Jump to content

Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?


Zveroboy1

Recommended Posts

I've not found an article stating Merkel is drawing a line in the sand that if Minsk was violated in any way harsher sanctions would definitely follow, you might've mistaken a quote that did not include Mariupol because that's all I can find including harsher sanctions as a definite. Most of the articles say "no end of sanctions if" and the only sentence I catched including more sanctions with 1 page of google checked is 

 

which is not a red line, atleast in the way I translate it.

 

I don't think anyone expects that there will be no clashes during a ceasefire, my understanding is that the intensity of the fighting - on the whole frontline - has been reduced to a few minor events, according to the slightly Pro-Ukraine liveuamap.com this is the case. (if you have a more reliable source on recent events share them please - I think I can get use out of them :))

Which would mean that it has reduced escalation and brought us a step closer to getting the people back to the table to work on a long term solution, quite possibly this could just be a temporary time span in which the Seps are forming up to strike hard somewhere again, but if that were to happen I very very strongly doubt Merkel would try to implement Minsk III and say to the German press "We've dealt with it with it again, again, again.". What Steinmeier said in the video is supporting this, they know that people are still dying and fighting over there, but the agreement has reduced it as a whole and if Putin decides to let it fail again there will not be another attempt.

Edited by Kraft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The direct translation was something like "we discussed and considered using the nuclear option". I have not seen a direct translation of his comments about moving mobile missile launchers into position or having them on alert. But whatever he said, it apparently was detailed enough that he specified no nukes were on those missiles, but that he would put them on if he felt the need.

The mere fact that he explicitly stated he was even considering nuclear options in the context of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, is enough for me. However, I would love to get a direct translation. I haven't found a transcript yet in either Russia or English.

Steve

 

As direct as I can :)

 

K(ondrashow), P(utin):

 

K: While takling to Western leaders was it clear that they will not intervene with military means?

P: Of course not. That could not be clear from the beginning. That's why I had to order armed forces to be ready to any course of events.

K: Does that mean that we've put our nuclear forces into higher level of readiness?

P: We were ready to do that...

Edited by Alexey K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops,

I actually wanted to answer my question with "No". Looks like I copied something and didn't read my answer before posting. Sorry if my mistake caused any confusion.

I thought your point was still quite clear. And that was, if I am not mistaken, that it is understandable that someone wouldn't want to be pinned down to a yes/no question when the context is more complicated than that. My answer to your point is that I don't agree provided the question can be reasonably answered with a yes/no answer *and* an opportunity to explain/qualify the answer is given to the person. In the case you were talking about, answering if there would be a war if Russia had not chosen to launch one is a valid question to ask provided there's an opportunity to discuss the context. Which I definitely invited.

 

Actually, I wasn't. I tried to make a (bad) joke about the ambiguity of "BS" as an acronym for both "Black Sea" and "Bull excrements" since you used it abainst DreDays post ("I call "BS" on this."). Making a (bad) joke is something I usually do while entering a discussion to set up the right mood: Nothing is personal, we all understand each other, we can make jokes about stuff. Again, my excuses if I caused any confusion.

Heh. Well, there's two reasons I didn't "get it". One, because it was late and I was tired :D Second, because we tried so very, very, very hard to come up with another name for the game that was both cool and descriptive, yet not abbreviated to BS :) However, as the war ground on we actually found it a little fitting.

 

 

Some interesting and valid points there.

If things are left "as is", do you (in your reasonably educated opinion on the existing situation) believe that Russian forces (or the "Donbass opposition") will drive onwards to Kiev?

 

No, for that would take a flat out Russian invasion. I don't even believe they will try for Mariupol, though even today some DPR commander or other (I forget who) once again stated that was their goal.

Instead I believe the separatists/Russians will simply continue to drain Ukraine's resources, killing Ukrainian citizens (military and civilian), court humanitarian disaster for those still in Donbas, prevent people from returning to their homes, and moderately expanding their perimeter while at the same time continuing to engage in criminal activities and infighting instead of a reasonable level of civilian governance. I do not find this an acceptable situation for Ukraine, as I am sure most Ukrainians don't either. I also don't find the continued flights of military aircraft with their transponders turned off to be an acceptable situation for civilian air travel in Europe.

 

I've not found an article stating Merkel is drawing a line in the sand that if Minsk was violated in any way harsher sanctions would definitely follow, you might've mistaken a quote that did not include Mariupol because that's all I can find including harsher sanctions as a definite. Most of the articles say "no end of sanctions if" and the only sentence I catched including more sanctions with 1 page of google checked is 

 

which is not a red line, atleast in the way I translate it.

You misunderstood me, or perhaps I was not clear. What you just said is exactly my point. Merkel and Hollande have deliberately avoided being committed to act. Instead, they made strong, but vague, assertions that if the ceasefire didn't hold that they would be forced to act. Either with sanctions or, and this has been hinted at, with some form of direct military aid (not excluding lethal). Poroshenko has made the case that the casefire is not holding and that Europe should act because it said it would. Merkel, in response, redefined what "violation" means. And, of course, the current events don't fit it. Oh, and let's not forget that Debaltseve didn't fit "major violation" either, apparently, since Merkel did absolutely nothing when that operation was happening.

