The Failure of Diplomacy in Ukraine

[sleepycat]

And that's not better than being a "respected putinist mouthpiece"? 

[Doll]

And that's not better than being a "respected putinist mouthpiece"? 

I don't know but now mask off Mendy- he is no longer "Russian hero journalist"

[sleepycat]

Let's face it Comrade Doll...
You're just jealous people listen to Mendy while no one will listen to your Putinist turd. 

[lordtiberius]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-tells-poroshenko-deep-concern-over-ukraine-violence-223554706.html

Obama tells Poroshenko of his DEEP CONCERN

The sooner we declare Minsk 2.0 a failure, the sooner we can arm Ukraine and the sooner we can no SWIFT Russia.  Do not wait til Debaltsevo falls or some new atrocity.  Strict enforcement of the accord is required or more people will die.

Russia is a big country with Nuclear weapons.  Attacking her over time as asymmetrically on multiple fronts through proxies harming her economy toward collapse is the best way to destroy this mafia in the Kremlin. A fully mobilized NATO on combat footing is a 5 million man Army.  Russia cannot win conventionally against such a force.   A post war settlement should we defeat these gangsters demands partition into multiple states.

[Doll]

Let's face it Comrade Doll...
You're just jealous people listen to Mendy while no one will listen to your Putinist turd. 

Sure- I am ready to shoot myself
To be popular posting junk from Internet on this board is a very doubtful compliment.

[fathertime]

Neville, what appeasers fail to comprehend is that aggressors do not quit until forced. Today it is Ukraine, but tomorrow it will be somebody else. Eventually that somebody else will be someone we have to back, but by then the Russian military will be stronger and larger and able to inflict more damage.

When it becomes someone we HAVE to back that is when we get involved....not before, and not out of fear.   If anything Russia is picking up a big problem if it occupies a nation with an unwilling people. 

Please do not allow the fear of war to shape you into a coward. The United States, then led by Wm. Jefferson Clinton, signed the Budapest Memorandum, as did Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. No guarantee of troops was part of the agreement, but we did agree to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. You did, I did, LT did, as did ML. We, the people, are the government of the USA, and either we are men of integrity, or we are liars.

Ukraine gave up nuclear arms upon your assurances, the assurances of Billy, of ChicagoGuy, PhotoGuy, Faux Paux, cc3, AC, Steamer, and others. We did this via our system of representative government. If you are a fair weather friend who agrees to keep your word only as long as it is convenient, then how sad.
 .

There is certainly some dispute as to whether the non-binding agreement has been triggered.  It appears Obama's thinking must be that way, otherwise we would have already reacted. With the totality of circumstances, and what a conflict could/would entail, it makes perfect sense to wait it out some more while applying pressures in an effort to bring it to a close.   


What we put on paper has never meant THAT much, there are 1000's of LAWS 'on the books' here in the USA, that are loosely enforced, or not enforced at all.  It often comes down to the judgement of those in charge at the time, and the general consensus about the law. 


Fathertime!   

[BillyB]

Poroshenko, Putin, Merkel, Hollande spoke Sunday and agreed to roll out the next phase of ceasefire. They will again to speak today. There has been a few violations of the ceasefire but it is different this time than it was in September. Most forces are honoring it. Ukraine has 30 days to change its Constitution. Putin may like the language if Ukraine's Rada can agree to do so. If not, back to war. Local elections are also included in the deal. Putin will assist in making sure the elections are fair. It's apparent east Ukraine will soon follow Crimea by allowing itself to be under Russia's control.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-world-leaders-agree-roll-out-next-phase-cease-fire-n306716

[Gator]

Chamberlain was an appeaser because as he was willing to throw other countries under the bus, in the hope that Hitler wouldn't come after England.

Perhaps the appeasers (if any other than FT) would benefit from a summary of Chamberlain's failed policy, covered in Churchill's Nobel Prize winning A Gathering Storm.  Some parallels with Putin are remarkable. 

In 1936 to appease Germany after Hitler's move into the Rhineland, Chamberlain offered to return to Germany some of its former colonies (Rhineland crisis, 1936).     Hitler ignored the offering, and instead came away with the thought that Britain's eagerness to appease proved them to be weak.  Many say that if France and Britain had attacked Hitler then, there would not have been a WWII. 

