Ukraine 2014

[NakedWeasel]

Given the liberal nature of many Wisconson-ites, I'd welcome that... [;)]

But anyway, I'd agree with you, it is indeed a contentious issue. Perhaps it should be a one-off type of thing. "Everybody who want's off the bus, or is even thinking of getting off the bus, better do so now. This is your last call for getting off the bus." Take a census, issue every Ukrainian that does not intend to be Ukrainian a one-way ticket to Crimea, or Russia, and be done with them. No take-backs. The Ukraine absorbs their property, and locks down their territory from further incursions and annexation. As a matter of course, I'd supply the Ukraine with all the light weapons it needs to maintain a very dangerous militia. Make Russia pay in buckets of blood for any more Ukrainian territory they think should be "liberated".

Ukraine needs to accept it's loss of Crimea, and man up/stand up for the rest of the territory it still has. The EU, and NATO should help it do so, and move forward towards a brighter future.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Demuder
I have read this article, I think someone had posted a link to it earlier in this thread, it is a well constructed analysis with several well made arguments. However it demonstrates exactly one of my points, that western analysts and opinion makers only take into account their own interests and suggest action only based on whether it would serve those interests.

I don't follow - which western analysts and opinion makers do you mean? The writers of the leader, or someone else? The Economist is a publication with an independent editorial staff, so I don't see how it's serving particular "interests". It's an old publication which remains widely respected for its impartiality, clarity of thought and quality of argument. "The West" is full of all sorts of people with all sorts of opinions about many things, and I don't see that it's possible to generalise in most cases.

For example, nowhere in that otherwise well researched analysis is the actual disposition of the population (the Crimean or the Ukrainian) to be found. If I remember correctly, human rights are more important than international law. And one basic human right is to be able to choose what country one belongs too.

Well, I'm not sure how the disposition of the population is particularly relevant in that, assuming self-determination is about actual free choice, not about a decision based on ethnic statistics. Human rights are irrespective of ethnicity. Crimeans' rights to self-determination should be more more or less than that of Chechens or anyone else, something Mr Putin has long opposed.

Just because Chrustschow decided 60 years ago to donate Crimea to Ukraine, doesn't mean that the Russians living there liked it. Especially so soon after a WWII where some very interesting things happened in Ukraine. But it was the Soviet Union back then, what people wanted was irrelevant.

Sure, but things change through time. Opinions change as new generations grow up with different circumstances and expectations. British settlers in North America became Americans with a very different world view through time. Ruthless Vikings and Varangians who loved raiding and pillaging became modern Scandinavians with strong positive social ideas. At least some Russian-speakers in Crimea seemed to prefer to choose modern Ukraine for reasons their parents would not appreciate, at least if this reportage has any validity.

How convincing would the arguments in that text sound if it included just one paragraph about what the almost complete majority of the population in Crimea wants ? Or even if it included another one about what the 50% of Ukraine's whole population wants ? I am first to admit that maybe I am totally mistaken (I know I am not, but for the sake of argument) and that the Crimean populace actually wants to stay with Ukraine.

How does anyone know what they want? Opinion polls may give us clues, but only a free-and-fair referendum would give us an actual answer, and there hasn't been one as yet.

If I were facing a referendum, I'd want to hear the ideas and arguments over a reasonable period of time before the vote, say a year or two. I'd want the campaigning to be fair, seen to be fair, and run by accountable people. I'd want it to be fully within the constitution of the overall country, so that a mature, sensible path to the future can be taken whatever the result. That means I'd want a responsible, accountable national government well-established before the decision to hold a local referendum is even made.

I would not want a context of occupation by mysterious soldiers roaming without insignia, strongly believed to be from one country but officially denied in what's clearly a big lie. I would not want local or imported thugs without any actual authority to storm the local administration centre, disrupting the accountable business of local government, or harassing journalists trying to get to cover the story. I would not want soldiers WITH insignia (or anyone else) beseiged in their bases, unable to take part in the debates or even the vote itself. I would not want dishonest campaigning or demonisation to occur.

