Does Putin think America is weak?

[jimbob]

The 1994 treaty where Russia, the US and the UK guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons - Later also supported by China and France?

 

[quadraginta]

And the Left Wingnuts are still convinced that the worst thing about the Soviet Union was Joe McCarthy.

Nah. They have only ever been convinced that the worst thing about Joe McCarthy was Joe McCarthy. Foreign diplomacy was unrelated to that.

Leaving aside that particular partisan slapfight, though, the fact is that Vladimir Putin is a belligerent oligarch who aspires to national greatness; is armed with nuclear weapons and backed by a large (relatively) modern army; and enjoys an acute awareness not just of the limits of Western power, but also of the limits of Western willingness to use that power to oppose him.

How do you propose to engage him?

At this stage I'm still working on whether we need to engage him.

Aside from a resurgence of the Domino Theory and a bunch of thinly or not so thinly veiled references to Chamberlain by the usual chickenhawks I haven't seen very many compelling arguments.

Tell me again, what was different about Georgia in '08? How did we choose to engage Putin then?

Of course we could be stand-up about it like we've been with Chechnya.

Oh. Wait ...

That's entirely different of course. They're just a bunch of raghead trouble makers. Nearly 2% of the country are ethnic Russians. They have a right to self-determination.

 

[Travis]

And the Left Wingnuts are still convinced that the worst thing about the Soviet Union was Joe McCarthy.

Leaving aside that particular partisan slapfight, though, the fact is that Vladimir Putin is a belligerent oligarch who aspires to national greatness; is armed with nuclear weapons and backed by a large (relatively) modern army; and enjoys an acute awareness not just of the limits of Western power, but also of the limits of Western willingness to use that power to oppose him.

How do you propose to engage him?

If it was me I'd sign a very public treaty with the Ukraine pledging our military will help in evicting the Russians if the Ukraine wants that done. This would be done alongside a very public mobilization of the 2nd Marine Division and 82nd Airborne.

At the same time a secret offer to back down on new missile defense systems would be offered.

Simultaneous to this an offer to the UN for a stabilization force would be put forth. In essence a multinational peacekeeping force that would ensure the safety of ethnic Russians in the Crimea.

 

[quadraginta]

The 1994 treaty where Russia, the US and the UK guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons - Later also supported by China and France?

No treaties for Georgia? Tough for them, eh?

I guess their sovereignty is chopped liver, too.

 

[quadraginta]

If it was me I'd sign a very public treaty with the Ukraine pledging our military will help in evicting the Russians if the Ukraine wants that done. This would be done alongside a very public mobilization of the 2nd Marine Division and 82nd Airborne.

The highlighted part. That has a familiar ring to it. I wonder why?

Russia has boots on the ground in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

We shouldn't start waving troops around unless we're willing to put boots on the ground there, too. Do you think we will be?

At the same time a secret offer to back down on new missile defense systems would be offered.

What new missile defense systems?

Simultaneous to this an offer to the UN for a stabilization force would be put forth. In essence a multinational peacekeeping force that would ensure the safety of ethnic Russians in the Crimea.

Great. We've got a head start on that. Russia's already in there doing it. (Allegedly.)

I don't think there are any simple formulaic ways to d this.

The question is how much do we really care about what happens in Ukraine. This should not be confused with how much domestic political hay can be made out of the conflict.

Since WWII we've done a dandy job of engaging in military adventures on foreign soil without any clear objective aside from pols playing to the voters. That isn't a good enough reason for saber rattling, although it does play into the hands of the pols in Russia trying to appeal to their own constituencies.

Tell me what we want in Ukraine. What will be actually good for the U.S.? Then work from that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Like the bang-up jobs they managed with WWI and WWII?

Hopefully, a few lessons learned will make for a better outcome this time around. I am aware that hope is not a method, and that it will take some serious work and deal making by some heads of state. Mistakes could be made ...

 

[SezMe]

If it was me I'd sign a very public treaty with the Ukraine pledging our military will help in evicting the Russians if the Ukraine wants that done. This would be done alongside a very public mobilization of the 2nd Marine Division and 82nd Airborne.

I can't imagine a worse policy. Exactly what is in the USA's interest in Ukraine that could possibly justify yet another hot war.

 

[icebear]

The contrast between Putin and Obama is pretty severe...

http://www.rense.com/general96/putinvobama.html

 

[icebear]

 

[icebear]

If it was me I'd sign a very public treaty with the Ukraine pledging our military will help in evicting the Russians...

 

[SezMe]

The contrast between Putin and Obama is pretty severe...http://www.rense.com/general96/putinvobama.html

Rense? Really?

WND + Paranormal + Paranoia = Rense

Do you follow that site? Can your read the homepage without losing IQ points? David Duke. Icke. Flying saucers. etc.

