NATO's new insane policy in the Ukraine.

[laughing dog]

Then please explain to me which countries Russia has annexed.

Split that hair. NATO has not annexed any region or country. Russia has annexed Crimea. Your claim that NATO annexes country is thoroughly bogus. Again, why do resort to such silly rhetorical devices when the real point is that Russia is irrationally concerned with the expansion of NATO membership?

And it isn't possible, I suppose, that YOU are the one who misinterprets our intentions in the region. It isn't at all possible that you are being misled by the mainstream media spin on this subject. It isn't possible that you are being lied to by the same government that assured us of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or promised to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months, etc.

Of course it is possible. However, you have no evidence that are war in Afghanistan is simply a cover for "encircling" Russia. We don't need to encircle Russia. Russia is imploding bit by bit. Already, the USSR has formally disintegrated. 4 to 10 more years of Putin's rule and Russia is very likely going to be an economic basket case. Just because Putin had delusions of grandeur doesn't mean anyone with any sense has to believe them.

 

[Jayjay]

But Putin had a further opportunity with Kiev regimes defeat in Donetsk. As the separatist leader said when asked if they help from Russian troops. "If the Russians were with us, we wouldn't be here. We'd be in Kiev." Ukrainian forces were holed up in Mariupol. Separatist forces were north of there and had a straight shot at Kiev. At that point Putin did not intervene militarily, he called for a cease-fire which Poroshenko immediately accepted because he was basically defenseless.

At that point, Putin had already intervened militarily. The separatist victory in Donetsk is due to Russian troops and equipment, in fact the Ukrainian army had the rebels on the ropes for a while. Just because Putin decided to stop at Mariupol doesn't negate its prior military assistance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Appeasement: Sitting back and accepting their annexations.

You continue to act as if their former possessions belong to Russia.

What annexations? Crimea is the only case. That came only after Kiev was taken over by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Ukrainians. Of course Crimea, which is 60% Russian would turn to Russia for protection against these ultra-nationalistic hooligans. How many countries has NATO annexed since the end of the Cold War? There is no comparison. This doesn't even count the US efforts to encircle Russia by establishing bases in Afghanistan and in the central Asian republics. Have you ever given one second of thought to how Russia might interpret our actions?

Russia would prefer to control by means of puppets. That strategy failed in Ukraine, they resorted to force.

 

[boneyard bill]

Split that hair. NATO has not annexed any region or country. Russia has annexed Crimea. Your claim that NATO annexes country is thoroughly bogus. Again, why do resort to such silly rhetorical devices when the real point is that Russia is irrationally concerned with the expansion of NATO membership?

And it isn't possible, I suppose, that YOU are the one who misinterprets our intentions in the region. It isn't at all possible that you are being misled by the mainstream media spin on this subject. It isn't possible that you are being lied to by the same government that assured us of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or promised to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months, etc.

Of course it is possible. However, you have no evidence that are war in Afghanistan is simply a cover for "encircling" Russia. We don't need to encircle Russia. Russia is imploding bit by bit. Already, the USSR has formally disintegrated. 4 to 10 more years of Putin's rule and Russia is very likely going to be an economic basket case. Just because Putin had delusions of grandeur doesn't mean anyone with any sense has to believe them.

Russia's "annexation" of Crimea followed the same procedures that admission of NATO required as described by the person I was responding to. Therefore, if NATO did no annex all of those countries, then Russia did not annex Crimea. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The US didn't simply invade Afghanistan. We used it as a pretext to establish bases in the near-by central Asian republics. Now bin Laden, the object of our Afghanistan effort is dead and (sort of) buried, but we are still in Afghanistan and we are still in most of those central Asian republics. (I think Uzbekistan kicked us out. Not sure.) Why are we still in any of those countries? I can't think of any legitimate foreign policy reason. One reason is to encircle Russia. The other reason is to assure control of the Afghan drug trade.

I see no evidence that Russia is falling apart. They have a balanced budget. They have no external debt. They're building a pipeline to China to sell gas to the Chinese. They have large gold reserves and large reserves of US dollars. The fundamentals of the Russian economy are much stronger than the fundamentals of the US economy.

