Ukraine crisis: Vladimir Putin has lost the plot, says German chancellor

[denem]

Source: The Guardian

Vladimir Putin has lost the plot over Ukraine, according to the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

Angela Merkel describes Russian president as 'out of touch with reality' after urging him to back down from Crimea occupation

US reports said Merkel phoned Barack Obama on Sunday evening after speaking to the Russian president to press him to back down from his invasion of Ukraine and occupation of the Crimean peninsula.

"She was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. 'In another world,' she said," the New York Times reported.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-vladimir-putin-angela-merkel-russian

[TwilightGardener]

1. Ouch! Merkel leaving a mark.

Edit to add: it's almost ridicule--I don't think Putin would take ridicule well.

[denem]

3. Merkel has not made a public comment. This is a US leak.

No doubt Putin will believe it is all American lies, and the Chancellor will keep her own counsel.

[TwilightGardener]

5. No one will confirm or deny, probably--but it's out there now.

[geek tragedy]

2. Putin is probably trying to exaggerate his own crazy factor for leverage

that said, look for the oligarchs to start getting their assets seized

[monmouth3]

4. In the meantime the warmongers, i.e. MCain, Chuckie Todd and the rest of the war loving right should

have a little/lot of egg on their faces...LOL.. Let us not forget Billy Krystol also...

[freshwest]

10. Good. n/t

[lastlib]

16. Can't forget Billy "Never Been Right (About Anything)" Kristol!

Never met a war he didn't like.

[denem]

7. AFAIK Russian local TV propaganda has been totally over the top,

along the lines of Neo-Nazi's are preparing to invade Russia but, the problem with propaganda is you don't know who believes it. In some cases the crazy Does go right to the top.

[freshwest]

11. Some Russians believe the world is out to get them. They listen to Alex Jones and believe him. And

they will never forget WW2.

[okaawhatever]

18. I read an interesting piece about polls in Russia showing who their enemies and allies were. It was

from the time period 2005/2013. During that time the percentage who said they felt threatened by the US went up considerably. Considering that we hadn't taken any new military actions during that time period or had a war mongering President, you have to wonder if it wasn't the effect of a PR push. During that same time Putin and Medvedev cracked down on independent media, but still. It's interesting that they would think the US is a greater threat now than in 2005.

I'll post the article and infographics as an op

[jakeXT]

21. Georgia 2008, Libya 2011 ?

And the whole Iran thing in 2007.

[Lurks Often]

43. And WW1 and Napoleon,

the Germans, the Poles, the Swedes, the Mongols and undoubtedly a bunch more.

There is a national paranoia about being invaded, although I doubt the average Russian consciously recognizes that the paranoia exists. Given Russia's history, it's hard to blame them.

[freshwest]

22. In Ukraine or Russia?

[MannyGoldstein]

26. It's worked great for the Tea Party

I have no reason to believe this rumor, but it wouldn't be a bad tactic for Putin in dealing with Obama.

[Iliyah]

6. No matter who leaks and the trickling information coming out pro and con and

downright lies and/or truths, but I for one have seen this man, Putin become in his tiny little mind - superior. That my friend is a dangerous mind set.

[okaawhatever]

34. It is dangerous, so is his being so narcissistic he wouldn't dare hire advisers who would contradict

him. That Emperor would walk around buck ass naked before anyone would tell him he isn't wearing any clothes.........wait, I'm having an epiphany. Has someone sold him on the idea that he's wearing a magic shirt in all those pictures?

[jakeXT]

8. She was surprised by the spying on her, either she's naive or a good actress

(Reuters) - When Angela Merkel was growing up in communist East Germany, she recalls her parents getting nervous whenever she talked for too long on the phone. "Hang up! The Stasi is listening and it's all being recorded," warned her mother, according to one biography.

But somewhere along the line between her childhood behind the Iron Curtain and becoming chancellor of a united Germany, Merkel apparently lost her fear of eavesdropping.

