News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[Vanadium 50]

they can't just repress people like in the old ways.

Why not? If Russia moves troops into the eastern part of Ukraine, as "requested" by local governments (who may or may not declare independence), who is going to stop them? The EU? I think Putin can handle a few wagging fingers and clucking tongues from the Eurocrats. The US? What will the US do? Draw some more red lines?

 

[voko]

Who is left, the UN?

Since we are assuming a military action by Russia, the UN won't be able to do a thing, Russia being a permanent member of the Security Council, wielding its power to veto.

 

[D H]

Anyway I think the consensus in Ukrainians is that they want to get rid of Russian influence, and rightly so IMO.

This is not a universal consensus across all of the Ukraine. The eastern part of the Ukraine has a significant number of ethnic Russians and the dominant language in the eastern part of the Ukraine is Russian. In particular, the Crimea is predominantly ethnic Russians. It's dubious that the ethnic Russian majority in the Crimea would view Russian intervention as repression.

 

[voko]

The renegade Yanukovich who is desirous of restoration and who is the legitimate President poses an interesting dilemma for Russia.

 

[D H]

The renegade Yanukovich who is desirous of restoration and who is the legitimate President ...

That is a ridiculous statement. He abandoned his job. I suspect that even the ethic Russians in the Ukraine want him back for one reason only: To put him in jail.

 

[voko]

That is a ridiculous statement. He abandoned his job.

"Legitimate" means "conforming to the law or to rules". Neither version of the Ukrainian Constitution has a provision for losing presidency over "abandoning the job". So he is most definitely a legitimate president, de jure, if you so prefer. That this may be very different de facto constitutes the dilemma I spoke about.

 

[SteamKing]

Why not? If Russia moves troops into the eastern part of Ukraine, as "requested" by local governments (who may or may not declare independence), who is going to stop them? The EU? I think Putin can handle a few wagging fingers and clucking tongues from the Eurocrats. The US? What will the US do? Draw some more red lines?

The US could send Secy. of State Lurch to hang around Putin's office in the Kremlin, looking dour and worried, mumbling something about Genghis Khan.

 

[mheslep]

On the subject of non-violent actions the US *could* take:

• Replace the $15B Russia promised the Ukraine under Yanukovych
• Announce banking sanctions will be applied to any Ukrainian official that uses the military against peaceful civilians. Consider the same for Russian officials should they move militarily into the Ukraine.
• UN speech by Kerry/Obama loudly associating the US with self-determination of free peoples.
• Sail the US Navy into the international waters of the Black Sea, ruling out any future Russian naval blockade.

Other ideas?

 

[voko]

[*]Sail the US Navy into the international waters of the Black Sea, ruling out any future Russian naval blockade.

This will be ineffectual under the Montreux Convention. Unless, of course, the US are willing to dismiss Turkey as an allied nation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Any reaction and Russia can tighten the natural gas pipe line that Eastern Europe depends on. Such a shame.

 

[mheslep]

This will be ineffectual under the Montreux Convention. Unless, of course, the US are willing to dismiss Turkey as an allied nation.

Apparently Montreux allows up to 30,000 tons of non-Black Sea state war ships, which the US has already made use of in the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, during which three US naval vessels were allowed through the straights by Turkey.

 

[D H]

On the subject of non-violent actions the US *could* take:

• UN speech by Kerry/Obama loudly associating the US with self-determination of free peoples.

Something along the lines of the one option I left in your list will be very attractive to the Obama administration. Your other options? Maybe not.

Other ideas?

Since we're in the realm of fantasy,

• As an act of good faith to the new Ukrainian government, Russia turns Yanukovich over to Ukrainian authorities, along with the numbered Swiss bank accounts where a good amount of the Ukraine's former wealth now lives.

 

[voko]

Apparently Montreux allows up to 30,000 tons of non-Black Sea state war ships, which the US has already made use of in the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, during which three US naval vessels were allowed through the straights by Turkey.

I do not think that played any significant role during that event. I do not that that was much more than a token gesture.

Speaking of the US warships in the Black Sea, during the recent Olympics there were a couple of US ships there, also as a token gesture, one of them running aground, and her CO ending up removed from command. I wonder how that might affect the willingness of the US to deploy forces in that theatre as further token gestures.