I would want BOTH SIDES in the debate to base their manifestos on benefitting all locals, not favouring any one ethnicity. The core issues should be entirely about ideas and policies, not ethnic "tribal" domination. In short, if the recent events in Crimea were to happen in my homeland (irrespective of ethnicity), I would not accept that my people had a free-and-fair act of self-determination, and so it should not be accepted as legitimate by any right-thinking people. If they used such a sham to get a result I wanted, I'd feel angry that my wishes were robbed of any legitimacy, probably for a generation.

This analyst -and others- however simply ignores even mentioning that, he just focuses on what the US, NATO and EU have to lose, what Russia has to gain and most importantly, how that would set a bad example for the other international "boogieman", China.

Not so - the article pointedly explained how it would be bad for the whole world, especially the smaller countries who could now be "legitimately" bullied by larger neighbours by using the same approach, as well as the larger countries who would be worse off in such an unstable world.

Sure it is bad for NATO to have Russia with a strong foothold in the Black Sea, sure it is bad for EU to have a Russia that controls not just the source of its natural gas but also the pipe (by weakening Ukraine) but does give them the right to intervene ? And noone pauses to even consider what that intervention might mean.

Why should it be bad? If Russia were a responsible neighbour, respecting international law and human rights, it would be welcomed as a partner in making a better world. A strong, professional Russian military could help boost peacekeeping operations, and Russian culture could add to the mix of "soft power" that makes the modern world a good place to be. Most countries don't have petrochemicals, so have to get them from somewhere. Why should it be a problem buying from Russia any more than anywhere else? Russia could so easily stride the world's stage if its leadership was accountable, perhaps even visionary, and chose to take that route.

However, in my opinion anyway, at the moment it is bad. Russia isn't regarded as a good neighbour, is perceived to use its military to bully and be partisan, and and uses the petrochemical supply to change policies in other countries. It achieves what it wants by intimidation and toughness, not by persuasion or setting good examples. The "culture" of government seems more suited to the militarism and ethnic domination of 1914 than the cooperation and multiculturalism of 2014. Much more a problem than a benefit. Sure, that can be said of many other countries in the past too, but since 1991 the world has been gradually getting better and more countries, while still imperfect, have "arrived". Russia has yet to do so and is maybe going in reverse, though I hope that will change within my lifetime.

There's more to international politics than where the oil and natural gas flows and who can put what military assets in a certain region, there's actual people living there and they have the right to do as they please. In this case, they might even want to trade the sinking ship that Ukraine is, for the "motherly" hug of Mr Putin's Russia. Something that the West forgets all too often, or rather, chooses to ignore most of the time.

Instead, why not help rescue that ship instead of removing (whout legitimately asking for) a part of the hull while it's in difficulties? Now THAT would impress the world far more! [:)]

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

There's a really slippery slope here.

What if the population of, say, Wisconsin decided one day that they would rather be a part of Sweden (there are a lot of folks of Swedish decent there)? Should they be able to do that? Should the US Federal Gov't, or anyone else for that matter, accept an informal referendum, even if it accurately reflected the wishes of the inhabitants, as binding? Would it then be OK for the Swedish Army to roll in and plant a flag in the middle of Green Bay, declaring the whole place annexed!

JD

With those arguments, you could be a politician!

The right to self determination is a huge tenant of international law and the UN. Many in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine felt very disenfranchised with their federal government, and felt that the government of Russia would serve them better. The issues arising from this are, regardless of popular opinion that Russia sent troops into a sovereign nation. Russia then proceeded to suppress any voices opposed to the "popular opinion". Even if it is what the Crimean Public wanted, it's still Putin giving the bird to the international community as a whole.

Your US example is a bit far fetched and a bit of a hyperbole. The US has a pretty well established history for dealing with secession, and even when states feel pretty disenfranchised by the federal government, they don't usually secede. Texas didn't leave after the 2012 election!