She called Barack Obama last week to demand clarification of reports that the U.S. National Security Agency had monitored her mobile phone. But the protests ring hollow to those who have warned about omniscient U.S. eavesdropping.

Critics say Merkel is either naive or feigning surprise for her domestic audience.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-germany-usa-idUSBRE99S0XL20131029

[Cha]

17. Yeah, thanks for that, jake.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. I heard she was mostly angry that the NSA was so exquisitely incompetent

that they let a new hire walk off with everything. She feels the US can't be trusted to do anything right.

[okaawhatever]

35. Hey, not fair. This wasn't the NSA's fault, this was the fault of the person that gave the

contract to a for-profit corporation that then hired another for-profit contractor to check his background. The security contractors think they deserve a pass too, they said, "We have two jobs, one to provide contract security services to the government, the second is to make a profit. We got it half right. "

[pampango]

9. Early military success does not a war win. The US and many others can attest to that. n/t

[Demeter]

12. Foiled the plot, more likely

Isn't that so, Angela?

[sofa king]

13. We'd better understand what that "other world" is.

It should be very, very easy for Americans to understand what Russian motivation is these days, because it's squarely based upon the naval theories put forth by an American, Alfred Thayer Mahan, in his landmark work, The Influence of Seapower Upon History, 1660-1783.

It's free on Project Gutenberg:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13529

The upshot is that most of the Russian foreign policy regarding both Syria and the Ukraine has almost everything to do with the fact that Russia has only a handful of warm-water ports that are open year-round, all in the Black Sea, all of which can be easily blockaded by other nations on the Black Sea, especially the Ukraine with its naval base at Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula. (The Turks, of course, decide whether or not anyone gets into or out of the Black Sea, which is why the Russians are so insistent on keeping a small base outside of the Bosphorous, in Syria.)

From the Russian point of view their naval situation is desperate and always has been. Therefore they tend to be dicks when their naval assets are threatened in the least. They may have long-term plans to reacquire the Ukranian naval facilities at Odessa and Sevastopol, and they may in fact be the instigators of the destabilization in the Ukraine, but whatever the case, when Sevastopol starts to get dodgy, the Russians get nervous, as Sergei Eisenstein so brilliantly explained:

[LiberalEsto]

15. That's why they'd love to re-occupy the Baltic nations

Ports on the Baltic sea.

[freshwest]

24. Why occupy when they could barter access in return for their natural gas? n/t

[LiberalEsto]

41. Because occupation is Russia's occupation?

[freshwest]

44. No, because the gas is their real weapon and they're not afraid to use it:

Company Gazprom (Открытое Акционерное Общество «Газпром», OAO Gazprom Russian: ОАО «Газпром», IPA: [ɡɐsˈprom]) is the largest extractor of natural gas and one of the largest companies in the world. Its headquarters are in the Cheryomushki District, South-Western Administrative Okrug, Moscow.[3] Its name is a contraction of Russian: Газовая промышленность, tr. Gazovaya Promyshlennost, meaning "gas industry". Gazprom was created in 1989 when the Ministry of Gas Industry of the Soviet Union transformed itself into a corporation, keeping all its assets intact. The company was later privatised in part, but currently the Russian government holds most of the control in its hands.

In 2011, the company produced about 513.2 billion cubic metres (18.12 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas, amounting to more than 17% of worldwide gas production. In addition, Gazprom produced about 32.3 million tons of crude oil and nearly 12.1 million tons of gas condensate. Gazprom's activities accounted for 8% of Russia's gross domestic product in 2011.

The major part of Gazprom's production fields are located around the Gulf of Ob in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug in Western Siberia, while the Yamal Peninsula is expected to become the company's main gas producing region in the future. Gazprom possesses the largest gas transport system in the world, with approximately 158,200 kilometres of gas trunk lines. Major new pipeline projects include Nord Stream and South Stream...

