• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

My misgivings about the Western response to the Ukraine situation

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
34,083
Location
Yokohama, Japan
It seems that with each passing day, we are getting ourselves (I speak mainly of the US and our NATO allies) deeper and deeper into this thing, taking positions that will be difficult to intake later, making commitments that we may come to regret. At the same time, the more I learn about Ukraine, and the larger project of NATO expansion, the more my misgivings grow. Is what we are doing here really wise?

Obama, Ukraine's PM warn Russia as Crimea heads for vote

Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) -- U.S. President Barack Obama and Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk had strong words for Russia on Wednesday as Washington again warned Moscow there will be consequences if it doesn't remove its troops from Crimea and Kiev said that it will "never surrender."
Aid package clears early hurdle
Eight U.S. senators, led by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, are scheduled to travel to Ukraine in coming days.
Meanwhile, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a package of loans and aid for Ukraine on Wednesday, along with sanctions against Russia for its military intervention. The measure, which now heads to the full Senate, also includes the approval of long-delayed reforms at the International Monetary Fund.
The aid package includes $1 billion in loan guarantees from the United States as well as $50 million to boost democracy-building in Ukraine and $100 million for enhanced security cooperation for Ukraine and some of its neighbors.

Merkel Joins Obama in Pressuring Russia to Back Down on Crimea
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said today Russia is risking “massive” political and economic damage. U.S. President Barack Obama appealed to Russian leader Vladimir Putin yesterday to not absorb the Black Sea peninsula after the vote or the U.S. and its allies “will be forced to apply a cost” to Russia’s violations of international law.

“If Russia continues on the course of the last weeks it won’t just be a catastrophe for Ukraine,” Merkel said in parliament in Berlin. “It would also cause massive economic and political harm to Russia.”

I'm afraid the "consequences" and "costs" and "massive economic and political harm" we are threatening them with could actually cut both ways. They can impose costs and consequences on us too if they choose. For one thing, Americans and American companies have a lot of money invested in Russia it turns out. For another, Ukraine and Europe depend on Russian exports of gas, which could be turned off, or the price raised.

Another thing is that by rushing in this way, aren't we committing ourselves to some kind of large aid program to prop up Ukraine's failing economy (often described as a "basket case")? The Russians actually made some rather generous aid offers to Ukraine before the coup or revolution or whatever your preferred term is: Billions in loans and 30% off on the price of gas (also worth billions) IIRC. Can we or should try to match that? Over time trade with the EU could perhaps be worth a lot to Ukraine, but it has more immediate problems. When Ukraine was in Russia's orbit, it was also to a large extent, Russia's problem. By trying to displace the Russians there we are in some ways making Ukraine's problems our own.

The notion of making Ukraine a member of NATO seems especially foolish. Do we really want to commit ourselves to defend Ukraine's borders?

Are we standing up for some clear principle of International law? Not even sure about that. Don't the residents of Crimea have as much right to self-determination as the rest of Ukraine? When Kosovo wanted to secede from Serbia, the roles were reversed. We said they do have the right to secede, regardless of what the rest of Serbia thinks about it, and Russia said that it was a violation of Serbia's sovereignty.

Another thing is that it seems that to a large extent Ukraine itself is responsible for the situation it finds itself in. When the new government took over after the revolution, its first act was to repeal a mostly symbolic language law. No practical reason really, the purpose was just to give the middle finger to Russia and Russian speakers in Ukraine. Before that (before the latest revolution) they elected one corrupt leader after another. They had the Orange Revolution before, but what came of it? What did they do with that opportunity? Were the new leaders any less corrupt than the previous ones? Will this new lot be?



The final point is this: just how far are we willing to go, and how high a price are we willing to pay to "win" this pissing contest? What if Russia is willing to go farther and pay more? I know that military confrontation isn't the answer. So what if we impose sanctions and Russia goes ahead and annexes Crimea anyway? Do we then impose more sanctions? What if they take a tit-for-tat approach and impose sanctions right back? I suppose we can do more damage to their economy than they can to ours, but it's still lose-lose. And for what? A place where a majority of the residents want to join Russia anyway?
 
The notion of making Ukraine a member of NATO seems especially foolish. Do we really want to commit ourselves to defend Ukraine's borders?