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam
Texas didn't leave after the 2012 election!

Which isn't to say a very great many of us didn't try. Proudly, I was among the first ten thousand to sign that petition.

[dandin384]

From the NY Times:

"President Obama and the leaders of the biggest Western economies agreed on Monday to exclude President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia from the Group of 8, suspending his government’s 15-year participation in the diplomatic forum and further isolating his country."

"In a joint statement after a two-hour, closed-door meeting of the four largest economies in Europe, along with Japan and Canada, the leaders of the seven nations announced that a summit meeting planned for Sochi, Russia, in June will now be held in Brussels — without Russia’s participation."

[safedisk]

Hi

I have been lurking on the forum for a few months now picking up hints for CMANO.

Having followed the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning i have a point to make.
The general consensus is that Putin is entirely in the wrong and the west should do what it takes to contain him/Russia.

To play devils advocate,

Putin sees that the west/NATO is expanding eastwards, something it promised that it would not do, and if Ukraine joins Nato then over half the western Russian border has a potentially hostile force butting up to it.
Russia and Europe have had a tumultuous history with both France and Germany invading and almost taking Moscow.
To a Russian, why is Nato any different than European powers of the past?
I know Nato is a defensive force but that is not what Putin saw when he watched Libya get bombed back into the stone ages.

The stationing of US interceptor missiles near the Russian border (targeted at Russian ICBM/IRBM missiles?) and US bases to the West south and East.
Would not a Russian think that maybe the US is the next power to try and take Moscow?

The US has not had a good reputation for its dealings with other countries in the last decade and I have the impression as do many others that i speak to, that they would rather bomb first and maybe ask questions later.

I think the west meddling in Ukraine was Putins last straw and he had to act.
If he does nothing he will lose his Black sea port, which he needs to curb potential US actions against Syria, his Ally.
He also will appear weak in the eyes of the world and more importantly, Russians.

He had to do something to send a message and he did it in typical blunt Russian style.

I was an army brat in Germany in the 80s, 30-40 minutes drive from the east german border.
Dad was a tanker in the UK BAOR.
He taught me all about the USSR and the soviet equipment/hardware, so i know a thing or two about current forces, both east and west.

thanks.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: safedisk
Hi

I have been lurking on the forum for a few months now picking up hints for CMANO.

Hi! Welcome!

Having followed the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning i have a point to make.
The general consensus is that Putin is entirely in the wrong and the west should do what it takes to contain him/Russia.

To play devils advocate,

Putin sees that the west/NATO is expanding eastwards, something it promised that it would not do, and if Ukraine joins Nato then over half the western Russian border has a potentially hostile force butting up to it.

Well, "The West" is just a vague term now describing a bunch of states within a geographical area, who have a similar way of life and outlook. It's not an organisation, and there's no membership. It's really a subjective term, though is commonly shared. It has also changed its meaning over time, so now includes nations like Poland or the Czech Republic, once on the east side of the Iron Curtain. Indeed many people would now mean it to include Australia, NZ or Singapore. [:D]

NATO (which is a voluntary member-based organisation) has already turned down an application from Georgia, partly mindful of Russian sensibilities, and Ukraine has never even applied.

Russia and Europe have had a tumultuous history with both France and Germany invading and almost taking Moscow.

Sure, but remember those jumped-up little corporals who gave Russia such a hard time ALSO gave the other nations of Europe a hard time as well, as they used their cults of personality and vast armies to briefly create new empires, killing many millions in the process. Moscow managed to avoid occupation on both occasions, though at great cost; many European capitals did not.

Those struggles can be regarded as coming out of the earlier imperial, feudal and religious struggles that have plagued Eurasia since before written history. Very much the era of hard power when the few controlled the many. Nevertheless those other nations seem to have got over that and now peacefully cooperate pretty well. Why should Russia be any different?

To a Russian, why is Nato any different than European powers of the past?