In 1937  Chamberlain bypassed his Foreign Secretary to negotiate an alliance with Italy, recognized then as an international pariah because of Ethiopia.  This was viewed as a desperate move and yielded nothing of significance.  The bypassed Foreign Secretary submitted his resignation, and Churchill recognized him as "standing up against long, dismal, drawling tides of drift and surrender."   

In 1938 Austria sought help from Britain to prevent its forced union with Germany.   Chamberlain's only assistance was to send Hitler a letter of protest.    At least the West imposed some sanctions against Putin, albeit not very strong sanctions.

Later in 1938 came Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia and the Munich Agreement.  Chamberlain wrote, "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing." 

Chamberlain met and negotiated with Hitler, yielding the Munich Agreement.   Chamberlain called the agreement "Peace for our time."  In contrast, Churchill stated "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war."

After Munich, Hitler kept pressing and Chamberlain continued his appeasement policy, although receiving less support at home.  He did agree to assist Poland if Hitler attacked it.  Hitler ignored Poland's pact with Britain, saying "Our enemies are small worms. I saw them at Munich."  Almost one year after Munich, Hitler invaded Poland.  Britain was forced to declare war, and Churchill replaced Chamberlain.

Chamberlain's appeasement policy was clearly a mistake.  Some contend that an even bigger mistake was his slow rearmament of Britain's military.  Britain was underprepared. 

You, FT, are Chamberlain. You have many times on this forum advocated giving Putin a piece of this, and a piece of that, in the hopes that he would be grateful and then go home.

Aggressors understand appeasers, but appeasers do no understand aggressors, and thus time and time again in history the appeasers are proved to be pathetic losers.

It is not too late to change.

Putin is more than an aggressor.  Putin has demonstrated again and again his preference for violence, more violent than anything Hitler did prior to the invasion of Poland. 

WWII showed 1) appeasement does not work against violent aggressors and is seen as a weakness to be exploited,  2) best to take a hard stand early, and 3) the non-aggressor must be prepared for full war.  So far with regard to Putin, the West has not shown it learned the first two lessons.   At least with its NATO arm, Europe is far better prepared than in 1939.

[calmissile]

Nice summary Gator.

[mendeleyev]

Doll, I have never presented myself as ethnic Russian. Hundreds of my posts point to myself as a member of the foreign press pool. The fact that I am first credentialed by the Foreign Ministry, of which I've indicated numerous times in posts, would be a very large clue.

Have I been allowed to join Russian press associations? Absolutely, and neither am I the only foreigner to do so. Have I been credentialed by almost ever former Soviet state? Yes.

If I have been unmasked, it has been done over a consistently long time. You simply have not paid attention.   

[lordtiberius]

Poroshenko, Putin, Merkel, Hollande spoke Sunday and agreed to roll out the next phase of ceasefire. They will again to speak today. There has been a few violations of the ceasefire but it is different this time than it was in September. Most forces are honoring it. Ukraine has 30 days to change its Constitution. Putin may like the language if Ukraine's Rada can agree to do so. If not, back to war. Local elections are also included in the deal. Putin will assist in making sure the elections are fair. It's apparent east Ukraine will soon follow Crimea by allowing itself to be under Russia's control.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-world-leaders-agree-roll-out-next-phase-cease-fire-n306716

The sooner Ukraine gets that IMF dough, the sooner we can get back to the regularly scheduled bloodshed brought to you by VV Putin . . .

[mendeleyev]

Neville:

What we put on paper has never meant THAT much, there are 1000's of LAWS 'on the books' here in the USA, that are loosely enforced, or not enforced at all.  It often comes down to the judgement of those in charge at the time, and the general consensus about the law. 

In that period the world was concerned at what would happen to the vast nuclear stockpile inside Ukrainian borders. World leaders wanted to keep those out of the hands of corrupt military officers and burgeoning Oligarchs. We wanted to do everything possible to keep those weapons from being sold to potential terrorists. We also wanted to deescalate the nuclear arms race.

So, what you are saying is that to convince a country to give up its nuclear arsenal, a very serious matter, we offered some loose agreements, meaningless really, that could be interpreted as however we might feel in some future moment.

