Black sea game

[LUCASWILLEN05]

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.

Arguably economics is what theUkraine crisis is really about.I seems the Russian ecoomy is not in great shape andall those Easter Ukranian gas fields would certainly help. Plus of course the political role of GAZPROM in supporting Putin politically. This may, and hopefully will, remain a political and economicsstruggle but shooting wars have started over this in te recent past. The First Gulf War 1990-1 being a classic example, I would argue tha the complexities of the modern world makes situations like this evermore difficult and potentialy highly dangerous as well.

[Battlefront.com]

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?

I do think trade sanctions will have a big impact on Russia's economy. It will be felt from the lowest classes to the highest. In fact, it is already being felt even without government sanctions. The Rubel is in a nosedive, their stockmarkets are tanking, and they've had to increase the interest rate by more than 2 points already. Remember, Russia is dependent upon purchasing foreign goods for several key sectors. They need foreign investment to grow. And companies and investors are already shunning Russia for strictly business reasons.

As for hurting Russia's energy grip on Europe, the US based gas and oil folks are selling another line of BS in a seemingly never ending line of BS in order to boost their profits and do NOTHING to mitigate Russia's power or the price. It's all about math:

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/john-boehners-misleading-argument-on-natural-gas-and-ukraine/

It boils down to the fact that it will take YEARS to increase capacity and that capacity will be a drop in the European bucket. It's not going to do anything except make the US energy interests richer at the expense of the environment and sensible domestic energy policies. It's as divorced from reality as the "drill baby drill" concept in the 2008 election cycle. No science behind the rhetoric.

Note that if we could flip a switch and hurt Putin's oil and gas exports, I'd be the first to suggest flipping it. Unfortunately such a switch does not exist. And there's nobody who can argue that it does with any authority.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I've said this elsewhere... what won the Cold War was patience more than anything. Autocracies eventually fail. There are plenty of signs that Russia is already heading down that road. Iran is on borrowed time too. China is well along in a long term planned transition to something resembling a democratic society. I know it's frustrating that harmful regimes don't fall quickly or easily (Assad, for example), but they will eventually fail. Give 'em enough rope and they will hang themselves.

Steve

[sburke]

You are saying this to the generation that thinks the MTV generation's attention span was too long.

Doesn't big data mean you should give me what I want before I even knew that I wanted it?

[Childress]

Contrary view from Takimag:

http://takimag.com/article/a_newer_better_cold_war_nicholas_james_pell/print

'I for one welcome our new Russian overlords'.

Money line:

The same folks who think the invasion of Iraq was “Churchillian” think there’s something sinister about Russia defending its own quite real interests right next door to itself, as opposed to some totally fabricated interests in some desolate sandpit halfway around the world.

[Lethaface]

If 60% of Crimea's population vote for 'anschluss', who are we to denounce it?

Personally I think that Putin might be the type of leader that works best for the majority of Russians today. Perhaps also better for the majority of people living in the Crimea than Timosjenko would be.

To be clear, I prefer a more democratic type of leadership. But not every 'nationstate' is ready for the type of democracy that (sort of) works for many Western countries. If we look at Iraq, which was referred to earlier in this thread, you could argue they have more freedom now than under Saddam. But what about safety, and at what cost did that freedom come? Perhaps most importantly, how durable is it?

Of course, Iraq is not Russia. But neither is Russia like the USA, or like West European countries. I'm not convinced that what I think is best for me is also best for Ivan. Who 'wins' if Ukraine joins the EU or if Putin would fall to a similar revolt like that in Ukraine? The oligarchs?

Returning to the current issue in Ukraine, obviously I think the best solution to recent events and especially the Crimean issue is one without war. Additionally I think we (the west) should try to gain a more on par relationship with other nations in the world. Pushing the human rights and international law agenda when opportune is kind of hypocrite and probably disfunctional. We should try to lead by example (if anything) instead of trying to manage the world to do as we say. Another 'cold war' would be a lose-lose situation.

[Buzz]

"If 60% of Crimea's population vote for 'anschluss', who are we to denounce it?"

