General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPutin has succeeded. Therefore, Russia will continue to take over more of its former colonies.
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/putin-has-succeeded-therefore-russia-will-continue-to-take-over-more-of-its-former-colonies/"Toldjaso. Russia illegally stole the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in order to increase Moscows wealth and influence. Lo and behold, the Russian state-controlled energy agency has taken control of gas and oil production in Crimea, thus shutting out other potential companies and countries.
Gunpoint business deals, we might call such operations: Russia is not doing anything irrational here. They are using military force to take control of the European energy market. Power, literally flowing from the barrel of a gun.
Yes, Putins Peeps are planning to commit massive human rights abuses in the area they have taken over. And yes, they are planning to swallow up more of the former Soviet Union, creating a greater Russia in the process. But there is nothing crazy about what theyre doing.
Immoral, illegal, unethical, inhuman, and despicable, yes. Loony, no. Putin and his renascent empire are acting with cold, pure, infernally logical intent as they seize land and power: power that will continue its accretion until the rest of the world punches Vladimir in the metaphorical nose and stops him."
Beaucoup source info at the link, natch.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)The Russian-speaking residents need to be rescued. Urgently.
*
*
*
*
in case I needed to
riqster
(13,986 posts)There are people who buy that line of hooey.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Russia is threatening to move on Estonia- http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2I1J620140319?irpc=932&irpc=932
And they are a NATO country: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#/search
"Tomorrow" is unlikely, of course.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)And I backed my assertion with references.
"LOL" is not an effective rebuttal.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Do you want me to reference THAT?
There's actually not much non-NATO territory left to grab. Hence my initial reaction to your silly scenario. Belarus, maybe, one day, if we hand it to them on a silverplate like the Ukraine.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Or do you think they are lying?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)As Americans, we should know this, n'est-ce pas?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Part of Russia's stated motivations for the Crimea incursion was "protection" of the Russian population.
Since they just did there what they propose doing elsewhere, it seems advisable to be less dismissive.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Like the Crimean Tatars, who are about to suffer ethnic cleansing. At the hands of the Russians. Again.
Yeah, hilarious.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/crimean-tatars-asked-to-vacate-land-regional-official-says/496451.html
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)... NATO member states.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Laughing about the possibility of it happening again is in incredibly bad taste.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Fear-mongering unrealistic bullshit scenarios is what I call "incredibly bad taste". To make it clear: I have not laughed at the situation in Ukraine, but at the nonsense that you are conjecturing about on the basis of it. The current situation in Ukraine is a tragedy, and IMHO, unlikely to get any better talking from the perspective of the Ukrainian people.
Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #19)
Post removed
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But there is a reason Biden was referencing Art V
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)But I believe that Russia's security apparatus is well aware of the significance of Art V
Russia is in no way ready to take on NATO. Putin might do that when his rule is in its last throes, but not when he is on top. That is, at least, my opinion.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Nobody was ready by the way...
At least I hope those in charge remember those lessons.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)... I have to disagree. The Germans and Brits considered themselves readier then ever vis-a-vis a growing Russian threat, which was, IMHO, what made it possible that a minor assassination devolved into a second Thirty Year War in Europe. My take on the First World War is positively Fischerian as far as these aspects are concerned.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But I don't think there was the same definite set of actions on the part of their antagonists, followed by a threat to do it again.
There are a lot of other similarities, though, as you point out. People do love to repeat history, sad to say.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That preceded the great war.
And European wars, with the exception of WWII, usually start through an interlocking series of serious miscalculations and verbal escalations. I am sure you noticed armies have upped their posture already (Poland and Rumania). We moved forward fighters as well to forward bases in Poland.
As I said, everybody keeps screaming Anshlus here, I keep going Serbia-Montenegro et al.
And no, history never follows the exact same path away.
But Biden talking Art V is one of those series of micro aggressions that up the ante. No, I am not saying he should not have said it, just that we are now down very dangerous territory.
By the way, the fun did not start in the Crimea, but with Georgia and South Ossetia. The very weak response from the western alliance and lack of leadership by Bush is behind the current escalation. Why the west is now dealing a series of punitive measures. I hope Russian banks are next, because that might make the bear think twice. NATO right now is far from ready IMHO.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)The British, French and German High Command wanted war, and they were all successful in convincing their civilian leaders. I think the same can be said for Imperial Russia, but, contrary to the Western major powers, time was actually working in their favor - a war beginning in 15, 16, 17, 18 etc. would have been more to their favor (if you discount the possibility of an internal overthrow of the Tsar, as I do). Also, I have not studied the Russian side of the conflict as in-depth as the other major powers (language barrier).
