Send Peacekeepers Into Donbas

[Boethius]

Here's another perspective, with some good links -


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/08/31/three-and-a-half-reasons-why-russia-might-be-planning-to-withdraw-from-ukraine-or-some-of-it-anyway/

[Anotherkiwi]

Well said.  I would only dispute the last words. Kiev has no power to bomb Donbass to the stone age. Just because Russia will not allow, and Putin has clearly warned about.

Belvis, what has this got to do with Putin?  Even though we all know it is a lie, he has said many times that Russia is not involved in Ukraine.  And what do you mean - "Russia will not allow."  Ukraine is not part of Russia, and Russia cannot dictate what another country may or may not do on its own territory.

...Needless to say the blockade will be the politically acceptable way to separate Donbass from Ukraine, first step for legalization of results of the civil war.

What "civil war?"  You mean the conflict started by Russian-backed separatists and the subsequent invasion by Russian troops, don't you?

[fathertime]

Belvis, what has this got to do with Putin?  Even though we all know it is a lie, he has said many times that Russia is not involved in Ukraine.  And what do you mean - "Russia will not allow."  Ukraine is not part of Russia, and Russia cannot dictate what another country may or may not do on its own territory.

 

Perhaps you would like to rethink that part of your statement.  Are only the USA, or western nations allowed to dictate what goes on in other countries, that aren't their territory?   


Fathertime!   

[Anotherkiwi]

Perhaps you would like to rethink that part of your statement.  Are only the USA, or western nations allowed to dictate what goes on in other countries, that aren't their territory?

Why should I rethink it?  I don't believe that ANY nation, western, eastern or otherwise, should dictate what goes on in another country.  I have posted this several times.

[msmobyone]

France and Germany might send 30 each provided the US, Canada and England
had 20,000 there.

England doesn't possess a military, Beel, the United Kingdom might 

[msmobyone]

Perhaps you would like to rethink that part of your statement.  Are only the USA, or western nations allowed to dictate what goes on in other countries, that aren't their territory?   


Fathertime!

FT,

I am not aware of ANY NATO member having sent / encouraged serving members of the military to fight in Ukraine....

I trust you are now pausing to think ....of a rational, valid riposte..

[Darth_Budda]

Their are several hundred US Military trainers in Ukraine.

[Belvis]

And what do you mean - "Russia will not allow."  Ukraine is not part of Russia, and Russia cannot dictate what another country may or may not do on its own territory.

As you have observed, Russia can dictate. World is being ruled by precedent law. If one country can send military in another country  and destroy this country, then this case can be appiled for other countries too.
May you meant we should establish the new world order where there is no exceptions and powers with exceptional rights?

[fathertime]

FT,

I am not aware of ANY NATO member having sent / encouraged serving members of the military to fight in Ukraine....

I trust you are now pausing to think ....of a rational, valid riposte..

Belvis pretty much said what I would have said. 


Fathertime!   

[Brasscasing]

Their are several hundred US Military trainers in Ukraine.

The difference being the US and other nations with training contingents in Ukraine were invited there. The Russian invaders were not.

Brass

[Boethius]

As you have observed, Russia can dictate. World is being ruled by precedent law. If one country can send military in another country  and destroy this country, then this case can be appiled for other countries too.

That's may be precedent, but it's not legal.  It was't legal when the US invaded Iraq, and it certainly wasn't legal when Russia invaded Crimea, and started a war in Donbas.  Nevertheless, there is a significant difference.  The US did not illegally seize Iraqi territory and claim it as their own.


Russia is an outlier, a rogue state, run by men who are killers, with no moral principles. 

[jone]

Foreign relations as defined by the late author Tom Clancy:  Two countries F'ing each other.

Morality is what a country or countries makes it out to be.

The problem that Russia has is that it is much weaker than it is trying to project.   Sooner or later it will be brought in line by countries that are observing but not currently acting. 

[Boethius]

Certain morals are, and always have been, universal.

[jone]

Certain morals are, and always have been, universal.

Yes, but they are put aside from time to time, aren't they?  It is all a point of view.  We would like to think that society is based on morality.  But in reality, society is based on collective self-interest and a desire to exist.

[mendeleyev]

Their are several hundred US Military trainers in Ukraine.

And, they are in the East, far away from the fighting.

The Russian soldiers, as evidenced by over 2,000 Russian contract soldiers killed so far, are not away from the front. They are in the midst of the front, and fighting.

The 3,200 some Russian soldiers now receiving payments for disabilities sustained while fighting were in combat, obviously.

[Belvis]

Nevertheless, there is a significant difference.  The US did not illegally seize Iraqi territory and claim it as their own.


Russia is an outlier, a rogue state, run by men who are killers, with no moral principles.