What Merkel has done, in effect, is legitimize the current level of violation and not discouraged the separatist/Russian forces from pushing harder to see where there might actually be a "redline". She also legitimized the massive and flagrant violation in Debaltseve already, so why should the Russian/separatists feel they have to live up to their agreement?

 

I don't think anyone expects that there will be no clashes during a ceasefire, my understanding is that the intensity of the fighting - on the whole frontline - has been reduced to a few minor events, according to the slightly Pro-Ukraine liveuamap.com this is the case. (if you have a more reliable source on recent events share them please - I think I can get use out of them :))

For sure the intensity of the fighting is reduced. A lot. It was after Minsk 1 as well. The primary reason is that the Russian/separatist forces need to reorganize and refit, which is what they are doing. In that sense the ceasefire is an improvement for the short term.

However, there is a big difference between a single Russian Cossack firing an AK at a Ukrainian position 200m away and a deliberate attack with coordinated tank, infantry, and mortar fire. The former is unavoidable and doesn't necessarily indicate there is an intent to violate the ceasefire in a meaningful way. The latter, however, shows that the leadership is indeed willfully and flagrantly violating both the spirt and the letter of the agreement. Merkel proposes there should be no punishment for this, I strongly disagree.

 

Which would mean that it has reduced escalation and brought us a step closer to getting the people back to the table to work on a long term solution, quite possibly this could just be a temporary time span in which the Seps are forming up to strike hard somewhere again, but if that were to happen I very very strongly doubt Merkel would try to implement Minsk III and say to the German press "We've dealt with it with it again, again, again.". What Steinmeier said in the video is supporting this, they know that people are still dying and fighting over there, but the agreement has reduced it as a whole and if Putin decides to let it fail again there will not be another attempt.

I've been expecting this sort of thing from Merkel since the Spring of 2014. She has amazed me, no... stunned me, with her ability to avoid dealing with the reality that Russia will not stop its aggression until one of two conditions are met:

1. Ukraine is utterly destroyed as a nation

2. Russia is forced to withdraw from Ukraine

There is no third possibility where Putin one day wakes up and says "oh, what short sighted fool I've been!", so why take a course of action which is predicated on the hope that such an option exists?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As direct as I can :)

 

K(ondrashow), P(utin):

 

K: While takling to Western leaders was it clear that they will not intervene with military means?

P: Of course not. That could not be clear from the beginning. That's why I had to order armed forces to be ready to any course of events.

K: Does that mean that we've put our nuclear forces into higher level of readiness?

P: We were ready to do that...

Excellent, thanks! Was there anything in there specifically about missile deployments? Or did I get that confused with something else?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent, thanks! Was there anything in there specifically about missile deployments? Or did I get that confused with something else?

Steve

 

That was another part. He said that ground based ASM launchers"Bastion" was deployed to Crimea. It was also added that they were placed in a such way they could be seen from orbit. They also turned on search radar "loud on" to indicate weapon's presence to US ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been expecting this sort of thing from Merkel since the Spring of 2014. She has amazed me, no... stunned me, with her ability to avoid dealing with the reality that Russia will not stop its aggression until one of two conditions are met:

1. Ukraine is utterly destroyed as a nation

2. Russia is forced to withdraw from Ukraine

There is no third possibility where Putin one day wakes up and says "oh, what short sighted fool I've been!", so why take a course of action which is predicated on the hope that such an option exists?

Steve

 

Hm... funny. How did you infer Russian goals and from what?

Edited by Alexey K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone expects that there will be no clashes during a ceasefire, my understanding is that the intensity of the fighting - on the whole frontline - has been reduced to a few minor events, according to the slightly Pro-Ukraine liveuamap.com this is the case. (if you have a more reliable source on recent events share them please - I think I can get use out of them :))

For evidence of fighting on the ground there are the usual sources:

1. Tymchuk

2. Separatist statements and videos

3. Official Ukrainian government statements

4. OSCE monitoring reports

5. General media (Ukrainian, international, etc.)

Here's a combination just from the last 24 hours:

Tymchuk:

http://maidantranslations.com/2015/03/16/dmitry-tymchuk-military-update-3-16-freesavchenko/

Separatist:

Government (through BBC report because it was easier to find):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/news_in_brief/2015/03/150317_vs_ato_losses?ocid=socialflow_twitter

OSCE (this one also includes notes about separatists/Russians denying them access, contrary to the agreement):

http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/145141

General media:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/16/us-ukraine-crisis-east-idUSKBN0MC1YF20150316

It's a pattern that is repeated almost every day. Not just since February 15th, but since September 5th.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was another part. He said that ground based ASM launchers"Bastion" was deployed to Crimea. It was also added that they were placed in a such way they could be seen from orbit. They also turned on search radar "loud on" to indicate weapon's presence to US ships.