Not arguing but offering this perspective.

If 60% of Crimea's population vote against 'anschluss', who is Puttin to denounce it?

I posit this as I do not think any vote against 'anschluss', would or could be tolerated by Puttin. I do not know what is best best for Ivan just saying when Puttin "does not invade" Crimea as Lavrov tells Kerry and Russia refuses to allow anyone outside .. inside ... to "observe" a "free and fair" vote re: 'anschluss' sounds like the House Wins regardless of what the ballots say.

[Buzz]

I do think trade sanctions will have a big impact on Russia's economy. It will be felt from the lowest classes to the highest. In fact, it is already being felt even without government sanctions. The Rubel is in a nosedive, their stockmarkets are tanking, and they've had to increase the interest rate by more than 2 points already. Remember, Russia is dependent upon purchasing foreign goods for several key sectors. They need foreign investment to grow. And companies and investors are already shunning Russia for strictly business reasons.

As for hurting Russia's energy grip on Europe, the US based gas and oil folks are selling another line of BS in a seemingly never ending line of BS in order to boost their profits and do NOTHING to mitigate Russia's power or the price. It's all about math:

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/john-boehners-misleading-argument-on-natural-gas-and-ukraine/

It boils down to the fact that it will take YEARS to increase capacity and that capacity will be a drop in the European bucket. It's not going to do anything except make the US energy interests richer at the expense of the environment and sensible domestic energy policies. It's as divorced from reality as the "drill baby drill" concept in the 2008 election cycle. No science behind the rhetoric.

Note that if we could flip a switch and hurt Putin's oil and gas exports, I'd be the first to suggest flipping it. Unfortunately such a switch does not exist. And there's nobody who can argue that it does with any authority.

Steve

Not advocating a "drill baby drill" approach. I do think there are small switches that can be flipped ... responsibly over time... these may not be THE factor but would squeeze Putin's grip so he lost his control / support. It may not take Mr. President Big Oil to do it... slowly crush their economy and at some point Putin will get the ... point.... maybe from several of his "friends." Hey even if If 60% of Crimea's population vote against 'anschluss' if they too get squat for being free under Russia ... they too may consider to re-change their recent change?

[z1812]

If 60% of Crimea's population vote for 'anschluss', who are we to denounce it?

Let's consider that the vote result was 70% in favour of Crimea joining Russia. And let's say we had some reason to believe it may have been a fair vote.

Even at that, the referendum could not be taken seriously while Russian Soldiers occupy the region.

[Lethaface]

Not arguing but offering this perspective.

If 60% of Crimea's population vote against 'anschluss', who is Puttin to denounce it?

I posit this as I do not think any vote against 'anschluss', would or could be tolerated by Puttin. I do not know what is best best for Ivan just saying when Puttin "does not invade" Crimea as Lavrov tells Kerry and Russia refuses to allow anyone outside .. inside ... to "observe" a "free and fair" vote re: 'anschluss' sounds like the House Wins regardless of what the ballots say.

Guess the house wins indeed. They even brought some guns to show they mean business, I guess.

[Lethaface]

Let's consider that the vote result was 70% in favour of Crimea joining Russia. And let's say we had some reason to believe it may have been a fair vote.

Even at that, the referendum could not be taken seriously while Russian Soldiers occupy the region.

Could it be taken seriously if the Russian troops withdraw from the area and have the referendum held while Ukrainian security forces maintain order?

[z1812]

Could it be taken seriously if the Russian troops withdraw from the area and have the referendum held while Ukrainian security forces maintain order?

We are very much in the murky world of speculation, however;

If the Russians withdrew their forces.

If the Ukrainian government ( whoever they end up being ) agreed to a referendum.

If the West looked favourably upon it.

If the Russians agreed.

If the OSCE agreed to monitor the referendum with the support of all parties.

If all parties then respected the result.

That's a lot of ifs. 1 if could be. 2 ifs well maybe. 3 or 4 ifs probably not. 5 ifs or more and we are in danger of heading towards the world of tin foil hats.

