News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[mheslep]

I'm curious as to why there's no good arguments posted or given by the US govt, or others, against giving the Ukrainians some non trivial weapons for defense.

 

[nsaspook]

I'm curious as to why there's no good arguments posted or given by the US govt, or others, against giving the Ukrainians some non trivial weapons for defense.

What types of non-trivial weapons, anti-tank weapons, surface to air missiles? What would be our justification for this escalation to a full-blown proxy war with Russia? I can't see how it would be in OUR best strategic interest to do that.

I was active military and in the region (Pakistan,Persian Gulf) during the arming of the resistance fighters in Afghanistan in the 1979-1981 period that suckered the USSR into invading with large forces into that land creating IMO the mess that exist today as Al-Qaeda so I have personal experience on how things can go sideways from what you planned no matter how right it seemed at the time. The easy justification then was the 'Cold War' and that we could control the few radicals that went 'off the reservation' with the weapons we supplied to them. The hard-line anti-soviet officials in our government that oversaw that operation (with long term unintended circumstances) are IMO the main voice behind the current drum beat of supplying weapons to Ukraine.

 

[mheslep]

What types of non-trivial weapons, anti-tank weapons, surface to air missiles? What would be our justification for this escalation to a full-blown proxy war with Russia? I can't see how it would be in OUR best strategic interest to do that.

I was active military and in the region (Pakistan,Persian Gulf) during the arming of the resistance fighters in Afghanistan in the 1979-1981 period that suckered the USSR into invading with large forces into that land creating IMO the mess that exist today as Al-Qaeda so I have personal experience on how things can go sideways from what you planned no matter how right it seemed at the time. The easy justification then was the 'Cold War' and that we could control the few radicals that went 'off the reservation' with the weapons we supplied to them. The hard-line anti-soviet officials in our government that oversaw that operation (with long term unintended circumstances) are IMO the main voice behind the current drum beat of supplying weapons to Ukraine.

Proxy wars are fought to avoid big wars. NATO Article 5 might very well obligate the US to engage in a big war should Russia attempt to continue in the Baltics or other NATO state as it has done in Ukraine. Therefore it is in US interest, it seems to me, to do everything it can before the fact, not after, in order to prevent the day of some big war from arriving. That is, continuing on course and arriving at the theoretical day when Russia invades, say, Lithuania triggering Art 5 and then contending, 'everything possible was done in the interest of peace' would be the most egregious lie.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own accord. Prior to the invasion Afghanistan had a relatively stable monarchy and parliament, for that part of Asia, which was relatively forward looking both for women and education. It was the Soviets that destroyed the monarchy, inserted a communist government and wrecked the country. Only after the take over did the US supply weapons to the Afghans. I say Afghans because I've never seen any evidence that those weapons made it to the Arab foreigners like Bin Laden who came to fight the Soviets.

The other day the President said, "Do people actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into Ukraine could potentially deter the Russian army?" I think he needs to set aside the snark and read some history of asymmetrical warfare: Soviet collapse in Afghanistan, US in Vietnam, US in Iraq before the surge.

Senator McCain is one of the most prominent voices calling for weapons support. I don't know that he qualifies as "hard-line anti-soviet" anymore than many Americans were back in the cold war, but he certainly was not involved in the 1980's US-Afghan operation. Neither was Brzezinski. Whatever his opinion now, then he was in power when US policy was to deter the Soviets by pulling out of the Olympics.

With this said, there is an issue which to my mind does justify a non-interventionist US policy: the Europeans must be first take seriously their own defense, both on the part of Ukraine and by their immediate neighbors. If they will not, then what, ultimately, can (or should) the US do?

 

[voko]

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own accord. Prior to the invasion Afghanistan had a relatively stable monarchy and parliament, for that part of Asia, which was relatively forward looking both for women and education. It was the Soviets that destroyed the monarchy, inserted a communist government and wrecked the country.