Gas pipeline transport Revenue Increase US$ 153.0 billion (2012)[1][2]

Net income Decrease US$ 38.7 billion (2012)[1][2]

Owner(s) Russian Government (50.01%)

Employees 393,000

Russia is holding a sword over Ukraine's and Europe's heads. They took measures before and may play this hand again:

Price disputes

On 1 January 2006, at 10:00 (Moscow time), during the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute, Gazprom ceased the supply of gas to the Ukrainian market, calling on Ukraine's government to pay increases that partially reflected the global increases in fuel prices.

During the night from 3 to 4 January 2006, Naftogas of Ukraine and Gazprom negotiated a deal that temporarily[56] resolved the long-standing gas price conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

So they decided to deal after having to accept the reality of bitter cold weather on their people after only a few hours. Without a gun being fired.

On 13 March 2008, Gazprom agreed to supply the Ukraine with gas for the rest of the year in a deal that will cut out intermediary companies, a move it hopes will end payment disputes. Ukraine will pay $315 (£115) per 1,000 cubic metres of gas supplied in January and February this year, then between March and December it will pay $179.50 per 1,000 cubic metres.[57] This came after a three day crisis the week before when gas supplies to Ukraine were halved.

On 3 April 2006, during the Russia-Belarus energy dispute, Gazprom indicated it would triple the price of natural gas sold to Belarus after 31 December 2006. In December 2006 Gazprom threatened a cut-off of supplies to Belarus at 10 am Moscow time on 1 January 2007, unless it agrees to raise the price it pays for the gas from $47 to $200 per 1,000 cubic metres or to cede control over its distribution network.[58] Some analysts suggested Moscow was penalising Alexander Lukashenko, the President of Belarus, for not delivering on pledges of closer integration with Russia,[59] while others noted that other friendly countries like Armenia were paying as much for their gas as Belarus would with the new price levels.[60]

Later Gazprom requested a price of $105,[61] yet Belarus still refusing the agreement. It responded that if supplies were cut, it would deny Gazprom access to its pipelines, which would hurt gas transportation to Europe.[62] However, on 1 January 2007, just a few hours before the deadline, Belarus and Gazprom signed a last-minute agreement. Under the agreement, Belarus undertook to pay $100 per 1,000 cubic metre in 2007. The agreement also allowed Gazprom to purchase 50% of the shares in Beltransgaz, the Belarusian pipeline network.[63] Immediately following the signing of this agreement Belarus declared a $42/ton transportation tax on Russian oil travelling through the Gazprom pipelines crossing its territory.

In November 2008 Gazprom and Ukraine escalated their dispute. This resulted in both Gazprom and Ukraine's Naftogaz cutting gas supplies to part of Europe in 2009.

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

Russia, primary shareholder in Gazprom, has had no problem with cutting off the flow of gas to entire nations. They know this, and Ukraine has a huge debt to Russia right now.

Note in the Wikipedia entry information on the changes that Putin made to Gazprom, the Greenpeace incident. And how $35billion was ordered to be paid by one person who led a company all in one single day.

Sometimes we separate the basic needs of nations, like the resources they require, from our political ideology and ideals of how the world should be run, and who is right and who is wrong. I'm beginning to arrive at the conclusion that this is not the out all evil corporation we are discussing in some of these things.

Or the good or evil leaders, but human needs being met or not met, by the systems people have set up to meet them. And the solution is not pointing a finger, but to take responsiblity for the affects of getting what we need or want. I think we will have a more honest world if we consider these things.

Russsia doesn't need to lift a finger, just cut the power (gas) off. Consider the power wielded in our own nation by the Koch brothers. They are old school oligarchs who control through their holdings of real assets and resources, the lives of many communities in their greedy little fingers.

[okaawhatever]

19. They tried to get a full port at or near Cam Rahm, Vietnam. They got refueling and repair, but not

the full Monty. For some reason, Vietnam wouldn't allow a full port. I don't know why. Hey, did you hear Obama announce a new cooperation deal with Vietnam on their nuclear energy project? lolz.

[amandabeech]

25. One of our carrier task force made a port call at Cam Rahm last year.

We were invited by the locals.