 

Again, thanks! So this gets me back to my point that Russia is in breach of the Budapest Agreement both on terms of "spirt" and "substance".

 

Hm... funny. How did you infer Russian goals and from what?

25+ years of studying history, several (elapsed years) of studying modern Russian activities, and probably more than 1000+ hours studying this war each and every day since more than a year ago. What I stated is a prevailing consensus in the West. And I might add, the West has a lot of Russians in it so let's not start with the "the West doesn't understand Russia".

Granted, these are not the goals Putin started out with. Through Maidan it was to ensure Ukraine be a part of the Customs Union and not a part of anything Europe had to offer. But those are gone and I am sure he knows it. Ukraine is no longer in Russia's orbit and so Putin is practicing "Scorched Earth" to ensure that Ukraine is a mess for as long as possible. The last thing Putin wants is a stable, economically improving, Russian speaking democracy on his border.

Since you disagree, what do you think Putin's goals are in fighting this war with Ukraine?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mere fact that he explicitly stated he was even considering nuclear options in the context of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, is enough for me. However, I would love to get a direct translation. I haven't found a transcript yet in either Russia or English.

 

They've been implicitly suggesting they'd escalate straight to nukes in case of a NATO response to Ukraine basically since the whole thing began. Perfectly in line with their doctrine as well, they don't think they can defeat NATO with conventional means, so if we ever threaten what they consider a vital interest (in this case, Ukraine not being in NATO, where they'd become untouchable) Russia is going to nuke some off-brand, non-nuclear NATO member as a demonstration of resolve.

 

That's why the NATO reaction to Ukraine was to firmly rule out any kind of direct intervention.

Edited by Apocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25+ years of studying history, several (elapsed years) of studying modern Russian activities, and probably more than 1000+ hours studying this war each and every day since more than a year ago. What I stated is a prevailing consensus in the West. And I might add, the West has a lot of Russians in it so let's not start with the "the West doesn't understand Russia".

Granted, these are not the goals Putin started out with. Through Maidan it was to ensure Ukraine be a part of the Customs Union and not a part of anything Europe had to offer. But those are gone and I am sure he knows it. Ukraine is no longer in Russia's orbit and so Putin is practicing "Scorched Earth" to ensure that Ukraine is a mess for as long as possible. The last thing Putin wants is a stable, economically improving, Russian speaking democracy on his border.

Since you disagree, what do you think Putin's goals are in fighting this war with Ukraine?

Steve

 

Best and most honest answer I can produce: "I don't know" :)

 

My "best guess" offers two goals:

1. Finlandization of Ukraine, ensuring it's non-alignment to keep NATO off Russian border.

2. Securing Crimea and Sevastopol status as Russian territories.

 

Both of goals are meaingful from Russian perspective and achievable.

 

Speaking of your explanation. As for me, you paint Putin as some sort of cartoon villain who does evil things just for the sake of doing evil things. 

Why "stable, economically improving, Russian speaking democracy on his border" should bother him?

 

And how exactly "destroying Ukraine as nation shold look like?

What is expected result of this goal?

Is it realistic?

How?

Russian tanks rush to Kiev?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've been implicitly suggesting they'd escalate straight to nukes in case of a NATO response to Ukraine basically since the whole thing began. Perfectly in line with their doctrine as well, they don't think they can defeat NATO with conventional means, so if we ever threaten what they consider a vital interest (in this case, Ukraine not being in NATO, where they'd become untouchable) Russia is going to nuke some off-brand, non-nuclear NATO member as a demonstration of resolve.

 

That's why the NATO reaction to Ukraine was to firmly rule out any kind of direct intervention.

Agreed, but it's nice for Putin to say it in person on TV :D

It has been long established Russian doctrine that any NATO incursion onto its soil (i.e. actual Russian Federation soil) is considered a trigger for tactical nuclear warfare at a minimum. The reasons being the same as you stated... very little chance of winning a conventional war against NATO.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfectly in line with their doctrine as well, they don't think they can defeat NATO with conventional means, so if we ever threaten what they consider a vital interest (in this case, Ukraine not being in NATO, where they'd become untouchable) Russia is going to nuke some off-brand, non-nuclear NATO member as a demonstration of resolve.

 

Hmm... Did you read Russian nuclear doctrine and condition which permit use of nukes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Merkel there are a few voices in the background that make me think there's something deeper going on.

 

Check what Harald Kujat, Martin Schulz (and of course left leaning intellectuals) have to say on the topic if you can. They state that the Western response is becoming more differentiated, to say it in a diplomatic way.