Was Mohammed Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan and the immediate successor to king Mohammed Zahir Shah, a communist installed by the Soviets? Cite your sources.

 

[Chronos]

Russia had an obvious interest in securing their black sea naval base in Crimea. I seriously doubt they have any other hidden agenda in Ukraine.

 

[Borek]

Russia had an obvious interest in securing their black sea naval base in Crimea. I seriously doubt they have any other hidden agenda in Ukraine.

My understanding is that substantial part of the industry producing weapons for the Russian army is located in the eastern Ukraine.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I say Afghans because I've never seen any evidence that those weapons made it to the Arab foreigners like Bin Laden who came to fight the Soviets.

[my bolding]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone]Hekmatyar[/PLAIN] was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat. Alarmed by his behavior, Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar, "It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave."

In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein."

9K32 Strela-2

Senator McCain is one of the most prominent voices calling for weapons support. I don't know that he qualifies as "hard-line anti-soviet" anymore than many Americans were back in the cold war, but he certainly was not involved in the 1980's US-Afghan operation. Neither was Brzezinski. Whatever his opinion now, then he was in power when US policy was to deter the Soviets by pulling out of the Olympics.

Afghanistan is sadly not the only alarming case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3WofUf8m_k

"Isn't that interesting... there I am..."

With this said, there is an issue which to my mind does justify a non-interventionist US policy: the Europeans must be first take seriously their own defense, both on the part of Ukraine and by their immediate neighbors. If they will not, then what, ultimately, can (or should) the US do?

Very good question (without simple answers).

I'm certainly not a "military expert", in any way, but if we look at the simple facts:

The world's 5 largest military spenders in 2013 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (US$ Billion)

Source wikimedia

Military expenditure in EU is 266 US$ Bn + USA 640 US$ Bn = 906 US$ Bn
Active military forces in EU are 1,551,000 + USA 1,423,000 = 2,974,000 personnel

Military expenditure in Russia is 88 US$ Bn
Active military forces in Russia are 766,000 personnel

We know that Putin has spent (relatively) a lot to restore the Russian military, which was basically a pile of rusty scrap after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but how far has he gotten? And Russian personnel are drafted and most have no real battlefield experience...

So who has to be afraid of whom, really??

Putin can't win a 'conventional' war, of "brave men with big tanks", against high-tech EU/NATO/US (even if it seems to be some sort 'Shangri-La' for him and his buddy Lukashenko). Hopefully he has enough brain cells left to understand this (or brave advisors who can tell him the truth).

The above analysis builds on reason and logic, but here comes the 'scary unknowns':

We know that Putin and FM Lavrov states the CIA invented the Internet in order to control the World (), and that Russians should "stay away from internet". Are they crazy for real?? Or is this just the nuttiest propaganda in modern history?? Putin has declared that Russia can survive a technical/financial blockade, no problem, it will only take 1.5 to 2 years "for the Russian military-industry complex to reorganize"...

Good luck. Sigh.

I believe we should do everything possible to avoid any military conflict with this man, since we don't know how crazy he really is. The outcome of a 'conventional' war is already given; Putin will lose with his pants down. But then big troubles and the difficult questions will arise:

What will this man – with capacity to blow the planet in half – do then?

Does he say: "I'm sorry guys, I was a bad boy, and now I have destroyed what was left after the Soviet Union, but I can handle this, no sweat, I surrender, you win and can do what the heck you like with me and my loser country."

Or, does he say: "CIA was behind this conspiracy all the time in their strive to destroy what is left of the proud and powerful Soviet Union, but we will never surrender for the western imperialists, we will fight to bitter end, there is no option – launch the missiles, NOW!"

To me caution, sanctions and negotiations is the only way to handle this mess, everything else is too risky...


P.S: We also have to have in mind that the eastern border of Ukraine is only 500 km from Moscow... imagine the activity in the White House if Russia was about to move its strategic forces/allies 500 km from Washington... they've got to TALK!