The idea is to make Russia democratic eventually, and have it join NATO. For that Putin must go, and Ukraine is a vurneable underbelly for that.

Are we standing up for some clear principle of International law?

Yes. Territorial soverignty, valid international treaties - the same ones Russia is clearly and openly violating.

When Kosovo wanted to secede from Serbia, the roles were reversed.

Kosovo was violently repressed on an ethnic basis for about five years, tens of thousands of refugees streamed across the border. THEN NATO intervened, and Kosovo was administred by the UN for eight years before it held a referendum.

It's not even similar.

McHrozni
 
Sounds like a "First they came for . . . ." rationale

If you think Putin is another Hitler, sure. I haven't seen evidence of that so far.

Do you think if we don't stop him here, next he will be coming for the Baltic states, Poland, etc? That would indeed be pushing his luck.
 
Ukraine and Europe depend on Russian exports of gas, which could be turned off, or the price raised.

On this, Europe has alternate sources of gas and energy. If Russia cuts off the supply or raises prices too much, these alternatives could become socially acceptable and/or cost competitive; there are mothballed nuclear plants in Germany and gas supplies in the North Sea and UK. Also, Russia is very economically dependent on these gas exports; the cost of cutting off supplies would probably hurt Russia much more than it hurts Europe (or the rest of Europe, depending on whether or not one wants to count Russia as part of Europe, the semantics change from time to time).

Seizing the assets of the oil companies would be a tough one, I don't know what the impact would be. Traditionally, it has always resulted in decades of hostility. About a century ago Mexico nationalized the oil industry, seizing claims made by the American companies in the process. The American economic reprisals for that lasted decades are blamed (by some) for much of Mexico's economic problems since then.
 
That sounds like a pipe dream.



Oh he will eventually. Everyone does. He will most certainly be dead long before Russia joins NATO. BTW, if Russia is in NATO, who exactly is NATO supposed to defend against?

That question stopped having a good answer long ago. This "idea" McHrozni cites is Brzezinski's. One continuous power around the north of the globe ("closing the Democratic bridgehead" where democratic, as usual, means economic integration - Saudi Arabia is free enough, for example).

After that, the next fight, I guess, is with the south of the globe. World domination, big picture stuff.
 
On this, Europe has alternate sources of gas and energy. If Russia cuts off the supply or raises prices too much, these alternatives could become socially acceptable and/or cost competitive; there are mothballed nuclear plants in Germany and gas supplies in the North Sea and UK. Also, Russia is very economically dependent on these gas exports; the cost of cutting off supplies would probably hurt Russia much more than it hurts Europe (or the rest of Europe, depending on whether or not one wants to count Russia as part of Europe, the semantics change from time to time).

Seizing the assets of the oil companies would be a tough one, I don't know what the impact would be. Traditionally, it has always resulted in decades of hostility. About a century ago Mexico nationalized the oil industry, seizing claims made by the American companies in the process. The American economic reprisals for that lasted decades are blamed (by some) for much of Mexico's economic problems since then.

In the US, it had been illegal to export natural gas until last year. Last May, the Obama administration approved an export facility in Texas, but more would be needed to make a large impact in Europe I believe. There are US companies that benefit from cheap, captive natural gas and have opposed allowing exports in the past. Such as Dow and DuPont.

Proponents of greater exports, including the oil and gas industry, say that exporting inexpensive natural gas will help the U.S. trade balance, help advance the adoption of clean-burning fuels around the world and shore up energy-poor U.S. allies.

Opponents counter that exports may cause domestic prices to rise, hurting consumers and some industries such as chemicals that have benefited from cheap natural gas. Some environmentalists oppose exports for a different reason, saying the U.S. shouldn't encourage more fossil-fuel production.

"I hope this means that more facilities will get approval in due time, sooner rather than later," said Freeport LNG Chief Executive Michael Smith in an interview. "The country needs these exports for jobs, for balance of trade and for geopolitical reasons—our allies are asking for them."
The Department of Energy said it had given conditional authorization to the Freeport project to export up to 1.4 billion cubic feet a day of liquefied natural gas.