I believe this is may be a summary for the different points of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QeLu_yyz3tc#t=4137

 

Germany may be relatively important for this bit. Economically it is rather obvious that Russia is highly interesting (see Schröder, Nord Stream etc.). Naturally, so is the US and the strong allies it has made to the east of Germany. However, with Europe in the state it is in, the German government surely feels the pressure from industry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z6ybAQ99Cg). Geo-politically the whole thing could go either way. Buddies with Russia, but angry smaller neighbors. Alternatively one could assume having a few more Greece like situations on the hands + whatever Russia cooks up (perhaps with a GWB-class leader). Both outcomes are not conducive to a quiet environment (historically has to be Germany's top priority). Other soft factors include:

- How do other (EU) nations position themselves? e.g. France? Probably leaning more towards Russia... UK? To the US. Spain, Italy, Austria? Not sure. China? Turkey? Well...

- Snowden and public opinion of the US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best and most honest answer I can produce: "I don't know" :)

Well, we are all guessing to some extent because Putin hasn't been very honest or open about what is going on, to say the least :D

 

My "best guess" offers two goals:

1. Finlandization of Ukraine, ensuring it's non-alignment to keep NATO off Russian border.

2. Securing Crimea and Sevastopol status as Russian territories.

Both of goals are meaingful from Russian perspective and achievable.

Agreed they are goals and that they are meaningful from the Russian perspective, but they are only achievable if Ukraine is brought to its knees first and kept there *forever*. This is because, contrary to original planning, Ukraine is showing absolutely no signs of willing to let Russia do either of these things to it now or into the future.

The problem is Russia is behaving like like it is playing a football match where there is 90 minutes of play and whoever scores the most goals wins. But in reality Russia is playing more than one match. Instead, it is like a season of football where you have to win enough games to make it to the finals, then win enough games to make it to the final match, and then you have to win the match. Even if you win all that, next year you have to repeat the process all over again.

Long term, Russian can not secure these the first goal at all, but could achieve the second goal if Ukraine agrees to it.

Speaking of your explanation. As for me, you paint Putin as some sort of cartoon villain who does evil things just for the sake of doing evil things.

Not at all!! He is a very deliberate, calculating person with a solid agenda to fulfill.

Why "stable, economically improving, Russian speaking democracy on his border" should bother him?

Because he doesn't want Russians getting any ideas in their heads about changes in Russia. It is why every year there are more restrictions on Russian freedoms, in particular speech and association. The 2011/2012 protests were a major turning point, but the need to suppress the truth about Russia's war in Ukraine has required even more.

Russians are very smart people. And I really do mean that. So if they see that a revolution in one city can get rid of a dictator and corrupt system of government, raise their standard of living, and enjoy the benefits of close economic ties with Europe... what do you think a Russian might say to himself? "This could happen here if we try". At least that is what Putin is afraid of. And he is right to be.

 

And how exactly "destroying Ukraine as nation shold look like?

What is expected result of this goal?

The goal is to make sure a a stable, democratic, and prosperous Ukraine is not practical. If Ukraine is left alone it will become all of these things. Since it happened in all the other ex-Warsaw Pact states, and they were also corrupt, inefficient, and under the domination of Russia. So leaving Ukraine alone was *never* an option for Putin.

The original plan was to grab Crimea very fast and then cause problems in the east and south of the country. That much I think is very obvious. I also think that Putin wanted a shooting war in Crimea so he could invade with "peace keepers" and I have evidence of that, but it's a long discussion so I will skip it for now.

The plan was to take the industrial and port facilities away from Ukraine, which would also take away access to Black Sea oil/gas, coal, and other natural resources which the rest of Ukraine lacks. These would only be reintegrated with Ukraine under conditions favorable to Russia. Specifically "federalization". This would ensure that the central government in Kiev could never do anything Russia opposed because it would continue to control the "federalized" territories as it has controlled Ukraine for the last 24 years. Basically by making sure it is dysfunctional and corrupt.

The "federalized" territory would also act as a physical buffer. Both physically from NATO and physically from Europe. This did not work as planned, and instead a war was waged in which Russia managed to secure only a very small foothold on mainland Ukraine. Not even enough for a land bridge to Crimea (which was another goal, BTW).

Since this plan failed Putin has shifted to keeping Ukraine as destabilized and stressed as possible. His hope is that Ukraine's government will collapse and there will be a new opportunity to have a more favorable political outcome. It is not a very well thought out plan.

Is it realistic?

How?

Russian tanks rush to Kiev?

No, it is not realistic because it turns out Ukrainians do not want to play the part Russia thought it would. Which was to split into two and not have any strength to resist Russia's actions. Driving tanks to Kiev was never the plan.

No matter what anybody says about Ukraine now, its critics for sure didn't think it would last even a few weeks after the small groups took over buildings in Luhansk and Donetsk, not to mention lasting nearly a year of full fledged warfare. There is no way Russia can keep 40+ million people under its thumb forever. By all measures, it's already over.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Did you read Russian nuclear doctrine and condition which permit use of nukes?

