Dateline: Ukraine

[Minskaya]

The only event that might challenge Putin would be a robust response from the Ukrainian army against these separatist militias. Such might compel Putin where he must act upon threats to intervene either as a matter of prestige, bulwark the separatists or both.

Ukrainian media report that at Slavyansk, the SBU commander (a female Colonel btw) has decided to surround and blockade the city rather than assault and risk civilian casualties. No one leaves, and no reinforcements enter.

[Minskaya]

A simple primer by The Young Turks Network explaining Russia's game plan in eastern Ukraine...

Maskirovka (Маскировка) in Russian means to disguise. It is usually used to imply military-ops-subterfuge.

[JAD_333]

The strategic viewpoint of Yuriko Koike - who served as Japan's defense minister and national security adviser.

US must demonstrate that word is its bond

I believe his analysis is correct. Every region of the world with current or potential strife is closely watching how Obama responds to Putin's direct challenge vis-a-vis Ukraine.

The thread has moved on, but it's worthwhile noting that this author is not the first to misread the Budapest Memorandum. Contrary to what he writes, none of the signatories "quaranteed" Ukraine's sovereignty. The operative word was "respect".

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;

Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994 - Council on Foreign Relations

[JAD_333]

It Is Time For The West To Move Ahead Without Russia-WaPo Opinion April 26, 2014

Certain there'll be some ad hominem rejection because of McCain's association but the message is accurate. The Russian leadership has profoundly rejected alignment with western values as it attempts to exploit all that's accessible through our global commerce networks. Have their cake and eat it too.

"Western countries had high hopes for our relationships with Russia after the Cold War and acted on that basis. We provided billions of dollars to help Russia’s transition from communism. We created new mechanisms for consultation. We expanded trade. NATO committed not to deploy significant military capabilities onto the territory of new alliance allies, even as it expanded. In short, the West sought to include Russia in the promise of a Europe whole, free and at peace — a vision we still believe would benefit all participants.

Unfortunately, hope of a constructive relationship with Russia under Putin has vanished. A friendly rival has become, at best, an unfriendly adversary. Putin will not compromise his quest to dominate Russia’s sovereign neighbors (not least as a cynical way to build support at home for his corrupt and autocratic rule)."

This appears accurate. I recall a great eagerness to help integrate Russia's new institutions with the west. I sense, though, Russia expected entitlement in the new world for attempting to foist upon the old world in an utterly brutal manner a completely defrocked political manifesto.

No mea culpa I recall from the Russian government for their association with the past. No regrets for enslaving their citizens and a good portion of their neighbors. And none demanded either. Amazingly, though, the wails and gnashing of teeth within Russia immediately crescendoed upon the wholesale desertion of their Warsaw Pact subjects to NATO. Russia was "threatened" by NATO encroachment.

MESSAGE NOT RECEIVED.

Russia was the universally perceived threat by the closest blood relations and immediate neighbors. Russia's reaction? Instead of acknowledging Estonia's entry to NATO likely wasn't to act as a springboard from which to INVADE Russia we're presented this feigned nonsense regarding encirclement.

Finally, we've Putin. Caustic, strutting, arrogant, and more than a little embittered. Clearly doesn't like rolling up his sleeves and competing and, instead, wants another set of rules.

I'm cool with that. He should become a very big fish in a small pond that's drying up. Think he will too at this rate. That's too bad for the Russian people. They should do something about that before it's too late.

S2:

I would have clicked a LIKE to your post were I not somewhat in disagreement with the McCain, etal. article. My main complaint with it is its lack of depth and, although I am not sure about this, its seeming support for isolating Russia. I am not opposed to isolating Russia in the moment, but I am opposed to closing all doors to her.

I rather prefer Madeleine Albright's take on Russia's or, more accurately, Putin's behavior and her proposals for dealing with it.

What next for Ukraine? - The Washington Post

I especially like this observant remark from the article:

The greatest disaster of the 20th century was not, as Putin has said, the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The greatest disasters of that century were one world war that came about as a result of uncertain leadership and unclear priorities; another world war that began when ethnic jealousies were used as a pretext for domination; and a half a century during which a totalitarian power oppressed its own people and its neighbors. The first was a result of misunderstandings, the second a result of outright lies and the third a result of brute force.