 

[jim hardy]

...imagine the activity in the White House if Russia was about to move its strategic forces/allies 500 km from Washington...

i was around 16 in Oct 1962 when the Russian missiles in Cuba became a matter of contention.
The FEC railroad yard west of Miami Springs, where i lived , filled with troop trains, flatcars with tanks and trucks and artillery, boxcars full of arms. We kids rode our bikes out there and chatted with the GI's. We could hear the military aircraft at Miami airport.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

That must have been scary jim... it was so close all 'dimensions'...

 

[Borek]

Article in NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/w...0140504&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=52243253&_r=1

Just an angle, not a whole picture. Still, interesting.

 

[nsaspook]

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own accord. Prior to the invasion Afghanistan had a relatively stable monarchy and parliament, for that part of Asia, which was relatively forward looking both for women and education. It was the Soviets that destroyed the monarchy, inserted a communist government and wrecked the country. Only after the take over did the US supply weapons to the Afghans. I say Afghans because I've never seen any evidence that those weapons made it to the Arab foreigners like Bin Laden who came to fight the Soviets.

I don't want to go too far off topic but Brzezinski was then and is now deeply involved our policy with what is now Russia.

Senator McCain ... 1980's US-Afghan operation. Neither was Brzezinski. Whatever his opinion now, then he was in power when US policy was to deter the Soviets by pulling out of the Olympics.

Then:

What we saw then was the difference in NSA (national security adviser) and State/CIA on the policy of Russia. (Zbigniew Brzezinski vs Cyrus Vance/Turner)

* 1966-68 - Member of the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State
* 1968 - Hubert H. Humphrey presidential campaign, chairman of the Foreign Policy Task Force
* 1973-76 - Trilateral Commission, Director
* 1976 - James Earl Carter, Jr. presidential campaign, foreign policy advisor
* 1977-80 - James Earl Carter's NSA (national security adviser)
* 1985 - Ronald Reagan's Chemical Warfare Commission , member
* 1987-88 - NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, member
* 1988 - George H. W. Bush National Security Advisory Task Force, member
* 1987-89 - President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, member

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski2.html

INT: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it?

ZB: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.

INT: What happened?

ZB: We weren't passive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone#The_program

On 3 July 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[2] Following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December Operation Storm-333 and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Babrak Karmal, Carter announced, "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War".[12]

Brzezinski gives his view of the limits of the July finding support and his views about our actions during the 80's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGjAsQJh7OM&feature=relmfu
Now:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/what-obama-should-tell-americans-about-ukraine-106277.html#.U2ZnFnblAW0

If we are to deter the Russians from moving in, we have to convince them that their aggression will entail a prolonged and costly effort. But it will be such only if the Ukrainians resist. Thus, we should be making an effort to negotiate with Russia even as at the same time we should be more open to helping the Ukrainians defend themselves if they’re attacked. The Ukrainians will fight only if they think they will eventually get some help from the West, particularly in supplies of the kind of weaponry that will be necessary to wage a successful urban defense. They’re not going to beat the Russians out in the open field, where thousands of tanks move in. They can only beat them through prolonged urban resistance. Then the war’s economic costs would escalate dramatically for the Russians, and it would become futile politically. But to be able to defend a city, you have to have handheld anti-tank weaponry, handheld rockets and some organization

So what is the end-game for such a strategy, a completely destroyed country like Afghanistan after a 30+ years of fighting? We need to deescalate the level of violence even if it means in the short term total Russian control of the area to regain stability.

 

[mheslep]

Was Mohammed Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan and the immediate successor to king Mohammed Zahir Shah, a communist installed by the Soviets? Cite your sources.

Does it matter? Khan's party, the PDPA, was unquestionably communist.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sZn7q85rWlUC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[mheslep]

Russia had an obvious interest in securing their black sea naval base in Crimea. I seriously doubt they have any other hidden agenda in Ukraine.