And I agree that the hot phase of this new round of imperial folly started in Georgia. Although I disagree that this is on Russia's hands. Chimpy's junior partner Sakschwily played into Russia's hands much like the premature ouster of Yanukovitch in Kiev did this year. Or maybe the hot phase started with the election of Juschtschenko in 2005, which was really the beginning of the end of the status quo in the McKinderite heartland that so obsesses (possesses?) Western and Russian security policy.
It would be interesting to take this further, but I think we are kind of derailing the thread and subthread.
Though you can be assured to read more from me about the former subject come centennial July/August, as there will surely be a shit load of threads on the subject by then.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)European wars are usually a series of miscalculations, verbal contests, that end in pissing contests.
The route to each is different. But they all share a bunch of dung throwing.
He had little good to say for the US (except this one) we are always late to the party but excel at the macho game.
Lately been thinking a lot about him, dour old cynical, real politik student, could spot the looney, err propaganda in an instant. I sure hope so, he helped to develop quite a bit of it.
You stay safe.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)And some have blundered into it, no doubt, especially civilians. Others, not so much.
I will... Thank you very much!
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)but in "The Strange Death of Liberal England" which is about England right up to the start of WWI, what comes through is that while Germany was always in the background, the main obsession, right up to the moment of the start of the war, was Ireland and the question of what to do about northern Ireland. Allegedly, at the moment the war started, British officers were refusing to follow orders to fire, if necessary, on loyalists in northern Ireland, which was precipitating a crisis.
Then everyone's attention suddenly turned to what was happening on the Continent, and that crisis suddenly went bye-bye.
So from that evidence it looks like England, anyway, didn't really have its mind on fighting a war with everyone else at that time, being too busy fighting itself.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I would tend to agree that the average British Officer - especially those serving in Ireland, did probably not expect such a conflict to break out.
Neither did the majority of the officers in Germany, I think.
The perspective that I invoked was that of the high-commands, those dealing with the big strategic picture. I base my views of British readiness for a major conflict mainly on two sources: On the estimations of the German High Command about them, especially after the failing of the fleet convention of 1912. Correct or not, 1912 was the year in which the German High Command came to the conclusion that the British would rather fight Germany than to make them a part of the Imperial project. Add to that the strategic clash of Great Britain and Germany in the Near East, where similarly, any attempt at mutual understanding or sharing of power failed miserably. This view is not very popular among historians concerned with the british side, but Niall Ferguson, f.e. has presented a pretty convincing version of this view, with the documents to prove it. Normally, I find Ferguson a really terrible historian (I once had dinner with him as a sidekick to a German professor, he is quite agreeable in person, actually) but his contributions to the First World War I find very convincing.
You can find a rather condensed version of this in the following book of his:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Pity-Of-War-Explaining/dp/0465057128
For the German side, this almost antiquated book is still pretty convincing:
http://www.amazon.com/Germanys-Aims-First-World-War/dp/0393097986/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395341171&sr=1-1&keywords=Fritz+Fischer
Of course, much of this is opinion, BASED on facts. Whether Europe blundered into the First World War or whether the major powers wanted it, really depends on which actors you focus on. This is also true for American participation in it: Leave out some actors, and you'll have a perfect argument that no one wanted it, include some others, and the position can't be maintained. History, in that sense, is always selective.
(I know that I promised not to write about this anymore in this thread, as it really is off-topic... But obviously I enjoy ransacking my brain about things long not considered, and I really do miss working in an academic environment, where such conversations can be had for a dime a dozen. Plus, my girlfriend is in Munich and I am on forced vacation. What else to do then but make DU suffer for it?)
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Thanks for the info. Your sig is excellent too.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and Ireland gained it's independence due to that minor scuffle in the Continent. That is one side adventure that usually gets ignored indeed.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But that is a mighty thin straw at which to grasp, and poor risk management.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)It has kept us safe from way worse than a slowly dying Russian empire.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)have ever been in a very long time.