[Lethaface]

So who decides upon the takings of seriousness? ;D

[Buzz]

Lethaface - Guess the house wins indeed. They even brought some guns to show they mean business, I guess.

If Putin "wins" a legitimate vote for 'anschluss' (tinfoil hat territory) why would Russia... who never invaded Crimea ... even need slingshots

[Saferight]

More good reporting from Simon Ostrovsky for Vice News.... Pretty crazy to see Serb chetniks manning checkpoints...

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Also heres some good footage of a Ukrainian units mobilizing

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ccc_1394282158

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=513_1394131252

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dd0_1394073896

[Chudacabra]

More good reporting from Simon Ostrovsky for Vice News....

It's amazing that Vice has become one of the most interesting and critical media outlets. It's certainly more entertaining than Democracy Now.

[Erwin]

Is Vice on TV (sat/cable) or online only?

[Alan8325]

I found this image of alleged current defensive positions on Crimea. It could be a good starting point for scenario designers.

[Saferight]

It's amazing that Vice has become one of the most interesting and critical media outlets. It's certainly more entertaining than Democracy Now.

I think a lot of their Docs are very informative and entertaining, most of their articles though are utter ****e. Generally if it deals with something going on now or has happened in the world its good to watch.

Is Vice on TV (sat/cable) or online only?

Both

They are a magazine that has articles and docs on just about anything some really good others absolutely horrible. Most of their stuff has that gonzo feel to it which i like.. BTW They do have a show on HBO and the 2nd season premiere is tonight. The 1st season in its entirety is available online.

Here is Part 7

I have to give it to these people coming out to support staying with Ukraine when obviously they are way outnumbered where they are.

[Erwin]

Great stuff. For years now (since CNN was bought and toileted) I only regularly watch what used to be McNeil-Lehrer and sometimes Democracy Now. But VICE seems more current and informative. Thanks.

[Saferight]

Great stuff. For years now (since CNN was bought and toileted) I only regularly watch what used to be McNeil-Lehrer and sometimes Democracy Now. But VICE seems more current and informative. Thanks.

Here is their new strictly News site (along with dispatches 8 9 and 10 on the "Russian Invasion") which have more serious articles than stuff like "You Should Damn Well Be Able to Buy Lingerie with Welfare" on their main site....

https://news.vice.com/?trk_source=header-logo

[MOS:96B2P]

Here is their new strictly News site (along with dispatches 8 9 and 10 on the "Russian Invasion") which have more serious articles than stuff like "You Should Damn Well Be Able to Buy Lingerie with Welfare" on their main site....

I was not aware of the Vice News site. I followed the posted link intending to just check it out and before I realized it I had spent almost three hours watching various news reports. They have all kinds of topics in addition to the Ukrainian situation. I watch one report that covered fighting in the Sudan and included a Vice reporter who was travelling in a military convoy that was ambushed. The Vice reporters were often reporting from the center of demonstrations, riots and war zones. A big difference from what is on “normal” nightly news. Thanks for the link I bookmarked it on my browser.

[Saferight]

Thanks for the link I bookmarked it on my browser.

No problem, and believe me it ate up A LOT of my free time for a bit while i caught up on all their stuff. A friend told me to check out the Liberia episode a while back and was hooked.

Heres another Vice video on the Ukrainian volunteers going into training.

Ukraine: Defending the Homeland

Surprised by some of the weapons the new recruits get to check out along with the variety of camo they are all wearing.

[Lee]

Well, in addition to the sea port access, I think it's pretty obvious why Russia is doing this. They will take no chances on Ukraine joining Nato or the eu, and I can't blame them, that would put Nato bases more or less inside Russia, so to speak. And as far as the Ukraine itself, it is much to their long-term benefit to never be in the eu. Not that Putin's motivations are all necessarily altruistic, but the fact remains keeping those eu scum-in-suits out of the Ukraine is a huge win in the end for the Ukrainian people. And hopefully there won't be any more internal fighting there.

There certainly won't be any large-scale fighting, with either European countries or us involved, but still, for BTS this timing is very convenient for the credibility of their scenario.