[Minskaya]

The thread has moved on, but it's worthwhile noting that this author is not the first to misread the Budapest Memorandum. Contrary to what he writes, none of the signatories "quaranteed" Ukraine's sovereignty. The operative word was "respect".

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;

Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994 - Council on Foreign Relations

Indeed. Respect as used in this document is... a worthless verb. Toss in other verbs such as refrain and consult.

No wonder Iran nitpicks on every word regarding a nuclear compromise.

[Doktor]

"Binding? No. Promise? If you believe Spiegel, then yes."

Clearly you both believe Spiegel and connote Genscher's private remark as policy etched in stone not just for Germany but for all NATO. As though some trust had been violated. With whom, btw, if so? The remaining vestiges of the Soviet Union and spoken to the future president of Georgia?

I am not important here. Russians were convinced and they believed them.

"Then why you don't comprehend Russian fears?"

I guess because I'm not seeing the offensive nuclear weaponry posted within Poland or Estonia aimed at Russia. Can you help me find them?

Who mentioned offensive nukes?

"I don't see it happening any other way in near future. They don't have to be legitimate to let foreign military presence."

Then a Columbian criminal usurpation of the legitimate Mexican government likely would provoke a U.S. military reaction. I suspect there'll even be a considerable coalition of the willing prepared to pile onto that one.

Like we have seen it where?

"How defensive was NATO in Kosovo? Which NATO ally was under threat?"

Certainly more constrained than when Soviet tanks roamed the streets of Budapest in 1956. I remember that we just sorta showed up in Kosovo, stood around for awhile and left. Oh yeah, and tossed a few bombs on those baddies in Belgrade.

Soviet union is gone. We keep hearing how wrong it is to compare last century actions.

I'm certain you've many stories from the nineties. How many have you from 2000 onward? The silence emanating from the Balkans these days is deafening. Given the unfettered bloodletting of the nineties that seems justification enough.

"...current events are just an outcome of the series of moves on both sides, like the broken promise."

I sense you believe Russia betrayed. Dok, is Russia permitted a special buffer status despite any semblance of an overt threat? If an overt threat, from whom and in what patently aggressive form that we've all missed?

I need to know this from you because every previous example of a so-called Russian buffer state has meant, in reality, a police state with a suppressed state economy and a hopeless populace. Who do you choose for this burdensome responsibility to the greater good so poor Russia can feel properly "buffered"?

Ask yourself why Russia wanted a buffer zone? You can't blame them for looking forward to it. Look at the frictions at the moment. Is it OK for Ukrainians?

Speaking of police states, look at Turkey now or Bahrain. We don't see much of a giving a **** for the situation there. There were news about massive protests in Portugal, France and Italy two weeks ago, but noone bothered to report them (me included). Where are the usual suspects who worry about human rights and poor oppressed plebs?

That said, just to be sure we communicate on same frequency, I don't support what Russia does now or what they did in Georgia, nor am I some guy with wet fantasies about firm hand ruling a country. Also, I don't like the puritan image some give to the west, especially the RU. Hope I am clear.

[JAD_333]

Indeed. Respect as used in this document is... a worthless verb. Toss in other verbs such as refrain and consult.

No wonder Iran nitpicks on every word regarding a nuclear compromise.

Nevertheless, the memorandum stands as clear testimony to Russia's disregard for promises it made to Ukraine, starting with annexing Crimea

[JAD_333]

Ask yourself why Russia wanted a buffer zone? You can't blame them for looking forward to it. Look at the frictions at the moment. Is it OK for Ukrainians?

That's a good question. First, when did Ukraine become a buffer zone, and what was it in 1994 when Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum? Of course, things seem to change. Granted there are more NATO members nearby to make Russia uncomfortable. But to what Russia is this a threat? Putin's Russia or the Russian people. Simple reasoning suggests it's a Putin talking point to cover his real ambitions. After all, NATO is a defensive alliance made up of many independent states. For NATO to be a threat to Russia, Russia must be a threat to one of its members, but for NATO to be an aggressor, all its members must agree, and achieving that level of unanimity would be virtually impossible. NATO may be a stumbling block to Putin's ambitions, but not a threat in the abstract.

