John Kerry to Meet With Ukrainian Officials in Kiev

[cal04]

Source: ABC News

A senior administration official says Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to the Ukrainian capital of Kiev Tuesday to meet with government officials.

Kerry's trip comes as the U.S. and other Western nations weigh a response to Russia's military advance into Ukraine. Kerry has raised the possibility of issuing economic sanctions and visa bans, freezing Russian assets and levying trade and investment penalties.

The official says the U.S. now believes that Russia has complete operational control of the Crimea peninsula, a pro-Russian area of Ukraine. The official says the U.S. believes there are more than 6,000 Russian air and naval forces in the region.

The official was not authorized to publicly discuss the situation and insisted on anonymity.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kerry-meet-ukrainian-officials-kiev-22740597

[TwilightGardener]

1. I believe British foreign minister Hague is there today, already.

Wonder who else will go?

[jtuck004]

4. Anyone seen Dennis Rodman? n/t

[warrant46]

2. The official was not authorized to publicly discuss the situation and insisted on anonymity.

I wonder if he's bringing a rubber chicken to wave in Putin's face?

That will scare him for sure !!

[TwilightGardener]

3. Kerry's doing his job. Why so down on him?

[clg311]

5. Here I come to save the day!

[Daemonaquila]

6. Good for him.

It may do no good at all, but I'm glad the administration, and he, are trying.

[MBS]

9. Thank you: me, too.

Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Kerry is an experienced, knowledgeable, relentlessly dedicated, effective and creative diplomat, and I personally cannot think of anyone I'd rather have in this vital job. No matter how people on this website and elsewhere may try to treat this situation in simplistic, black-or-white terms, this is a very delicate, volatile crisis with a complex history , equally complex geographical, emotional, political, and cultural dimensions , and really, really important consequences, and I for one am very grateful to have thoughtful people like Kerry and Obama on board to help the US, Ukraine, and the rest of the world, get through this international-relations minefield.

[karynnj]

10. Beautifully said and I agree 100%

This is a very tricky situation - I hope that Kerry and others can help turn down the heat here.

[okaawhatever]

15. Agreed, and I think it will be a boost of confidence for the people of Ukraine to know that there is

someone backing them. Putin's big PR war is to create fear and uncertainty. That doesn't last long in people's minds when they know they have some heavy hitters from the West backing them. I think the people of Ukraine will trust Kerry, and Kerry will let all the minority groups know that they have a place at the table. He usually mentions the Russian speakers when he talks publicly. I'm sure he'll include the other minorities by name when he speaks there.

[MBS]

20. I agree 100%. n/t

[happyslug]

7. US options are limited, do to Afghanistan

There are many ways to get supplies into Afghanistan. The problem is it involved at least one of FOUR Countries":Iran, China, Pakistan and Russia. Each has "Problems" when it comes to supplying US Troops in Afghanistan:

Iran: Saudi Arabia has been in a Cold War with Iran for decades. The reason for this is the area where most of Saudi Arabian oil is located has a majority oif Shiite moslems in it. These Shiites look to Iran for Guidance and support and to make sure that does NOT happen, Saudi Arabia will do all it can to keep Iran down, including black mailing the US with a possible oil disruption unless the US follows an anti-Iran line. This decision to support the House of Saud over Iran is the reason for the US tensions with Iran, not Israel.

China: One bad road leads from China to Iran, not big enough to support anything close to what the US has in Iran, not a real option.

Pakistan: In a mist of its own Civil War, prior to 2010 where most US supplies went through, but that has slowed down do reduce tension within Pakistan and US Supply lines.

Russia: Since 2010 the main source of fuel and supplies to US troops in Afghanistan. While Russia has a very small border with Afghanistan, the Central Asian States with larger borders are landlocked like Afghanistan and thus any supplies that goes through them has to come from Russia or Iran. Thus all Russian has to do is stop such supplies and the US Troops in Afghanistan has to live off the fuel it has at present. I believe our troops have the capacity to have six months of fuel in stock, but it is spring and getting supplies to Afghanistan is hard in the Winter, so the supplies may be way less then six months.

Thus the US options are limited as to Ukraine, do to Afghanistan. Russia has the huge hammer over the US.

[bemildred]

8. Yep. Putin has them jammed, and they walked right into it, just like in Georgia. nt

[okaawhatever]

17. ROFLMAO. OMG I can't believe people are actually buying into this.

1. We're pulling out of Afghanistan
2. We get less than 10% of our oil from ALL OPEC countries. Unless Russia can cut us off from Canada we won't notice. The price on the world market may go up, but that's because Russia will be producing less (which means they will have less money)
3. Russia spent at least $10 Billion today propping up their currency, which still lost almost 10%.
4. The US has been specializing in Liquefied Natural Gas. We've almost finished a huge exporting station and are already building another one. Problem for Vlad is we'll be com[petition since we'll be able to ship it all over the world.

[bemildred]

19. Oh, Putin is in trouble too, he is reacting to having his guy booted out of Kiev.

As near as I can figure everybody is screwn, and they are gibbering and spitting and arguing over who gets to hold the bag for the debacle, EU, USA, Ukraine, and Russia. Nobody is happy.

[geek tragedy]

11. only if you view power as flowing from the barrel of a gun.

Russia is weak economically, and is at the mercy of western powers who can tank Russia's economy just like they did Iran's.

Then we'll see if the Russian people think the Crimea is worth starvation.

[happyslug]

12. Oil, Natural Gas and food are the main weapons the Russians hold

Europe is dependent on Russian Natural Gas and has been for decades. The US has tried to used the newly found deep Natural Gas the US is drilling today, but no one is buying that it is a long term threat to Russian gas. It is a short term threat of two to five years, but after 2017 those new gas supplies are expected to go into rapid decline, mostly do to the fact such wells peak in 18 months and dry within five years. The Russian Natural Gas Fields are expected to last at least another 20 years.

As to Oil, Saudi Arabia does supply a good bit of European Oil, but so does Russia. Unlike the Middle East (including Iran) Russia is a major grain exporter. Russian electronics are as sophisticated as Western Electronics, through a step or two behind the latest electronics. The problem is, most uses of electronics today you do NOT need the latest electronics, electronics of the last ten years is good enough. Even in the 1990s the US had long replaced Typewriters and index cards, with Word Processors and Data Base systems. Those were GIANT steps in electronics, but the Russian have done the same since the 1990s so what the US can do as to electronics is not as great as they could have done in the 1980s and 1990s.

Russia, except for oil and grain trade, is an exporters of raw materials. They are still the primary source of several metals needed to produce jet engines (Other sources exist, but not to the level needed today). The Russians also do not depend on the US or NATO for weapons. Thus not much the US can do, for the Russians under Putin, decided to revert back to the Soviet Policy of minimal trade with the West except what Russia needs from the West. This has reduced US options when it comes to disrupting the Russian economy.

Thus, while Russia has moved into Crimea, I do not see them seeing to heavy a military invasion of the Ukraine. Russia today has no where near the Military might of the Soviet Union of 1985, but we are dealing in an area where supply routes from NATO are limited and with those limitation of supply goes US options.

Remember, the Black Sea is off limits to Aircraft Carriers by treaty. Russia can build one and operate it in the Black Sea (as can any country that borders the Black sea), but by treaty, no capital ships, which includes Carriers and Battleships, can go through the Bosporus and Dardanelles from the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea. Thus the US can NOT send a Carrier to the Black Sea (The Russians did get around this restrictions by calling their Carriers Anti-Submarine cruisers, but that meant including anti-submarine weapons on the actual Carriers, which the US does NOT do).

It does not help that both Greece and Turkey are mad as the US for different reasons. Thus I doubt Turkey will permit a US carriers into the Black Sea and Greece will protest if one did.

Once you eliminated the Black Sea, the only other variable way to sent in supplies to the Ukraine is via Poland. Poland has protested the Russian moves, but will it support a NATO move into Western Ukraine (and will the Western Ukraine accept a Polish move into the Western Ukraine)?

My point is economic trumps most things and right now the US has little economic power over Russia. Putin holds most of the Cards, and the Cards the US has hurts the US, NATO and Europe more then they hurt Russia. Thus I expect a lot of talk from the US and Europe but nothing more.

NATO logistic in Afghanistan:

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

[geek tragedy]

13. the US and EU sneezed at Russia, and it's stock market and currency lost 10% of their value

Sure, Russia can stop selling gas to Europe, which means they stop sending him euros and dollars.

Asset seizures, travel bans, financial sanctions will all take their toll, and quickly. Europe has stocked up on gas, and is investing in alternative fuels with great reason--why should an entire continent be a perpetual hostage to a backwards bully?

Russia is an economic weakling compared to France and the UK, let alone the US and Japan.

[happyslug]

22. Only a 10% drop, the rest of the world also dropped

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26426341

“Global markets typically sell off on news of an escalated geopolitical crisis like we’re seeing in Ukraine; how deep it goes depends on the effectiveness of diplomacy,” Frederic Dickson, chief investment strategist who helps oversee $44.5 billion at D.A. Davidson & Co. in Lake Oswego, Oregon, said in a telephone interview. “We’re in a camp that this is not a black swan event that will mark the end of the five year bull market for stocks in the U.S. and globally, but a modest correction event.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/u-s-index-futures-drop-after-s-p-500-record-on-crimea.html

Sorry a drop in the market is expected, even if the US wanted and supported Russia going into the Ukraine. Famous observation about the stock market, while aimed at recessions but can be applies here, "The Stock Market has correctly indicted 20 of the last 10 recessions". The Stock Market goes down do to things unrelated to reality and thus a poor indications of how any economy is doing.

[okaawhatever]

16. Ommm, hello. Did you not notice we're pulling out of Afghanistan? It isn't an issue anymore. We also

have signed a new lease for base in Romania. We're no longer dependent on OPEC oil. Why do you think we've made such a push to become oil independent? Less than 10% of our oil comes through the strait of Hormuz.

Where did you get that info? Russia Today?

[happyslug]

21. So those US Troop in Afghanistan TODAY, should be forgotten???

The US is pulling out sometime later this year, but US troops are still in Afghanistan as I write. The problems in the Ukraine are occurring TODAY not after the US pull out from Afghanistan. Thus Afghanistan is still a factor.

Also the Pentagon has been clear and US Pull out from Afghanistan does not mean no US troops in Afghanistan, The US wants to "end" all combat roles for its troops, but is negotiating with the President of Afghanistan for US troops to stay beyond 2014:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/uk-afghanistan-nato-idUKBREA1Q1YQ20140227

Sorry, the US "Pull out" from Afghanistan was NEVER intended to be a 100% pull out like the US did in Iraq.

[quadrature]

18. will Obama let Putin take eastern Ukraine?

what does Obama mean by 'flexible'?

[happyslug]

23. I suspect Putin will stop at the Crimea

With the Crimea being a semi-independent "Autonomous" republic Putin can claim that Republic had the right to leave the Ukraine and join Russia. That status provides good political cover for Putin.

That is NOT true of the rest of the Eastern Ukraine, even of most people in that region speak Russian not Ukrainian. Those sections are NOT some sort of semi-independent "Autonomous" republic but just regions within the Ukraine. Worse, the majority who live in those areas consider themselves Ukrainians even through they speak Russian as oppose to Ukrainian. Putin could just take them, but he would have do so some fancy political work to give himself cover, for example hold an election thus permit each sub-region to decide to join Russia or stay in the Ukraine (i.e. vote on the equivalent of an American County level to decide if the county should be in Russia or the Ukraine). Possible, but I just do not see Putin doing it.