Is it actually Russia that is imposing more and more costs?

[fathertime]

Whose terms are best, I don't know. But I strongly believe Beijing has a great interest in seeking allies like Russia as they are also getting more surrounded by the empire driven politically by the Wolfowitz doctrine.

The First paragraph of the Wolofowitz Doctrine in WIKI:


Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992) authored by Under Secretary of Defense for PolicyPaul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby. Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992,[1] and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status....





.I'm glad we have some people willing to leak....who the hell knows what dastardly crap they haven't been able to leak?Fathertime!

[LAman]

My Lugansk fiancee, now living with me in Lviv, has read this entire thread and is disgusted by the pro-Putin bloviating of Shadow, Live from Ukraine, Belvis , and Doll. None of you has been subjected to what she has been, driven from her home by Russian mercenaries and Chechen gunmen, and escaping the horror that is present day Lugansk by the skin of her teeth, in June. She would gladly target the invaders and annihilate them, if she had the wherewithal.

Hmmmm, I was not aware there is skin on one's teeth!!!! Maybe some plaque or food particles and hopefully plenty of enamel!!!!

An acquaintance in Lugansk apparently has better 'skin' on his teeth, he is alive and still functioning.

[Brasscasing]

Hey Brass,  All your comments in the post are provocative. 

No more so than the comments from those that would blindly idolize such an individual.

If Putin isn't consider strong then who on earth is?  The head of a powerful nuclear state with more territory and natural resources than any other nation has some pretty good qualifications....and having so much support among with his people to boot...That said, there must be a reason that you say is not strong.  What is it?

There is a difference between a 'strong leader' and a totalitarian despot, Putin falls under the latter.

You, like a few others on this forum are basing your beliefs/arguments on a faulty premise. Other than a David Koresh or Hitleresque like ability to impress the gullible with tales of Russian superiority/invincibility and daring do, what you perceive to be 'strong leadership' is just good propaganda or advertising. Something the Russians have always been good at. 

The cult of Putinism is showmanship and opportunism, nothing more. 

He is not the head of a "powerful nuclear state", this is a fallacy. The Russian military, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons systems are out of date, defective and Russia is incapable of a preemptive or first strike. If the Kremlin were insane enough to authorize a launch, tactical or strategic, the response would be overwhelming, devastating and final.

Yes, he is a regional power but as I've mentioned in the past, Russia's military is no match for NATO and Putin knows this.

Russia's natural resources are abundant. However, Russia's ability to extract them has always been limited. Further, as is becoming abundantly clear, they are a two trick pony (oil and natural gas) and we already know how that's been working out for them recently.

We executed Hussein and Gaddafi...In my opinion those nations/leaders must have posed a geopolitical threat in some way, and Putin does too, a lot more than those nations that just don't have the ability to do much harm..but again their must be a reason you say this, I'd be curious what the reasoning is.  Of course I do agree our media builds up and furthers must narratives to sell. 

Yes, we did execute them (edit: Or in Gadafi's case our action brought about his murder). After giving their military ability/strength far more credibility than was warranted at the time, which is my point in regards to the Russian military. I've delved into this very subject over several topics already. 

The way this is written it appears you are saying that our Western leadership will have the power to force Russia to evict Putin.  Although I'm in the minority here, it seems to me that Obama hasn't been doing THAT badly....things could be much much worse.  In 2016/17 we may wind up with another Democrat with similar foreign policy strategies.  The general election is much different than these congressional votes. I would hope the issue in Ukraine would be settling down, but  if we do get another Obama'like person in the whitehouse, how do you think that will affect the issues in Ukraine? 

Nope. I'm saying what the West/NATO has done in allowing Putin's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine has led Putin (and by extension the Russian people) to believe they can bully neighboring countries with impunity. Like an errant child, the longer we allow this criminality to continue, the tougher it'll be to correct it when we (the west) are forced to deal with it ... and sooner or later we (NATO) are going to have to deal with Putin's Russia.

Brass

[calmissile]

Very well said Brass. 