The heart of the problem today is how Putin views Russia's place in the world. He does not want Russia to be a benign part of a new world order, but a wheel on its own axle. Maybe he wants to reestablish Russia as a counterweight to the US. Who knows? Of course, Putin has to wrestle with many factors in his push on Ukraine, but these only emanate from his playbook to make his vision of Russia's future a reality, and anyone paying close attention cannot mistake what that vision is. The EU and, particularly the US, are resisting Putin not solely to save Ukraine's independence, but to save and extend the new world order, hopefully with Russia on board, but without it if necessary. That is the gist of the McCain and Albright articles.

[S2]

"...Russians were convinced and they believed them."

Bummer for the Soviet Union failing to gather consensus, publically validate and sign into treaty. That's how it's done. Democracy, see? I get my two cents worth on Genscher's promises when my Senate ratifies any treaty signed.

Transparency. All too absent in the Soviet Union's backroom dealings. Just another example where their penchant for secrecy bit them in the azz.

"Soviet union is gone. We keep hearing how wrong it is to compare last century actions."

Cool. The Soviet Union's intervention was unilateral and brutal. Our humanitarian intervention was collectively-agreed and necessary. Also executed in 1999. 20th Century. Since that intervention PEACE has broken out all through the Balkans. Hear guns firing? No. How about sectarian massacres? Any of late? No?

Pretty quiet these days in the Balkans. Are you upset the current arrangement didn't leave the Serbs sitting atop a pile of dead muslims? If not, then thank God for our intervention.

"Who mentioned offensive nukes?"

You mentioned Cuba. Cuban missile crisis was all about offensive nuclear ballistic missile weapons. What makes you think we haven't seen regular Soviet port-of-call visits and even ground force deployments to Cuba continuing up through the eighties? No treaty was signed with the Cuban Missile crisis but resolution was mutually achieved between Khrushchev and Kennedy.

They stood down and backed away. We withdrew offensive nuclear missiles from Turkey and promised no invasion or support for invasion from the U.S.

There are no offensive weapons of similar ilk stationed in eastern NATO Europe. None. Our presence has been NON-EXISTANT among their military forces and on their soil...until now. Russia has managed to change that. We'll see just how much so in the coming months.

"Like we have seen it where?"

Sorry you'd be peeved were America to gather its friends and again re-establish legitimacy in Mexico stolen by some Columbian criminals. Would you prefer we go it alone? Because, under the conditions suggest by you, we would be going regardless.

"Ask yourself why Russia wanted a buffer zone?"

Oh, trust that I have. And have. And have.

"...You can't blame them for looking forward to it. Look at the frictions at the moment. Is it OK for Ukrainians?"

Dok, you CAN blame them for "...looking forward to it...". WHO, in God's name, threatened Russia? WHO?

You OWE me an answer-who do you consign to be vassal subjects of Russian repression to satisfy/sate their lust for a "buffer". That's been asked of you twice now. Show some courage and name the people or nations you consign to that fate.

Then answer your own question whether it's "...OK for Ukrainians...".

For myself it would seem they feel it's decidedly NOT o.k. Can't say I blame them. They've hard experience playing that role very well already and know better than you what it means for their lives.

[S2]

"Respect as used in this document is... a worthless verb."

You could advise me to the extent that word is valued in Russian. I don't know but am concluding it's found under the Maskirovka verbiage. Seems that English-speaking signatories have fully respected The Ukraine's territorial integrity.

[Doktor]

You OWE me an answer-who do you consign to be vassal subjects of Russian repression to satisfy/sate their lust for a "buffer". That's been asked of you twice now. Show some courage and name the people or nations you consign to that fate.

If you can be so kind and reword the question I will gladly extend my view. Like this there seem to be some language barrier and I can't quite understand your question.

[citanon]

S2 sir you are on a roll today! Good posts. Clear and directly to the heart of the matter. :danc:

[S2]

"If you can be so kind and reword the question I will gladly extend my view..."

Gladly.

What peoples do YOU select to serve the onerous task of securing the Russian state by becoming their buffer? If recent polls are to be believed it would seem over 2/3rds of The Ukrainians pray you don't select them.

If need be, please ask for clarification.

Subservient. Repressed. Dependent. Neutered. Voiceless. Denied.

Buffer state. Vassal state.

Now...which peoples deserve that fate so Putin can rest more easily?

I'll look forward to your reply:).

[Doktor]

IIRC, we gladly accepted to be a buffer zone between Soviets and the West. note the word accepted. It worked fine for us for 45 years until we collapsed from within mainly due to our debt (which we owed to the West).

Was Yugoslavia a vassal state to the Soviets? Ask anyone who lived here, we never were. We bought weapons from West and the Soviets, we exported and imported goods from both blocs. We landed money from the West, then borrowed to other countries.

That part of the story served us well. Again, ask anyone from former WP what Yugoslavs meant to them. We also had a way better living standard then let's say Greece or Turkey, both members of the NATO.

What didn't serve us well is that when the buffer was no longer needed, guys at power couldn't sort things out and in times of crisis nationalists pop out. Am I sorry for the collapse of the former state? Not one iota.

So, if you ask me to which of the Russian neighbors I wish them to have better economy and human rights then Russia, I'd answer you to all of them, starting with Ukraine. I also wish them wisdom to realize when the time is right and to mke the right decisions. Even if it comes to a split, better to do it like Czechs and Slovaks then like we did.
If you ask me to which of them I wish them to go fast backwards to 1960's or 1970's, I'd answer you to none of them.

Hope this answers your question.

[Doktor]

Few more things if I may...

"...Russians were convinced and they believed them."

Bummer for the Soviet Union failing to gather consensus, publically validate and sign into treaty. That's how it's done. Democracy, see? I get my two cents worth on Genscher's promises when my Senate ratifies any treaty signed.

Transparency. All too absent in the Soviet Union's backroom dealings. Just another example where their penchant for secrecy bit them in the azz.

So, in essence you blame them for taking a word from a high official from a NATO country and then when that word was broken they feel played and become paranoid and now don't believe anything?

Pretty quiet these days in the Balkans. Are you upset the current arrangement didn't leave the Serbs sitting atop a pile of dead muslims? If not, then thank God for our intervention.

Go back to my previous posts regarding interventions here. I always blamed the Europeans for being so nice and letting it go this far. I also praised the Americans for dodging the bullet.

"Who mentioned offensive nukes?"

You mentioned Cuba. Cuban missile crisis was all about offensive nuclear ballistic missile weapons. What makes you think we haven't seen regular Soviet port-of-call visits and even ground force deployments to Cuba continuing up through the eighties? No treaty was signed with the Cuban Missile crisis but resolution was mutually achieved between Khrushchev and Kennedy.

They stood down and backed away. We withdrew offensive nuclear missiles from Turkey and promised no invasion or support for invasion from the U.S.

To recap. You placed offensive nukes in Turkey, they placed offensive nukes on Cuba. K&K called it a day by giving their words to each other. And it was all nice and dandy. 2 decades later it hs to be written on 50 pages or the German word is word squat? Which one is it?

There are no offensive weapons of similar ilk stationed in eastern NATO Europe. None. Our presence has been NON-EXISTANT among their military forces and on their soil...until now. Russia has managed to change that. We'll see just how much so in the coming months.

Really? What are those bases in Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo? How fast can they be manned? Why the ABM shield is placed in Poland if it's for Iran? Wouldn't Turkey and Bulgaria be better positions?

I don't wonder why the Russians are paranoid.

"Like we have seen it where?"

Sorry you'd be peeved were America to gather its friends and again re-establish legitimacy in Mexico stolen by some Columbian criminals. Would you prefer we go it alone? Because, under the conditions suggest by you, we would be going regardless.

You sure? Hope we wont have to test this to prove either of us right.