Russia already had access to the Black Sea via their naval base in Crimea, yet Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine. Why would you doubt their agenda in Ukraine, given their troops, weapons, and aircraft are already in Ukraine?

 

[jim hardy]

today I'm somehow a little despondent. Thinking about that old movie "All quiet on the Western Front" and its observation that wars are thought up by old men for young men to fight.

As much as i respect Brzezinski's intellect i cannot help thinking he was profoundly influenced by his childhood.

The Second World War had a profound effect on Brzezinski, who stated in an interview: "The extraordinary violence that was perpetrated against Poland did affect my perception of the world, and made me much more sensitive to the fact that a great deal of world politics is a fundamental struggle."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski , link 7 is unavailable in US.

Kennedy and Kruschev worked out a missile swap.
... surely grown men can do better than a "Lord of the Flies" ending to this one.

 

[mheslep]

I don't want to go too far off topic but Brzezinski was then and is now deeply involved our policy with what is now Russia.
Then:

What we saw then was the difference in NSA (national security adviser) and State/CIA on the policy of Russia. (Zbigniew Brzezinski vs Cyrus Vance/Turner)

* 1966-68 - Member of the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State
* 1968 - Hubert H. Humphrey presidential campaign, chairman of the Foreign Policy Task Force
* 1973-76 - Trilateral Commission, Director
* 1976 - James Earl Carter, Jr. presidential campaign, foreign policy advisor
* 1977-80 - James Earl Carter's NSA (national security adviser)
* 1985 - Ronald Reagan's Chemical Warfare Commission , member
* 1987-88 - NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, member
* 1988 - George H. W. Bush National Security Advisory Task Force, member
* 1987-89 - President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, member

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone#The_program
Brzezinski gives his view of the limits of the July finding support and his views about our actions during the 80's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGjAsQJh7OM&feature=relmfu
Now:

...

So what is the end-game for such a strategy, a completely destroyed country like Afghanistan after a 30+ years of fighting?

I pointed out previously how this mis-characterized Afghan history. The Soviets, unopposed, destroyed Afghanistan as a nation, bringing in the foreigner Arabs all before the US was substantially involved.

We need to deescalate the level of violence even if it means in the short term total Russian control of the area to regain stability.

Deescalate? What are you talking about? Russian control would be "short term"? Why would that be so? Stability under Russia? Like the stability and Peace for Our Time granted by the Munich Agreement?

I really don't see much coherence here. An assertion, alone, that the way to peace and self determination is for the US/NATO to do nothing is dogma, not an argument that doing nothing will achieve any of the stated goals.

Re Brzezinski, when he say's "he told the President" *before the invasion* in '79, he is talking about Carter. Now how much did Carter do militarily in Afghanistan? After he and Carter, left office, what more can he do but talk? He doesn't make policy.

...now deeply involved our policy with what is now Russia

Sorry, you are mistaken. Many former US cabinet and NSA officials of the US government have positions in various think tanks and councils. Brzezinski is an 86 year old man and the fact he sits on some talking head panel or writes blog posts for Politico does not mean he has any direct determination of US policy.

 

[mheslep]

...wars are thought up by old men for young men to fight.

Note that Chamberlain was also an old man.

As much as i respect Brzezinski's intellect i cannot help thinking he was profoundly influenced by his childhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski , link 7 is unavailable in US.

I certainly hope he was influenced by first hand experience of the Nazis. You?

Kennedy and Kruschev worked out a missile swap.
... surely grown men can do better than a "Lord of the Flies" ending to this one.

Interesting comparison. Kennedy and Kruschev both had first hand experience with World War II, and that missile swap came after a blockade of Cuba, which is a defacto declaration of war, overflights of Cuba by US aircraft, and strong not-going-to-stand public declarations by the US government.

 

[nsaspook]

Re Brzezinski, when he say's "he told the President" *before the invasion* in '79, he is talking about Carter. Now how much did Carter do militarily in Afghanistan? After he and Carter, left office, what more can he do but talk?