The basis of the current doctrine was laid out in the 2000 National Security Concept. Here is an article about it (my bold):

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russias-new-national-security-concept/

 

The new language effectively assigned a new mission to the country's nuclear arsenal. Whereas under the 1997 document, nuclear weapons were reserved solely to deter a large-scale attack, which was not likely either then, or later, the 2000 concept allowed for the use of nuclear weapons to deter smaller-scale wars that do not necessarily threaten Russia's existence and sovereignty. The new mission also implies a limited use of nuclear weapons in contrast to an all-out nuclear strike in response to a massive attack.

...

The document recognizes the inadequacy of Russian conventional forces vis-à-vis those of leading global political and military powers and talks about "the growing technological gap with some leading powers and the growth of their capability to create new-generation weapons and equipment" that allow "a fundamental change in the forms and methods of combat." Under these conditions, reliance on nuclear weapons when "all other measures of resolving the crisis situation have been exhausted" looks logical.

Here is a more recent article about how this might be in play today:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-nuclear-insight-idUKKBN0L825A20150204

 

Russia's nuclear strategy appears to point to a lowering of the threshold for using nuclear weapons in any conflict, NATO diplomats say.

"What worries us most in this strategy is the modernisation of the Russian nuclear forces, the increase in the level of training of those forces and the possible combination between conventional actions and the use of nuclear forces, including possibly in the framework of a hybrid war," one diplomat said.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Did you read Russian nuclear doctrine and condition which permit use of nukes?

 

Yes. Someone on another forum cued me and I used this article for translation of the relevant bits.

 

"The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."

 

In one of their last large-scale exercises (Zapad 2009), Russian conventional forces flat out lose and the situation is only salvaged for Russia once they nuke a few Polish cities whereby NATO declines to escalate to a general exchange since getting LA, NYC, Paris and London nuked isn't an acceptable tradeoff for avenging Warsaw in kind.

Edited by Apocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course assisting Ukraine in self defense constitutes neither large scale aggression nor threatens any of Russia's Federation allies. According to Putin Russia isn't 'officially' involved in Ukraine at all! A loss in Ukraine is an embarrassment and a minor setback, not an existential crisis for Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Greetings!

In concrete terms, this is true. But if there is no "moral obligation" to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine, then that sets a really bad precedent. People do not tend to respond well to being aggrieved when they get a wall of legalize excuses for the agreement not applying despite a rather obvious need.

 

This is true, but ultimately Ukraine is not an ally of the United States and the United States' national interests in Ukraine are not strong enough to justify the sort of aid that Kiev wants. It sucks for them, but it is what it is.

 

 

However, this weekend Putin just offered up a concrete legal requirement for the US to be involved.

Putin, on camera, boasted that he positioned nuclear capable missile launchers in the Crimean area in the event anybody tried to interfere with Russia's military invasion of Crimea. He specifically stated he was ready to put nuclear warheads on those missiles. If that does not fit the definition of "threatened", nothing does.

 

That's not what I had heard - only that he placed nuclear forces on alert. But that aside, Putin's commentary is purely political:

 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putins-rattling-of-the-nuclear-saber-makes-it-clear-ukraine-is-non-negotiable/517511.html

 

"The nuclear preparedness remark was a message to the West that Ukraine and Crimea are far more important for Russia than they are for the West, according Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Social and Political Research think tank.

"Putin is saying that under certain conditions, Russia will be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Crimea," Yevseyev, a retired Russian army colonel, told The Moscow Times. "The question of its sovereignty is shut. It's non-negotiable."

 

According to Yevseyev, as the U.S. busies itself dispatching training missions to Ukraine and mulling the option of pumping Kiev full of lethal aid, Putin's willingness to raise the stakes to the nuclear level demonstrates Russia's willingness to defend its interests in its southwest neighbor, no matter the cost.

 

"Putin is basically letting it be known that Crimea and Ukraine are far more important to Russia than they are to the West, which would never consider going nuclear over Ukraine," he said."

 

 

The situation certainly has arisen, and there are questions concerning these commitments. I think everybody can agree that this clause got triggered. So, if the purpose of the agreement was to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity against a foreign military force, which has also clearly happened, what exactly is supposed to happen after "consult"? To me it's open ended in that it neither obligates nor does it preclude action. Again, given the "intent and purpose" of the agreement I think there is a pretty strong argument to make that doing nothing is in violation of the "spirit" of the agreement.

 

It certainly doesn't preclude action, but the question is really whether a particular action - i.e. giving lethal military aid - is wise. Personally, I don't think it is. Ukraine is Russia's top national security issue - entirely different from Afghanistan in importance. At every stage, they have escalated beyond expectations.

 

What the West should actually be doing is giving Ukraine a bunch of money. For free. So it can actually fix its economy. Instead, Ukraine's economy is in a state of utter collapse and the only aid its getting is loans that are a: inadequate and b: it'll have to pay back in the future.