Then again, I actually have some professional experience in the subject, and am convinced that Russia has not the slightest chance as far as a conventional military assault on a NATO member is concerned. NATO is stronger than ever, and the Russian military is, operationally speaking, very weak when it comes to force projection where it is not adjacent to their borders.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Take a gander, though, at NATO's current situation vis-a-vis this specific scenario. Be sure to consider timing and transport.
Again, be safe and I hope you are correct.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)... that is impossible in the world of foreign policy.
If the shit hits the fan, being an American might save me. Or the fact that this country has more atomic bunkers than the cheese for which they are famous has holes... But I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
And, sorry if I might have pissed you off. I might have had a sneering tone in the beginning. Certainly you have done nothing wrong by pointing out and linking to what the Russians said.
riqster
(13,986 posts)My apologies in return if I came across as rude. All the best to you and yours.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine some under-educated, sub-literate half-wit pretending to be clever laughed about tanks in Sevastopol.
Not that you're a half-wit. No, not at all...
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Feel free to add anything of substance to the discussion as soon as you're done with dishing out the insults...
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)You don't think the rest of NATO would find excuses not to go to the aid of, e.g, Estonia to avoid WWIII?
uncommonlink
(261 posts)NATO would come to the aid of a NATO member if attacked by Russia, or any other non NATO member.
The Obama Admin., through VP Biden, has made it crystal clear that any incursion into a NATO member country will be forcefully met.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)As things stand at this moment, though, I am convinced that should Russia invade within the next few weeks, NATO would respond conventionally. All this waving around of Article V, IMHO, is not just blustering.
Therein lies the dilemma - Russia knows that it can't stand against NATO in any conventional stand off well outside of its borders. Which, by my reasoning, would make such a conflict nuclear from the start. Which brings me back to Russia: I am convinced that Russia will not risk nuclear war unless Putin's regime in its death throes, which it is not at this moment.
But I am not writing this in stone: There are many factors that could change rather quickly and therefore change my reasoning.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)That's exactly the way I see it also.
Russia's Generals and Admirals have probably told Putin that in any conventional war against NATO, they would lose and going nuclear, everyone would lose, and Putin doesn't strike me as suicidal.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Plus, I think Putin is smart enough to understand this on his own. You can say many things about him (and rightly so) - but stupid, he is not.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)he is a man who's practiced tradecraft. Unlike many of our own leadership (except senior) he has written those intel reports he is now reading. IMO that actually gives him an edge. Though I do count on stovepiping happening there as well
uncommonlink
(261 posts)but Putin and his Military leaders know that the Russian Armed Forces are no match for NATO forces.
The Russian Army is nothing more than a hollow shell of what the former Soviet Army used to be, the Russian Navy, except for a few modern warships, is a bunch of rusting hulks that would stand no chance against NATO, much less the U.S. Navy.
No, Putin isn't a fool per se, he may bluster, threaten, have spittle fly from his mouth, but in the end, he'll do nothing against NATO countries.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Given his history, it is inadvisable to rely on such unproven assumptions.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)they will give a what for to Putin and make it quite clear that taking on Ukraine was easy, Ukraine isn't a NATO member, but moving on Estonia is a whole different ball of wax.
Russia's military leaders know for a fact that against NATO, which would include the best trained, equipped, and combat experienced military in the world, the US, would be the best road to a quick and humiliating defeat, unless it went nuclear, then everyone loses.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Anybody know if it has gotten better since the old Soviet days?
uncommonlink
(261 posts)The Officer Corps are now given latitude to voice their opinions on whether or not they can win a conflict, unlike the old days when upper echelons of the Soviet Military were expected to walk in lockstep with the Politburo and not question those 13 members.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That is the immediate past war. Brigade level and division level operations, not so sure. If I may, it actually has parallels to the "good war." Before we entered that war exercises were done on the direction of staff because they saw the coming European storm, and they knew we were top notch in small encounters. We did ok chasing Sandino. Those early exercises were eye openers.
If this remained conventional though, I hope you are willing to accept the inevitable draft. If tanks go down the Fulda Gap, it will go Nuclear.
This we are the bestest nastiest army ever ignores the army is actually exhausted as well from ten years of COIN, you could even say spent.