After 1980 The era of détente was over at the start of the 'Carter' Doctrine.

Carter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2xJq4fYdGQ#t=65

Carter actually did quite a lot in Afghanistan, his CIA setup the bases and supply routes in Pakistan, recruited Arab fighters from Saudi Arabia and Yemen and bought massive amounts of non-us weapons from third parties to supply those troops against the Soviets. I would estimate we were spending close to a billion a year in that area by 1981. Reagan took over a fully functional operation that started supplying US made weapons later.

He doesn't make policy.

Thank goodness for that.

 

[voko]

Does it matter?

If it does not, why did you bring it up?

Khan's party, the PDPA, was unquestionably communist.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sZn7q85rWlUC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false

I do not see in your source that Khan was a communist installed by the Soviets, or that the PDPA was Khan's party. In my opinion, your source says that the PDPA was not Khan's party, and, moreover, that there was severe antagonism between Khan and the PDAP, to put that mildly.

Once again: was Mohammed Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan and the immediate successor to king Mohammed Zahir Shah, a communist installed by the Soviets? Cite your sources.

 

[voko]

I pointed out previously how this mis-characterized Afghan history.

No, you did not. Your account of Afghanistan's recent history is highly dubious and not supported by widely available sources, such as Wikipedia, for example. The source that you cited contradicts, as far as I can see, your statements that you say are based on that source.

The Soviets, unopposed, destroyed Afghanistan as a nation, bringing in the foreigner Arabs all before the US was substantially involved.

You have not been able to demonstrate that so far.

 

[mheslep]

If it does not, why did you bring it up?

Khan? I did not.

 

[mheslep]

You have not been able to demonstrate that so far.

That the Soviets wrecked Afghanistan?

The demographic impact of the war in Afghanistan is analyzed, using data from surveys conducted among the refugees in Pakistan in 1987. The data indicate that by the end of 1987 approximately nine percent of the population had been killed during the war, totalling between 1 and 1.5 million persons. Consideration is given to trends in mortality over time, the demographic characteristics of those killed, emigration, and geographical differences in war-related mortality. - See more at: http://www.popline.org/node/358657#sthash.d2XL3PvM.dpuf

In addition to the fatalities, these references indicated 5 million refugees, mostly in Pakistan, and 3 million wounded.

Also see
http://www.nonel.pu.ru/erdferkel/khalidi.pdf

 

[jim hardy]

Note that Chamberlain was also an old man.


I certainly hope he was influenced by first hand experience of the Nazis. You?


Interesting comparison. Kennedy and Kruschev both had first hand experience with World War II, and that missile swap came after a blockade of Cuba, which is a defacto declaration of war, overflights of Cuba by US aircraft, and strong not-going-to-stand public declarations by the US government.

I don't buy comparing Putin to Hitler. He's tough but not crazy. Only folks out for world domination now are radical islam.

If the rumors about Nato sidling up to Ukraine to get missile silos there are true (whom do we believe on that one?) ,
then Putin is being more proactive than Ike was with Castro.

Not that i like big countries overrunning little ones

just I'm not sure what started all this . Our news is "He said-She said...

 

[mheslep]

I don't buy comparing Putin to Hitler.

Ok

He's tough but not crazy.

I don't buy calling Putin just "tough". Thug and tyrant is closer to the truth. He's invaded two neighboring countries, Georgia and Ukraine, seized part of both them. He clamps down on the press, imprisons people who oppose him politically, kills political opponents abroad.

 

[mheslep]

Picture taken last week at sunrise from the USS Donald Cook, the guided missile destroyer sent into the Black Sea last month and later buzzed by a Russian jet.

 

[nsaspook]

Picture taken last week at sunrise from the USS Donald Cook, the guided missile destroyer sent into the Black Sea last month and later buzzed by a Russian jet.

