Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ukraine
#1

The first victim of war is the truth, but this is one of the better renditions..


Putin’s Gamble: Crimea Land Grab Will Be Met With Western Inaction






Photograph by Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during an awards ceremony for Russian Olympic athletes in Sochi, Russia, on Feb. 24


It’s not clear whether to call Russia’s mobilization of military forces in Crimea a war, invasion, or occupation.

For the moment, none of those descriptors seems quite right: Russian soldiers don’t appear to have fired a shot, even if their very presence is designed to be theatrically provocative both to the new government in Kiev and to Western capitals.

Much of the local population in Crimea, which has longstanding cultural and historical ties to Russia, has welcomed the arrival of the troops. And for his part, Vladimir Putin, who kicked off the latest and most dramatic round of crisis in Ukraine by ginning up a vote in Russia’s upper house of parliament to authorize military force over the weekend, has remained silent.

That silence—rather odd, considering he is potentially calling for armed intervention—means it’s possible only to guess at Putin’s motives and ultimate aims when it comes to Crimea and Ukraine, writ large.

Over his 14 years in office, Putin has been a reactive, cautious leader, if one who seeks to centralize his hold on power at every turn—he is better at tactics and the manipulation of events than at coming up with a sustained, long-term vision. He is now testing that paradigm as never before.

In pushing Crimea—and depending on how events unfold, perhaps eastern Ukraine—to the brink of conflict, he is making an emotional and incredibly risky bet, perhaps with the highest stakes of his time in power.

He has already thrown away whatever international goodwill he bought with the estimated $51 billion Russia spent for the Sochi Olympics. If the country’s isolation continues, he may face growing discontent within the ranks of the political and economic elite, who depend on financial ties to the West and would be loath to see Putin’s adventurism affect their own business dealings and bank accounts.

A poor showing for Russia in the resolution of the Crimea crisis could cost him public support, just when the economy is stagnating and the ruble is tanking. Why, then, would Putin gamble in this way?

Trapped by his own cynicism and paranoia, Putin saw the fall of Viktor Yanukovych—a leader he detested yet paid handsomely to prop up—as the living manifestation of his worst geopolitical nightmare.

In Putin’s interpretation, what has taken place is an extralegal coup midwifed by the U.S. and Europe that would have the effect of moving Ukraine forever out of Russia’s orbit and remaking it into a Western-oriented state hostile to Moscow.

That would be intolerable, for starters, because it would effectively kill Putin’s visions of an economic union that would require Ukraine’s membership to get off the ground. Putin considered it acceptable if Ukraine were not a pure Russian puppet, but seeing it on the path to any sort of integration with the EU or NATO was impossible to fathom.

Beyond that, Putin doesn’t trust the anti-Yanukovych opposition, seeing in Ukraine’s new government a band of anti-Russian nationalists who will be antagonistic to Russia’s interests for years to come.

Trust, already sinking, was further eroded when, as Putin sees it, the Ukrainian opposition and its backers in the West did not live up to the terms of a agreement they negotiated with Yanukovych on Feb. 21—it was as if once that agreement fell apart, Putin decided Russia would be free of its obligations, too.

Putin needed to salvage something from the disaster of seeing Yanukovych, an incompetent if controllable quasi-ally, replaced with politicians who, having seen Putin’s aggressive and desperate moves to quell the Maidan protests, would quite likely want nothing to do with him or Russia’s foreign policy priorities.

Most important, rightly or wrongly, he saw nothing that would stop him. Certainly not the Ukrainian military or security forces: They were too disoriented after the whirlwind events of previous days. And he bet on Western disorganization and inaction.

After all, Russian troops remain beyond their legally mandated borders in Georgia, and no one mentioned a word of this as Russia prepared for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Four years after Russia’s short war with Georgia, Putin bears no real deep costs.

If anything, he sees an EU that is disunited and slowed by diverging priorities. Putin, not without merit, figures that many EU members care more about economic ties and access to natural gas than about chastising Russia for bad behavior.

And Putin, a strongman who bends his country’s parliament to his will, took for a sign of weakness Barack Obama’s decision to back away from military strikes against Syria last year in the face of wavering domestic support. In sum, Putin figured that whatever his designs in Ukraine—creating a rump state in Crimea, stirring up street fighting in the east—he cared more about getting his way than the West did about stopping him.

What makes this moment so dangerous is that Putin seems to be living in the world of his own propaganda. He insisted on a long telephone call with Obama of “the real threat to the lives and health” of Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Ukraine, according to local press reports. German Chancellor Angela Merkel heard a similarly dire warning.

At the unanimous vote to authorize military action, members of Russia’s Federation Council spoke of victims of anti-Russian violence in Crimea. Yet little evidence for any such attacks exists. The same goes for talk—repeated by Putin and propagated without pause on state television—of Nazis and ultra-nationalists taking power in Kiev.

The anti-Yanukovych protests did have a worrying contingent of far-right activists, but neither the opposition in the streets or the new government was so radical as to be branded anathema in their entirety.

This is the real danger of Putin’s brinksmanship: By taking the most extreme position possible, he makes it harder to come back from the edge. He compounded one loss (the fall of Yanukovych) by raising the stakes for himself even more dramatically (the deployment of Russian troops to Crimea).

His country now faces international sanctions and is on the verge of being kicked out of the G-8. The trick for the U.S. and Europe will be to convince him that’s he has entered into a game he can’t win, but that the costs of quitting now are more advantageous to him than in playing all the way to the end. One can only hope that Putin, in whatever version of reality he’s now in, recognizes this, too.

Reply

#2

Sanctions, anyone? Well..

By the same token, President Barack Obama may have miscalculated badly in threatening some form of retaliation. This has succeeded only in further hardening already pretty much rock-solid Russian popular support for Mr Putin’s actions. What’s seen in the West as a disaster looks to Muscovites like a triumph. Mr Obama must now either go through with his threats, or, as he did with Syria, blink. Russia is banking on the US doing the latter, not just because it has form in such matters, but because it is quite hard to see what, in the way of meaningful sanctions, might be imposed. Obtaining international consensus will be difficult to impossible. Already, Germany shows signs of breaking ranks, and that’s just over the threat to abandon the G8 summit in Sochi. If mere gestures can cause dissent, think what more potent, economic sanctions would do. Some of the more fanciful suggestions can quickly be dismissed. For instance, even if Turkey could be prevailed upon to close the Dardanelles to Russian commercial and military shipping, it would be a breach of international treaties and is therefore a non-starter for those accusing Russia of something similar. Somehow or other, the moral high ground has to be retained.

Vladimir Putin will get away with it again – sanctions would harm us more than them - Telegraph

Reply

#3
Simple. Putin is trying to prevent a civil war, and is doing so with a huge show of force that makes warfare appear suicide. This conflict does though provide old cold warriors with the opportunity to once again prance out their stuff. Hopefully Putin's approach will win out and bloodshed will be averted and an element of corruption will be gone.
Reply

#4
While leaving open a lot of options as these things invariably are not all what they seem, but I thought hostilities had basically ended when Yanukovych, after signing an agreement, suddenly disappeared as a thief in the night.

Then other thieves in the night appeared, unidentified masked armed men securing strategic locations, followed by soldiers (still anonymous). That had all the signs of being carefully planned.
Reply

#5
There is something odd," Benjamin Wallace-Wells wrote in New York magazine, "about commentators who denounce Putin in the strongest terms and yet pine for a more Putin-like figure in the White House.

Putin Envy and American Conservatives | New Republic

Ewald Boehlke, from the German Council on Foreign Relations, told the BBC: "She thinks like a scientist so she takes out all emotion. She will be keeping in contact to work out how to de-escalate the situation step by step."

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Germany's Russian conundrum

There is much nonsense being written about how Vladimir Putin showed how he is “tougher” than Barack Obama and how Obama now needs to demonstrate his manhood. This is how great powers get drawn into the politics of small tribes and end up in great wars that end badly for everyone.

Why Putin Doesn’t Respect Us - NYTimes.com

Reply

#6
Vladimir Putin has a network of lobbyists and lawyers working for him here in America. These executives can be identified through disclosure forms required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act

American Executives Working For Putin - Business Insider

Reply

#7
Once known as the "Breadbasket of Russia", Ukraine is now also Russia's fuel tank. And, one American company has 10 billion reasons to hope nothing goes wrong. Ukraine sits on 39 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. That's about one-quarter the world's entire proven reserves. One company that has bet big on Ukraine's natural gas is US-based Chevron.

This oil giant could get crushed by Ukraine | Talking Numbers - Yahoo Finance

Eying an opportunity to stick it to Vladimir Putin, hawkish Republicans, and Democrats from energy-rich states are pushing the administration to loosen exports of natural gas for shipment to Ukraine and other countries dependent on Russia. Currently exports of natural gas are limited to countries that are free trade partners with U.S., but lawmakers see an opportunity for domestic energy producers to benefit, as well as put pressure on Russia.

Take that Putin! Lawmakers push to expand natural gas exports | Breakout - Yahoo Finance

Reply

#8
I clicked on the Talking Numbers link because I was stunned by the suggestion that Ukraine has 39Ts of reserves, 1/4 of the world supplies.

Talking numbers I'll use a quote: "Ukraine's then-Energy Minster Stavytsky estimated that as much as 353 billion cubic feet of natural gas could be extracted every year. That translates to roughly $1.7 billion in revenues per year on the upper end given current natural gas prices."

In the article though it states Chevron's work program is exploratory. First, I don't see how exploratory wells can be considered reserves, but more to my point I figure 353 bcf/y = 7.2 MTPA. This is hardly a resource suggestive of anywhere near 1/4 of the world's supply, and it's tied up in shale to boot!

Junk economic journalism contributing misinformation to political decisionmaking. Worthy of Yahoo.
Reply

#9
Yes, they haven't fully grasped the meaning of the word "reserves"..
Reply

#10
Kiev today carries strong echoes of the anti-communist revolutions across central and eastern Europe a quarter of a century ago: a toppled, Moscow-backed, authoritarian leader; a government barely functioning; an economy severely weakened by corruption and mismanagement; and state coffers that are almost empty.

Ukraine: On the edge - FT.com

Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)