 

[theprestige]

At this stage I'm still working on whether we need to engage him.

And that's some classical cold war politics right there: What the Soviet Union Russia does in its own back yard is its own business. Besides, whatever outcome we'd like to see, we're in no position to make it happen. Best to let Russia come to the table just the way they are, and negotiate on things for which we actually have some leverage.

That is what I mean by "cold war politics". And it seems like you feel much the same.

Aside from a resurgence of the Domino Theory

You say that like Domino Theory is discredited, but far from it: It's obvious that Russia is going to test its limits as much as it can, and that with each new test, the results will inform their future decisions. Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea--each success suggests that the West is willing to let them go at least a little bit further than they've gone already. Call it "domino theory" if you like. I call it, "the West has been pretty tolerant so far, it's probably worthwhile to see if they'll tolerate eastern Ukraine".

and a bunch of thinly or not so thinly veiled references to Chamberlain by the usual chickenhawks

The similarities between the Crimea and Osterreich/Sudetenland should be obvious. But so too should the differences. For one thing, the world is not so fortunate to have today a Chamberlain who is actually in a position to choose between appeasement and resistance. The advent of nuclear weaponry changed that calculus completely.

Chamberlain's decision to sell out Czechoslovakia was despicable because he had a choice. If Nazi Germany had already been armed with nuclear weapons, Hitler's annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia would have been a foregone conclusion. Probably his settlement of the Polish question, too.

There's that cold war politics again. And again, if you have a better idea than letting Putin have his way as much as possible, there's a Nobel peace prize in it for you, I'm sure.

I haven't seen very many compelling arguments.

You seem entirely uncompelled, so I assume you didn't mean to say that you think "resurgence of the Domino Theory" and "thinly veiled references to Chamberlain" are compelling arguments.

For what it's worth, I think that "domino theory" is absolutely a compelling argument, but that doesn't mean there's a feasible solution. Probably the best we can do is cold war politics. Red Baron Farms seems to have strong objections to cold war politics. You also seemed to, but the more you discuss it, the more it seems like your preferred course of action is, in practical terms, exactly cold war politics.

I think that comparisons to the Sudetenland are only thinly veiled references to Chamberlain if you believe there's someone in the West today who is in a position to make a real choice that would change the outcome for Crimea and the Ukraine.

I don't see anybody like that. Do you? I see people who are in a position to engage in cold war politics. History will judge them on how well they did that, not on how well they avoided Chamberlain's mistake.

Chamberlain's mistake, incidentally, was to be so concerned with keeping the peace, that he misunderstood and underestimated Adolf Hitler. Do you think any leader in the West today wants peace so much that they misunderstand and underestimate Vladimir Putin?

Tell me again, what was different about Georgia in '08? How did we choose to engage Putin then?

Nothing. We engaged Putin with cold war politics. What else would you have us do?

Of course we could be stand-up about it like we've been with Chechnya.

I'm telling you it's turtles cold war politics all the way down.

Oh. Wait ...

Wait for what? You're preaching to the choir. Tell it to Red Baron Farms.

That's entirely different of course.

Seems like more of the same cold war politics to me.

They're just a bunch of raghead trouble makers. Nearly 2% of the country are ethnic Russians. They have a right to self-determination.

Sarcasm or strawman?

Look, if Bush had sanctioned Russia over the Georgia thing; if those sanctions had remained in place over the Chechnya thing; if Obama had taken the lead in Libya, had chosen sides early, had put planes in the air and boots on the ground; if he had responded swiftly and forcefully to the enormity perpetrated against the American state in Benghazi; if he had responded swiftly and forcefully over Russian objections to pursue a decisive result in the Syrian crisis; if he had convened NATO to mobilize forces in on the Polish border with the Ukraine before the crisis progressed; if he had, on the basis of that robust NATO response, called upon Putin before the world to respect the sovreignty of the Ukraine and of the Crimea, and to pursue a multilateral solution to the problem there... Then maybe Putin might be thinking twice about his current course of action.

But that's a lot of ifs, and at least one too many maybes. It would bring Europe closer to the brink of war with Russia. But Europe and the US have been a lot closer to the brink of war than that, during the cold war. So it's not like a statesman with a decent pair of stones can't pursue outcomes with Russia even in the context of cold war politics. Which, contra Red Baron Farms, is the only kind of politics available "in this day and age" (as Kerry put it).

I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I do think a couple things are obvious: One, I think it's obvious that Putin rightly believes that America is, if not weak, at least reluctant to use its strength against him, anywhere his own strength can be brought to bear. In practical terms, that's equivalent to American weakness.

And two, I think it's obvious that the best and only engagement model we have for Russia is "cold war politics".