 

The problem is there's no political will in the West to do this, and even if there was, I can understand the reluctance for the reason that Ukraine is still shockingly corrupt and politically dysfunctional, no matter how many nice noises the new government makes about their 'European choice'. There's no guarantee that money won't disappear down the rabbit hole into some oligarch's pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

 

 

That's not what I had heard - only that he placed nuclear forces on alert. But that aside, Putin's commentary is purely political:

 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putins-rattling-of-the-nuclear-saber-makes-it-clear-ukraine-is-non-negotiable/517511.html

 

"The nuclear preparedness remark was a message to the West that Ukraine and Crimea are far more important for Russia than they are for the West, according Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Social and Political Research think tank.

"Putin is saying that under certain conditions, Russia will be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Crimea," Yevseyev, a retired Russian army colonel, told The Moscow Times. "The question of its sovereignty is shut. It's non-negotiable."

 

According to Yevseyev, as the U.S. busies itself dispatching training missions to Ukraine and mulling the option of pumping Kiev full of lethal aid, Putin's willingness to raise the stakes to the nuclear level demonstrates Russia's willingness to defend its interests in its southwest neighbor, no matter the cost.

.

There are a lot of people who would disagree about the just political part, if they weren't dead.

 

If he really wants to end civilization, all he has to do is keep blathering about nukes until someone believes him and shoots first.  If I were the Poles I woulds have a full bore secret program underway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to discuss Russian nuclear doctrine here as it applies to Ukraine, then may I recommend Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike "de-escalation," a chilling article by Nikola N. Sokov which appeared March 13, 2014 in the prestigious and well respected Bulletin of Atomic Scientists? I say "chilling" because what we understand the term to mean and what the Russians do are worlds apart. Their de-escalation, you see, comes after delivering a tailored nuclear strike or strikes in order to restore the status quo!  Additionally, the referenced article included a link to the 2010  document "The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation," which Putin signed on February 5, 2010. I quote from Section III, Section 22

 

 

III. THE MILITARY POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  

 

22. In the context of the implementation by the Russia Federation of strategic deterrence measures of a forceful nature, provision is made for the utilization of precision weapons.

 

 

The Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.

 

The decision to utilize nuclear weapons is made by the Russian Federation president. 

 

Serious study of this latest military doctrine is warranted, for in it lie many other matters pertinent to what we've seen unfold, starting with the use of information warfare to achieve political objectives without resort to military force and to favorably shape international opinion prior to subsequent military operations. Things Russia explicitly identifies as threats--armed bands and provocative shows of force during military exercises near its border or the border of its allies--are, of course, exactly what it has itself utilized.

Regards,

 

John Kettler
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true, but ultimately Ukraine is not an ally of the United States and the United States' national interests in Ukraine are not strong enough to justify the sort of aid that Kiev wants. It sucks for them, but it is what it is.

Not true. Who was the 4th largest contributor of forces to the US led Iraq coalition? I'll give you a hint... it starts with "U" and ends with "kraine" ;) I'd say any nation that was willing to back that ill conceived war is a friend indeed.

Ukraine has the potential to be an extremely important economic component of Europe. Food is more important than gas (try to eat nothing but gas all day and you'll see what I mean) and Ukraine has a long history of producing vast quantities of it. Ukraine also has a solid infrastructure and history of high tech and heavy industries that could, if modernized, be extremely important to the West as it has been extremely important to Russia and the Soviet Union before it.

In terms of all the things that Russia fears about Ukraine, there are those elements too. Which means if Russia is determined to be a state that is focused on causing trouble abroad, what better ally to have than Ukraine?

Then there is the simple logic of not having a big f'n war on Europe's doorstep. That certainly is not in the US' national interests.

 

That's not what I had heard - only that he placed nuclear forces on alert. But that aside, Putin's commentary is purely political:

See above translations. And since Putin is a head of a totalitarian state, what he says matters. Unlike Obama or Merkel, if Putin wants something to happen he has the authority to do it. For example, the Russian constitution states that Russian forces can not be used abroad unless approved of by the Duma (as I understand it). Putin asked for such permission from the Duma after he had already invaded Ukraine with conventional forces. Then he lied about it.

Sorry if I don't have a deep well of trust for Putin.

 

"The nuclear preparedness remark was a message to the West that Ukraine and Crimea are far more important for Russia than they are for the West, according Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Social and Political Research think tank.

"Putin is saying that under certain conditions, Russia will be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Crimea," Yevseyev, a retired Russian army colonel, told The Moscow Times. "The question of its sovereignty is shut. It's non-negotiable."

The fact is Crimea was a part of Ukraine at the time. Therefore, Putin definitely said he was ready to use nukes if anybody tried to stop him from unilaterally invading and then annexing the territory of another sovereign state, not to defend a portion of Russia's sovereign territory.

 

According to Yevseyev, as the U.S. busies itself dispatching training missions to Ukraine and mulling the option of pumping Kiev full of lethal aid, Putin's willingness to raise the stakes to the nuclear level demonstrates Russia's willingness to defend its interests in its southwest neighbor, no matter the cost.

 

"Putin is basically letting it be known that Crimea and Ukraine are far more important to Russia than they are to the West, which would never consider going nuclear over Ukraine," he said."

Which is why the West has always had Crimea on the back burner and has signaled it is willing to negotiate over it.

In fact, this is the biggest blunder of Russia's war against Ukraine. If Putin had not done anything further to Ukraine after invading Crimea, arguably Russia would have just got a slap on the wrist and cooled off relations for a period of time. That's because even the West has some sympathy for Russia's assertion that Crimea should be a part of Russia and that (probably) the majority of Crimeans (at the time at least) felt the same way. But Putin requires more from Ukraine than just Crimea, so that is why he didn't stop there.

 

 

It certainly doesn't preclude action, but the question is really whether a particular action - i.e. giving lethal military aid - is wise. Personally, I don't think it is. Ukraine is Russia's top national security issue - entirely different from Afghanistan in importance. At every stage, they have escalated beyond expectations.

This I agree with.

 

What the West should actually be doing is giving Ukraine a bunch of money. For free. So it can actually fix its economy. Instead, Ukraine's economy is in a state of utter collapse and the only aid its getting is loans that are a: inadequate and b: it'll have to pay back in the future.

Again, I agree. I heard a talk by a German woman from a big think tank (I forget her name) last week who spoke at the Camden Conference earlier this month. She said the US talks about supporting Ukraine, but does little to actually do so. After more criticism of the US' actions she said that what she just outlined went double for Europe since they should be the ones fixing it and not the US.

 

The problem is there's no political will in the West to do this, and even if there was, I can understand the reluctance for the reason that Ukraine is still shockingly corrupt and politically dysfunctional, no matter how many nice noises the new government makes about their 'European choice'. There's no guarantee that money won't disappear down the rabbit hole into some oligarch's pocket.

There wasn't for Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltics either. 25 years later it's an imperfect and uneven improvement over the way things were prior, but only a fool would say it wasn't worth supporting. Poland, for example, is more important to the EU than some of its original members.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Merkel there are a few voices in the background that make me think there's something deeper going on.

I give Merkel a hard time, even more so in my private conversations ;), but I do believe that she is at a point where she wants to do more but can not because of politics. While I understand that, she is a leader and leaders are supposed to lead. She is falling short of that definition more than not.

 

Check what Harald Kujat, Martin Schulz (and of course left leaning intellectuals) have to say on the topic if you can. They state that the Western response is becoming more differentiated, to say it in a diplomatic way.

This is apparent. One of the things that Germany is risking by inaction is it's strong relations with Poland, the Baltics, and northern Europe. The US, for all my criticism of Obama, is building up more good will than Germany is at present. If Germany, and other EU countries, are concerned/disinterested in US leadership pressure in Europe this isn't a smart move.

The other thing Germany is doing is harming potentially lucrative business with Ukraine, including gas supplies. Ukraine will come through this on top, eventually. Does Germany want to be remembered as the country that waffled in the face of Russia's war on it? Or would it not be better for Ukraine to view Germany as a friend who supported it in its most dire times? So far Germany hasn't made a good case for being viewed fondly.

 

Germany may be relatively important for this bit. Economically it is rather obvious that Russia is highly interesting (see Schröder, Nord Stream etc.).

This is a factor, but if Germany is acting on its interests in Russian business then it's a foolish action. Germany's top 5 export nations:

France (8.8%), United States (8.1%), China (6.4%), United Kingdom (6.2%), and Netherlands (5.8%)

Russia is 10th at 3.5% with Poland a close 11th at 3.2%. Denmark and the Sweden combined account for about the same as Russia (3.4%). And this was before sanctions, so for sure Russia has fallen below this mark.

Early on it seemed logical that Germany would try to have everything and lose nothing. But now it is risking poor relations with countries that represent almost 25-30% of its export business while at the same time having it proved that Russia is an absolutely horribly unreliable and selfish trade partner. This doesn't seem too smart a move.

From the energy standpoint, Russia is definitely more important. However, Russia has proved even before this crisis that it is unreliable and short sighted. Russia uses gas as a weapon, and Germany has suffered more than once because of this. So it is not in Germany's own self interests to remain dependent upon Russian gas no matter what.

 

Naturally, so is the US and the strong allies it has made to the east of Germany. However, with Europe in the state it is in, the German government surely feels the pressure from industry . Geo-politically the whole thing could go either way. Buddies with Russia, but angry smaller neighbors. Alternatively one could assume having a few more Greece like situations on the hands + whatever Russia cooks up (perhaps with a GWB-class leader). Both outcomes are not conducive to a quiet environment (historically has to be Germany's top priority). Other soft factors include:

- How do other (EU) nations position themselves? e.g. France? Probably leaning more towards Russia... UK? To the US. Spain, Italy, Austria? Not sure. China? Turkey? Well...

