Ukraine's President Warns of Full Scale Russian Invasion
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Ukraine in NATO? If so we're kind of locked into some sort of action. Even if we don't give two craps about Ukraine, what good is the NATO pact if we turn our backs on it when a member needs help. Next time it may be France, or England, or us who needs the help.
There is ample evidence that the stress laid in Russia on the menace confronting the Russian society from the world outside its borders is founded not in the realities of foreign antagonism but in the necessity of explaining away the maintenance of the dictatorial authority at home....
Today the major part of the structure of the Russian power is committed to the perfection of the dictatorship and maintenance of the concept of Russia as in a state of siege...
[This] means that there can never be on Moscow's side any sincere assumption of a community of aims between Russia and the powers which are regarded as capitalist. It must invariably be assumed in Moscow that the aims of the capitalist world are antagonistic to the Russian regime, and therefore to the interest of the people it controls.
If the Russian government occasionally sets its signature to a document which would indicate contrary, this is to be regarded as a tactical maneuver permissible in dealing with the enemy and should be taken in the spirit of caveat emptor. Basically the antagonism remains. It is postulated. And from it flow many of the phenomena which we find disturbing in Moscow's conduct of foreign policy: the secretiveness, the lack of frankness, the wary suspiciousness, the duplicity, and the basic unfriendliness of purpose. These phenomena are there to stay for the foreseeable future.
s/ George F. Kennan
Today the major part of the structure of the Russian power is committed to the perfection of the dictatorship and maintenance of the concept of Russia as in a state of siege...
[This] means that there can never be on Moscow's side any sincere assumption of a community of aims between Russia and the powers which are regarded as capitalist. It must invariably be assumed in Moscow that the aims of the capitalist world are antagonistic to the Russian regime, and therefore to the interest of the people it controls.
If the Russian government occasionally sets its signature to a document which would indicate contrary, this is to be regarded as a tactical maneuver permissible in dealing with the enemy and should be taken in the spirit of caveat emptor. Basically the antagonism remains. It is postulated. And from it flow many of the phenomena which we find disturbing in Moscow's conduct of foreign policy: the secretiveness, the lack of frankness, the wary suspiciousness, the duplicity, and the basic unfriendliness of purpose. These phenomena are there to stay for the foreseeable future.
s/ George F. Kennan
A little more Kennan from 1947:
It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Russian regime. It must continue to regard Russia as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Russian policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability... but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disrupting and weakening of all rival influence and rival power.
It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Russian regime. It must continue to regard Russia as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Russian policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability... but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disrupting and weakening of all rival influence and rival power.
They are not in NATO but we did sign a treaty to guarantee their sovereignty, but so did Russia, the UK, France and China in 1994 in exchange for giving up nukes. I tell you after this and after what happened to Libya I can't see another nation ever giving up nukes.
Not only will they not give them up more and more countries are going to try and develop them.
And it's hard to argue that's not a smart, rational, justified move.
Won't happen. As it is now Putin has a war he can sell. Separatists vs. Ukrainians, whose grandparents were Nazis. If he invades Ukraine he has to explain a lot of dead Russian soldiers to a public that will not like it. And, sanctions become tougher, and maybe Russia loses the World Cup.
I agree. What's the solution? Do we have to destroy a nuclear state to prove that nukes are no defense? Would N.Korea suffice? How about Pakistan?And then what?
Stephen Cohen – professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University who has long focused on Russia – explained this weekend on CNN:
We are witnessing as we talk the making possibly of the worst history of our lifetime. We are watching the descending of a new cold war divide between west and east, only this time, it is not in far away Berlin, it’s right on Russia’s borders through the historical civilization in Ukraine. It’s a crisis of historic magnitude. If you ask how we got in it, how we got into the crisis, and how therefore do we get out, it is time to stop asking why Putin – why Putin is doing this or that, but ask about the American policy, and the European Union policy that led to this moment.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...nfrontation-u-s-nato-encirclement-russia.html
We are witnessing as we talk the making possibly of the worst history of our lifetime. We are watching the descending of a new cold war divide between west and east, only this time, it is not in far away Berlin, it’s right on Russia’s borders through the historical civilization in Ukraine. It’s a crisis of historic magnitude. If you ask how we got in it, how we got into the crisis, and how therefore do we get out, it is time to stop asking why Putin – why Putin is doing this or that, but ask about the American policy, and the European Union policy that led to this moment.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...nfrontation-u-s-nato-encirclement-russia.html
this. Unless someone can explain to me why it matters that Ukraine exists independently.