[AC]

I agree, very well said Brass.  As Obama correctly has also said, Russia is no more than a regional power giving grief to their close neighbors, but because Obama has shown historic weakness as a US President.

Herr Putler isn't really so strong, he just knows the West, which should be led by the USA right now, is very weak.  So he got lucky and drew a strong hand.  Let's wait and see what he does when a real leader uses similar strong language as Putin, but with the backbone and ability to back it up.

[fathertime]

There is a difference between a 'strong leader' and a totalitarian despot, Putin falls under the latter.
 

If what you are saying is true and Putin is a despot, then by definition he has total control of his country and every aspect of it.  Meaning would be alone in making the decision to launch nuclear weapons....I don't believe this is entirely accurate, which would mean he is not a despot. 

 

He is not the head of a "powerful nuclear state", this is a fallacy. The Russian military, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons systems are out of date, defective and Russia is incapable of a preemptive or first strike. If the Kremlin were insane enough to authorize a launch, tactical or strategic, the response would be overwhelming, devastating and final.

   


A couple people here have said similar things regarding Russia's military and nuclear arsenal.  I don't believe any person posting here has the ability to know that information with certainty.  There are many writings out there that contradict these statements.   My belief is Russia does have the ability to launch and deliver nukes.    I believe that if we were to launch at Russia, the response would be overwhelming, devastating and final. 

Nope. I'm saying what the West/NATO has done in allowing Putin's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine has led Putin (and by extension the Russian people) to believe they can bully neighboring countries with impunity. Like an errant child, the longer we allow this criminality to continue, the tougher it'll be to correct it when we (the west) are forced to deal with it ... and sooner or later we (NATO) are going to have to deal with Putin's Russia.

Brass

   How would you suggest we manage what Russia is doing currently?  We (the US) also 'bully' nations, although we have found ways to do it without using our military as much, but we can and do pull the military out of the hat when we need to.  What if Russia decided to manage (and continually try to ratchet up) us during one of our many misdoings?


Fathertime!   
 

[sleepycat]

But I strongly believe Beijing has a great interest in seeking allies like Russia

China seeking Russia as allies on equal terms? Gimme a break! More like the subject of a future vassal state...

About a hundred years ago all the European powers ganged up on China and refer to it as the 'sick man of Asia'. Now that Russia is all isolated and vulnerable, why wouldn't China want to turn the table and treat Russia as the 'sick man of Europe'?

[Gator]

I don't believe you feel better actually.

So you are one of those people who believe they know what other people are feeling. 

It is best we confine you to toilet talk since you haven proven to be a little rusty (and crusty) on talking about the subject at hand! 

You are the one who introduced the word "toilet."

Regarding the subject at hand, I consider your position of capitulation to be provably wrong.  Please show me an example of where capitulation to an aggressor has helped the non-aggressive country.  If you can cite such an example having parallels with Ukraine, I will listen.

Meanwhile I stick to my position that it is best for Ukraine to:   

1.  Maintain a stalemate in both a) eastern Ukraine (forcing Russia to pay for housing and feeding the homeless there and rebuilding a bombed out Detroit) and b) Crimea (forcing Russia to subsidize the largely Russian population there.  Ukraine should receive defensive weapons, intelligence and training from the West to repel attempted breakouts by rebels or Russian regulars.

2.  Rebuild the economy in the remainder of Ukraine.

3.  Continue to supply electricity and water to Crimea provided Russia keeps the gas pipeline flowing to Ukraine.

4.  Develop other supplies of gas (e. g., shale formation in its West).

5.  Eventually capitulate regarding Crimea but only upon receiving abundant concessions from Russia such as guaranteed gas supply, reconstruction of eastern Ukraine, etc. One problem, Russia did not abide by its past agreement when Ukraine relinquished its nukes.
 

[fathertime]

So you are one of those people who believe they know what other people are feeling.   

Not always, but  in this particular case I know you were not being truthful. 

You are the one who introduced the word "toilet."
 

Are you still crying over your spilled toilets? 

Regarding the subject at hand, I consider your position of capitulation to be provably wrong.  Please show me an example of where capitulation to an aggressor has helped the non-aggressive country.  If you can cite such an example having parallels with Ukraine, I will listen.

 

1. It is interesting that you had to put that subjective modifier in the example you insist upon. 
2.  I've decided that you are not going to 'listen' regardless so I'm not interested in providing you examples, although there are some out there. 
3.  Even if there was NEVER a time in history of time where an olive branch or a lopsided settlement worked, that wouldn't disprove that it could work this particular time, under the right circumstances. 
4.  I do not accept that the capture of Crimea was the beginning of the conflict...which makes the whole idea of aggressor/non-aggressor somewhat moot...from my perspective. 

Meanwhile I stick to my position that it is best for Ukraine to:   

1.  Maintain a stalemate in both a) eastern Ukraine (forcing Russia to pay for housing and feeding the homeless there and rebuilding a bombed out Detroit) and b) Crimea (forcing Russia to subsidize the largely Russian population there.  Ukraine should receive defensive weapons, intelligence and training from the West to repel attempted breakouts by rebels or Russian regulars.

2.  Rebuild the economy in the remainder of Ukraine.

3.  Continue to supply electricity and water to Crimea provided Russia keeps the gas pipeline flowing to Ukraine.

4.  Develop other supplies of gas (e. g., shale formation in its West).

5.  Eventually capitulate regarding Crimea but only upon receiving abundant concessions from Russia such as guaranteed gas supply, reconstruction of eastern Ukraine, etc. One problem, Russia did not abide by its past agreement when Ukraine relinquished its nukes.
 

Stick to your position implies that this was your position all along.  I don't recall you saying earlier you were going to accept Crimea being a part of Russia....I know I did, and you probably through a fit...although I'd have to go back and re-read the threads to say for sure.     


You are entitled to take a new position now.  There are a more than a few holes/assumptions in your latest position...the ante certainly hasn't gone down. 


Fathertime!   

[mendeleyev]

I was reflecting on the timeline of the current crisis. If I recall after Russia took over Crimea, there was a window where the Western nations could have for various reasons accepted the seizure (while holding nose), as I would have suggested.  Instead we (The West) began to impose sanctions, and threats.  Had we accepted what Russia had done, and immediately encouraged Ukraine to do the same, while supporting the Eastern regions, would it have ended there?   

Absolutely not.

Crimea was just one part of the strategy. Putin would still like a land bridge from the mainland to Crimea, and so does he want more? Yes, but he doesn't want to pay for it. Instead, the idea was for "rebels" (Russian fighters in Ukrainian clothing) to strip it away from Kyiv, with his support, but not with him paying the full freight.

Unfortunately the spirit of Neville Chamberlain will always be with humanity, but the West should have stood up for Georgia in 2008. Had that happened, Crimea would not have happened. War was not necessary and Russia would have backed down. They were not the power then that they are now.

Would have Russia continued to support and foment in Eastern Ukraine?  Or is Russia merely imposing costs on the Western interference, and ratcheting up the costs by increasing their boundaries in the Eastern parts of Ukraine? 

Has Russia fed the bear in Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia? Patterns tell a story.

Fact: unless his people stop him, Putin will continue to hound Ukraine until they join the Eurasian Customs/Trade Union.

It appears that some of the posters familiar with the situation are accepting that Crimea is likely Russian now.  If that had been accepted from the beginning (as perhaps it should have been), would this crisis already be water on the bridge, with Ukraine relatively peaceful, and slowly moving towards western ideals?  I've noticed the more we have intervened the larger the region Russia has moved towards (imposed costs). Further long-term costs are potentially  on the international stage regarding less trading in dollars and a stronger alliance between Russia and China.

No, it should not have been. As Bo said earlier, the majority (but nowhere near the hilarious percentage as reported by the election commission) of Crimean residents would have voted to join Russia in a legal referendum. Putin acted quickly to seize the prize while the moment was ripe, and it allowed him to win at the expense of Ukraine via the loss of base and port rentals for the Black Sea fleet, and for gas transit rights. It saved him from negotiations, and was both an ego, and a financial move by Putin.

