis are really on Europe to deal with. The US is a very minor trading partner with Russia. Peanuts really. The banking interests in Europe have to either change or be made to change and put pressure on the oligarch community if they want Putin to feel any heat.

If Ukraine fights I don't know what happens. Russia will not cede their warm water port easily. Any student of Russian history knows this dream goes back to Peter the Great and before. In the medium term, if partition occurs, I think NATO membership for the western portion should be an option, as well as a Ukrainian "Marshall Plan" funded by Europe. As the old saying goes, the best revenge is living well. The eastern Ukrainians may come to wish they had leaned toward Europe after all.

[Bullwinkle58]

I also did some reading on the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. I found out some of what I thought I knew was wrong, and there's more to the pact than I had known.

The Black Sea is probably the most restricted international body of water in the world. The Convention is one of the oldest continuous sea-control treaties in the world, and was observed even by Hitler when he was in a life-and-death struggle with the USSR.

Bottom line, the USN cannot operate carriers in the Black Sea. It cannot operate submarines there. Even if it could it is impossible to covertly enter the Black Sea. The tonnage restrictions on surface combatants in the Convention are extremely restrictive and the permitted time-on-station just a few weeks. Getting into the Black Sea, past and through the center of Istanbul, is one of the most difficult navigations in the world.

Russia, as a riparian power, has much more freedom to use the Black Sea militarily than any NATO power except Turkey. Power projection into Ukraine from the sea is really not an option.

Anyway, it's a naval subject. Google it and read away. Really interesting body of history.

[mind_messing]

Buisness as usual for the ex-Soviet sphere. You can do what you want, just so long as it's what we want you to do.

The more I read in to it, the more I see how Putin simply can't come out a winner. Economic sanctions are pointless: the West can pressure the Russian economy, but NATO needs Russian gas. The only people willing to die for the Ukraine seems to be the Ukrainians: the West is simply not wanting to fight, and even if it did, it would achive nothing.

Best case: Interm government holds things together, but Crimea declares independance. Russia signs a bunch of treaties with Crimea to keep it seperate from the Ukraine.

Worst case: Interm government collapses under Soviet pressure and we end up with the Ukrainian government being the revolving door as it was in 1917-1919.

[JocMeister]

Thanks for the link Bullwinkle. I´ll read it tonight.

Any kind of military intervention would have to be UN sanctioned. And that is simply not going to happen. Its going to happen exactly like Miller describes. We will all moan and bitch about and in 2 weeks it will be business as usual. Putin knows this, the EU knows this and NATO knows this.

Everything happening right now with all "political pressure" applied against Russia is just an empty show.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I also did some reading on the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. I found out some of what I thought I knew was wrong, and there's more to the pact than I had known.

The Black Sea is probably the most restricted international body of water in the world. The Convention is one of the oldest continuous sea-control treaties in the world, and was observed even by Hitler when he was in a life-and-death struggle with the USSR.

Bottom line, the USN cannot operate carriers in the Black Sea. It cannot operate submarines there. Even if it could it is impossible to covertly enter the Black Sea. The tonnage restrictions on surface combatants in the Convention are extremely restrictive and the permitted time-on-station just a few weeks. Getting into the Black Sea, past and through the center of Istanbul, is one of the most difficult navigations in the world.

Russia, as a riparian power, has much more freedom to use the Black Sea militarily than any NATO power except Turkey. Power projection into Ukraine from the sea is really not an option.

Anyway, it's a naval subject. Google it and read away. Really interesting body of history.

That really is the crux of the poor position the West is in. Unless they form a fairly united NATO (unlikely!), there's nothing the US can do to posture other than blow diplomatic gusts. No carriers, no power projection.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I also did some reading on the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. I found out some of what I thought I knew was wrong, and there's more to the pact than I had known.

The Black Sea is probably the most restricted international body of water in the world. The Convention is one of the oldest continuous sea-control treaties in the world, and was observed even by Hitler when he was in a life-and-death struggle with the USSR.

Bottom line, the USN cannot operate carriers in the Black Sea. It cannot operate submarines there. Even if it could it is impossible to covertly enter the Black Sea. The tonnage restrictions on surface combatants in the Convention are extremely restrictive and the permitted time-on-station just a few weeks. Getting into the Black Sea, past and through the center of Istanbul, is one of the most difficult navigations in the world.

Russia, as a riparian power, has much more freedom to use the Black Sea militarily than any NATO power except Turkey. Power projection into Ukraine from the sea is really not an option.

Anyway, it's a naval subject. Google it and read away. Really interesting body of history.

That really is the crux of the poor position the West is in. Unless they form a fairly united NATO (unlikely!), there's nothing the US can do to posture other than blow diplomatic gusts. No carriers, no power projection.

No naval power projection. Lots of routes in from NATO nations such as Poland.

It's not a NATO matter unless NATO makes it one. ( See "Libya.") I do not expect they will unless fighting came toward the border of a NATO country. If western Ukraine forces, fighting Russia, asked for supplies, logistics, intel, and medical would NATO respond with a yes? I don't know. I don't think it would be a simple on/off switch situation.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Part of what makes the situation so difficult to control is that Sevastopol still is the main base for the Russsian Black Sea Fleet, and close to 60% of the population of the Krim peninsula are Russians. This combined is the major reason why the situation escalated so quickly there.

Paired with the fact that about 16%-17% of the total population of the Ukraine are ethnical Russians, and probably 1/3rd of the population are decidedly pro-Russia, the current conflict sadly has the potential for civil war, with or without Russian involvement.