I don’t know if you your listeners or views remember George Kennan. He was considered [a] great strategic thinker about Russia among American diplomats but he warned when we expanded NATO [under Bill Clinton], that this was the most fateful mistake of American foreign policy and that it would lead to a new Cold War. George lived to his hundreds, died a few years ago, but his truth goes marching on. The decision to move NATO beginning in the 90’s continuing under Bush and continuing under Obama, is right now on Russia’s borders.
And if you want to know for sure, and I have spent a lot of time in Moscow, if you want to know what the Russian power elite thinks Ukraine is about, it is about bringing it into NATO. One last point, that so-called economic partnership that Yanukovych, the elected president of Ukraine did not sign, and that set off the streets – the protests in the streets in November, which led to this violence in and confrontation today, that so-called economic agreement included military clauses which said that Ukraine by signing this so called civilization agreement had to abide by NATO military policy. This is what this is about from the Russian point of view, the ongoing western march towards post Soviet Russia.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...nfrontation-u-s-nato-encirclement-russia.html
And if you want to know for sure, and I have spent a lot of time in Moscow, if you want to know what the Russian power elite thinks Ukraine is about, it is about bringing it into NATO. One last point, that so-called economic partnership that Yanukovych, the elected president of Ukraine did not sign, and that set off the streets – the protests in the streets in November, which led to this violence in and confrontation today, that so-called economic agreement included military clauses which said that Ukraine by signing this so called civilization agreement had to abide by NATO military policy. This is what this is about from the Russian point of view, the ongoing western march towards post Soviet Russia.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...nfrontation-u-s-nato-encirclement-russia.html
Current sanctions come off in July. Or something like that. The Ukraine prez wants them renewed and toughened. He's crying "wolf" (again - how many times is this?) to put pressure on. But if the sanctions are renewed, his warning may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why wouldn't Putin make a move if the West isn't going to reward his more-or-less good behavior?
What we haven't seen in Ukraine is any fighting in the regions claimed by Kiev. If Kiev won't accept the current split, or something very close to it, and let the sanctions phase out, I expect the Russians to take the troubles to those who have had it easy so far.
Those who were paying attention will have noticed that Russia did NOT play the energy card over the winter. It was pretty clear Putin played it that way because he thought that would get the sanctions lifted. If the sanctions aren't lifted, not only will he be pissed, but he won't be able to play the energy card in the warm weather. But he will be able to play the force card.
If Merkel pulls the plug on the sanctions, we can avoid escalation. Otherwise, maybe not.
How many fronts would that be?
China has to be loving this. They are building islands in the South China Sea so they can claim the energy deposits. They are signing deals all over Africa and Latin America and setting up their own trading zone in Asia. For us to continue to be bogged down in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and now maybe Ukraine, and perhaps soon Iran, has to have the Chinese laughing all the way to the bank.
Similarly, ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. has pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran.
In 1997, Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser, and president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard arguing arguing that the U.S. had to take control of Ukraine (as well as Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran) because they were “critically important geopolitical pivots”.
Regarding Ukraine, Brzezinski said (hat tip Chris Ernesto):
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.
***
However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.
And now Obama is pushing us into a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and the Crimea.
As Ernesto notes:
Late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.
At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland [arch-Neocon Robert Kagan‘s wife] and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west.
In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.
In other words, Obama is following the same old playbook that the Neocons have been pushing for more than a decade.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...viser-said-1997-u-s-gain-control-ukraine.html
In 1997, Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser, and president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard arguing arguing that the U.S. had to take control of Ukraine (as well as Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran) because they were “critically important geopolitical pivots”.
Regarding Ukraine, Brzezinski said (hat tip Chris Ernesto):
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.
***
However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.
And now Obama is pushing us into a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and the Crimea.
As Ernesto notes:
Late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.
At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland [arch-Neocon Robert Kagan‘s wife] and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west.
In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.
In other words, Obama is following the same old playbook that the Neocons have been pushing for more than a decade.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...viser-said-1997-u-s-gain-control-ukraine.html
This is basically what I explained over and over here back in 2013-14. But everyone in America wanted to accept the administration line that Russia started it. And the right wants to cast this as a big Obama screwup when, so far, it's a pretty solid win. We still have to play the hand. And if we let the idiot neocons push us into a hot conflict, we could still lose. But we should end up shifting 70-80% of Ukraine into the Western sphere of influence.
Which is why we need to let the sanctions relax. If Putin sees no benefit in remaining more or less peaceful, he may as well see what he can grab.
You are mistaken, at least officially. Obama has refused to sell them weapons, supplying only non lethal aid. We need to make those Putin patsies pay for every inch.
You know my basic foreign policy is STFO. I'd be less against taking out either of your targets if that's all we did. But then we get all Pottery Barn and decide we need to stick around forever shepherding our new flock. STFO is the better option. Use sanctions and international pressure to make developing a high price. Continue to develop anti ballistic defences and fund our space program.
It doesn't matter much to me, other than we signed a treaty where we said we would guarantee their independence.
Of course the people invading them also signed that treaty. Maybe the proper thing to do here would be to rip up the treaty and give Ukraine their nukes back. No harm, no foul.
Did we? There have been a number of agreements about Ukraine. Including agreements that they would remain as a buffer between the West and Russia.
Moreover, WE are the ones who violated these agreements.
I'm not aware of a formal treaty where we actually guaranteed their independence, but even if there is one, once we backed the overthrow of the elected government and urged the coup leaders to pull away from ties and agreements with Russia, wouldn't that put Russia in the role of the good guys defending their independence?
I thought we did. This is what wiki says. Maybe the NSA just put this in there?
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996,[2][3] of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control.[citation needed] The use of the weapons was dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.[4][5]
This is the one I was thinking of. Not a treaty, per se. But stil an understanding that we have violated. Whether we choose to look at it that way or not, you know the Russians do. And it's literally on their doorstep, so you know they take it more seriously than we do.
Whereas we may use that agreement as an excuse - we'll play the legal word games to try to prove that Russia is the bad guy - to them it's an actual threat that cannot be tolerated.
That's why I keep saying we should wrap up our partial victory in a bow and be happy. If we keep pushing, this could get very nasty.
That said, do we really care if it gets nasty? Does it hurt us? We seem to be happy to create chaos in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we be equally happy to create chaos in Eastern Europe? If we could also create chaos in Asia, maybe we could settle back and enjoy life as World Emperor for a while longer.
That's why I generally take the STFO position. I don't intrinsically care if Ukraine is independent. I might care a bit that we appear to be breaking our word, but that seems the norm for all nations throughout history and it might even be the high ground. Has any nation actually honored a treaty that takes it to war when it was not in their intrinsic interests to do so absent the treaty? Is it even moral to honor your word at the risk of wasting American lives and treasure?
Good questions.
I suspect you could argue that Britain went to war against its best interests in both World Wars. Even so, look at Churchill's efforts to get everyone else to do the fighting so he could devote British power to holding onto its colonies. He clearly had little interest in saving France or Belgium or any of Hitler's other targets, and only wanted to help Stalin barely enough to keep him in the fight to absorb Germany's blows.
China and russia are setting up their own economy in Asia. Once they have no need for the dollar we will be in real financial trouble. Unfortunately for us we shipped all of our industry over there. We will not be able to fund or build a military large enough to do anything about it.
Lawlz.
Except China needs the United States considering we are their largest purchaser of goods.
For the last several years China has been restructuring to generate more internal demand. Plus they are setting up their own Asian economic sphere.
In other words, they acknowledge your complaint and are doing things to free themselves from that hook.
I'm sure you know that there are a lot of people in Asia. Once the middle class grows (which it is) we will be less important in that regard.
This discussion could get interesting. Do you know how China is going about trying to grow their middle class? What is the Chinese tax policy?