- Snowden and public opinion of the US

Yes, then there is also the problem that Russia's lavish spending on corrupting the politics of individual European states and the EU as a whole. This can not be a good thing for Germany in any way, so it should be addressing this as well.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. Who was the 4th largest contributor of forces to the US led Iraq coalition? I'll give you a hint... it starts with "U" and ends with "kraine" ;) I'd say any nation that was willing to back that ill conceived war is a friend indeed.

Unfortunately for Ukraine that doesn't really figure into how far the US should stick its neck out - the US has never had a compelling national interest in whether Ukraine was in the West's camp, and nothing has really happened to change that. US officials may deny that if put to them, but its self-evidently true - hence the reluctance of the US to do anything that would really help Ukraine. Ultimately, the US's relations with Russia are more important. As a great power, it has the potential to spoil America's interests all over the world and the longer relations are messed up, the more Russia, with all of its resources and technical know how gets drawn inexorably into China's camp. These are big potential problems.

 

Ukraine has the potential to be an extremely important economic component of Europe. Food is more important than gas (try to eat nothing but gas all day and you'll see what I mean) and Ukraine has a long history of producing vast quantities of it. Ukraine also has a solid infrastructure and history of high tech and heavy industries that could, if modernized, be extremely important to the West as it has been extremely important to Russia and the Soviet Union before it.

Food is one thing, but as for its industry, Europe has plenty of that already. Also, this is really more Europe's concern than that of the US. The US has never been particularly interested in assisting the EU becoming a Eurasian hegemon (the same applies to Russia). US foreign policy has always sought to prevent that. NATO is where its at for the US - it allows them the greatest influence over European defence policy.

 

In terms of all the things that Russia fears about Ukraine, there are those elements too. Which means if Russia is determined to be a state that is focused on causing trouble abroad, what better ally to have than Ukraine?

As far as the Russians see it, the West is meddling in Ukraine, they don't belong there, and they will go to the hilt to ensure that Ukraine doesn't move into the Western camp. Whether its true or not is irrelevant. So ultimately this could be a case of "Ukraine should be our ally because the Russians are determined that Ukraine not be our ally."

 

Then there is the simple logic of not having a big f'n war on Europe's doorstep. That certainly is not in the US' national interests.

True, but how to stop it? The only way I see forward is a political resolution where Russia gets some of what it wants. Sanctions could go from now until the heat death of the universe, it would not change the Russian position. Just today the BBC is reporting the Ukrainian Rada enacted laws as to the 'special status' of the DNR and LPR that the Russians claim are contrary to Minsk II. This could be a pretext for further fighting.

 

See above translations. And since Putin is a head of a totalitarian state, what he says matters. Unlike Obama or Merkel, if Putin wants something to happen he has the authority to do it. For example, the Russian constitution states that Russian forces can not be used abroad unless approved of by the Duma (as I understand it). Putin asked for such permission from the Duma after he had already invaded Ukraine with conventional forces. Then he lied about it.

Well to be fair, Obama has repeatedly used military force without Congressional authorization, for example, and has sought it after the fact while saying he has the authority to do so anyway. Bush did the same I believe.

 

Sorry if I don't have a deep well of trust for Putin.

The fact is Crimea was a part of Ukraine at the time. Therefore, Putin definitely said he was ready to use nukes if anybody tried to stop him from unilaterally invading and then annexing the territory of another sovereign state, not to defend a portion of Russia's sovereign territory.

No one should trust him - not without verification :). But in any event, we agree that the US is already doing what it should be doing per the Budapest Memorandum.

 

In fact, this is the biggest blunder of Russia's war against Ukraine. If Putin had not done anything further to Ukraine after invading Crimea, arguably Russia would have just got a slap on the wrist and cooled off relations for a period of time. That's because even the West has some sympathy for Russia's assertion that Crimea should be a part of Russia and that (probably) the majority of Crimeans (at the time at least) felt the same way. But Putin requires more from Ukraine than just Crimea, so that is why he didn't stop there.

Agreed that he wants more - but for the abundance of clarity, I don't think its territory. Donetsk and Lugansk is leverage - they're very significant parts of Ukraine economically (or, were, and can be again). They're a tool to enforce compliance - renewed fighting can damage Ukraine at any time.

This I agree with.

 

Again, I agree. I heard a talk by a German woman from a big think tank (I forget her name) last week who spoke at the Camden Conference earlier this month. She said the US talks about supporting Ukraine, but does little to actually do so. After more criticism of the US' actions she said that what she just outlined went double for Europe since they should be the ones fixing it and not the US.

Yeah, I think Europe's conduct from the beginning of this has been unbelievable. They've nurtured this idea in Ukraine that the moment they signed the EU Association Agreement, everything would somehow magically get better. But they refuse to give any real help to enact the reforms Ukraine needs.

 

There wasn't for Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltics either. 25 years later it's an imperfect and uneven improvement over the way things were prior, but only a fool would say it wasn't worth supporting. Poland, for example, is more important to the EU than some of its original members.

A thing to remember about Poland is that it has gotten (IIRC) hundreds of billions in aid from the EU over the decades. This is precisely what Ukraine needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...