 

[voko]

[*]As an act of good faith to the new Ukrainian government, Russia turns Yanukovich over to Ukrainian authorities, along with the numbered Swiss bank accounts where a good amount of the Ukraine's former wealth now lives.[/list]

Nah, the Swiss would very much mind parting with those hard-earned monies. In fact, they already have: according to the news circulated just today, the Swiss authorities have frozen the assets of Y & Co.

 

[mheslep]

I would like to know, with regards to self-determination in Ukraine and elsewhere, i) what might be attractive to the American people and ii) what might be somewhat effective.

I see no use in gaming out the https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/wZautQ0yhm4?start=238&end=249&version=3administration (very pretty, but in time of action decides "I will diminish, and go into the West")

 

[mheslep]

... Your other options? Maybe not.

Not *my* options; all of them are actions taken in the past by the US in foreign affairs.

 

[SteamKing]

Apparently Montreux allows up to 30,000 tons of non-Black Sea state war ships, which the US has already made use of in the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, during which three US naval vessels were allowed through the straights by Turkey.

Yes, but these ships were restricted to delivering humanitarian supplies to Georgia. The Russian foreign minister issued very pointed warnings aimed at NATO and the US against violation of the Montreux Convention.

From a sea power standpoint, it would be very reckless to send a NATO naval squadron into the Black Sea without friendly air cover. The tonnage limits imposed by the Convention preclude aircraft carriers from transiting the Straits from the Mediterranean due to their size, and given the Turkish government's growing antipathy with the West, it is doubtful that permission for overflight by NATO or US aircraft of Turkish territory would be granted, especially is a clash with Russian forces appeared possible.

 

[Nikitin]

The recent Russian military actions are probably aimed at strong-arming the government in Kiev into cooperation. A Russian invasion of Ukraine makes no sense right now, as all Putin would end up with is diplomatic isolation abroad and a cluster**** in occupied Ukraine.

I think the most Russia will do is destabilize the country and push for referendums and revolts in pro-Russian regions, incase Kiev is filled with idiots who refuse to listen.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, but these ships were restricted to delivering humanitarian supplies to Georgia.

They were US Navy warships, not a barge loaded with flour. One of them was an Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer.

The Russian foreign minister issued very pointed warnings aimed at NATO and the US against violation of the Montreux Convention.

Yes, well I'd like to see some pointed warnings from the US/NATO aimed at the Russia's violations of pick-a-paragraph in the UN charter. The Russian FM has only a bit more moral authority than von Ribbentrop. There was no violation.

The ships were sent once in 2008, they can be sent again. US Naval vessels patrol international waters around the world, and not all are part of air-covered carrier task forces. Turkey is not the only air route into the Black Sea; Bulgaria is a NATO member (and the coast is 50 mins from Aviano). The point being, Putin can have his wish to keep the US Navy out of the Black Sea by staying out of the Ukraine (and Georgia, and the Baltics, ...).

Anyway, moving ships around is bottom of the list. There are several positive actions the US can take.

 

[voko]

They were US Navy warships, not a barge loaded with flour. One of them was an Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer.

This sort of thinking has been obsolete for over 70 years. The US Navy, whose principal instrument of naval warfare is air power, knows that better than anyone else.

Yes, well I'd like to see some pointed warnings from the US/NATO aimed at the Russia's violations of pick-a-paragraph in the UN charter.

When I read this and other articles all I can see is rumours and, perhaps, conjectures. Are you aware of anything more substantial than that?

The Russian FM has only a bit more moral authority than von Ribbentrop. There was no violation.

Precisely. Those ships completed their humanitarian mission and then were happily underway homebound, exactly as Herr Lavrov wanted them to.

US Naval vessels patrol international waters around the world, and not all are part of air-covered carrier task forces.

Of course they do. In the Black Sea? That makes headlines.

The Black Sea has been Russia's home waters for about two centuries. One has to be completely insane to go there with a military objective not backed by an overwhelming force. I can't recall the USA's doing anything that in a very long time.