Yes, and difficult as it is to admit, it is very possible that the presence of Russian troops will prevent the break out of a disastrous civil war. As for Russia, as Joe pointed out when he mentioned how his Russian friend felt, we need to see this from a Russian perspective as well as US perspective in order to find a solution.

"You never really knew a man until you stood in his shoes and walked around in them." Atticus Finch

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Also from the BBC news, which battle gets to the top of the popular news items for the day;

Thanks for turning me on to that snake-croc thing. Now what were we discussing here..[;)]

[Kull]

The West has to do something, because Putin does have two options here. The first is to claim Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. The second is to keep right on going and take the entire Ukraine. Believe me, he's looking at both of those options right now, and the weaker the Western Response (which does not have to be military), the more likely he just goes for the whole enchilada in order to partition the Ukraine and set the western portion up as a non-NATO satellite.

The problem is that while option 1 has a decent chance to be somewhat bloodless, option 2 definitely won't be.

[JocMeister]

Here is an article from the BBC showing the combat strength of Russia and Ukraine.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26421703

[Czert]

ORIGINAL: MrKane

BTW: Does anyone notice that Putin is coping exactly scenario used by Adolf Hitler in 1938/39 to take over Czechoslovak ?
- Phase one: He sent saboteurs & troops wearing uniforms without marking to simulate riot in place.
- Phase two: He has used a few unhappy Ukraine politics(with Russian citizenship) to cry that Russian citizen are suffer from very bad Ukrainian's nationalists.
- Phase three: He has sent military forces to invade Crimea to protect Russian citizens.
- Phase four: Western Europe & USA will do nothing, nobody in EU and USA want to die for Crimea.
- Phase five: (I really hope we will not see it) He will takeover remnant parts of demoralized country without any resistant after a few months.

interesing thinking, but it have few flaws :
1. that demosntations were pro-eu and ati-russins, not pro-russian if he copied hitlers excample
2.deosed ukrainan president was pro-russain and anti-eu so putin will loved him to stay in power.

[Czert]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I know my Eastern European history

Its a history that doesn't come out too well for the subject peoples of the USSR, or its neighbours, or anyone who gets in their way

There are far too many parallels here with what has happened before, and a Russian power that ignores territorial agreements it guarantees, treaties it signs and the borders of its neighbours is one that Europe needs to be afraid of.

The "Might to right" policy was wrong when we did it, wrong when Germany did it, wrong when the USA did it and its wrong when Russia do it.

well, russisa is automaticaly wrong because of past ? well, my country have "luck" that he sufered bad treatment, treasons from all sides - west and east too.
i realy doubt that crissis was orchestred by russians as it was mzch betetr for them what situation was pre-crissis, and not current one. Even if it will mean that ukraine will be splited on two.

[MrKane]

Western Europe will do exactly the same like always, nothing. example: Laurent Fabius (French minister of foreign affairs) just announced that crisis it is not serious enough to stop selling to Russia 3 amphibious assault ships (Mistral-class). We have 3th days on invasion and all western and central EU + USA politics are still asking both sides to not escalate conflict.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]

Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).

Since no one else has recommended positive , active steps , let me take a swing at the ball.

If I were POTUS , I'd...
1) dispatch two ABM equipped aegis cruisers/destroyers to Polish ports as a temporary "missile defense shield". Then begin immediate re-opening of a permanent in country shield. Open this to other countries.
2) Request NATO to offer temporary membership to affected countries in the area and begins talks toward permanent membership. Offer a mutual assistance/defense treaty to the Ukraine.
3) Extend an invitation to Putin to visit DC and discuss "currant mutual matters".
4) Say nothing specific to the press. DO say something like "Russia will do whatever Russia must do. And we will do whatever we must do". Nothing specific , nothing threatening , yet in itself very challenging. Basically saying "We won't tell you what to do. BUT you won't tell us what to do either".
5) Do nothing official to screw up economic relations or trade with Russia. But since the USA is a big , inefficient, bureaucratic democracy , "paperwork confusion happens". [:D]

And to totally drive Putin nuts , offer him full NATO membership and a mutual defense treaty with the USA. To further "gore his ox" , attach it to a "most favored trade status" with the US.

How's this guys? [:D]

[Czert]

ORIGINAL: koniu

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: MrKane

BTW: Does anyone notice that Putin is coping exactly scenario used by Adolf Hitler in 1938/39 to take over Czechoslovak ?
- Phase one: He sent saboteurs & troops wearing uniforms without marking to simulate riot in place.
- Phase two: He has used a few unhappy Ukraine politics(with Russian citizenship) to cry that Russian citizen are suffer from very bad Ukrainian's nationalists.
- Phase three: He has sent military forces to invade Crimea to protect Russian citizens.
- Phase four: Western Europe & USA will do nothing, nobody in EU and USA want to die for Crimea.
- Phase five: (I really hope we will not see it) He will takeover remnant parts of demoralized country without any resistant after a few months.

Maybe, and then I start to think...
Manchuria '31
Ethiopia '35
Austria '38
Albania '39
So, if the above (quoted) scenario turns out to be true can we afford to do nothing? OTOH can we afford to do something?[&:]

Next was Poland.
It not end well for world

What history learn my country is never ever trust Russia government. Never.

Well, history is never simple, if poland dindnt acted like brothers against czechoslovakia in 38 (munich + vienna) and in 39 too (fighting on karpathia ukraine), well they will never have danzig dilema and resulting war.
It was only logical conclusion you cooperated with another power against your neighbor ? well, no one ever todl taht your acomplice can plot against you with someone else.