And this story is from yesterday:
EU Puts Brakes on Russia Natural Gas Pipelines

BRUSSELS—The European Union has slammed the brakes on two big Russian pipeline projects to supply more natural gas to Europe, as part of its efforts to turn up the heat on Moscow over its incursion into Crimea.

The move will deal a blow to Russia's ambitions of increasing its gas exports and bypassing Ukraine as a transit country. It comes as the 28-country bloc is weighing other options to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas, which accounts for over a third of EU supplies. Six EU countries, including Bulgaria and Lithuania, depend exclusively on Russia for natural gas.

The article also says:
"Russia remains the largest exporter of gas to the EU; there's no way of [quickly] sourcing those amounts of gas elsewhere," said Simon Pirani of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

"Europe has to ask itself how important is the economic relationship with Russia, which provides that cheap energy, and how important is the political protest that it wants to make" about Crimea, he said.

How important indeed.
 
Do you think if we don't stop him here, next he will be coming for the Baltic states, Poland, etc? That would indeed be pushing his luck.
I think that "This is just a one-off" is a miscalculated rational for inaction, if that was the rationale. And that's one way of reading your "And for what? A place where a majority of the residents want to join Russia anyway?"
 
I have to say that the notion of not standing up to an expansionist dictator is very much akin to the appeasement policies of the 1930s regarding Hitler's expansionism. There are laws and treaties in effect. Openly violating these laws and treaties must come with political consequences. Perhaps if the Russian economy is hit hard enough, people will start to realize what kind of a character Putin actually is, and the spell of the cult of personality will start to break.
 
If you think Putin is another Hitler, sure. I haven't seen evidence of that so far.

Do you think if we don't stop him here, next he will be coming for the Baltic states, Poland, etc? That would indeed be pushing his luck.

Problem is if they get away with something, people like Putin almost always "push their luck".
I think it is vital for the long term interests of The West that Putin be made to pay a high price for his seizure of the Crimea.
 
I'd like to know what would happen to Putin if he ever stopped being in control.

I suspect that he personally can't afford to lose a general election, so if the stories about his support base slowly eroding, I guess it means that he'll have to make the elections less free and fair.
 
That sounds like a pipe dream.

Maybe. It's the best future for all, except about a million or so Russians who benefit from the current, corrupt state of affairs. The other 140 million or so benefit greatly, as does the rest of Europe and North America.

McHrozni
 
Maybe. It's the best future for all, except about a million or so Russians who benefit from the current, corrupt state of affairs. The other 140 million or so benefit greatly, as does the rest of Europe and North America.

McHrozni

Could you have another look at this? It looks like you are saying 141 million people benefit from Putin.
 
Do you think if we don't stop him here, next he will be coming for the Baltic states, Poland, etc? That would indeed be pushing his luck.

But that is where there may be a parallel with Germany in the 30's; each success in 'restoring their rightful place' leading now as then to a greater recklessness and a belief that their opponents lack the will to act. If Putin and those around him think they can act with impunity then they might well not see it as pushing their luck.

Nuclear weapons may rule out a military response but the West can at least hit Putin's oligarch cronies where it hurts them most; their bank balances.
 
But that is where there may be a parallel with Germany in the 30's; each success in 'restoring their rightful place' leading now as then to a greater recklessness and a belief that their opponents lack the will to act. If Putin and those around him think they can act with impunity then they might well not see it as pushing their luck.

Nuclear weapons may rule out a military response but the West can at least hit Putin's oligarch cronies where it hurts them most; their bank balances.

What is the greater recklessness?? It's not like Putin can use military intervention beyond the CIS member states and we know this. Russia is buffered by military blocks all around it's current borders. The argument that this is some bedrock of future military aggression is weakly supported.
 
Last edited:
I have to say that the notion of not standing up to an expansionist dictator is very much akin to the appeasement policies of the 1930s regarding Hitler's expansionism. .....

I assume that is why Vladimir Putin is standing up to the idiots in charge of Washington D.C. these days.
 
The final point is this: just how far are we willing to go, and how high a price are we willing to pay to "win" this pissing contest?

That is a sort of a misuse of the word "we"...

The real question is, how much of a price are George Soros, Monsanto, and Barrack Obama willing to force YOU to pay for this BS?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom