Black sea game

[Childress]

Acting fully according to self-determination, the rational solution seems to split the Ukraine with the Crimea and the Don area going to Russia, and the West of the Ukraine becoming a state within the EU sphere, under protection of NATO if necessary.

Well stated, Eric. 100% agree.

[iMolestCats]

Russia did/does want the Ukraine to remain united - it wasn't the Russians who paid for and instigated the coup. Therefore, it is far more the obligation the parties who did pay for and plan that usurpation of power to fix what they broke. Instead, they're absolutely convinced of their right to control events - no-one else is a stake-holder, no-one else is to be party to the negotiation of the outcome. Win at all costs, the means justifies the ends.

Absolutely ****ing mental.

You're joking right? Of course russia wants the ukraine to be divided, they manufactured almost all of the pro-russian riots after their puppet was thrown out of office. As you will probably be suprised to learn that most of the protesters were mostly russian citizens. They want their bases protected by all mean necessary so they manufactre protestes and go in under the guise of protecting the local populatin. Heh, oldest trick in the book

Also are trying to say that the US paid for the so-called "coup"?

[Aragorn2002]

Over the last decades of independent Ukraine, the democratic process resulted in swings from pro-Western to pro-Russian and back, with both sides having about equal number of supporters.

The West has been trying to bring Ukraine under the NATO umbrella (often deeply hidden within the proposals) for many years now, and one should understand that that is not acceptable for Russia. Ukraine as an independent nation in its full current extent is historically not completely self evident.

The current full support of the West for the government of the uprising can certainly be interpreted as strong aggression towards Russia and also goes against the wishes of a substantial part of the Ukrainian population.

Everybody who ignores these aspects in the current situation is just as much a warmonger as Jacquinot.

Well said, Erik. But mark my words, Putin won't stop here. In fact he has just begun. Let's us also not forget the war against Georgia for example. This is a man with a plan.

Yesterday evening I did watch a discussion on the BBC, the program was called "The pity of War", after the book (title based upon a poem by Wilfred Owen), between the historian Niall Ferguson and other historians about whether WW 1 could/should have been avoided and whether the outcome did justify the sacrifice. There are lessons to be learned there.

I'm not saying Putin must be allowed to do as he pleases, in fact I'm convinced that we are heading for another (hopefully cold) war, but let's chose our actions carefully, because the west can't afford another huge, self-destructing conflict. But we certainly have to start thinking about preparing ourselves and our friends and allies for the difficult times ahead.

[Battlefront.com]

Russia did/does want the Ukraine to remain united - it wasn't the Russians who paid for and instigated the coup. Therefore, it is far more the obligation the parties who did pay for and plan that usurpation of power to fix what they broke.

Russia overtly supported Yanucovych, an obvious criminal. So at the very worst the West was simply counter balancing Russia's interference.

Instead, they're absolutely convinced of their right to control events - no-one else is a stake-holder, no-one else is to be party to the negotiation of the outcome. Win at all costs, the means justifies the ends.

100% agree, provided you are talking about the only nation that has militarily violated Ukraine's territorial integrity contrary to the 1994 security agreement and various other agreements.

Let me remind you that the entire premise of the game we are now discussing is based on the premise that Russia, not the West, is interested in territorial expansion through any means necessary. The storyline we came up with was not pulled out of thin air, but from a serious study of reality. The reality is that Russia is being true to it's repeated statements over the last 2 decades that it would never, ever allow Ukraine to leave Russia's "orbit". Ukraine's right to self determination has never been a part of Russia's interests.

We are not surprised by either Russia's actions or methods. We can prove that because we came up with the game's background well ahead of the revolution in Kiev. This should beg the obvious question... why is Battlefront not surprised? Because anybody who bothered to look at the historical record and had an ounce of sense about how that might carry forward would come to similar conclusions we came to. And that is Russia, by hook or by crook, will not let Ukrainians determine their own future.

I do not believe in the old saying that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. I am, however, a big fan of the thinking that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to be surprised by current events.

Steve

[Childress]

Russia overtly supported Yanucovych, an obvious criminal. So at the very worst the West was simply counter balancing Russia's interference.