Because it's an entirely voluntary alliance made up of many independent states, now all democracies. It is not an empire in any sense, has no mandate to grab territory, no sovereignty of its own, no means to enact laws or control people. Even external interventions require the unanimous agreement of all members. It was set up as a defensive alliance (to counter Stalin's expansionism), and its only external operations have been as a response to massive human rights violations where earlier diplomatic efforts failed. It is utterly unlike any European Power from the Age of Empires. While its function is hard power, the queue to join is very much due to soft power (or fear of someone else's hard power [;)]).

I know Nato is a defensive force but that is not what Putin saw when he watched Libya get bombed back into the stone ages.

Err... Libya didn't get bombed into the stone age, at least not by NATO. When the Arab Spring reached Libya protestors took to the streets wanting democracy. The response included firing RPGs into unarmed protestors. It escalated into major human rights violations throughout the country, and a civil war began. The UN agreed a no-fly zone, and NATO participated. They used precision munitions on C&C installations and other military assets, and the collateral damage is regarded as pretty low.

The part of Libya that most resembled stone-age destruction was the town of Misrata, as Ghadaffi's artillery wrecked the place before being pushed back. Libya is still riven with problems as many militias remain and control enclaves, Islamsists are trying to gain influence, and the usual corruption and mismanagement is everywhere to some extent. Nevertheless most observers see the situation as far less bad than under Ghadaffi, and there is still a lot of optimism for a better future.

So, why didn't Russia offer to help the no-fly zone? Logisitics, or a wish for Ghadaffi to remain in power?

The stationing of US interceptor missiles near the Russian border (targeted at Russian ICBM/IRBM missiles?) and US bases to the West south and East.
Would not a Russian think that maybe the US is the next power to try and take Moscow?

If you mean the ABM system designed to deal with any threat by Iran, the US responded to Russia's concerns by cancelling the site originally meant be in Poland and replaced with a much more limited system. Or do you mean something else?

The US has not had a good reputation for its dealings with other countries in the last decade and I have the impression as do many others that i speak to, that they would rather bomb first and maybe ask questions later.

Very true, but that's almost entirely due to one specific action by one internationally unpopular leader (and an equally unpopular ally) - the Iraq invasion.

Note that the biggest critics of that invasion were NATO members; there was a major falling out between the US and France, Germany strongly objected too, and Turkey refused to allow US forces to invade Iraq from their territory (turning down a large pot of money in the process). Well, they're now all in a position to say "told ya so!"

The stated reason of tackling WMDs was nonsense, the legality of the invasion is still contentious, and most people will agree it was just a really bad idea based on sheer hubris. It seems Russia was quite happy to sit back and watch NATO squabble and the US & UK get themselves into a lot of trouble there.

Still, the main problem was not for Russia or the coalition forces, but for the Iraqi people who have swapped a cruel, murderous despot for sectarian, venal leaders who preside over recurring bouts of religious-inspired violence. Frying pan to fire. Only Kurdistan seems to have benefitted so far.

I think the west meddling in Ukraine was Putins last straw and he had to act.

So, the EU signing a voluntary trade agreement with Ukraine is somehow meddling? The same agreement that many other countries have also chosen to do? How so? Even Russian ally Serbia is intending to join following its previous arch-rival Croatia, and the low-level mess that is Kosovo will probably be resolved if it eventually joins too. When hard power is the response to soft power, you know there's a real problem somewhere.

Remember the EU is also an entirely voluntary organisation, made up of member states. It's basically a club with many benefits of membership, such as free trade, freedom of movement, equality of citizens irrespective of ethnicity, and economic support. It has conditions of membership, such as accountability, transparency of government and responsible(-ish! [:D]) financial management. Any member state is free to leave if they don't like the conditions, though so far none have. Indeed there's a queue to join, and many other aspirants. Prior to joining they can sign trade agreements with the EU, with some immediate benefits. It's very much a "soft power" organisation, as there's no compulsion or coercion. It's attractive to many people with aspirations of a better life.

Recently, Ukraine negotiated such a trade deal, but the president (Yanukovych) then decided to cancel it. Ukraine was already in dire financial states due to many years of corruption and bad government, and to many Ukrainians this was the last straw. Protests arose in Kiev and elsewhere, and evolved into the Euromaidan movement. It's support was diverse, ranging from hard left to hard right, but mostly driven by a vast throng of ordinary people who just aspired to a better future. Their pressure eventually persuaded Yanukovych to flee, after a last-ditch attempt to salvage his position by Berkut snipers shooting the protestors. He was offically removed as president by the existing parliament (as they're entitled to do under the constitution), and elections were planned for later in the year. An interim president took over the job 'til then. Well, we know what happened next.

So, why did Putin act? Was he preempting NATO tanks rolling into Red Square and the ethnic cleansing of Russians in Simferopol?

Well, nonsense! NATO has shrunk in recent years, partly due to the recent financial crisis, and partly due to its larger members being stung by that non-NATO intervention that didn't go to plan. NATO was certainly not expecting to deploy in its eastern member states until Putin acted. Ethnic cleansing of Russians in Crimea did not happen, nor showed any signs of happening. People there (as elsewhere in Ukraine) suffered the effects of the many years of mismanagement by Kiev, not rampaging fascists.

So at what point did this become an "ethnic" issue rather than one of people vs. bad government? Part of that answer must come from outside Ukraine, as the mainstream Russian media started to refer to the Kiev protestors and EXISTING parliamentarians as Nazis. Sure, some hard-right people are there and should be regarded as a problem, but only a small minority with limited support. It's using a grain of truth to create a big lie. International law allows for interventions if human rights are being significantly abused, but that just didn't happen in Crimea. AFAIK the only Russian death was a protestor in Kiev. Fears of alleged fascists is not the same thing as actual fascists killing people. Plus, any such intervention does NOT include the right to annex.

If he does nothing he will lose his Black sea port, which he needs to curb potential US actions against Syria, his Ally.

The port was leased until 2042, long after he'll be in office, and there's no reason to suppose that wouldn't be extended thereafter. The loss of the port was absolutely not an issue at this time. Indeed if this annexation is eventually reversed, the current action will have most jeopardised its future. If your tenant kicks you out and steals the house, you might want not him to remain when you recover it. Any future legitimate referendum to join Russia may exclude the port area, just like how the UK retains bases in Cyprus or the US in Cuba.

He also will appear weak in the eyes of the world and more importantly, Russians.
He had to do something to send a message and he did it in typical blunt Russian style.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there - his perception of what his role should be seems to entail repeatedly appearing to be tough and nationalistic, rather than fair and responsible. As mentioned earlier, the culture of his government seems to be much more 1914 than 2014.

[jtoatoktoe]

Russia's claim of the ABM System was a threat was always silly as it was always too small of a battery to realistically even put a dent in a full scale attack. Russia likes to whine because that's what the Russian Government likes to do. In the meantime always votes based on old Soviet lines and supports the dictators of the world who seek to abuse their own people with violence.
But I do love my Russian Women...lord do I!!!

[Sardaukar]

This is interesting (from Vladimir Ryzhkov, a State Duma deputy from 1993 to 2007,a political analyst.):

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/a ... 96779.html

Several years ago, I traveled to the taiga in the republic of Altai with a former KGB officer who had worked in military propaganda during the war in Afghanistan. While we drank tea beside the campfire one night, he described in detail the principles of military propaganda. Today, I see that the Kremlin is implementing all of those principles in its information campaign surrounding the Ukrainian crisis.

In authoritarian countries like Russia, independent information is losing out to mass propaganda, and whole populations have become victims of brainwashing.

The main objective of war propaganda is to mobilize the support of the population — or in the case of Ukraine, an expansionist campaign. It should also demoralize the enemy and attract the sympathy and support of third countries. Widespread support among Russians for the military operations in Crimea and its ultimate annexation indicate that the Kremlin has succeeded in its first two objectives but has gained little ground on the third.