Do you really believe that was the message Bill Clinton conveyed to Ukraine?

[LAman]

That was good reading Gator, I love history. I would add the mentality of the nations involved came from the outcome of WW1. Britain and France were devastated from the ground warfare losses. There was much talk of never wanting another war. On other hand, Germany's populace was shamed to the point of deep wounds with retribution to the west. I often wonder had the west not been so hard on Germany that Hitler would have had same effect.

[jone]

That was good reading Gator, I love history. I would add the mentality of the nations involved came from the outcome of WW1. Britain and France were devastated from the ground warfare losses. There was much talk of never wanting another war. On other hand, Germany's populace was shamed to the point of deep wounds with retribution to the west. I often wonder had the west not been so hard on Germany that Hitler would have had same effect.

Not to mention the intervening world wide depression that left room for the rise of the wallpaper hanger and failed artist.

[JayH]

Neville, what appeasers fail to comprehend is that aggressors do not quit until forced. Today it is Ukraine, but tomorrow it will be somebody else. Eventually that somebody else will be someone we have to back, but by then the Russian military will be stronger and larger and able to inflict more damage.

Please do not allow the fear of war to shape you into a coward. The United States, then led by Wm. Jefferson Clinton, signed the Budapest Memorandum, as did Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. No guarantee of troops was part of the agreement, but we did agree to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. You did, I did, LT did, as did ML. We, the people, are the government of the USA, and either we are men of integrity, or we are liars.

Ukraine gave up nuclear arms upon your assurances, the assurances of Billy, of ChicagoGuy, PhotoGuy, Faux Paux, cc3, AC, Steamer, and others. We did this via our system of representative government. If you are a fair weather friend who agrees to keep your word only as long as it is convenient, then how sad.

I don't want "boots on the ground" either. But, we must either reinstate Ukraine's nuclear capability, or else we (those who signed the agreement) must arm them to the teeth. Based on our honour and integrity, we are less than real men if we do not.

 

[Gator]

I would add the mentality of the nations involved came from the outcome of WW1. Britain and France were devastated from the ground warfare losses. There was much talk of never wanting another war.

Good point.  WWI had ended a mere 20 years earlier.  And it indeed was devastating even to the victors. 

On other hand, Germany's populace was shamed to the point of deep wounds with retribution to the west. I often wonder had the west not been so hard on Germany that Hitler would have had same effect.

Hitler's rise to power is attributed to many factors.  Voters were attracted by Hitler's promise to overturn the harsh terms of the Versailles treaty and return Germany's sense of national pride.   The depressed economy was another factor, along with propaganda.   The opposition was weak and did not work together well.  A backroom deal promoting Hitler.  Many parallels with why Putin is viewed favorably by the Russian voters. 

[fathertime]

Neville:

In that period the world was concerned at what would happen to the vast nuclear stockpile inside Ukrainian borders. World leaders wanted to keep those out of the hands of corrupt military officers and burgeoning Oligarchs. We wanted to do everything possible to keep those weapons from being sold to potential terrorists. We also wanted to deescalate the nuclear arms race.

So, what you are saying is that to convince a country to give up its nuclear arsenal, a very serious matter, we offered some loose agreements, meaningless really, that could be interpreted as however we might feel in some future moment.

Do you really believe that was the message Bill Clinton conveyed to Ukraine?

Since you asked, I would say that the agreement was INTENTIONALLY made loosely.  No president since Clinton has committed to making it any tighter, and that has been intentional.    We did the world a favor by convincing Ukraine to turn over those nuclear weapons.  It was a political agreement emphasis on 'political'.  Ukraine probably noticed that we never made a formal treaty/agreement, and for good reason.


   The important thing is the nuclear weapons are not all over the world yet.   


Wouldn't it be ironic if an informal agreement  meant to deescalate the arm's race, wound up causing the use of those very arms.   


Fathertime!   

[lordtiberius]

Neville

Wouldn't it be ironic if an informal agreement  meant to deescalate the arm's race, wound up causing the use of those very arms.   

Wtf?

 

He just doesn't get it, does he?

[mendeleyev]

The only thing that stops war is deterrence. Appeasement is not a deterrent.

[BillyB]

There is certainly some dispute as to whether the non-binding agreement has been triggered. 