Boethius, you're bringing argument that US did not illegally seize Iraqi territory  as kind of justification for death of tens of thousands Iraqis. And I see here a significant difference, completely destroyed country with hundreds thousands dead people and millions Crimeans who  applaud the reunification of their land with Russia. 
It seems you as a good lawer put the law above the human lives, and here we disagree.
Russia is a rogue state in eyes of Anglo-Saxon world, that's true. However it's not the issue of moral principles but pure political competition for power in the world.  Russia is not a docile bunny, so she will a  rogue state

The Russian soldiers, as evidenced by over 2,000 Russian contract soldiers killed so far, are not away from the front. They are in the midst of the front, and fighting.

The 3,200 some Russian soldiers now receiving payments for disabilities sustained while fighting were in combat, obviously.

I saw 12,000 Russian soldiers were killed  in Ukraine so far. 
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/russ/content/2015/05/07/108927/russko-ukrainskaya-vojna-v-ukraine-uzhe-ubito-12-tysyach-russkikh-soldat.shtml
Probably you're using the same kind of Internet articles with anonimous authors who have access to secret information. Well, may be not secret, but certainly with no links to official sources

[Boethius]

Boethius, you're bringing argument that US did not illegally seize Iraqi territory  as kind of justification for death of tens of thousands Iraqis.

No, I do not justify those deaths, and I have always maintained the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law and criminal.

And I see here a significant difference, completely destroyed country with hundreds thousands dead people and millions Crimeans who  applaud the reunification of their land with Russia. 

Irrelevant to an illegal invasion.

It seems you as a good lawer put the law above the human lives, and here we disagree.
Russia is a rogue state in eyes of Anglo-Saxon world, that's true. However it's not the issue of moral principles but pure political competition for power in the world.  Russia is not a docile bunny, so she will a  rogue state

Ah, you drank the kool aid of your government.    


The idea that Ukraine is important to the U.S., resulting in the US funding a so called "anti Russian coup" is ludicrous.  Ukraine is irrelevant to the US, and the Anglo-Saxon world.

Russia is not going to be a power in the world for a long time based on its population and its low standard of living/economic capital.  Currently, on the international stage, it is punching above its weight.  However, rather than worrying about the outside world, it should be focussing inward, improving the living standards for all its people, improving its education and healthcare, creating a rule of law, increasing its GDP.  Once those things are achieved, respect, and power, follows.

[Belvis]

The idea that Ukraine is important to the U.S., resulting in the US funding a so called "anti Russian coup" is ludicrous.  Ukraine is irrelevant to the US, and the Anglo-Saxon world.

Who said Ukraine is important to the U.S.? Russia is.
Ukraine is an instrument.

Russia is not going to be a power in the world for a long time based on its population and its low standard of living/economic capital. 

How long time? At least for the last 300 years Russia was the power and influence the world in spite  of population and low standard of living. The situation can turn but I would not count on guessing.

[Boethius]

Who said Ukraine is important to the U.S.? Russia is.
Ukraine is an instrument.

No, Russia is not particularly important to the U.S.  It is not an economic competitor.   It is not a military competitor.  This is something your government would like to have you believe, but it is not reality.  It's a good way to distract Russians from the fact your government is abysmal (not suggesting Congress is much better, and I doubt you'll find many American posters here disagree with me on that point), but the average American has a much higher standard of living than the average Russian.  I will concede, American politicians may use a "bogeyman" Russia for their own political purposes, but the average American these days is too cynical to believe much that comes out of Washington, and most, frankly, don't care about Russia.  Or Ukraine, for that matter.

How long time? At least for the last 300 years Russia was the power and influence the world in spite  of population and low standard of living. The situation can turn but I would not count on guessing.

How many people outside the former Soviet Union learn Russian as the language of commerce/technology/business/entertainment? Your main exports are commodities and women.  What does that tell you about where your real influence lies?

Russia punched above its weight again before the Revolution because it had some seriously great diplomats and advisors (many, incidentally, of German origin).  But it wasn't a prime influencer in a world which was dominated primarily by three European countries.  Furthermore, the world was very different then, dominated by Europe.  In the Soviet period, the only reason the USSR had any influence was because it had nukes and interfered in third world backwaters all over the world.  Russia can't afford that.

[fathertime]

No, I do not justify those deaths, and I have always maintained the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law and criminal.

At the time of Iraq, I was among the foolish US sheep that believed our lying representatives.   I have come around to a similar viewpoint as yours now, years later.

The idea that Ukraine is important to the U.S., resulting in the US funding a so called "anti Russian coup" is ludicrous.  Ukraine is irrelevant to the US, and the Anglo-Saxon world.

While it is true that Ukraine itself means very little to us here in the US, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be above helping along a disturbance/revolution of sorts, to further occupy Russia with a problem in it's backyard, especially if that enables the USA to 'make progress' towards regime changes elsewhere...with the ultimate goal of enabling us to exploit various countries resources for the least....if it harmful to those people's that isn't very important to our representatives.     So far the plan seems to be working to a degree.


Fathertime!     

[jone]

While you are all contemplating a US role in Ukraine, go back in time a year and a half ago.  See how far fetched it was that the US was taking an active role in destabilizing Ukraine:

1.  Russia was hosting the Olympic Games in Sochi.  General goodwill for Russia was the norm.  The US primary stance against Russia during this time was Gay Rights Policy (I still can't figure our government out on trying to export that policy.)

2.  US and Russia were co-operating in various fields of military operation.  NATO had a base inside of Russia until 2013 to assist in the Afghanistan conflict, etc.

3.  US had an administration that was actively seeking to dispel areas of conflict and friction.  Anyone who has read the Iran Accord knows how far this administration was trying to resolve, peacefully, areas of conflict.  They were buying it, not exporting uprisings against Russian controlled leadership in Eastern Europe.

4.  US companies had the inside track on fracking contracts in two locations in Ukraine.  To destabilize the government during this time is contrary to good business.

5.  And, finally, NATO members had repeatedly stated that they did not wish to entertain Ukraine's entry into NATO.  Members were much closer to inviting RUSSIA into NATO than Ukraine a few short years ago. 

I will say something:  Russia's continued demonstrations have given NATO a new focus on which to build future strategy.

With all of the above, I am not buying the idea that the US actively fomented the Maidan uprisings.  It was not even party to the initial deal that was cut calling for elections in December.  Instead, Russia was at the lead of such discussions.

The simple fact is that Russia is in a pickle.  It has no good alternatives to creating economic unions.  Pursuing dominion over once vassal states seems to be the only way that the current Russian government can prop itself up, through ultra nationalism and conquest.  But even that seems to be failing.

We've talked a lot about Russian attitudes towards Putin.  He's the home team right now and he's got a couple of victories under his belt.  But when he starts losing, it is going to go downhill very quickly.  Low oil prices and lack of foreign investment here will eventually have a toll on the Russian economy.  And Russians have tasted middle class.  It is much different than the days when the Politburo could make up a story and have the country believe it.  (Or is it?)

[fathertime]

4.  US companies had the inside track on fracking contracts in two locations in Ukraine.  To destabilize the government during this time is contrary to good business.

That is not necessarily true.  True, it has been terrible for the US oil industry, including Chevron, but  the longer term perceived benefit, and secondary benefit of helping to mire Russia with this issue may well be seen as worth the shorter term losses.  I continue to believe that if this weren't the case, we wouldn't be expending so much energy on trying to shape the outcome.  Representatives pretend as they might, don't care much at all about the Ukrainians.  Our longer-term business/financial interests are the primary concern....but I guess it won't be couched that way, because it could lead to a loss of support...so hypocrisy it must be.


Unintended consequences are an unknown, those are mostly benefiting China from my vantage point. 
Fathertime!   

[BillyB]

No, I do not justify those deaths, and I have always maintained the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law and criminal.

Bush went to the UN twice to protest about everybody breaking international law. Many nations in Europe continued to do business with Saddam that was against UN resolution. International law is a joke unless someone enforces it. About 600 American troops have been affected by chemical weapons during and after the 2nd gulf war, some of the WMD that Saddam was supposed to have turned over before the 2nd war. Saddam and our allies broke international law. I don't feel sorry for any of them that their illegal business was put out of business.

Morality is what a country or countries makes it out to be.

Russia's brand of mortality is right, just ask them. America's brand of mortality is right, just ask them. America learned after WW2 that the USSR turned many of our friends and those we liberated into our enemies. Communists in China, Vietnam, Korea, and all of Eastern Europe got support and weapons from Stalin to take over their nations. The West was slow to learn that this is the way the world works. If you don't help your friends that are located in every nation, you'll eventually have no friends. For those who don't understand, that means you'll eventually be surrounded by enemies.


One doesn't need war to take over a nation. Just support those in that nation who have similar politics or at least politics that one can use to their advantage like Germany did in WWI. Germany helped free and transport Lenin to Russia. Germany gave him $10,000 to raise a group to overthrow the the Russian government. Lenin got with pal Stalin to do just that. For $10,000 Germany turned an enemy into an ally. There's not much better value for the money in history like that. Like it or not folks, this is the way things work today and both America and Russia will continue to support those in every nation that have similar politics. To not do so is a path to extinction. Best to embrace what's going on instead of criticizing it.

[ML]

And, they are in the East, far away from the fighting.

Jim, time to take a geography refresher course ? !

[msmobyone]

Their are several hundred US Military trainers in Ukraine.

NOT in the war zone..... and invited by the govt. one HECK of a difference ...