We took the local dignitaries out to the carrier for lunch and then gave them a great dog and pony show including a demonstration of carrier take-offs and landings. Reports are that a good time was had by all and that the locals were duly impressed.

The Chinese claim that the East China Sea belongs to them except for a few feet off the coasts of the other countries around that sea.

The Chinese are also disputing any number of small islands and shoals claimed by the other nations and there have been boardings and other such things.

Vietnam is one of those countries, and it may be thinking of a better relationship with their former enemies, who now are investing in their country and who have the biggest, most effective navy on the planet at this point.

The heyday of the Soviet Navy is long gone, but the U.S. navy is going strong and is not taking the hits that the army is taking in the latest downsizing.

I probably come off as a war monger, but the Chinese are not playing well with others. It seems as though they do not have a lot of respect for international airspace or the law of the sea, and want to control large areas that are bordered by other nations as well. We might be as nasty if we had close neighbors off our east and west coasts, but it seems that aside from Cuba, commerce by air and sea move freely to our south.

It might not mean so much to us if the Chinese get into it with Malaysia or Vietnam, but we are obligated by treaty to defend the Philippines, Japan and South Korea, just like we are supposed to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. However, we might get worked up if commercial ships bound for the U.S. from Malaysia are way-laid in what we regard as international waters by Chinese naval ships or one of our own navy ships is shot at by a Chinese ship in what we see as international waters.

"The End of History." Give me a break. Francis Fukuyama should be strung up by his thumbs.

[okaawhatever]

30. You don't sound like a war monger to me. You're right. We don't know what China's intentions

are, but working as hard as they do on their military capabilities, we have to assume they intend to use them at some point. Their 9 dash line seems to indicate a future claim that will have to be decided, whether in international courts or battle. I read up on some of the measures China was taking in advance of claiming disputed islands, like changing passports that had maps drawn inside the covers to include the disputed territories. Maybe we should change the name to South Everybody's Sea. lolz. China has even argued with Russia over Russia's intentions in the South China Sea.
I've always gotten along with Chinese people. I think, like Russians, their citizens and their governments are polar opposites. I hope we don't end up at odds one day.

[amandabeech]

31. The world just keeps getting more and more difficult.

Remember the days when we were supposed to believe that opening world trade would make all these
international problems just float away like a bunch of luft-balloons?

The one thing that strikes me, though, is that the European dependence on Russian gas pipelines, even though they may be trying to diversify with compressed national gas, and on really dirty Russian oligarch money (in the case of the UK) gives them less area to maneuver to protect the overall interests of their citizens.

We are very dependent on others for just about all the things that we use in our homes. We can't make any of that stuff anymore--not even sheets and frying pans. It leaves us in a bad situation.

It seems that all we've done is listen to economists, and often ones tied to certain businesses, like finance. I wish that economists, and this includes Paul Friedman, would understand how their discipline actually affects the individual nations decisions, and go back to the notion of their field as "political economy" in that the political costs to a particular nations into account in their theories.

[freshwest]

23. Thanks for some insights. And I haven't watched that film in years. Thanks for that. n/t

[RobertEarl]

39. Interesting. Warm Water Ports, you say?

Seems global warming is gonna fix that problem for Russia.

Look at the gulfstream flowing past Europe these days, right up into Siberia and the Arctic ice melting away.

One reason the US empire has been successful, as have previous, is the fact that our navy controls the high seas. Except for the Arctic @ Siberia. Maybe Russia is licking its chops over global warming, and the RW climate deniers are playing right into that?

[sofa king]

45. Both Russia and Canada are planning for it.

They have rather the opposite problems, those two nations. Both control the vast amount of territory in the extreme North, and therefore the fabled "Northwest Passage," should it ever reliably open up to commerce.

Both will be forced to patrol and guard those waters with a naval presence, or piracy will naturally fill the vacuum.

Russia's problem is that they inherited a large and theoretically capable navy (2nd largest in the world, and not 2nd by much) which is absurdly expensive, logistically constrained, dramatically vulnerable, and largely unprofitable until climate change makes regular shipping possible in the Arctic.