Yanukovych's first attempt at the presidency in 2004 was invalidated by their Supreme Court due to electoral fraud. His 2010 victory was declared legitimate by international monitors. So who's to blame? He is a crook but the Ukranians, essentially, admittedly, the Russian speaking eastern half, voted the SOB in.

Citizens in the East and the Crimea want to re-integrate with Russia which at the present time is Switzerland compared to Ukraine. Russia's more prosperous and they offer, iirc, a business friendly a 12% flat tax (viz Gerard Depardieu). I'm sure there are plenty of fine folk in Ukraine but their taste in politicians...

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Assuming his ends peacefully which we all hope it does I see the Vrimea being annexed to Russia. Already, de facto a done deal

The future of Eastern Ukraine will be up for discussion. One of two thhs appears likely in this case. Firstly Eastern Ukraine could be ceded to Russia u return for which Russia must accept the rest of Ukraine joins NATO and the EU. Alternatively the same thing happens in exchange for recognition of Russian annexation of the Crimea. Ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine have their rights enshrined in an internatonal agreement but continue to be governed byKiev.

However ethnic Russians in Eastern Uraine and non Russians in the Crimea get dual nationality enabling them to choose to emigrate to Russia or Ukraine any time hey choose

And there I think we would have a diplomatic settlement that gives each party something while ensuring international security. Russia will have to pay some penalty for their actions so they think more carefully next time.

[Childress]

Note the Crimea:

free image hosting

[Tank Hunter]

Russian invasion of Crimea is violation of the international law but that same law has unfortunately been dismounted slowly by us in the west for the last 15 years. Remember that USA/NATO has been involved in actions against several sovereign countries. The obvious are Serbia ‘99, Iraq ‘03 and Libya ’11. All these countries are sovereign nations recognized by the UN. All countries were run by dictators who were abusing their own people so from a humanitarian standpoint the actions were correct but from a legal point of view they were shady to say the least.

In ’99 NATO intervened in Kosovo were a rebelled population was fighting the central government (police and army) with the desire to establish an independent state. There was a UN resolution but NATO went in and gave away part of a sovereign country to its’ local majority. The Albanians were a clear majority in the area which is pretty similar to the Russian situation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Should these Russians rise and claim independence and the central government in Ukraine decides to put down rebellion with force you’ll have the same situation as in Kosovo in 99. If the Russians intervene in order to stop the violence could we really blame them for violating any laws?

In 03 Iraq was invaded in order to disarm Iraq from WMDs, the invasion was done without proper resolution and no proof has been brought forward to this day that Iraq possessed such weapons at the time of the invasion. So a sovereign country invaded by several other countries must be a breach of international law especially if the reason for the intervention turns out to be false?

There was a resolution for Libya but as it turned out several NATO countries breached it by supporting the rebels with arms thus directly affecting the fighting on the ground.

Don’t get me wrong, personally all three countries needed to have their leaders removed but at the same time we opened Pandora’s Box. It’s OK now to intervene as long as you claim that you are protecting civilians or making sure that a totalitarian leader is not a threat to yourself and his neighbors. In countries where there are minorities it’s easy to stir the hornets’ nest and make sure that few incidents happen were some civilians lose their life.

It is going to be extremely difficult to come to any kind of diplomatic agreements between West and Russia after these events and that is not good for overall world peace.

[Battlefront.com]

Unfortunately it is true that the West's actions have weakened some of the laws. However, Russia signed the 1994 accord guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for giving up it's nuclear weapons. At the very least, Russia is in violation of their legal commitments under the treaty. At the very worst, Russia is actually "stealing" a piece of Ukraine for it's own. No matter what one wants to say about Iraq, it's territorial integrity is intact.

Steve

[z1812]

The United States claims to act in the interest of encouraging democracy and fair elections.

In 2010 Yanukovych was elected in the Ukraine fairly and democratically as witnessed by independent international observers.

Germany, France, and Poland brokered an agreement that, among other things, would guaranty early elections and amnesty for protestors. Sadly that was not to be as the opposition deposed Yanukovych, the legally elected president. Russia had the pretext needed to enter the Crimea.