 

[mheslep]

Well, doesn't matter now. After the Russians deployed 2000 troops inside Ukraine today, Galadriel gave the Russians a not-our-problem pass in a speech this afternoon, and an hour later headed out to declare Friday happy hour.

 

[lisab]

Who is left, the UN?

Since we are assuming a military action by Russia, the UN won't be able to do a thing, Russia being a permanent member of the Security Council, wielding its power to veto.

I know - I was being sarcastic. I should have said,

Who is left, the UN ?

Or maybe,

Who is is left, the UN ?

I think having permanent members on the Security Council is a fatal flaw in the organization - pretty much gives them carte blanche.

 

[mheslep]

On the subject of non-violent actions the US *could* take:

• Replace the $15B Russia promised the Ukraine under Yanukovych
• Announce banking sanctions will be applied to any Ukrainian official that uses the military against peaceful civilians. Consider the same for Russian officials should they move militarily into the Ukraine.
• UN speech by Kerry/Obama loudly associating the US with self-determination of free peoples.
• Sail the US Navy into the international waters of the Black Sea, ruling out any future Russian naval blockade.

Couple more ideas from tube news:

• Announce a boycott of the G8 Summit, now (Russia, June)
• Pull the US Ambassador to Russia

 

[SteamKing]

They were US Navy warships, not a barge loaded with flour. One of them was an Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer.

Nobody said anything about barges loaded with flour. Humanitarian aid can include medical equipment and medicine, blankets, tents and other shelter, stoves and cookware, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Assured_Delivery

US Naval vessels patrol international waters around the world, and not all are part of air-covered carrier task forces.

In the scarier parts of the world, like North Korea, there is always at least one carrier battle group operating or based nearby. Individual vessels may be dispatched for a particular mission, but they are implicitly backed up with either naval air power or land based air power.

Turkey is not the only air route into the Black Sea; Bulgaria is a NATO member (and the coast is 50 mins from Aviano).

Unless Obama wants to send B-52s to loiter over the Black Sea, most of the fighter-bombers based at Aviano would probably have to be refueled to accomplish any missions in support of operations over the Black Sea. It's hard to sustain extended aerial operations when most of your time is spent flying to and from Italy to the Black Sea.

While Bulgaria is a NATO member, Serbia and Macedonia are not. Because of the Bosnian War, I don't think Serbia is a very NATO-friendly place to be flying over.

 

[voko]

send B-52s to loiter over the Black Sea

Will the wonders never cease. I know you did not mean this seriously.

 

[mheslep]

Nobody said anything about barges loaded with flour. Humanitarian aid can include medical equipment and medicine, blankets, tents and other shelter, stoves and cookware, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Assured_Delivery

Yes, and nobody denied humanitarian aid was sent. The point is that it was done with guided missile destroyer. If you want to send only aid, you send the equivalent of a barge. If you want to make a point, you send a guided missile destroyer.

It's hard to sustain extended aerial operations when most of your time is spent flying to and from Italy to the Black Sea.

Extended? This was one or two destroyers or frigates in 2008 for some weeks, and would be again.

While Bulgaria is a NATO member, Serbia and Macedonia are not. Because of the Bosnian War, I don't think Serbia is a very NATO-friendly place to be flying over.

Air support is *not* an issue for the area:

As of August 27, 2008, the U.S. Air Force had flown 55 airlift sorties [into Georgia] delivering 1,944,000 pounds of supplies.

 

[SteamKing]

Yes, and nobody denied humanitarian aid was sent. The point is that it was done with guided missile destroyer. If you want to send only aid, you send the equivalent of a barge. If you want to make a point, you send a guided missile destroyer.

When going into a war zone, it's always prudent to have some of your own security forces handy.

Extended? This was one or two destroyers or frigates in 2008 for some weeks, and would be again.

The important phrase here is 'extended aerial operations', not naval operations.

Neither the US nor NATO is likely to commit any forces into the region unless aerial operations, whether for supply or security, can be initiated and sustained.

 

[Czcibor]

Any reaction and Russia can tighten the natural gas pipe line that Eastern Europe depends on. Such a shame.

As an Eastern European - Russia is at least as much dependent on our money from gas, as we're on their gas. And in bad scenario we could in relation for no natural gas could cut access to Kaliningrad Zone (both by land and Gulf of Finland). Now the winter ends so such negotiations are imaginable from our perspective.