 

[barbos]

I see no evidence that Russia is falling apart. They have a balanced budget. They have no external debt. They're building a pipeline to China to sell gas to the Chinese. They have large gold reserves and large reserves of US dollars. The fundamentals of the Russian economy are much stronger than the fundamentals of the US economy.

Well, it was largely to oil prices, now with $70/bbl it's not so clear.
We will see how it goes but certainly It can't get as bad as 1990s.

 

[boneyard bill]

I see no evidence that Russia is falling apart. They have a balanced budget. They have no external debt. They're building a pipeline to China to sell gas to the Chinese. They have large gold reserves and large reserves of US dollars. The fundamentals of the Russian economy are much stronger than the fundamentals of the US economy.

Well, it was largely to oil prices, now with $70/bbl it's not so clear.
We will see how it goes but certainly It can't get as bad as 1990s.

That's my view. Even if the Saudi oil price decline is part of a plan to destroy Russia economically, (and I'm not convinced that it is) it seems to me that they should be able to weather the storm. Within 5 years their pipeline to China will be completed and that will provide additional financial relief. So they don't have to hold out forever. I think the American economy will topple first. Meanwhile, there's all that new oil and gas that they've discovered in the Arctic.

 

[barbos]

I don't believe anyone here really believes Crimea was "annexed" by force.
You say it but I don't believe you really believe it.
Nobody was killed in Crimea, they separated and keep separated quite peacefully.
West should stop being hysterical and start listening and being realistic.
You can suggest another referendum in 3-5 years there but demanding its return is just not realistic.
Crimeans don't agree with you, they may be wrong but they voted that way.

 

[barbos]

As for the East Ukraine, I don't see restoring pre-war status quo as being realistic either. it's too big for Ukraine to handle now.

 

[laughing dog]

Russia's "annexation" of Crimea followed the same procedures that admission of NATO required as described by the person I was responding to.

No, it did not.

Therefore, if NATO did no annex all of those countries, then Russia did not annex Crimea. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Your conclusion is based on counterfactual claims.

The US didn't simply invade Afghanistan. We used it as a pretext to establish bases in the near-by central Asian republics. Now bin Laden, the object of our Afghanistan effort is dead and (sort of) buried, but we are still in Afghanistan and we are still in most of those central Asian republics. (I think Uzbekistan kicked us out. Not sure.)

Why are we still in any of those countries? I can't think of any legitimate foreign policy reason. One reason is to encircle Russia. The other reason is to assure control of the Afghan drug trade.

We are still in Afghanistan to help prop up the nascent Afghani "democracy" and to keep it from falling back into the hands of the Taliban. Whether or not you think that is a legitimate reason, it certainly makes more sense than trying to encircle Russia or control of the Afghan drug trade.

I see no evidence that Russia is falling apart. They have a balanced budget. They have no external debt. They're building a pipeline to China to sell gas to the Chinese. They have large gold reserves and large reserves of US dollars. The fundamentals of the Russian economy are much stronger than the fundamentals of the US economy.

You are misinformed. Russia has external debt (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/external-debt), GDP growth is minimal (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual)), and the rouble is falling in value (http://ieconomics.com/currency-russia-us). Sanctions are making it more difficult for firms in Russia to finance their externally held debt.

Your view that Russian fundamentals are better than the US's is not shared by most serious analysts.

 

[barbos]

Debt chart is misleading. Russia does not have much national debt, that $600bil number is debt of private companies to foreign lenders. So it's basically money loaned for project like drilling for oil, car factories and other stuff like that. Big projects which require foreign machinery financed almost exclusively in foreign banks.
Local banks seems most interested in small business, consumer credits and other scams.
Ruble is directly linked to oil price, in fact it's so linked that budget expressed in rubles did not change at all. I mean it was balanced before and it still balanced now, so oil is sold for dollars and then converted to rubles and you end up with the same amount of money.
I have said it before and will say it again, this oil price and ruble drop could be good for Russia because it the long run it could move serious manufacturing to Russia and shift economy toward less oil dependence.
Now, that external corporate debt is not good of course for corporations and is even worse for oil projects who took these loans assuming oil price would stay high, but US fracking has the same problem now.
In any case Russia is in much better shape now than it was in the 90s when nothing was working and there was total chaos in the economy.
Another chaos is not likely, so I think US hopes to overthrow Putin are hopeless.