The marines recently, after ten years, decided to practice beach landings. The first was a royal cluster. Yes, they are that out of practice.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Or we can't say anything about it, because Andrew Jackson or something.
riqster
(13,986 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Whatever you think of the voting process, it's clear that they wanted to join Russia over staying in Ukraine.
The idea that Russia will begin invading other countries is more of the Hitler comparison hysteria. They won't invade Estonia.
riqster
(13,986 posts)See the link upthread.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It's an empty implied threat. Estonia is NATO. This sort of thing is done for leverage.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)You really have no clue about any of this do you? You need to stop reading shit on DU by the pro-Putin faction and read other publications to realize what is what in the world, not simply what adheres to what you want to believe.
riqster
(13,986 posts)First, Russia says that Ukranian Russians need protecting from a non-existent threat. They move troops into Crimea. Announcement, followed by action.
Second, within a month, Russia says the same thing about Estonia.
You can assume that the man who threatened to punch you and did so will not punch your brother, even when he says "I am going to punch him". But that is an ill-advised risk to take, no matter how big and bad your brother may happen to be.
Because, you see, the aggressor may not be accurate in his assessment of risk.
Your assumption rests upon Putin being scared of NATO. We do not know that to be the case, and in fact he has given indications that he is not intimidated by the alliance.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Why? Because once Estonia is breached by Russian troops, NATO is obligated to defend them. These are all the armies of the west, both Europe and the US. That would be a nuclear confrontation.
The jab at Estonia in no way constitutes a real threat of invasion. Estonia is not Ukraine. You willing to make a wager here?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Heck, I'll wager a six-pack on my interpretation. That costs actual money.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)former9thward
(31,935 posts)Your link says no such thing and you know it. Promotion of hysteria.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And then moved troops into Ukraine, I stand by my assertion; because it is based on Russian actions.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)they didn't threaten to invade, they expressed concern for the safety of Russian nationals.
I'm not worried about a Russian invasion of Estonia, they know they would stand no chance against NATO in a conventional war.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Putin poster on your wall..pathetic how much Putin is revered here...
Marr
(20,317 posts)directed at critics of Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Instead, he's Bush?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Are you saying people are advocating a certain stance on this issue because they strongly support Obama and whatever he seems likely to support? Because I would agree with that.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)A threat that's overemphasized as some sort of imminent threat to generate nationalistic fervor and justify an imperial expansion on those flimsy premises.
Of course, with one being Bush and the other being Saddam, I don't support either, and oppose the despicable actions of both.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Times like this DU makes me
former9thward
(31,935 posts)Are you saying Russia is going to invade NATO countries?
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)into their tiny little worldview...take alook at other publications other than this shit at DU...Estonia and the Baltics are a prime target for strategic reasons...Putin might not invade, but he'll pull some shit and people who think the Crimean vote was democarcy, who spouse shit like the overthorw in the Ukraine was by a bunch of Nazi are blithering full-fledged idiots...and take a look at how many recs shit like that gets here.
former9thward
(31,935 posts)What people ignore about Crimea is that Ukraine is a economic basket case. Rational people do not want to live in that status. By joining with Russia people's pensions would be tripled, the minimum wage goes up and retirement age is lowered to the Russian age of 60 for men and 55 for women (something we could use in this country). So I think the vote was pretty accurate and would have been much the same whether troops were standing around or not.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Gee, what a great deal
former9thward
(31,935 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But look at which country has codified homophobia between the two.
former9thward
(31,935 posts)They already have it. Talk to some Ukrainians in this country about gay rights. I have. You will get an earful of hate.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The only country that polled worse on homosexuality than Ukraine in Europe was...you guessed it.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/12/eastern-and-western-europe-divided-over-gay-marriage-homosexuality/
So to add nearly a three-quarters opposition to the very existence of the LGBT community, Russia's parliament unanimously made it a crime to even be gay in public.
So again, Ukraine is shitty when it comes to gay rights, but as it stands from the data, the only place shittier to be a member of the LGBT community is Russia.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Russians, again, are going to "relocate" the Tatars.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Step right up! See the All New (well, refurbished), Scariest, Meanest, Naughtiest, most Fearsomest, Bogeyman since Uncle Ho, and the Bearded Man Fidel!
And, you can buy protection from our very own Military Industrial Complex. Which guarantees your safety for the low, low, low, price of....whatever our congressional sales agents can milk out you.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Both my wife's and my ancestors were thus treated, and it really hacks me off when it is done to anybody.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Crimean Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Temirgaliyev said Tuesday that the new government in Crimea, where residents voted Sunday to become part of Russia, wants to regularize the land unofficially taken over by Crimean Tatar squatters following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"We have asked the Crimean Tatars to vacate part of their land, which is required for social needs," Temirgaliyev said. "But we are ready to allocate and legalize many other plots of land to ensure a normal life for the Crimean Tatars," he said.
Many Crimean Tatars have taken over unclaimed land as squatters by building houses, farms and mosques. Ukrainian authorities have in the past failed to settle the land disputes.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And when they were repatriated, much of their original lands were not restored to them, thence the squatting.
Since the Russians forcibly relocated them the first time, and then screwed them when they were allowed to return, I don't trust the motives.
Or the word "ask".
It reminds me of the trail of tears and other shameful episodes from American history. The US did not often say openly "we are stealing your land, have a nice death march, you motherfuckers". No, the party line was that a negotiated treaty had been agreed and so on. Kinda like "we are asking them to voluntarily give up everything they have and go elsewhere".
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I believe it will be China.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I am not knowledgable on that topic.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)All those very frightened can hide under their desks, I suppose.
Response to riqster (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Vladivostok's on the other side of the continent.
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #81)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)And the big piece for Russia is natural gas. They are aggressively using force to secure their market position. If you go to the link in the OP, there are links on the blog site that lead to enlightening information on:
Pipeline locations,
Increased Western drilling in the region,
Other projects like the recently-inked Estonian/Finnish LNG infrastructure.
Bottom line: Russia is facing increased competition in this, a crucial economic sector. And they just used their military to help them minimize foreign competition. Successfully. (Gazprom just took over the sites that Shell and Exxon were bidding on). Shell backed out when Crimea was seized.
Military force is not an end in itself: it serves political and economic ends, as it has in this case.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)That puts a whole new spin on things. Interestingly, that fact has not surfaced in the megabytes of discussion I've read on the topic until now.
Fortunately for Estonia, they don't have oil. -)
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines
I think Nafeez adds a unique perspective, and discusses the oil politics involved rather well. Of course, he might be accused of having a slight anti-western bias, with which I agree to a very, very limited extent.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Bottom line: Russia (and its adversaries) are locked in a struggle over power and control. As the former Soviet states and other regional players become less dependent on Gazprom, Russian influence and profit wane.
That troops are being brought into the process is very concerning.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Putin's power depends on a favorable economic environment, to a large extent. This has so far been provided by steadily rising oil prices. Russia failed to build an economy where they would no longer face this cluster risk.
This strategy is no longer viable as the financial crisis dented demand. When demand slowly recovered, much production capacity outside of Russian control came online, thereby slowing the inevitable soar of prices. This leaves Russia with one option: Increasing its domestic production. This can be done by enlarging Russian territory just as easy as it can be done by investing in new exploration projects. It's probably even cheaper, at least for the Russian state (since they own the major companies). This too is a rather sobering and scary thought as far as the future of Russian foreign policy is concerned.
But as to how significant this is, especially concerning Crimea, I couldn't tell. Though I find it hard to believe that this would bring anything but a very limited temporary relief to their economic woes. Especially since they have committed to investing a shitload of rubles in Crimea if they want to keep even a fraction of the promises that they made before the referendum.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Looks like the investment may not be all that has been promised.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Bosonic
(3,746 posts)Washington Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu promised his US counterpart Chuck Hagel in a telephone call Thursday that Moscow would not assault eastern Ukraine, the Pentagon said.
Hagel voiced concern about Russian movements, but Shoigu assured that "the troops he has arrayed along the border are there to conduct exercises only and they have no intention of crossing the border into Ukraine and that they would take no aggressive action," Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzldfWsaApS2RRHEU3lNy5cD3qag?docId=5ec701a0-5b4c-4666-a14e-6831d84a11b2
riqster
(13,986 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)A little civil war, or unrest, and I'm willing to bet that they would take their chances. That's why it is imperative that the new Ukrainian government gets a hold on its wilder junior partners, so as to not provide the Russians with another (albeit self-serving) excuse. Further, they should be on the watch for the Russians pursuing a strategy of tension in Eastern Ukraine.