 

[icebear]

Question...

Did anybody actually think that Vladimir Putin was going to just sit there and watch George Soros, Monsanto, and the losers at the US State Department walk off with the Ukraine?? Have we really been dumbed down that much???

 

[Corsair 115]

Like the bang-up jobs they managed with WWI and WWII?

Interesting, the two major world events the U.S. was determined to avoid becoming embroiled in, and appeared quite content to let others sort out. For a couple of years. Both times.

 

[theprestige]

Interesting, the two major world events the U.S. was determined to avoid becoming embroiled in, and appeared quite content to let others sort out. For a couple of years. Both times.

I'll say this for Barack Obama: He seems committed to staging that same morality play wherever possible.

 

[SezMe]

Look, if Bush had sanctioned Russia over the Georgia thing; if those sanctions had remained in place over the Chechnya thing; if Obama had taken the lead in Libya, had chosen sides early, had put planes in the air and boots on the ground; if he had responded swiftly and forcefully to the enormity perpetrated against the American state in Benghazi; if he had responded swiftly and forcefully over Russian objections to pursue a decisive result in the Syrian crisis; if he had convened NATO to mobilize forces in on the Polish border with the Ukraine before the crisis progressed; if he had, on the basis of that robust NATO response, called upon Putin before the world to respect the sovreignty of the Ukraine and of the Crimea, and to pursue a multilateral solution to the problem there... Then maybe Putin might be thinking twice about his current course of action.

When you're a hammer .... Since we have a massive military, we might as well center our entire foreign policy around its application.

Did anybody actually think that Vladimir Putin was going to just sit there and watch George Soros, Monsanto, and the losers at the US State Department walk off with the Ukraine?? Have we really been dumbed down that much???

Soros? Really? Speaking of being dumbed down....

 

[theprestige]

When you're a hammer .... Since we have a massive military, we might as well center our entire foreign policy around its application.

Several people in this thread have argued that America is, in fact, strong. Yet Putin views America as weak.

If you have a strong military, yet refuse to exercise it, isn't Putin's view justified?

 

[stevea]

A lot has been made in recent days about how this terrible stuff Putin is doing wouldn't have happened if Putin just feared the USA they way he should.

Some of the reasoning behind this is.....odd.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/putin_doesnt_threaten_our_national_security_obama_does.html



http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147490378&tab=video&video=2147543962​

So....Putin doesn't fear America because Putin thinks gay people are all sissies who, strangely, only bring sex toys into a battle because I guess gay people don't mind being slaughtered by an enemy with actual guns. If Putin really is that stupid wouldn't it be a great way to goad him into a trap?

In excellent job of seeking out shallow strawman positions to argue against Travis.

And can anyone actually point to something Obama did that would have in any way made Putin think America is somehow a weakling that can be pushed around?

Are you blind too ? Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria, reductions in military budgets, the huge deficits all contain examples of diminishing US power and lack of will or ability to impose interests with force under Obama.

I happen to be very much against the vast extent of US foreign military involvement. Our Constitution calls for defense against insurrections and invasions. It quite reasonably extends to defense of US assets and actors in territorial or international space. I can't imagine how the most fevered warmonger can suggest we have any substantive national defense interest in the Middle East, or Crimea. Of course we have entangling NATO alliances with nations surrounding the Ukraine and stakeholders like Turkey.

For Russian geopolitics however, the Crimea and Syria are critical wrt naval power projection.

Obama, wagging his finger at Putin while announcing that Putin's military invasion and window-dressing vote for Crimean annexation “violate the Ukrainian constitution and international law.” just makes Obama appear more feckless. Same with sending a few fighter jets to the Baltic - all show and zero impact. He speaks loudly (as with the Syrian "red line") but carries no stick.

 

[elbe]

Several people in this thread have argued that America is, in fact, strong. Yet Putin views America as weak.

If you have a strong military, yet refuse to exercise it, isn't Putin's view justified?

We have a huge history of exercising our military so I'm not sure how anyone could honestly come away with the opinion that we "refuse" to.

As for Putin, I honestly can't see him being stupid enough to think our reluctance to get involved in Ukraine somehow translates to weak. Is this how warhawks feel all the time? That unless we are actively killing people everyone else will think we are wusses?

 

[Kopji]

No one in the west has the stomach to go to war with Russia. Think about it seriously for a moment. What is a good end game when it comes to a war with Russia? What is a victory that our grandkids live to see? Going to war with Russia is an insane move, and everyone on the planet knows that, even if some seem to want to suggest they think otherwise for political reasons.

And I happen to like the Russians I've met, it would be a real tragedy to go back to the way things were in the cold war days. I like what tragicmonkey blithely posted earlier though. Why is a desire for peace so often seen as weakness?