 

[dystopian]

We've been over this many times before. The Crimean parliament voted for secession by referendum but could have seceded without it. The same is true of annexation. Crimea is 60% Russian. 40% of the population is Ukrainian, Tatar, and other minorities. It's hardly a surprise that they voted to secede from a government run by unelected thugs who hate them. The election produced a 93% majority in favor of annexation to Russia compared with an 87% majority registered by pre-election polls.

Yes, we've been over this before. Yes, it is very much a surprise since independent polls (ie; those not taken by the seperatists themselves) have, for years, shown a majority of Crimea preferred to stay in Ukraine. These polls have been shown to you before, you dismissed them and I don't expect you to do anything else now; but the fact remains that the referendum results are not credible even on that basis alone. Then there's the fact that there is evidence of rampant fraud in the referendum (When you're going to mess with the results, you might want to not be so obvious about it as to produce a 126% voter turnout). Furthermore, a 93% majority? That wouldn't even be a credible result if 93% of the Crimeans were ethnic Russians; much less when they're only 60%. 93% majorities virtually never happen in fair democratic votes, and they certainly never do on controversial issues.

Whatever its deficiencies, this election was far more democratic than the election of Poroshenko where Eastern Ukrainians were not allowed to vote,

Another blatant distortion of the truth; they WERE in fact allowed to vote; however in the east only some of the polling stationed were opened because the rebels threatened violence and refused to allow the voting to take place on "their territory". Furthermore, even those living in Crimea (which had already been annexed at that time) were allowed to vote elsewhere in Ukraine so long as they kept their Ukrainian nationality; the same option extended to anyone living in the still contested regions. In other words, you're full of shit.

and the coup leaders decided who could and could not be put on the ballot.

Simply not true. As in any democracy, who was and was not put on the ballot was up to each individual party.

The term "expansionism" refers to a policy not to an action. Hence the "ism" at the end. Expanding and expansionism are not synonyms.

Except that in this case that argument doesn't fly since expansionism as a policy is explicitly aimed at expanding a state's territory. Try again.

Not even the Russians could be stupid enough? It seems to me that so far you've been claiming that they've been fiendishly clever. If they're so stupid, what have we got to worry about?

Who says we're worried about the Russians trying to take Kiev?

It appears that your views are colored by a particular dislike for Russians that, in turn, seems to be coloring your whole interpretation of the situation.

I have no particular dislike of Russians; but one could just as easily say the same about you and the west.

The Russians have far more resources available to them than Kiev does. They aren't pleading for money from the IMF.

For now. If Russia doesn't change its ways, the west will continue sanctions; even ramp them up. In an economic war of attrition, Russia will lose long before the EU or the US does.

I see no reason why the Russians couldn't handle these matters better than the Kiev government especially since that wouldn't have to worry about a war in east Ukraine.

...

Riiight... Russia's better suited to govern Ukraine than Ukraine itself, because if Russia governed Ukraine, it wouldn't have to worry about a Russian sponsored war in the east.

The EU didn't put a time frame on their proclamation of non-intervention, and they wouldn't have had time to stop Putin.

And this is relevant how? The EU hasn't adopted any binding resolution to not intervene; they've simply declined to intervene *at the moment*. You're horribly naive if you think us not putting a time-frame on our declining to intervene means that we'll let Russia go quite that far. And it wouldn't be particularly relevant long-term if we couldn't stop Putin before he takes Kiev; Russia can not win a conflict with Europe (even if the US decides to stay out of it) conventional or otherwise; they'd hold Kiev for a while and then they'd lose it and a whole lot of other stuff. Russia knows this, which is why it's measuring its actions so as to avoid an armed response from us.