 

[voko]

This is official: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6751

Vladimir Putin submitted an appeal to the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

The document reads:

“In connection with the extraordinary situation that has developed in Ukraine and the threat to citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, the personnel of the military contingent of the Russian Federation Armed Forces deployed on the territory of Ukraine (Autonomous Republic of Crimea) in accordance with international agreement; pursuant to Article 102.1 (d) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, I hereby appeal to the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the social and political situation in that country is normalised.”

Earlier today, both chambers of the Russian Parliament essentially asked Putin to request the use of force, following an earlier appeal from Crimean authorities. So I am guessing the Parliament will vote in favour of the appeal.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Today Mr. Putin received permission to send troops to Ukraine. All of Ukraine, not just Crimea. Russian troops were requested by newly-elected (at gunpoint) Crimean Prime Mininster Aksyonov, and Mr. Putin has agreed to send them.

 

[voko]

The extraordinary hearing in the Council: just voted unanimously for Putin's appeal.

 

[AlephZero]

i) what might be attractive to the American people and ii) what might be somewhat effective.

Somewhat effective to what end?

Starting from the beginning of the argument, why is the situation in the Ukraine of any more interest to the USA than to say China or Japan (neither of which has expressed any interest either way, AFAIK).

There are obvious economic implications for Europe (e.g. natural gas pipeline routes) apart from any political considerations. But what is there to interest the USA here, except for those who want to carry on fighting the Cold War?

 

[voko]

Russia's Council of Federation also recommended that President Putin recall the ambassador to the US as a reaction to President Obama's "there will be costs" statement.

 

[nickyrtr]

What is Ukraine's interest in keeping Crimea? The population there is more closely aligned to Russian culture, and Ukraine has other sea ports like Odessa. A deal where Ukraine cedes Crimea to Russian sovereignty, in exchange for favorable economic terms, could be a win for both countries. Please forgive my ignorance if there are other factors that make this simplistic picture impossible.

 

[russ_watters]

Somewhat effective to what end?

Starting from the beginning of the argument, why is the situation in the Ukraine of any more interest to the USA than to say China or Japan (neither of which has expressed any interest either way, AFAIK).

There are obvious economic implications for Europe (e.g. natural gas pipeline routes) apart from any political considerations. But what is there to interest the USA here, except for those who want to carry on fighting the Cold War?

It only takes one side to start a war. We're in this whether we want to be or not.

And we are losing.

 

[voko]

What is Ukraine's interest in keeping Crimea? The population there is more closely aligned to Russian culture, and Ukraine has other sea ports like Odessa. A deal where Ukraine cedes Crimea to Russian sovereignty, in exchange for favorable economic terms, could be a win for both countries. Please forgive my ignorance if there are other factors that make this simplistic picture impossible.

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya

Novorossiya (Russian: Новоро́ссия, Ukrainian: Новоросія; literally New Russia) is a historical term denoting an area north of the Black Sea which was conquered by the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th century.

This entire coastal region, shooting way up north, has historically a lot more to do with Russia than with Ukraine, or so it can be spun. Letting Crimea go might easily result in losing the whole thing. Definitely not something Kiev is looking forward to.

 

[Czcibor]

I see here one interesting solution. Turkey wants to protect ethnically related Crimean Tatars (who neither love Russians for mass Stalin deportation, nor for recent anti-Muslim policy). Well, if Russians now blatantly violated "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" (in which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for promise of territorial integrity), I see one more agreement that can be cancel - Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, which allows Russian military ships to cross Bosphorus.

 

[russ_watters]

What is Ukraine's interest in keeping Crimea? The population there is more closely aligned to Russian culture, and Ukraine has other sea ports like Odessa. A deal where Ukraine cedes Crimea to Russian sovereignty, in exchange for favorable economic terms, could be a win for both countries. Please forgive my ignorance if there are other factors that make this simplistic picture impossible.

Countries don't just go and give away pieces of themselves. Sovereignty is the essence of what it means to be a "country".

 

[Czcibor]

Somewhat effective to what end?