Had you been in the Kremlin during those Security Council meetings leading up to the annexation, you'd have heard President Putin receive reports from various government ministers on how much the RF would save if no longer bound to making those port and base rental payments. On the other hand, until the annexation was already under way, very little thought was given to how much it would cost to absorb a region with outdated infrastructure, pensioners with pensions below the average Russian pensioner, and the costs of governing a region that already depended on handouts from Kyiv.

As for the stronger alliance between Russia and China, that was in the works long before the more recent war and sanctions. I reported on the Medvedev trip to China in September 2010 when both nations agreed to open talks for a very large and expanded gas deal for China's CNPC. Then, one of my most memorable train trips was as a member of the press pool with then-President Medvedev in April 2011 when he traveled to China where Chinese President Hu Jintao hosted the leaders of BRICS at Sanya in the Hainan province.

One of the deals signed during that trip was a very large oil and gas deal slated to begin in 2015. All Putin did, and the Chinese wisely renegotiated the deal in their favour after Crimea because they knew that Moscow needed the cash, was continue what Medvedev had already started.

Understand that the three countries that Russia feels are their biggest potential customers, and this has been their feeling long before recent troubles, are China, India and North Korea. Each of those nations represent unique marketing advantages for Russian resources, Russian engineering expertise, and the long-term growth models for each of those nations is huge. Russia is not, regardless of what you hear in the news, "turning toward China." They were turned long ago--the West is just now figuring it out.

Russia will also maintain relations with countries which they feel are a "check and balance" against the West. Prime examples are Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The Russians have always seen Syria as a protector of Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, and Syria has held ancient Christians as a protected minority, unlike other Middle East nations.

As to challenging the dollar, this idea has been around for more than a decade. In fact, soon after assuming the presidency in 2008, Medvedev announced plans to develop Moscow into a prime financial centre for Europe and Asia. The groundwork for the infrastructure, the Moscow International Business Centre, was laid back in 1992. The first high-rise tower was completed in 2001 but then the project stood still for a while due to the economy. It was during those years that WalMart leased space there to launch their Russian operation. WalMart never opened any stores however, and eventually made a quiet exit from Russia.




The Moscow International Business Centre, locals call it "Moscow City," is just a stone's throw away from the former homes of Leonid Brezhnev, and yours truly. I have very fond memories of living in that area.

There is another reason for Russia's close ties to China: Siberia. If you look at the map of Asia, Russia dominates it. In fact, 77% of Russia lies in Asia, only 23% in Europe. Look at China on the map. Now considers China's population of 1.4 Billion, and then compare that to Russia's population of 144 million. Russia covers a sixth of the earth's land mass, but her population is very small. Vladimir Putin knows full well the wisdom of holding your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Russia and China have long-standing border disputes and have fought over territory. A new female poster here recently made the claim that Russia has no China-towns. I laughed. It might seem silly when citizens of a country make claims that display their ignorance on a public forum. Take a ride on the Trans Siberian someday. The further east one travels, the more you wonder if somehow you slept through a border crossing. China is moving into Siberia, both by legal and by "illegal alien" means, and Moscow recognizes this. Mr. Putin & Company are very aware that it would be foolish not to develop economic relations at very high levels with such a neighbor. Crimea and the idea that somehow Russia is just now "turning East" has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with this.

I could go on for hours, but will not, about the development of economic ties to China, and that by nature includes the lucrative (for Russia) North Korean market, for which China will help foot the bill.

Side note: Sony Pictures got hacked by a country that bans most citizens from using the internet? Not only am I highly doubtful, but it would not surprise me if someday we learned that a neighboring country, one with a culture of home-grown hackers, may of had a hand in helping them on that project.

By the way, I love Mongolia and adore the people. They are the "half-way house" between much of Russia and China, and a very unique and strong-willed people. There are more horses than people, and are great musicians unique hand crafted instruments and a traditional "throat singing" and so what if they love horse meat? They also use the Cyrillic alphabet. If you get a chance, make the trip of the Trans Siberian and take the train down into Mongolia. Like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc, Mongolian ladies are off the charts beautiful.

As evidenced by a popular weekly entertain television show, the Mongolians also have a sense of humour:

[Belvis]

Meanwhile I stick to my position that it is best for Ukraine to:   

1.  Maintain a stalemate in both a) eastern Ukraine (forcing Russia to pay for housing and feeding the homeless there and rebuilding a bombed out Detroit) and b) Crimea (forcing Russia to subsidize the largely Russian population there.  Ukraine should receive defensive weapons, intelligence and training from the West to repel attempted breakouts by rebels or Russian regulars.

2.  Rebuild the economy in the remainder of Ukraine.

3.  Continue to supply electricity and water to Crimea provided Russia keeps the gas pipeline flowing to Ukraine.

4.  Develop other supplies of gas (e. g., shale formation in its West).

5.  Eventually capitulate regarding Crimea but only upon receiving abundant concessions from Russia such as guaranteed gas supply, reconstruction of eastern Ukraine, etc. One problem, Russia did not abide by its past agreement when Ukraine relinquished its nukes.

Some comments to your strategic plan:

1. Maintaining a stalemate on your terms means the incorporating of Donbass into Russia.  There will be no way back.  Will Russia take the cost of that? If Ukraine refuses to pay the check Russia will pay, but then no claims on possesion of Donbass will be accepted.  Crimea is a part of Russia mentally and formally though still requires the economic recovery after Ukraine's times.  One doesn't need to force Russia to subsidize the population there, it is the obligation of Russian state 

2. It will be impossible to rebuild the economy of Ukraine. There will be another economy with the emphasis on agricultural sector.  Large part of Ukrainian industry will die because Russian markets are closing, and EU seems does not want to replace them.

3. Russia will keep the gas pipeline flowing to Ukraine, with no discount. No sense to break the good business.  If Ukraine is interested in money, they will  supply electricity and water to Crimea. If not, Russia will arrange the new infrastructure for Crimea, no doubts.

4. Good wishes. The reality is that all west  companies withdrawed the contracts to search shale gas in Ukraine.  I don't know the reasons for that, political or econimical considerations prevailed.

5. I dare to tell that  Russia is ready for abundant concessions  such as guaranteed gas supply and  reconstruction of eastern Ukraine. I suspect Russia will insist on these concessions 

[fathertime]

Thanks for weighing in Mendeleyev, 
A few take aways for me:
It appears that from your perspective, had G. Bush stood up stronger in 2008, this recent event would have been less likely.


You feel the majority of people in Crimea did lean towards Russia


You believe that this latest episode would have continued even if Crimea had been accepted as Russian right away


The Russia/Chinese alliance has been strengthening regardless of the latest events. 


Russia will continue to hound Ukraine until they join their Euroasian trade union. 




RE Mongolia....Thanks for the comments...for me I've had a fascination for Mongolia and watched quite a few documentaries on the region.  Rugged life on the steppe, I hope to visit...There is scientific evidence that 1/200 people alive today is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan...around 16 million MALE descendants...he got around a bit.


Fathertime!   

[Shadow]

The West should have been more frim indeed.
In 2008 they should have warned Georgia that attacking  South Ossetia would have strong consequences.
In Lybia they should have told the rebels that they were not to expect help.
In Syria they should have allowed Assad to arrange his own business.
In Ukraine they should have let them sign the treaties with Russia and wat for the next election to turn things around.
If only they are firm enough to practive what they preach, there would be less conflicts in the world today.

[fathertime]

The West should have been more frim indeed.
In 2008 they should have warned Georgia that attacking  South Ossetia would have strong consequences.
In Lybia they should have told the rebels that they were not to expect help.
In Syria they should have allowed Assad to arrange his own business.
In Ukraine they should have let them sign the treaties with Russia and wat for the next election to turn things around.
If only they are firm enough to practive what they preach, there would be less conflicts in the world today.

Reading more of the LEAKED Wolfowitz doctrine, before it was sanitized is rather telling regarding all of our Mideast moves:  Here is an excerpt of the portion pertain, both the original version and the later sanitized version:
Middle East and Southwest Asia[edit]The doctrine clarified the overall objectives in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.[/size]In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.

[/size]...
[/size]The April 16 release was more circumspect and it reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel as well as its Arab allies.[/size]In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel.[/i]

Of course none of this was originally meant for public consumption...just a little secret policy taking place in all our names....what else was secretly going on that our media wouldn't be able to report directly on? 

Fathertime!  [/size]
 [/font]

[cc3]

Hmmmm, I was not aware there is skin on one's teeth!!!! Maybe some plaque or food particles and hopefully plenty of enamel!!!!

An acquaintance in Lugansk apparently has better 'skin' on his teeth, he is alive and still functioning.

A very ancient analogy; for your further edification and enlightenment, since you seem a little deficient in full knowledge of English:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-byt1.htm

[Brasscasing]

If what you are saying is true and Putin is a despot, then by definition he has total control of his country and every aspect of it.

Yeah, I'd say that sums it up nicely.

Meaning would be alone in making the decision to launch nuclear weapons...

Yep, the Russian command and launch authority is built along the same lines as the U.S. with the same verification and chain of command protocols. However, your statement is over simplified, a decision to launch a preemptive or first strike (as opposed to a retaliatory launch) is for all practical purposes a declaration of war, no? 

I don't believe this is entirely accurate, which would mean he is not a despot. 

I hope I don't need to point out the fallacy in your conclusion, do I?

A couple people here have said similar things regarding Russia's military and nuclear arsenal.  I don't believe any person posting here has the ability to know that information with certainty.  There are many writings out there that contradict these statements.   My belief is Russia does have the ability to launch and deliver nukes.    I believe that if we were to launch at Russia, the response would be overwhelming, devastating and final. 

Okidoki, you go right ahead and hold on to that.

How would you suggest we manage what Russia is doing currently? 

Increase sanctions, Arm Ukraine, Re-deploy significant NATO military assets to Europe and immediate deployment of a NATO protection force to Ukraine to intervene if Ukraine should ask for assistance.


However, "managing" Russia is not NATO's role. The Russian government has committed numerous criminal acts, invaded two neighboring countries, broken several international treaties, is becoming increasingly aggressive in the Arctic and European regions and making threatening statements regarding the deployment of strategic nuclear assets.

NATO countries need to bring as much pressure economically and diplomatically as well as militarily that can be brought to bear on Putin's Russia.

We (the US) also 'bully' nations, although we have found ways to do it without using our military as much, but we can and do pull the military out of the hat when we need to.  What if Russia decided to manage (and continually try to ratchet up) us during one of our many misdoings?

The ol' "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, eh? 

Brass

[fathertime]

Yeah, I'd say that sums it up nicely.

Yep, the Russian command and launch authority is built along the same lines as the U.S. with the same verification and chain of command protocols. However, your statement is over simplified, a decision to launch a preemptive or first strike (as opposed to a retaliatory launch) is for all practical purposes a declaration of war, no? 

I'd say that any preemptive or first strike is a hell of a lot more than declaring war.

 

I hope I don't need to point out the fallacy in your conclusion, do I?
 

Actually yes, I do need you to point out the fallacy in the conclusion that I wrote regarding whether Putin is a Despot or not...I've concluded that he isn't, and you have asserted he is, we can disagree on this but show me where the fallacy exists.

Increase sanctions, Arm Ukraine, Re-deploy significant NATO military assets to Europe and immediate deployment of a NATO protection force to Ukraine to intervene if Ukraine should ask for assistance.


However, "managing" Russia is not NATO's role. The Russian government has committed numerous criminal acts, invaded two neighboring countries, broken several international treaties, is becoming increasingly aggressive in the Arctic and European regions and making threatening statements regarding the deployment of strategic nuclear assets.

NATO countries need to bring as much pressure economically and diplomatically as well as militarily that can be brought to bear on Putin's Russia.

I hope I'm characterizing your ideas when I say you are prescribing that we basically increase/intensify  all we have been doing. 


If we do this and Russia just ratchets up more and more, then we have to accept this is going to be a very big war and when/if Russia starts losing they could take the last step which would be tactical nuclear weapons.  I don't see this particular issue as worth the risk....a different time and a different place, but not over Ukraine, a historically entwined country with Russia...a place they will fight over more so then most any other. 

The ol' "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, eh? 

Brass

Oh come on now..that question was fair enough!  I understand you don't accept the premise that we (The USA) couldn't be wrong in some of our earlier interventions, but not everybody thinks that way.  So I will ask again, even if it is only rhetorical.
[/size]What if Russia decided to manage (and continually try to ratchet up) us during one of our many misdoings?[/size] [/b]
[/size][/b]
[/size][/b]
[/size]Fathertime! 

[Muzh]

1. It is interesting that you had to put that subjective modifier in the example you insist upon. 
2.  I've decided that you are not going to 'listen' regardless so I'm not interested in providing you examples, although there are some out there. 
3.  Even if there was NEVER a time in history of time where an olive branch or a lopsided settlement worked, that wouldn't disprove that it could work this particular time, under the right circumstances. 
4.  I do not accept that the capture of Crimea was the beginning of the conflict...which makes the whole idea of aggressor/non-aggressor somewhat moot...from my perspective. 

Fathertime!   

You know, I was starting to read your responses and then you do this bullshit.


You bitch and moan that people do not engage you in discussions and instead they attack you.


Re-read your response to Gator and then state ask yourself again why some people may "attack" you.


That was bullshit and you know it. If you cannot answer the question, say so. It is more dignified.

[fathertime]

You know, I was starting to read your responses and then you do this bullshit.


You bitch and moan that people do not engage you in discussions and instead they attack you.


Re-read your response to Gator and then state ask yourself again why some people may "attack" you.


That was bullshit and you know it. If you cannot answer the question, say so. It is more dignified.

Thank you for reading my responses then!


There was NO way for me to answer this question the way it was phrased on a couple levels (aggressor/non aggressor  and 'the parallels' which is subjective)...but you are right I could have just said that...through experiencing many of Gator's recent posts towards me I've come to feel that he will not discuss in good faith...so I discuss with those that do.


Fathertime!     

[Изумруд]

I just found this link, which might be of interest for those discussing military matters:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/us-concerned-about-russian-submarines-with-nuclear-armed-cruise-missiles-near-washington

[Brasscasing]

I'd say that any preemptive or first strike is a hell of a lot more than declaring war.

I hope your Mr. Putin keeps that in mind.

Actually yes, I do need you to point out the fallacy in the conclusion that I wrote regarding whether Putin is a Despot or not...I've concluded that he isn't, and you have asserted he is, we can disagree on this but show me where the fallacy exists.

You've based your conclusion Putin isn't a despot by reasoning incorrectly that he isn't independently capable of launching a nuclear strike when in fact he is just as capable (as ineffective as it would be) as his counterparts in Washington/London/Paris, etc.. Further, of all the people in Russia he is, by virtue of his very position, the one person responsible for making that decision just as all the leaders of countries who have nukes hold that responsibility.

"I don't believe this is entirely accurate, which would mean he is not a despot."

Look up 'argument from personal incredulity'  I don't "believe" therefore  "he is not".

I hope I'm characterizing your ideas when I say you are prescribing that we basically increase/intensify  all we have been doing. 


If we do this and Russia just ratchets up more and more, then we have to accept this is going to be a very big war and when/if Russia starts losing they could take the last step which would be tactical nuclear weapons.  I don't see this particular issue as worth the risk....a different time and a different place, but not over Ukraine, a historically entwined country with Russia...a place they will fight over more so then most any other. 

You give Russia's ability to wage war on a global scale far too much credibility. Russia's increasingly aggressive actions should not be attributed to a belief that they are somehow on an equal military/economic footing with the west, they're not. Russia's continuing abhorrent actions of late are a result of inaction and lack of leadership in the west.

History shows us trying to appease aggressor nations doesn't work.

Oh come on now..that question was fair enough!  I understand you don't accept the premise that we (The USA) couldn't be wrong in some of our earlier interventions, but not everybody thinks that way.  So I will ask again, even if it is only rhetorical.
What if Russia decided to manage (and continually try to ratchet up) us during one of our many misdoings?

What if covers a lot of ground. Besides, your loaded question is framed in a way that presupposes Russia has not already tried such a venture.

Syria would be the most recent example of Russia trying to 'manage' and 'ratchet up' a situation. I suggest you look in on the going ons  there.

For the most part though Putin's Russia no longer has credibility on the world stage. Putin is the face of Russia and other world leaders see him as a pariah.

Brass

[jone]

One of the items I find most interesting is that 35% of the Russian federal budget is being applied to military spending.  This expenditure is the mark of a country with a warlike mentality.  Could you imagine the push back in the US or one of the Western Countries if the budget called for such a percentage of expenditures?

While it is commonly known that 90% of the Russian military is outdated, the only reason for such as massive rebuilding effort is to bring weapons systems to be compatible with today's standards.

Russia is a country that cannot create its own infrastructure.  So, instead, it chooses to spend all discretionary money on military upgrades.  I would be aghast if I were a Russian citizen and realized what my country was doing.  Of course, I might be brainwashed and then I wouldn't think anything of it.

[Brasscasing]

I just found this link, which might be of interest for those discussing military matters:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/us-concerned-about-russian-submarines-with-nuclear-armed-cruise-missiles-near-washington

Good article.

Russia's sub fleet preparedness was discussed a couple of months ago here if you're interested...

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18025.msg379721#msg379721

Brass

[JayH]

One of the items I find most interesting is that 35% of the Russian federal budget is being applied to military spending.  This expenditure is the mark of a country with a warlike mentality.  Could you imagine the push back in the US or one of the Western Countries if the budget called for such a percentage of expenditures?

While it is commonly known that 90% of the Russian military is outdated, the only reason for such as massive rebuilding effort is to bring weapons systems to be compatible with today's standards.

Russia is a country that cannot create its own infrastructure.  So, instead, it chooses to spend all discretionary money on military upgrades.  I would be aghast if I were a Russian citizen and realized what my country was doing.  Of course, I might be brainwashed and then I wouldn't think anything of it.

They have been in a major rebuilding of the military  for some years now and are about half way through it--one can only guess what it is about.
The propaganda machine has been actively creating siege mentality since 2012-"the world is against us and only we can save ourselves"
When you put the different pieces together it is when it really gets worrying!

It is part( only A part) of the reason I am advocating total support to Ukraine to take the Russians on- in a more even contest.Russia will never leave Ukraine alone while the current regime and attitudes are in place-- and Ukraine removing them from Ukrainian territory could be the catalyst for desperately needed change in Russia -and perhaps a greater interest in the welfare of the Russian people by their government and not wasting money they don't have on the military.

[JayH]

I just found this link, which might be of interest for those discussing military matters:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/us-concerned-about-russian-submarines-with-nuclear-armed-cruise-missiles-near-washington

Following links from that page--interesting reading-- and summary!!

Remarks by President Obama and President Komorowski of Poland in a Joint Press Conference

Quote
I  am also convinced that the success of Ukraine, its democratic and independent nature, combined with overcoming the economic crisis and political crisis on the ground, combined with deep modernization of the Ukrainian society and state, will have a huge influence on the shaping of the attitudes of people within the Russian society.  That is difficult not to notice today that the Russian public opinion has fully supported the aggressive behavior of President Putin in Crimea.  The point is that public opinion in Russia could stand on the side of the prospects for the modernization of Russia, and not at the reconstitution of any zone of influence and any dreams of empire.
END QUOTE
Full Article--
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/03/remarks-president-obama-and-president-komorowski-poland-joint-press-conf