Incidentally, Russia's actions appear to be spurring the acceleration of EU military integration. So good job I guess, Russia, you're convincing your number one geopolitical concern to become a unified military superpower as well as just an economic one. There's now even serious talk of the EU itself (as opposed to any individual member states, which is a very important distinction that could change a great deal in geopolitics if you understand the implications) buying the Helo-carriers France originally built for Russia. Would be quite ironic.

Now NATO HAS troops in Ukraine. (Oh, but it has nothing to do with NATO expansionism, I'm sure). They're on a "training" mission.

We're talking about only 1300 troops; so yes, it is merely a training mission; unless you think a force of 1300 represents a sufficient garrison to defend against a Russian invasion. And no, it has nothing to do with NATO expansionism, because as has been pointed out to you, countries voluntarily joining a military alliance for mutual protection doesn't qualify as expansionism. Besides, if Ukraine joins NATO, Russia has no one to blame but itself; they can't seriously expect Ukraine to NOT want to join NATO after Russia invades and takes its stuff.

If you're going to use some principle as a justification for invasion, you have to invade. Since Putin hasn't invaded anyone the claim in unsupportable and presumably false.

...Except we've been over this before, they *did* invade Crimea when they violated the terms of their lease agreement and occupied military and government locations by force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't believe anyone here really believes Crimea was "annexed" by force.
You say it but I don't believe you really believe it.
Nobody was killed in Crimea, they separated and keep separated quite peacefully.
West should stop being hysterical and start listening and being realistic.
You can suggest another referendum in 3-5 years there but demanding its return is just not realistic.
Crimeans don't agree with you, they may be wrong but they voted that way.

Got scuba gear? Because you're deep in that big Egyptian river.

 

[Togo]

I don't believe anyone here really believes Crimea was "annexed" by force.

I believe it.

Mind you, I also believe that the UK has had an independent nuclear deterrant since 1957, which apparently is controvertial in some way?

 

[boneyard bill]

No, it did not.

Therefore, if NATO did no annex all of those countries, then Russia did not annex Crimea. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Your conclusion is based on counterfactual claims.

The US didn't simply invade Afghanistan. We used it as a pretext to establish bases in the near-by central Asian republics. Now bin Laden, the object of our Afghanistan effort is dead and (sort of) buried, but we are still in Afghanistan and we are still in most of those central Asian republics. (I think Uzbekistan kicked us out. Not sure.)

Why are we still in any of those countries? I can't think of any legitimate foreign policy reason. One reason is to encircle Russia. The other reason is to assure control of the Afghan drug trade.

We are still in Afghanistan to help prop up the nascent Afghani "democracy" and to keep it from falling back into the hands of the Taliban. Whether or not you think that is a legitimate reason, it certainly makes more sense than trying to encircle Russia or control of the Afghan drug trade.

I see no evidence that Russia is falling apart. They have a balanced budget. They have no external debt. They're building a pipeline to China to sell gas to the Chinese. They have large gold reserves and large reserves of US dollars. The fundamentals of the Russian economy are much stronger than the fundamentals of the US economy.

You are misinformed. Russia has external debt (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/external-debt), GDP growth is minimal (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual)), and the rouble is falling in value (http://ieconomics.com/currency-russia-us). Sanctions are making it more difficult for firms in Russia to finance their externally held debt.

Your view that Russian fundamentals are better than the US's is not shared by most serious analysts.

You're always asking for links. Why don't you provide some to back up what you say? You provide no evidence except in the final paragraph. I'm tired of this "yes it is, no it isn't" type of argument that you always create.

