West's puny response to Ukraine will not deter - If you want diplomacy, it only works with force

[BrentWil]

This article gets it right.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/02/west-response-ukraine-vladimir-putin-russia

The idea that the US, Britain or France – the only western countries with sizeable, readily deployable, experienced combat forces – might respond militarily to Russia's invasion of Crimea cannot be taken seriously. Putin surely calculates there will be no such challenge, as he did, correctly, in Georgia in 2008, and thus moves his troops and tanks in Crimea – and possibly eastern Ukraine – with impunity. Obama, whose presidency has been dedicated to ending wars, not starting them, has shown he has no appetite for new armed confrontations, in Syria or elsewhere.

Putin understands the West will not respond. The economic sanctions and a diplomatic response are of little consequence. Just as with Georgia, he will act without fear of any real response. Without the willingness to use force, there is no diplomacy . He has to fear that this actually could lead to a wider war before he will talk. Is this what our grandparents and great grandparents felt like watching the German occupation of Czechoslovakia?

[Democracyinkind]

1. While the article is good, your additions are ridiculous.

Neither Georgia nor the current events in Ukraine were brought on by Russian actions. Russia is reacting in both cases.

That Russia will not give up Crimea just like that is something that anyone with even the slightest grasp of the geopolitical situation would have anticipated.

[BrentWil]

2. SO...

The basic statement that "Russia will use force as a tool, unless there is a credible threat of force" is not true?

I understand the historical connections and the strategic importance in Russia. However, as far as them "reacting" in both cases, BS. They are ceasing on opportunities. If anyone takes the threat to Russian speaking minorities seriously, they don't have a grasp of the geopolitical situation. There is no pattern of long term abuse here. I wonder if Putin thinks the more than 20 million non-Russian speakers in his country should be able to secede?

Finland after WWII would be a good model here. However, to get to that point, there has to be some real action by the West.

[Democracyinkind]

19. The regime in Ukraine was clearly pro-Russian.

There was regime change, hence Russia is now reacting. It was the pro- western forces that grabbed the "opportunity" for regime change, not vice versa.

Losing their client regime in Kiev clearly put Russia on the reactive, not pro-active side of the issue. Their reaction is about as plausible as our reaction would be if Diego Garcia would fall into the Chinese sphere of influence (not that that is a realistic scenario).

[Warren Stupidity]

20. technically the democratically elected regime was overthrown by force.

but that is a mere technicality.

[Democracyinkind]

22. I agree with that statement... (?)

Was it meant as an addition to the Chinese-in-Diego-Garcia-scenario?

[Warren Stupidity]

26. yes. The mock outrage at the reality of the ukrainian crisis by our war boosters is ridiculous.

[Democracyinkind]

32. Agree.

It also displays a fundamental ignorance of geopolitics by overfocusing on such ephemeral propagandistic concepts as "legitimacy" and "the will of the people".

[BrentWil]

25. If by gambit...

You mean a regime over reacted to protest and fueled its own overthrow.

I love how you think this is all externally driven. The biggest driver behind the changes in the Ukraine were the people of the Ukraine.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. which "people of the Ukraine"?

[Democracyinkind]

30. I do not think it is wholly externally driven.

But all revolutions - especially those in geopolitical hotspots - have a fair amount of meddling by foreign interests.

Provoking a regime to overreact is a classic tactic in overthrowing a regime, foreign meddling or not. It's called the strategy of tension and is a well recognized concept in political and revolutionary theory.

[BrentWil]

35. Well recognized concepts....

Or it could be that a government didn't sign an agreement with the EU that they previously promised to sign. This made a good portion of the country pretty pissed, given they would prefer to live in something that looked like Prague and not Moscow.

You see this as very structured. You remained me someone like Walt Roscow.

[Democracyinkind]

37. LOL. You're telling me the people rose up for the EU's proposed austerity?

You remind me of someone too.

[Turbineguy]

34. The pro-Russian regime

was not overthrown for being pro-Russian, it was overthrown for being corrupt and looting the economy.

[Democracyinkind]

36. As was the pro western regime that preceded it.

As was any Regime there since independence. If corruption was the crux of the issue, there would have been a revolution about every year for the last 24 years.

[DireStrike]

12. You can prove that Russia didn't instigate, support, or inflame the protests in Ukraine?

Your statement seems to outright deny the possibility, which I think goes too far.

[Democracyinkind]

14. Of course they did. But they seem to have lost that game of thrones.

Hence, they are now reacting to the new political realities.

[DireStrike]

17. I dunno, destabilization to the point where you can commit troops seems a desirable outcome

Not the first choice, but if I were a Russian imperialist drawing up the plans it'd be in there somewhere as a contingency. They are still in a good position to get something out of this.

[Democracyinkind]

21. You think that losing their client regime in Kiev was in the interest of Russia?

That's quite far fetched. Foreign policy is prefers predictability. The status of Russian power was absolutely predictable under Janukowitsch. It would have been a ridiculously risky gamble.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely, in the face of a lack of evidence for the thesis? No.

[DireStrike]

23. What do you think was the purpose of the protests, then?

And what role do you think Russia had with regard to them?

[Democracyinkind]

27. The protests were led by pro-western elements within Ukraine

funded and equipped by Western allies, especially German (such as the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung).

The west has tried to wrestle the Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of influence ever since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact while Russia has fought desperately to keep it within that sphere.