Canada, on the other hand, really wants to assert their own sovereignty over northern waters, but would require a navy many many times the size and expense of the one they have now. If they did expand their navy that large, they would face the same problem the Dutch faced when their empire blossomed: a need for a navy larger than their population can actually support.

Their obnoxious neighbor to the South has a navy that could do it, which of course is exactly why Canada wants to do it themselves.

That said, I am beginning to wonder if a reliable shipping route through the Arctic will ever open up. As the climate changes it is becoming more violent and more unpredictable. The obstacle of ice may merely be replaced by thousand ton icebergs being hurled about by 30-meter waves and permanent gale conditions. Whatever it is, it seems sure we're going to find out the hard way.

[pampango]

14. "But this crisis is Putin’s Waterloo, not ours. Which brings us to perhaps the most bizarre element

of watching the Crimean situation unfold through a US-centric lens: the iron-clad certainty of the pundit class that Putin is winning and Obama is losing. The exact opposite is true.

Putin has initiated a conflict that will, quite obviously, result in greater diplomatic and political isolation as well as the potential for economic sanction. He’s compounded his loss of a key ally in Kiev by further enflaming Ukrainian nationalism, and his provocations could have a cascading effect in Europe by pushing countries that rely on Russia’s natural gas exports to look elsewhere for their energy needs. Putin is the leader of a country with a weak military, an under-performing economy and a host of social, environmental and health-related challenges. Seizing the Crimea will only make the problems facing Russia that much greater.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/obama-ukraine-russia-critics-credibility

[davidpdx]

38. +1

[Thinkingabout]

28. I am thinking perhaps an engineered plan to get the US, UK, Germany and other members of the EU

Split and angry with each other in order for Putin to run and make a grab and we would allow this to occur. There was the phone call with F--- the EU and revealing programs in the different countries. Yep, the plot thickens.

[okaawhatever]

32. Absolutely. Putin just about had Germany divided off during former Chancellor Schroder's time.

Schroder, who called Putin a "flawless democrat" was considered to have shared American intel with Russia. He also approved the Nord Stream pipeline two weeks before leaving office and then taking a job with the pipeline for $1 million euro per year. Schroder also got a couple of German companies contracts to build the thing, so it seemed like the Oligarchs and government were going to be pro-Russia. The plan of the Nord Stream pipeline was to ship it into Germany and then let Germany benefit from selling it a higher price to the UK. The other part was it would give Russia a way to cut off gas to Poland and the Baltics without interfering with German deliveries. Not a bad divide and conquer strategy. It also kept Germany dependent on Russia's gas. Luckily Merkel has pushed very hard for alternative energy projects and reduced dependency. She publicly opposed many of these measures saying Schroder had made Germany dependent on Russian gas "beyond what was prudent."

A columnist, William Safire warned years ago of a German Russian alliance that opposed the West. It seemed far fetched at the time, but when it came to Helmut Kohl and then Schroder it seemed inevitable.

[Thinkingabout]

33. what pisses me off is to think Americans are helping Putin.

[okaawhatever]

36. Which Americans? nt

[TheKentuckian]

37. Why think about it then? It is mostly pondering phantoms.

Who is even in position to help Putin? Who among that number is doing so? What aid does he really need?

[Thinkingabout]

42. They are there, in the news, they don't say they are but it is obvious.

[quadrature]

29. ?so the deal is, Crimea for an arms-control-treaty? or not.

what does Obama or Merkel get out of all this?

Obama's got no move.
what can he do, stop importing Ladas?

[steve2470]

40. German FM and Russian FM talk, no resolution

09:47: "I had a difficult, long and very serious talk but it wasn't enough to say that a solution is in sight [to the Ukraine crisis]," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters after the meeting his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov late on Monday. "I can't run up a flag to say that we are on the way to finding a solution and that Ukraine and Russia are about to start talking," AFP reported him as saying.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26428296