A very weak propaganda story from Russia. http://indian.ruvr.ru/2014_04_21/Russian-Su-24-scores-off-against-the-American-USS-Donald-Cook-5786/

After the incident, the foreign media reported that "Donald Cook" was rushed into a port in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation. It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives. This is indirectly confirmed by the Pentagon statement according to which the action demoralized the crew of the American ship.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secu...ircraft-buzz-US-Navy-destroyer-How-big-a-deal

The Russian aircraft flew within 1,000 yards of the ship and made roughly a dozen passes, but it did not fly over the destroyer, according to Pentagon officials.

“That is about as tame a flyby as you can get,” Harmer says. On the more aggressive end of the spectrum is a flyover of a ship such as an aircraft carrier, which happened on more than one occasion during Harmer’s time serving at sea.
...
“You both just stare at each other,” Harmer says. “It might seem exciting, but it’s actually very boring.”

We would make signs for them to photograph from their recon aircraft/ships so they would have something to laugh about. At times the troops would moon them also but that's not something that goes in the log book or the official record.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1968752/replies?c=57

 

[voko]

Khan? I did not.

Yes, you did. You said: "It was the Soviets that destroyed the monarchy". Khan was the successor to the monarchy, and he was directly involved in ending it. I have asked this twice and I repeat again: was Mohammed Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan and the immediate successor to king Mohammed Zahir Shah, a communist installed by the Soviets? Cite your sources.

That the Soviets wrecked Afghanistan?

There was a very specific statement you made that I said you had not been able to demonstrate. I quoted it, please quit trying to change the subject now.

 

[voko]

He clamps down on the press, imprisons people who oppose him politically, kills political opponents abroad.

The links provide no evidence of Putin's involvement in what you just ascribed to him. Your implicit claim that Litvinenko was Putin's political opponent is not substantiated, either, and since you keep citing the Litvinenko case as a veritable act of Putin's tyranny, it is about time that you substantiated it. Please do, and that is about all your claims quoted in this message, and cite your sources.

 

[Borek]

Just to remind you: this thread is not about Khan, not about Afghanistan, not about Georgia, but about situation in Ukraine.

 

[Chronos]

Similar claims are made about the CIA, and probably about as credible. I view it as geopolitical spin. Putin is tough, but, no fool. Allowing Ukraine to join NATO and compromise a highly strategic naval base in the black sea was untenable. Seizing additional parts of eastern Ukraine would be a useless economic drain, IMO.

 

[darkwood]

Here's my input...

Eastern Ukraine are manufacturers of parts for weapons that cannot be got anywhere else in the world and they are heavy suppliers to Russia and China so the thought to Putin that Ukraine could fall into the hands of the EU is very worrying to him as it could effectively change the position as a military power Russia holds in the world and punch a big hole in China's position too.

This situation is partially a kneejerk reaction to the events in Syria where Russia with China's support has backed Assad's regime in defiance at the blatant atrocities seen daily there, Syria is purely for military strategic values and Russia could not guarantee any new government would want to play along with Russia's military interests. This brings us back to Ukraine where they have played there hand and taken over a section of Ukraine again for the same military reasons as it holds a key strategic position for Russia's fleet and a position they cannot afford to lose. Now as events roll on from the Syria situation and Russia is finding itself more isolated from the rest of the world (with the exceptions of China who is playing the silent partner now), Putin finds himself in a desperate situation where he only see his own military position in the world been his advantage for getting what he wants and its now under threat... let me speculate here and see if you agree -to ensure Eastern Ukraine stay suppliers of crucial military parts he cannot afford a pro-European government to take over and put sanctions in place so the whole situation from day 1 has been fuelled by Putin...local Pro- Russians are been reported to be seizing and taking over key buildings and propaganda is becoming rife within these areas against pro-European supporters ..let just say Putin has a bigger hand in all this and the thought of losing Eastern Ukraine to European policy is a very worrying thing for Putin.

If you reflect on what I have said then events in the Ukraine don't seem so random after all and more engineered to ensure Putin keeps his supply of Arms safe.