America acts quite frequently outside international law when they feel their national security is compromised and Russia has done the same.

Bear in mind it is 7,000 miles by air to Iraq from the U.S. and even further to Afghanistan. It is just a few steps across the border from Russia to the Ukraine.

As we can see, where the U.S. and Russia are concerned, International Law and fair elections only seem applicable when they further the aspirations and ambitions of the interested party.

Aside from the possibility of military action, what bothers me the most is the sanctimonious posturing and omissions of fact from both Russia and the U.S.

[z1812]

[quote=Battlefront.com; At the very worst, Russia is actually "stealing" a piece of Ukraine for it's own. No matter what one wants to say about Iraq, it's territorial integrity is intact.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

com Unfortunately it is true that the West's actions have weakened some of the laws. However, Russia signed the 1994 accord guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for giving up it's nuclear weapons. At the very least, Russia is in violation of their legal commitments under the treaty. At the very worst, Russia is actually "stealing" a piece of Ukraine for it's own. No matter what one wants to say about Iraq, it's territorial integrity is intact.

True but, short of a war we are going to have to deal with the facts on the ground. The Russians have the Crimea and are not likely to be shifted from it without a waragainst a nuclear power. Whether Crimea is worth that risk is doubtful to say the least,

The rest of Ukraine may be another matter. Putin would be well advised to negotiate on that and could offer some diplomaatic concessios on the Vrimea in return for a better deal for Eastern Ukraine's Russians. For istancwe, as I suggested earlier ethnic Russians and Crimean Tartars could be allowed dual citizenship of both Russia and Ukraine or move to either country if they prefer

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Note the Crimea:

free image hosting

Hence the suggested dual citizenship.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

However a big stumbling block would be the Eastern Ukranian gasfields as can be seen on the map in the link. I suspect that the crisis is really about who has access to those gasfields. Putin clearly wants to have those gas fields most of which are in the area occupied by those etnic Russians either n the Crimea or he Donbass region http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26495378

[z1812]

@LUCASWILLENO5

The post you quoted as being mine, in your post #87, is actually Steve's from Battlefront, post #84. Please edit your post to reflect this.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

True but, short of a war we are going to have to deal with the facts on the ground. The Russians have the Crimea and are not likely to be shifted from it without a waragainst a nuclear power. Whether Crimea is worth that risk is doubtful to say the least,

The rest of Ukraine may be another matter. Putin would be well advised to negotiate on that and could offer some diplomaatic concessios on the Vrimea in return for a better deal for Eastern Ukraine's Russians. For istancwe, as I suggested earlier ethnic Russians and Crimean Tartars could be allowed dual citizenship of both Russia and Ukraine or move to either country if they prefer

As requested by z1812 my qoute of his comments in Post 87 I wish to make it clear that his qoute was in response to the original comments of Steve (Battlefront Admnistrator) in ost 84. There was no intention to in any way misrepresent z1812 or his personal political views as he is clearly not responsible, in any way for the qouted comment in question.

[Battlefront.com]

Mistaken quotation noted! As such I will not edit Lucas' original post as that could make things more confusing since the follow ups wouldn't make sense.

True but, short of a war we are going to have to deal with the facts on the ground. The Russians have the Crimea and are not likely to be shifted from it without a waragainst a nuclear power. Whether Crimea is worth that risk is doubtful to say the least,

This is perhaps true from a quick fix mindset. However, there are other options. The best one is patience.

The Cold War's biggest lesson is a reminder that the old saying "all empires fall" is still applicable to today's world. The less inherently stable the empire is, the quicker it falls. The Soviet system of terror and corruption, both internally and over it's neighboring client states, was doomed to fail at some point. Which is exactly what it did.

While it was a terrible waste of Human potential and capital to spend half a century in an armed standoff, it would have been much worse if the Cold War went into even a non-nuclear conflict. A nuclear conflict would likely mean us not even having this conversation, so I can not think of anything worse than that.

What won the Cold War for the West (and I argue the world) was patience. Nothing in this world is permanent. OK, so it is likely that for a time Russia will walk away with the Crimea in an attempt to maintain its old empire. I don't think there is much we can do about that since Russia seems willing to engage in a war over the Crimea while nobody else (including Ukraine itself) wants to.

Sadly, Russia has not learned from their own failed Soviet past that force and coercion don't last. By that I mean what was the first thing that all non-Russian states decided for themselves after the Soviet Union collapsed? To not be slaves to Moscow's self interests.

Think about it. When the central Soviet authority collapsed a country like Estonia could have said "in 1940 and 1944 Moscow never gave us a choice about who governed us. Now that we have a choice, we decide to stay with Moscow because they were so good to us over the past 50 years". Not only did places that the Soviets overtly invaded and annexed say goodbye to Moscow's control, but areas that had been under Russian control for 100+ years told them to take a hike and leave them alone. Even more damming, most of those newly formed and newly liberated countries deliberately sought to align themselves with their former sworn enemies in the West. Not only for better economic and political opportunities, but for protection from Russia. They feared their old oppressors would return. And you can see that fear is now justified.

What I find extremely sad is that Russia did not use the last 20 years for serious introspection. They have not, as a nation, addressed the reasons why pretty much nobody has fond thoughts about being associated with Moscow other than short term economic ties. Instead a very vocal and dominant voice within Russia has sought to continue it's propaganda war against the West, blaming it for pretty much everything. Especially it's new position in the world as a significant, but not dominant, economic and political power.

The result of this denial is a retrenchment of old Soviet and older Imperial Russian practices of dominating through force and subversion instead of genuine respect and friendship. It hasn't worked for them long term in the past, and it won't work for them this time either given enough time.

Russia is an autocracy and, as with all authoritarian states, it will eventually collapse. Just as the Soviet and Imperial systems fell. The signs of advanced stages of collapse are already evident and are, in fact, playing no small role in why Russia is behaving as it is in the Crimea. All we can do is try very hard to make sure that when the current form of Russian autocracy fails that it doesn't take the rest of us with it. To do that, we need patience.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Mistaken quotation noted! As such I will not edit Lucas' original post as that could make things more confusing since the follow ups wouldn't make sense.

This is perhaps true from a quick fix mindset. However, there are other options. The best one is patience.

The Cold War's biggest lesson is a reminder that the old saying "all empires fall" is still applicable to today's world. The less inherently stable the empire is, the quicker it falls. The Soviet system of terror and corruption, both internally and over it's neighboring client states, was doomed to fail at some point. Which is exactly what it did.

While it was a terrible waste of Human potential and capital to spend half a century in an armed standoff, it would have been much worse if the Cold War went into even a non-nuclear conflict. A nuclear conflict would likely mean us not even having this conversation, so I can not think of anything worse than that.

What won the Cold War for the West (and I argue the world) was patience. Nothing in this world is permanent. OK, so it is likely that for a time Russia will walk away with the Crimea in an attempt to maintain its old empire. I don't think there is much we can do about that since Russia seems willing to engage in a war over the Crimea while nobody else (including Ukraine itself) wants to.

Sadly, Russia has not learned from their own failed Soviet past that force and coercion don't last. By that I mean what was the first thing that all non-Russian states decided for themselves after the Soviet Union collapsed? To not be slaves to Moscow's self interests.

Think about it. When the central Soviet authority collapsed a country like Estonia could have said "in 1940 and 1944 Moscow never gave us a choice about who governed us. Now that we have a choice, we decide to stay with Moscow because they were so good to us over the past 50 years". Not only did places that the Soviets overtly invaded and annexed say goodbye to Moscow's control, but areas that had been under Russian control for 100+ years told them to take a hike and leave them alone. Even more damming, most of those newly formed and newly liberated countries deliberately sought to align themselves with their former sworn enemies in the West. Not only for better economic and political opportunities, but for protection from Russia. They feared their old oppressors would return. And you can see that fear is now justified.

What I find extremely sad is that Russia did not use the last 20 years for serious introspection. They have not, as a nation, addressed the reasons why pretty much nobody has fond thoughts about being associated with Moscow other than short term economic ties. Instead a very vocal and dominant voice within Russia has sought to continue it's propaganda war against the West, blaming it for pretty much everything. Especially it's new position in the world as a significant, but not dominant, economic and political power.