 

[boneyard bill]

Yes, we've been over this before. Yes, it is very much a surprise since independent polls (ie; those not taken by the seperatists themselves) have, for years, shown a majority of Crimea preferred to stay in Ukraine. These polls have been shown to you before, you dismissed them and I don't expect you to do anything else now; but the fact remains that the referendum results are not credible even on that basis alone. Then there's the fact that there is evidence of rampant fraud in the referendum (When you're going to mess with the results, you might want to not be so obvious about it as to produce a 126% voter turnout). Furthermore, a 93% majority? That wouldn't even be a credible result if 93% of the Crimeans were ethnic Russians; much less when they're only 60%. 93% majorities virtually never happen in fair democratic votes, and they certainly never do on controversial issues.

Whatever its deficiencies, this election was far more democratic than the election of Poroshenko where Eastern Ukrainians were not allowed to vote,

Another blatant distortion of the truth; they WERE in fact allowed to vote; however in the east only some of the polling stationed were opened because the rebels threatened violence and refused to allow the voting to take place on "their territory". Furthermore, even those living in Crimea (which had already been annexed at that time) were allowed to vote elsewhere in Ukraine so long as they kept their Ukrainian nationality; the same option extended to anyone living in the still contested regions. In other words, you're full of shit.

and the coup leaders decided who could and could not be put on the ballot.

Simply not true. As in any democracy, who was and was not put on the ballot was up to each individual party.

The term "expansionism" refers to a policy not to an action. Hence the "ism" at the end. Expanding and expansionism are not synonyms.

Except that in this case that argument doesn't fly since expansionism as a policy is explicitly aimed at expanding a state's territory. Try again.

Not even the Russians could be stupid enough? It seems to me that so far you've been claiming that they've been fiendishly clever. If they're so stupid, what have we got to worry about?

Who says we're worried about the Russians trying to take Kiev?

It appears that your views are colored by a particular dislike for Russians that, in turn, seems to be coloring your whole interpretation of the situation.

I have no particular dislike of Russians; but one could just as easily say the same about you and the west.

The Russians have far more resources available to them than Kiev does. They aren't pleading for money from the IMF.

For now. If Russia doesn't change its ways, the west will continue sanctions; even ramp them up. In an economic war of attrition, Russia will lose long before the EU or the US does.

I see no reason why the Russians couldn't handle these matters better than the Kiev government especially since that wouldn't have to worry about a war in east Ukraine.

...

Riiight... Russia's better suited to govern Ukraine than Ukraine itself, because if Russia governed Ukraine, it wouldn't have to worry about a Russian sponsored war in the east.

The EU didn't put a time frame on their proclamation of non-intervention, and they wouldn't have had time to stop Putin.

And this is relevant how? The EU hasn't adopted any binding resolution to not intervene; they've simply declined to intervene *at the moment*. You're horribly naive if you think us not putting a time-frame on our declining to intervene means that we'll let Russia go quite that far. And it wouldn't be particularly relevant long-term if we couldn't stop Putin before he takes Kiev; Russia can not win a conflict with Europe (even if the US decides to stay out of it) conventional or otherwise; they'd hold Kiev for a while and then they'd lose it and a whole lot of other stuff. Russia knows this, which is why it's measuring its actions so as to avoid an armed response from us.

Incidentally, Russia's actions appear to be spurring the acceleration of EU military integration. So good job I guess, Russia, you're convincing your number one geopolitical concern to become a unified military superpower as well as just an economic one. There's now even serious talk of the EU itself (as opposed to any individual member states, which is a very important distinction that could change a great deal in geopolitics if you understand the implications) buying the Helo-carriers France originally built for Russia. Would be quite ironic.

Now NATO HAS troops in Ukraine. (Oh, but it has nothing to do with NATO expansionism, I'm sure). They're on a "training" mission.

We're talking about only 1300 troops; so yes, it is merely a training mission; unless you think a force of 1300 represents a sufficient garrison to defend against a Russian invasion. And no, it has nothing to do with NATO expansionism, because as has been pointed out to you, countries voluntarily joining a military alliance for mutual protection doesn't qualify as expansionism. Besides, if Ukraine joins NATO, Russia has no one to blame but itself; they can't seriously expect Ukraine to NOT want to join NATO after Russia invades and takes its stuff.

If you're going to use some principle as a justification for invasion, you have to invade. Since Putin hasn't invaded anyone the claim in unsupportable and presumably false.