Moscow accomplished this by using seven basic methods:

First, it is necessary to convince the general population that the government is acting correctly and that the enemy is guilty of fomenting the crisis. That is why the Kremlin places the full blame for the entire Ukrainian crisis on the Maidan protesters and what it calls the Western-backed Ukrainian opposition. Moscow conspicuously leaves out the fact that former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych himself provoked the crisis by ruining the country's economy, double-dealing with the European Union and engaging in corrupt deals while also permitting extreme corruption among members of his family and inner circle.

To incite hatred for the enemy and deflect attention away from Yanukovych's flaws, the Kremlin says the new government in Kiev, dominated by the main opposition groups, is linked to everything that is despised and vilified in Russia: fascists, extremists, the U.S. and the West in general. It is necessary to paint the Western enemy as the aggressor.

Second, the Kremlin created myths about the terrible persecutions of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, particularly in Crimea. Federation Council speaker Valentina Matviyenko even came up with a story about victims of such aggression that nobody has been able to corroborate, saying there were casualties among locals in Simferopol from a Kiev-backed attempt to take over a police building. The claim was never verified.
The main idea behind such claims is to find just the right balance between truth and fiction. Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels once said that if you add one-fourth of the truth to three-fourths of a lie, the people will believe you. Hitler and Stalin applied the principles and techniques of war propaganda on a national scale.

Third, the enemy must be demonized. Just about anything will work, from alleging that one of the leaders of the opposition, acting Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, is a Scientologist, or showing medical records that another leader was treated for a psychological disorder. NTV and other state-controlled television stations have been at the forefront in spreading these smear campaigns.
If an actual radical or nationalist can be found among the enemy's ranks, such as Right Sector leader Dmitry Yarosh, this is like manna from heaven for propagandists. Although they represent fringe factions, they are turned into the face of the enemy. The entire opposition, which in reality includes a wide range of moderate forces, is presented as "fascist" and "neo-Nazi."

Fourth, the authorities always disguise their aggressive actions as a humanitarian mission. "We have to protect defenseless Russians at the hands of fascists. They are in danger of being beaten and killed," propagandists say.

Fifth, the Kremlin has attributed its own cynical methods to the enemy. For example, if Moscow intends to annex part of a brotherly, neighboring country, it must first accuse the U.S. and the authorities in Kiev of striving for world domination and hegemony, while depriving Russia of its ancestral territories and its righftful sphere of influence in its own backyard.

Sixth, the authorities must present all of their actions as purely legal and legitimate, and the actions of the enemy as gross violations of international law. That is why President Vladimir Putin refers to the "legitimate and inherent right of Crimeans to self-determination" — the same right he strongly denied to the people of Chechnya and Kosovo.
According to this logic, the parliament's unanimous vote to strip Yanukovych of his authority on Feb. 22 was illegal, while the referendum for secession in Crimea — which violated the Ukrainian Constitution — is completely legal and legitimate.

Seventh, the success of war propaganda depends entirely on its totalitarian approach. The authorities must shut down every independent media outlet capable of identifying and exposing the propagandists' lies. That is why Ukraine blocked Russian television. It also explains why Moscow is cracking down on Dozhd television and why it recently replaced the head of Lenta.ru with a ­Kremlin-friendly editor-in-chief.
Information warfare is well known throughout the world and is used by all leading countries. The U.S. government successfully used the same principles when it bombed Yugoslavia and invaded Grenada, Panama and Iraq. The difference, of course, is that the U.S. government does not own mainstream media outlets, so their ability to manipulate the truth is less effective.

Take, for example, the Iraqi invasion in 2003. Within a relatively short time period after the invasion was initiated, leading Western media went the complete other direction by criticizing the U.S. government for misleading the public on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were never found. This self-correction process does not occur in Russia, where the main media outlets are state-controlled.

In authoritarian countries like Russia, independent information is losing out to mass propaganda, and whole populations have become victims of brainwashing. Politicians speak about the need for peace even while stirring up war hysteria. And that means the likelihood of war is far closer and more real than many might imagine.