The West had a significant victory with getting Juschtschenko elected, but the Russians were able to reverse that. This month's events have basically been a repetition of the Orange revolution, with Western interests scoring another victory by ousting Janukowitsch.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Georgia was a scam perpetrated by Saakashvili.

Background here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024587124

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. McCain 2008 'We are all Georgians now''

McCain 2014 ''We are all Ukrainians now''

Told me all I needed to know about misguided talk and being played with.

[JHB]

11. Of course, if either he or Romney were in the WH, Russia would have even more...

...freedom to do whatever it wants, since our forces would be tied up in a war in Iran.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. Georgia was an interesting power play

which I called out as stupid , a set up and risky at the time. Almost a false flag situation that might have dragged in NATO troops.

[bemildred]

31. Yes, and this is another color revolution gone bad.

And it looks to produce similar results. Russia will take what it wants and let the EU bail out the rest.

[dipsydoodle]

41. I doubt the EU would bail out the rest.

Aggregate cost is seen as being c. $220 billion which is roughly equal to that of Greece.

[bemildred]

42. The tenderness of the EU's mercy is well known. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

4. The NSA could take naked pics of Putin using his webcam

Putin is a bad guy, but he's not shown himself to be Hitler or Stalin.

But it's true, in the absence of a credible threat of *some* sort, there is great risk. Sadly, the West has demonstrated that it will do anything for anyone with serious cash, so economic threats are a farce. Militarily, there are probably no good options even if John McCain was suddenly left to decide whether we go to war.

During the Cold War the Soviet Union invaded its neighbors on occasion while we did nothing, but the West still won.

[jsr]

28. +1

[Vattel]

5. There is all sorts of opportunity for effective diplomacy without the threat of force.

In this particular case, though, diplomacy without a credible threat of force may not work. But that's okay. Given the stakes, it would be crazy for us to use force against Russia. So I hope we don't credibly threaten Russia with force.

[Scuba]

9. A sane voice in this wilderness. Thank you.

[polly7]

6. The truth about South Ossetia

After the west heaped blame on Russia for the conflict, it ignores new evidence of Georgia's crimes of aggression

Seumas Milne

theguardian.com, Friday 31 October 2008 16.15 GMT

So now they tell us. Two months after the brief but bloody war in the Caucasus which was overwhelmingly blamed on Russia by western politicians and media at the time, a serious investigation by the BBC has uncovered a very different story.

Not only does the report by Tim Whewell – aired this week on Newsnight and on Radio 4's File on Four - find strong evidence confirming western-backed Georgia as the aggressor on the night of August 7. It also assembles powerful testimony of wide-ranging war crimes carried out by the Georgian army in its attack on the contested region of South Ossetia.

They include the targeting of apartment block basements – where civilians were taking refuge – with tank shells and Grad rockets, the indiscriminate bombardment of residential districts and the deliberate killing of civilians, including those fleeing the South Ossetian capital of Tskinvali.
The carefully balanced report – which also details evidence of ethnic cleansing by South Ossetian paramilitaries – cuts the ground from beneath later Georgian claims that its attack on South Ossetia followed the start of a Russian invasion the previous night.

At the time, the Georgian government said its assault on Tskinvali was intended to "restore constitutional order" in an area it has never ruled, as well as to counter South Ossetian paramilitary provocations. Georgian intelligence subsequently claimed to have found the tape of an intercepted phone call backing up its Russian invasion story – but even Georgia's allies balk at a claim transparently intended to bolster its shaky international legal position .

Naturally the man who ordered the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, president Mikheil Saakashvili, denies the war crimes accusations. But what of his Anglo-American sponsors, who insisted at the time that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered"?

Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia

[Cali_Democrat]

8. So what do you suggest?

[giftedgirl77]

10. He/She started beating the war drum yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024586432

[BrentWil]

13. I suggested in another thread... THis is an observation...

Putin will use force as a tool, until there is force that oppose that.

[spanone]

16. i get it. you are a warmonger. good luck with that.

[alittlelark]

18. NATO will decide what to do - not the US.

Ukraine is a NATO treaty nation. The US will engage if it is determined by the treaty that they must - along w/28 other countries - not some pathetic 'coalition of the willing'.

That said - Crimea is a "sovereign state" within Ukraine that self-identifies as Russian, not Ukrainian.

Putin will argue that it is not an attack on Ukraine.

I doubt he plans to start WW3 and will sit on Crimea for awhile to saber-rattle.

[jsr]

38. Ukraine is not a member of NATO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraine-makes-it-official-nation-will-abandon-plan-67901.html
Ukraine makes it official: Nation will abandon plans to join NATO
May 28, 2010, 12:17 a.m. | Ukraine — by Reuters

[alittlelark]

39. Sorry, you"re right - It is Lithuania and Latvia that are NATO

and called for them to convene. Putin wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO.

Missed that...

[Demit]

40. Crimea is not a sovereign state. It's an an autonomous republic, a sort of province of Ukraine.

[TwilightGardener]

24. If it appears to spread beyond Crimea, and threatens the Ukraine as

a whole, NATO may have no choice but to get involved, because of neighboring NATO countries. I wouldn't judge the response just yet--overreaction would just escalate it right now.

[RKP5637]

33. +1, n/t

[L0oniX]

43. I'll mark this as being a pro war op.

This article gets it right.