...Except we've been over this before, they *did* invade Crimea when they violated the terms of their lease agreement and occupied military and government locations by force.

You're beating a dead horse. Most of this has already been discussed. The claim that Europe could stop Putin from taking Ukraine is absurd. Even the US couldn't do that. Yes, they might eventually be able to muster a large enough force to push the Russians out in a conventional operation, but if they did that the conflict would not remain conventional and their nukes are no match for Russia's. But this has been my point all along. It really doesn't matter who violated this or who has a right to do that. Our policy runs the risk of provoking a nuclear war. And the NATO troops in Ukraine is really, really, risky. 1300 NATO troops couldn't stop Putin, but they do serve as a trip-wire if they get in the way of Russian forces. That's probably why they're there, and that could be a huge mistake. We have no significant interests in Ukraine. Our actions there are provocative toward Russia. We're risking EVERYTHING for no significant gain. That's why the policy is absolutely insane.

 

[boneyard bill]

I don't believe anyone here really believes Crimea was "annexed" by force.

I believe it.

Mind you, I also believe that the UK has had an independent nuclear deterrant since 1957, which apparently is controvertial in some way?

They may have an independent force but what is the delivery system? It's been a very long time ago now, but as I remember it, McMillan agreed to buy Trident missile submarines for their nukes when the US abandoned the skybolt missile program that Britain was going to use. As I recall that included in the deal was that the US would retain control over the missiles. This was why deGaulle was so upset with the British. He was hoping that Britain and France between them could develop a nuclear weapons program that could be competitive with the US and the Soviet Union.

It's been a long time so my memory of it is vague. But does Britain have any way to deliver missiles other through the Trident's. If not, do they independent leeway in their use? My recollection is that they do not.

 

[Ford]

But this has been my point all along. It really doesn't matter who violated this or who has a right to do that.

So you're basically saying that if Putin wants to take Ukraine, you see absolutely no reason to stop him from doing so.

 

[boneyard bill]

But this has been my point all along. It really doesn't matter who violated this or who has a right to do that.

So you're basically saying that if Putin wants to take Ukraine, you see absolutely no reason to stop him from doing so.

Absolutely. What did Ike do about Hungary? What did LBJ do about Prague Spring? Nothing. Because they didn't want to risk a nuclear war.

You'd have to be brain dead not to realize that Ukraine is vital to Russia's security. They will fight for it. Our interests in Ukraine are virtually non-existent. The only value Ukraine has for us is to de-stabilize Russia. I have no idea why we would want to do that but the Whiz Kids in the White House somehow think that it's a good idea.

Fortunately, we don't seem to have that problem. Putin has shown little interest in taking over Ukraine and has acted only in response to our provocations. At every step of the way he has offered negotiations, and we have rejected every proposal even as simply a basis for the beginning of negotiations.

 

[Ford]

The only value Ukraine has for us is to de-stabilize Russia.

Have you for a moment considered that Ukraine is valuable to Ukrainians?


I get it...you want to sacrifice an entire country to appease Putin. Hand over everything between Moscow and Kiev if need be, right?


But why are you so desperate to kneel before Putin?

 

[boneyard bill]

The only value Ukraine has for us is to de-stabilize Russia.

Have you for a moment considered that Ukraine is valuable to Ukrainians?


I get it...you want to sacrifice an entire country to appease Putin. Hand over everything between Moscow and Kiev if need be, right?


But why are you so desperate to kneel before Putin?

I'm not desperate to kneel before Putin. I'm desperate to avoid nuclear war. Who appointed us to handle these problems? Iran and Iraq fought a war for 10 years. We stayed out of it. (mostly) The carnage was horrible but where do we get off thinking that every problem requires that we stick our nose into it.

But in this situation we don't face any dilemma at all. Putin has no intention of taking Ukraine unless we provoke him into it. He's perfectly willing to live with a non-aligned Ukraine as he has done since the Soviet Union broke up. We're the ones who don't want a neutral Ukraine.