[NakedWeasel]

I too always found that line about ABM's being targeted at Russian ICBM's to be to be an utterly pathetic argument. How exactly can a purely defensive, kinetic energy missile be targeted at an un-launched ICBM? [:D] I mean, if your're going to do a comedy bit, at least wear your clown shoes. And don't get mad when I laugh at you...

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: jtoatoktoe
Russia's claim of the ABM System was a threat was always silly as it was always too small of a battery to realistically even put a dent in a full scale attack.

This is true, and at the same time irrelevant.

Dent a Russian full scale attack? No.

Dent an attack by the handful of surviving missiles launched in retaliation after a US first-strike has wiped out the bulk of the Russian ICBM/SLBM force? Very likely.

Is the US able to mount such an attack? Read here: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/Index.asp (Chapter 4 especially).

Does the US _intent_ to perform such an attack? Probably not, but the Russians, being pragmatists, deal with capabilities, not intentions. The latters shift on a whim.

And that, in a nutshell, is why the Russians are hostile towards US missile defence. In their eyes, it reduces the credibility of retaliation, and therefore deterrence.

You may laugh at this but the Russians don't.

[AlmightyTallest]

Thanks for the link Sunburn, some sobering stuff there in Chapter 4.

[ExNusquam]

That link is fascinating Sunburn,thanks!

[NakedWeasel]

Thanks for that link. Bookmarked.

[mikkey]

Very interesting link, thanks Sunburn

[histgamer]

So in 30-40 years when demographics have shifted more would it be ok for a referendum in the southwest to take the states of New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and Southern California (not as state I know) and remove them from the US and give them back to Mexico? After they were part of Mexico for a long time.

Also with regards to the last few posts talking about Russian pragmatism regarding the threat of a US pre-preemptive attack I wonder if their fears or planning has changed at all now that the US's most capable land based ICBM for hard target kills was retired by Bush 5 or 6 years ago now (Peacekeeper)despite SALT II never being ratified.

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Given the liberal nature of many Wisconson-ites, I'd welcome that... [;)]

But anyway, I'd agree with you, it is indeed a contentious issue. Perhaps it should be a one-off type of thing. "Everybody who want's off the bus, or is even thinking of getting off the bus, better do so now. This is your last call for getting off the bus." Take a census, issue every Ukrainian that does not intend to be Ukrainian a one-way ticket to Crimea, or Russia, and be done with them. No take-backs. The Ukraine absorbs their property, and locks down their territory from further incursions and annexation. As a matter of course, I'd supply the Ukraine with all the light weapons it needs to maintain a very dangerous militia. Make Russia pay in buckets of blood for any more Ukrainian territory they think should be "liberated".

Ukraine needs to accept it's loss of Crimea, and man up/stand up for the rest of the territory it still has. The EU, and NATO should help it do so, and move forward towards a brighter future.

[NakedWeasel]

In 30-40 years, when I'm dead, ask me again. Perhaps the question will rouse me with it's relevance. kidding. I guess we'll just have to see how far that demographic actually shifts, right?

The reason the Peacekeeper's could be retired in the first place, was that the cost in their production, basing, upkeep, maintenance, upgrades, etc. far outweighed their value as a deterrent (vengeance) weapon. The Peacekeapers were only good for countervalue- Armageddon-style population-incineration. They were the ultimate terror weapon. And as they were immobile, they were the Soviet's primary target. The REAL deterrence in America's nuclear arsenal, are the Trident missile subs and cruise missiles launched by strategic bombers. The air and sea-based legs of the triad are the biggest threat to Russia, because they are the most survivable. The USAF and Navy provide a second and third-strike option that would eventually vaporize whatever the first wave of land-based ICBM's missed.

The Russians know this, have always known this. They developed their most powerful "defensive" weapons- their own ABM's in Moscow, and the S-300 series of missiles to shoot down bomber-launched attack and cruise missiles. Which, by the way, makes them as guilty of sidestepping the ABM treaty as the US is. We could say that their Gazelle and Gorgon ABM's were threatening the delicate balance of peace provided by the MAD doctrine. Arguably, doubly so, given they were/are equipped with nuclear warheads.

So yeah, I stand by my statement, it's a pathetic argument whose only reason for existence is to further the posturing, obfuscation, and bluster that is synonymous with Russian propaganda and rhetoric. I've witnessed forty years of it so far, and I should be able to call it what it is by name when I smell it.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
Also with regards to the last few posts talking about Russian pragmatism regarding the threat of a US pre-preemptive attack I wonder if their fears or planning has changed at all now that the US's most capable land based ICBM for hard target kills was retired by Bush 5 or 6 years ago now (Peacekeeper)despite SALT II never being ratified.

The retirement of the Peacekeeper was made possible after the Trident IIs were equipped with the W88 hard-target warhead. Its widespread deployment has actually provided the US with a much stronger hard-counterforce capability than when Peacekeeper was the primary hard-target instrument. The reduced flight time also favors a first-strike attack.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
The Russians know this, have always known this. They developed their most powerful "defensive" weapons- their own ABM's in Moscow, and the S-300 series of missiles to shoot down bomber-launched attack and cruise missiles. Which, by the way, makes them as guilty of sidestepping the ABM treaty as the US is. We could say that their Gazelle and Gorgon ABM's were threatening the delicate balance of peace provided by the MAD doctrine. Arguably, doubly so, given they were/are equipped with nuclear warheads.

Some points:

1) The ABM treaty specifically excluded SAMs and cruise missiles from its accounting rules. So neither the development of advanced strategic SAMs like Patriot and S-300P/V nor the deployment of theater/strategic cruise missiles was a violation of the treaty.

2) The Moscow ABM system, as well as the US equivalent (Safeguard/Sentinel) were expressly permitted by the ABM treaty as they were local-defence systems. (The US administration in the 1980s consistently accused Soviet leadership of covertly constructing a nationwide ABM system; these allegations proved to be false. The Soviets _did _ experiment with systems intended for nationwide deployment in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but not in the 80s). The new US BMD system, being a nationwide-coverage system, would have been a violation of the treaty (which is why the US government withdrew from it prior to its deployment).

3) In the past, both the US Safeguard ABM system (in the brief duration of its existence) and the Moscow ABM system used nuclear warheads (enhanced radiation warheads in fact, similar to the "neutron bomb"). The Moscow ABM system currently uses only the 53T6 Gazelle interceptor with a conventional warhead.

[Demuder]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
So in 30-40 years when demographics have shifted more would it be ok for a referendum in the southwest to take the states of New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and Southern California (not as state I know) and remove them from the US and give them back to Mexico? After they were part of Mexico for a long time.

I understand you are trying to be sarcastic, but let's suppose that what you describe indeed happens sometime down the line. In fact, let's say it happens 150 years from now, so that the problem has some time to brew and fester.

Now try to imagine that when the crises breaks out, China and India sail in with their -by that time- mighty fleets, and say "hey boys, WE know what you should do about it, because WE found this book of International Law in our back pockets". How would that make the Mexicans or the US feel ?

I am not trying to say that Texas and Arizona should go to Mexico, I am not even saying that what Russia did was right. What I am saying is that sometimes -almost always in fact- the World Police intervene with no regard for the intricate social and political circumstances that lead to the crisis, but only because of their economic and strategic interests.

Just today, I read an article in the paper that the US and EU should organize their efforts (non military ones, thank God) against Russia, so that the EU secures a safe and steady energy source. Now, being Greek and part of the EU, I am all for a steady energy supply for the future. But how does that give me the right to have a say in what Crimea does in regards to who it decides it belongs to ? It is just as absurd as China decreeing that Texas and Arizona should stay with the USA (in your example above) under the pretense of International Law, so that Mexico doesn't increase it's industrial base and suddenly becomes a contender in manufacturing.