There's no dispute. According to Wikipedia, America, UK and other nations have accused Russia of breaching it's obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum. If America and UK can claim Russia has obligations they are failing to meet in a non-binding agreement, that means America and UK have obligations too that they are failing to meet.

Wouldn't it be ironic if an informal agreement  meant to deescalate the arm's race, wound up causing the use of those very arms.   

If Putin is crazy enough to use nukes in a conventional war and risk total destruction of his country and the world, he definitely needs to be stopped sooner than later.


What we do know is Iran and North Korea is watching this and they probably don't trust America when it comes to agreements. If I were them or any nation, I'd continue to be responsible for my own security.

[fathertime]

If Putin is crazy enough to use nukes in a conventional war and risk total destruction of his country and the world, he definitely needs to be stopped sooner than later. [/size]

Many here say Putin is crazy, or like Hitler.  In my opinion you don't directly confront Putin until/unless it is absolutely necessary.  Russia is paying consequences for their actions.  Some may not feel they are enough, but it is something, and may the best the can be done, all things considered. Does anyone doubt that Hitler would have used nukes had he had them?  If people are going to compare Putin to Hitler, it makes logical sense that he will stop at nothing not to be the only loser in a war. That is what I believe.  Russia currently has enough weapons to destroy the world, so waiting the crisis out and apply costs in various ways makes way more sense to me then getting on the battlefield and turning us all into losers.   So Russia wins one battle (Ukraine), there have been many other countries that have turned in the other direction. There really isn't very far that Russia can gobefore they run into NATO/EU countries. It is only one battle and there will probably not be another as important to Russia as this one.  They are only partially getting back what they already had effective control over, and now it will be more difficult to maintain. It is not worth the USA risking the planet over.Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

In the spirit of all the 'school yard bully' analogies I see I have a little analogy myself:




Ukraine was dealt a bad hand.  You don't risk the whole rack of chips on one hand unless it is a damn good one, or you are fairly certain you can get the other guy to fold!  In this particular case, perhaps Obama/Merkel/Hollande don't see Putin folding, and we got a bad hand, he made the right moves and we were caught with exposed cards.  Best to fold, and wait for the next cards to be dealt...and there will be more cards/opportunities. 


Fathertime! 

[AkMike]

A very wise truthful man said,

The only thing that stops war is deterrence. Appeasement is not a deterrent.

 I'm glad you're not driving the bus and throwing Ukraine under the wheels.

[BillyB]

Many here say Putin is crazy, or like Hitler.

Putin wants to win. Losing his country in a nuke war is not winning. I don't think Putin is anywhere near as crazy as Hitler but he is willing to kill to achieve goals.

Does anyone doubt that Hitler would have used nukes had he had them?

Hitler started WW2 without nukes and if he had nukes, he'd use them.

It is not worth the USA risking the planet over.

That is exactly what Putin and the rest of the nuclear armed tyrants are trying to get us to believe. Once they know we are not willing risk war over land on the other side of the world, they can conquer as much land as they want. Our world will get smaller and more dangerous. There were a time when the Soviets were spreading Communism all over the world and only America stopped them. When the Soviets reached Cuba, we were ready to get into an all out war with them. They backed off. If a nuke war is going to happen, I'd rather have a nuke war with most of the world on our side rather than have a nuke war with most of the world under Russia's influence. Got to stop Putin sometime. Sooner the better.


This thing would have been over if NATO put massive amounts of troops on Ukraine's border or in Ukraine when Putin was maneuvering his troops. If Putin saw the world's finest armies united against him, he wouldn't have started this mess. Unfortunately NATO nations aren't united when the going gets tough and as a result they are dysfunctional.

  Best to fold, and wait for the next cards to be dealt...and there will be more cards/opportunities. 

The West and Ukraine are folding this hand and as a result, Luhansk and the Donetsk regions may be Putin's in a few months with no return. The problems in the east didn't start until Putin was finished with Crimea. I'm willing to bet when Putin is finished claiming Luhansk and Donetsk, he will begin conflict in additional regions. We have appeased Putin but we did not appease his appetite. Sanctions have not affected Putin's decisions. As of now, there's absolutely no reason for him to stop when everything is going his way.