The result of this denial is a retrenchment of old Soviet and older Imperial Russian practices of dominating through force and subversion instead of genuine respect and friendship. It hasn't worked for them long term in the past, and it won't work for them this time either given enough time.

Russia is an autocracy and, as with all authoritarian states, it will eventually collapse. Just as the Soviet and Imperial systems fell. The signs of advanced stages of collapse are already evident and are, in fact, playing no small role in why Russia is behaving as it is in the Crimea. All we can do is try very hard to make sure that when the current form of Russian autocracy fails that it doesn't take the rest of us with it. To do that, we need patience.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I have also PM'd z1812in case he has certain professional issues.

Anyway, moving on Steve raise a number of excellent points. The immediate problem however is going to be deterring Russia from invading Eastern Ukraine (the Russian speaking magority and the location of most of the gas fields) It is likely to be the gas fields that Puti really wants for economic reasons - the Russian economy might not be in as good a shape as we thought.

Since Russia already has effectively annexed Crimea it is going to be hard o get them out. Economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure might work in the long term and Putin certainly cannot feel rewarded for his actions. If he is then, like Hitler in the late 1930s he will feel emboldeed to ake further actions

1 He creates issues in Eastern Ukraine to justify sending the military in. In fact already happening at least in regard to the early stages

2 If Putin is allowed to get away with that then who is next? Probably the rest of Ukraie. Putin ca certainly manufacture a suitable crisis and takes over some of the best agricultural land in Europe.

3 After that, assumig the West continues a policy of appeasement the the next victims of an ever more emboldened Putimight be Moldova and Roumania, he Baltic States or Poland. Who are NATO members at which point Article 4 comes into play and we go to war with Russia

The correct strategy for the Wes is to deter Putin in the way the old Soviet Union was deterred in the Cold War

Now it has been argued that Putin is not Hitler. And there is truth uin this. He is not Hitler yet But, if left unchecked as Hitler was he may very well become one. I think Steve and I both agree that Crimea is a done deal for now at least. But do we draw the line at the rest of Ukraine. If we do NATO membership for Ukraine might well be the best way of preventing more agression from Putin as well as punishing him for his actions over Crimea.

The question that must now be decided is where the West draws the lie and how firm we are going to be about that. However, the lesson of the 1930s is that the earlier you take such firm action, and, at this point that action does not have to involve going to war However the longer we leave it the more likely war is, It is also likely that war will be worse than the one you might have fought earlier. Indeed, at this point Putin can still be deterred, In which case there is time for Steve's strategy to work as a similar strategy worked during the Cold War

Si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace prepare for war

[ScoutPL]

The United States claims to act in the interest of encouraging democracy and fair elections.

In 2010 Yanukovych was elected in the Ukraine fairly and democratically as witnessed by independent international observers.

Germany, France, and Poland brokered an agreement that, among other things, would guaranty early elections and amnesty for protestors. Sadly that was not to be as the opposition deposed Yanukovych, the legally elected president. Russia had the pretext needed to enter the Crimea.

America acts quite frequently outside international law when they feel their national security is compromised and Russia has done the same.

Bear in mind it is 7,000 miles by air to Iraq from the U.S. and even further to Afghanistan. It is just a few steps across the border from Russia to the Ukraine.

As we can see, where the U.S. and Russia are concerned, International Law and fair elections only seem applicable when they further the aspirations and ambitions of the interested party.

Aside from the possibility of military action, what bothers me the most is the sanctimonious posturing and omissions of fact from both Russia and the U.S.

I am not sure how anyone can continue to defend a "leader" who continuously raped his country's coffers and steals his people blind. There is plenty of evidence that Y did just that. A legally elected president of the US who acted the way he did would probably end up eating a bullet (we have a lot of guns in this country, in case you haven't heard).

I have been rather personally involved in Afghanistan and Iraq over the years so I feel I can speak with some authority on those topics. My personal opinion first. I had no issue going after the Taliban. I was never a supporter of the decision to go into Iraq. Given that, I have also become convinced that conducting nation building in both countries was a huge mistake as well. However, I don't feel feel either conflict has ended in a total waste of lives and American assets.

We went after the Taliban because they offered sanctuary and support to a group of men who killed 3000+ people ( a good portion who were actually citizens of other countries). If that's not a national security issue demanding some sort of action I don't know what is. We went into Iraq claiming wmd. I think all can agree that was a huge mistake (either in intel collection or public relations, it's still not clear). I would argue it was for oil, which for good or bad, is also a very strong national security issue in this country. However, the end result of both of those wars has been a relatively free society that is capable of writing their own future. In the end it might not be the future we as Americans would have liked to see, but it will be their own, to do with as they will. Would Saddam or his natural successor have provided the Iraqi people that opportunity? Would the Taliban have stepped down and held open elections? Yes we can debate, argue, and regret the paths that the US govt chose to get us here but I don't think it's all been for naught. I don't see Russia/Putin being so open minded or democratically focused (or sanctimonious if you wanna put it that way).

Now, Putin. Does possibly having to pay rent for a Black Sea port or access rights to Ukrainian pipelines justify seizing a part of a sovereign nation, regardless of its current internal issues? Well, obviously we have people on both sides of that argument.

I would also comment that due to the world economic situation and interdependence that we will probably never see an armed conflict on the scale some keep lamenting here. Yes, currently some EU countries are hesitant to go along with sanctions due to their own reliance on Russian resources. In five years will that be the case? Ten? If I were Germany I would be seriously looking for alternative sources at this point. No country wants to be beholden to a dictator like Putin and he has certainly shown Western Europe his true colors now.

Even if the west was to come down hard on Russia would Russia go to war over it? They lack the economic ability to go to war on a full scale for very long. Today's wars are not fought by masses of peasants riding blocks of steel with a cannon on top. Not unless you just want to run up the body count. I would reference any of the US's major fights in Iraq or Afghanistan as an example. How long could Russia field an air force, navy, and a few armored corps before it ran out of fuel, food, spare parts etc? Especially once it was economically isolated by the rest of the world? Would all of that be worth them choosing the nuclear option, given all we know about the long term effects of such a decision? (Unfortunately, they have plenty of evidence within their own borders of the nuclear horrors that exist.) I would argue they would not. The country would implode before it got that bad.

No the next "big one" will be fought with economics and trade agreements. The majority will just shut out the troublemaker and he will wither on the vine. It just has to get bad enough for the majority to come together and see the need.

[Alan8325]

No the next "big one" will be fought with economics and trade agreements. The majority will just shut out the troublemaker and he will wither on the vine. It just has to get bad enough for the majority to come together and see the need.

Until "nations" don't have that much say in the matter anymore. There is a trend towards decentralized information access with developments such as mesh networks, satellite Internet service providers and new trans-ocean cables bypassing the US. Decentralized and unsanctionable currencies/stores of value such as Bitcoin will make international sanctions difficult or impossible to enforce. 3d printing will decentralize manufacturing of most things including metal and chemical products. Solar power and battery technology is coming down enough in cost that it's increasingly possible to live "off grid" with full power. This is definitely bad for authoritarian regimes.

The one thing that nations have going for them is increasing surveillance capabilities. I don't believe the next "big one" will even be between nations at all, but between nations and non-nation groups with shared interest.

[Buzz]

ScoutPL "No the next "big one" will be fought with economics and trade agreements. The majority will just shut out the troublemaker and he will wither on the vine. It just has to get bad enough for the majority to come together and see the need."

If the US oil and gas industy amped up the supply to drive oil and gas prices ... lower than Russia could tolerate... it might get bad enough for the majority and the oligarchs... the very rich businessman with a great deal of political influence.... to see the need and act?

[John Kettler]

Childress,

Speaking of Nikita, did you know one of his granddaughters, Nina Khrushcheva, is a major Russian scholar and was interviewed on NatGeo's site? "Is Putin Reassembling" will get you there, and her insights and perspectives are fascinating.

This article talks about the possibility of Ukraine creating dirty bombs in fairly short order,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-neo-nazi-party-threatens-russia-with-nuclear-weapons-well-regain-our-nuclear-status/5371524

but my understanding, from people who know such things, is that, contrary to various statements, Ukraine still has some nuclear weapons. Whether Ukraine has nukes or not, it all comes down to perception. And how that perception shapes or doesn't shape planned military actions. INTELLIHUB doesn't even talk about fringe group nuclear threats. It talks about nuclear threats against Russia from Ukraine's interim leader. Not a link. I think, though, that the INTELLIHUB writer may be a bit confused, for Mikhail Golovko isn't the interim head of Ukraine, but an MP and head of the Svoboda Party.

Ukraine leader threatens Russia with nuclear weapons

INTELLIHUB screwed up. Badly. Mikhail Golovko's nowhere to be seen in the official roster of Ukraine's Cabinet.

http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/officialcategory?cat_id=247077618

Regards,

John Kettler

[LukeFF]

Russia is an autocracy and, as with all authoritarian states, it will eventually collapse. Just as the Soviet and Imperial systems fell. The signs of advanced stages of collapse are already evident and are, in fact, playing no small role in why Russia is behaving as it is in the Crimea. All we can do is try very hard to make sure that when the current form of Russian autocracy fails that it doesn't take the rest of us with it. To do that, we need patience.

Good point. I personally don't think there will be fundamental political change in Russia until the last crop of leadership that grew up and got their start during the Soviet era is done and gone. Even then, change is likely to be very slow or in the direction the West may not want it to go.

[John Kettler]

Russia's in a bad, and worsening, geostrategic situation. Poland is now not only a NATO member, but is pushing for the same kind of missile defense which Romania, also a NATO member, is having built there by the US.

http://www.mae.ro/en/node/2161

Granted, Romania wasn't exactly the anchor of the Warsaw Pact back when, but it is well positioned to become part of an ABM shield covering much of NATO territory. Such a shield will first be effective against such threats as the SS-21 Tochka, followed by the SS-26 Iskander family. Such an ABM capability will considerably cramp Russia's style, effectively negating a great deal of technical effort, resources, time and money spent to provide a credible nonnuclear missile threat, including nonnuclear EMP warhead delivery via Iskander E. This with no regard whatsoever for any later deployment of a full-blown ICBM defense.

Were Ukraine to join NATO (been trying for years) then Moscow's looking at the strong likelihood of being defanged, with NATO next door. A daunting prospect. Rest assured, too, Russia well remembers the peculiar "thrill" the Pershing II ballistic missile caused (8 minutes to Moscow when launched from West Germany), as well as all those Thor and Jupiter missiles ringing Russia before. In Moscow's view, an effective defense by a potential foe is seen as creating the conditions for a first strike, as shown in Operation RYAN, THE top KGB and GRU intelligence priority for years, starting in late 1981.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm

CIA analysis shows that one of the key forces behind Operation RYAN was the bitter memory of Operation Barbarossa, and the determination of Gorbachev not to be caught flatfooted in the event of a planned attack.

And now Moscow is looking at the arrival soon of a US F-16 squadron (12 planes) in Poland for a requested exercise, and Lithuania will be getting 4 F-15s in-country for Baltic Sea surveillance. This is from Zee News of India, Monday, March 10, 2014. Not a link.

US deploys fighter jets to Poland, Lithuania

Moscow's actions have alarmed neighbors, who have called for help. The correlation of forces is shifting. Against Moscow. That may or may not actually be true, but that's the probable read from Moscow looking out at what's perceived as a threatening world.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Inquisition]

If I were Germany I would be seriously looking for alternative sources at this point. No country wants to be beholden to a dictator like Putin and he has certainly shown Western Europe his true colors now.

This is already happening. In the news a few days ago, some experts were talking about fracking and its opportunities. It seems as if the US could support us with a huge amount of liquid gas in the coming years.

Corcerning the Crimean Area: I also think this is a done deal. No way the Russians will pull out of the Cremean peninsula. Nonetheless, and without warmongering, I suppose NATO will draw a line in the sand in the coming weeks.

Poland in particular isn't all too happy of the Russian actions that might follow this crisis.