Starting from the beginning of the argument, why is the situation in the Ukraine of any more interest to the USA than to say China or Japan (neither of which has expressed any interest either way, AFAIK).

There are obvious economic implications for Europe (e.g. natural gas pipeline routes) apart from any political considerations. But what is there to interest the USA here, except for those who want to carry on fighting the Cold War?

East European allies? I mean Poland has no point to support US Middle East expeditions, except having good relations with the USA in case of Russian making problems.

EDIT: Anyway I'm impressed how Russian Web Brigades (Веб-бригады) are active on main Polish web sites. Very bright propaganda move from their side, however, it seems they crossed threshold of the plausible amount of comments convenient for Russians (like condemning Ukrainian nationalism) and now some posters are openly called Putin's henchmen.

 

[voko]

I see one more agreement that can be cancel - Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, which allows Russian military ships to cross Bosphorus.

Turkey would need to be severely crazy to denounce the convention. As it stands right now, it gives her a lot of control over the Straits, making them her major strategical asset. If it ceases to exist, then every other country in the world will assume the UN convention on the law of the sea applies, which gives every ship the right of transit passage.

There is a reason why the convention made it all the way through World War II and the Cold War, even though there were a lot of pressure on Turkey. And the reason is that it is of extreme value to Turkey.

 

[mheslep]

Somewhat effective to what end?

Because, in general, American policy historically adhere's to the following

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. ...

And in times of war weariness the end-note especially applies:

"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

John Quincy Adams, Independence Day address (1821)

 

[mheslep]

Today Mr. Putin received permission to send troops to Ukraine. All of Ukraine, not just Crimea. Russian troops were requested by newly-elected (at gunpoint) Crimean Prime Mininster Aksyonov, and Mr. Putin has agreed to send them.

Yes, as long as he asks permission from a wise and deliberative body, must be ok.

You know, the census says more than three million Russian diaspora live in the US, another half million in Canada, a population second only to Ukraine outside Asia. Maybe Putin will also ask permission some day to send troops to protect those poor hapless oppressed Russians in America under threat by fascist radicals and gays.

 

[nsaspook]

On the subject of non-violent actions the US *could* take:

[*]Sail the US Navy into the international waters of the Black Sea, ruling out any future Russian naval blockade.
Other ideas?

Plenty, but this is not one of them. The odds of something stupid happening are pretty high judging from past events.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/w...ck&contentCollection=Home Page&pgtype=article

Making Russia Pay? It’s Not So Simple

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Does Ukraine have any defensive capabilities or will they just let Russia roll the tanks in?

 

[Tosh5457]

I wasn't referring to the Russian intervention in Crimea. In the old ways this revolution would've been already stopped in its tracks, the Russians would have intervened in Kiev already. Crimeans are the most pro-Russians of all the Ukrainians, so Russians have troops there already if they need to intervene.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/02/world/ukraine-divided/?iid=article_sidebar

 

[mheslep]

Plenty, ...

Such as?

 

[Vanadium 50]

But what is there to interest the USA here, except for those who want to carry on fighting the Cold War?

One interest is that countries keep to their agreements. As part of the 1994 Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is short enough to reproduce in its entirety:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

 

[mheslep]

I see here one interesting solution. Turkey wants to protect ethnically related Crimean Tatars (who neither love Russians for mass Stalin deportation, nor for recent anti-Muslim policy). Well, if Russians now blatantly violated "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" (in which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for promise of territorial integrity), I see one more agreement that can be cancel - Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, which allows Russian military ships to cross Bosphorus.

That is interesting. Thanks.

 

[mheslep]

... And in bad scenario we could in relation for no natural gas could cut access to Kaliningrad Zone (both by land and Gulf of Finland). Now the winter ends so such negotiations are imaginable from our perspective.

Cut access? The Russian Baltic fleet there is reported as having some 75 ships. Who has the Naval/air power in the area to keep them bottled up?

 

[D H]

Cut access? The Russian Baltic fleet there is reported as having some 75 ships. Who has the Naval/air power in the area to keep them bottled up?

The Baltic is about 2000 kilometers as the crow flies (and a whole lot further as the ship sails) from the Black Sea. Perhaps you meant this reference? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet.