The Failure of Diplomacy in Ukraine

[BillyB]

Good news everybody! Putin calls up pal Belarusian President Lukashenko to roll out the welcoming carpet for peace talks for him, the West and Poroshenko. Now who were the people who said Putin doesn't care about peace?


Will this be the moment that Putin apologizes and retreats from Ukraine? Or... will this be the moment the West apologizes for the sanctions that caused pain and suffering and offer concessions consisting of cash and Ukrainian land? Or...will this be the moment Poroshenko say "This is my country we're talking about! Can I make some decisions? Please." Or...will this be the moment everybody apologizes to each other and end the meeting with a group hug telling the world it was just a minor misunderstanding with Putin's feelings getting hurt?


Try Peace! You'll like it!

[Gator]

Good news everybody! Putin calls up pal Belarusian President Lukashenko to roll out the welcoming carpet for peace talks .....

The meeting Wednesday in Minsk was not in Merkel's initial plan of meetings.  She was suppose to be meeting with Obama about that time, so I wonder if her US trip is canceled or changed. 

The first impression is some positive steps were perhaps made over the weekend.   Putin added a caveat saying the meeting will occur on Wednesday  "if by then we manage to agree our positions, which we have been discussing very intensively in recent days."

It sure appears that Merkel and Putin are trying to keep the US out of the picture.  This is foremost an European issue.

[BillyB]

The meeting Wednesday in Minsk was not in Merkel's initial plan of meetings.  She was suppose to be meeting with Obama about that time, so I wonder if her US trip is canceled or changed. 

Surely Merkel and Obama were going to discuss supplying weapons to Ukraine with Obama probably at 50/50 on the issue and Merkel against it. What we do know for a fact is that as long as Putin pretends to care about peace and continue with these peace meetings, Ukraine getting armed is not going to happen. Stall tactics are effective on gullible people.

[Boethius]

The meeting Wednesday in Minsk was not in Merkel's initial plan of meetings.  She was suppose to be meeting with Obama about that time, so I wonder if her US trip is canceled or changed. 

The first impression is some positive steps were perhaps made over the weekend.   Putin added a caveat saying the meeting will occur on Wednesday  "if by then we manage to agree our positions, which we have been discussing very intensively in recent days."

It sure appears that Merkel and Putin are trying to keep the US out of the picture.  This is foremost an European issue.

Merkel will be in Washington tomorrow. 


She is right, that this requires a diplomatic solution.  However, I don't see how sending Ukraine defensive weapons would be a game changer.

[AC]

Not sending Ukraine defensive weapons is the game changer.  Putin will soon get his land bridge to Crimea, because of the historic weakness of the Obama administration.  The EU being weak is par for the course and no big surprise.

[BillyB]

She is right, that this requires a diplomatic solution. 

They've tried the diplomatic solution for almost a year. If a diplomatic solution even works, Putin will walk away with a chunk of Ukraine and cash compensation for his losses. Iran and North Korea always walks away with billions when we try a diplomatic solution. They pretend to agree with the solution until they want more money. Then they stir up trouble again.

Ukraine defensive weapons would be a game changer.

May not be a big game changer but it's a start and all we can get, maybe, out of Obama right now. The defensive weapons will kill more Russians and make Putin motivated to negotiate out of the mess he started. Putin will most likely escalate the war so Obama will need to be prepared to escalate so our weapons don't get into Russia's hands.


A diplomatic solution is an idea of the West, not Putin's. If we don't give Ukraine any weapons, why does Putin even need to negotiate? He was never interested in a diplomatic solution. Ukraine is his if the West signals they aren't going to fight for it.

[lordtiberius]

If Obama wanted to arm the Ukrainians, they would have weapons by now.  He has a phone and a pen.

If Boethius et. al. believe a diplomatic solution is the only way, what terms would you offer Putin?

[JayH]

Merkel will be in Washington tomorrow. 


She is right, that this requires a diplomatic solution.  However, I don't see how sending Ukraine defensive weapons would be a game changer.

Not sending Ukraine defensive weapons is the game changer.  Putin will soon get his land bridge to Crimea, because of the historic weakness of the Obama administration.  The EU being weak is par for the course and no big surprise.

If Obama wanted to arm the Ukrainians, they would have weapons by now.  He has a phone and a pen.

If Boethius et. al. believe a diplomatic solution is the only way, what terms would you offer Putin?

The quickest way to a diplomatic solution is to arm Ukraine . A Ukraine on a military roll will see Putin getting involved to try and hold what they already have.

Obama-- must be getting a lot of advice from within his administration to send arms--or at least defensive arms. As I said earlier- there is now a general consensus in an apolitical way to help Ukraine with arms.Obama has embarked on seeking a "peaceful" pressure on Russia through sanctions-- and I do not disagree with the sanctions( other than they need to be made much more savage and used to dissuade anyone or any country dealing with Russia) being capable of  persuading Russia--BUT-- now Putin's game is clearer and only physically stopping the Russians will see Putin in meaningful discussion--ie when his options are reduced  or removed.

As the war stands now-- giving Ukraine the means to push the Russians out should be the bench mark of defensive weapons.
My guess is that a reversal of Russian fortunes( ie higher cost)  will see Putin escalate conflict--the west must be 2 steps ahead of Russia

What will happen if no help comes?  Ukraine will pay a huge price in lives lost trying to defend themselves.Russia will pay dearly -- but Putin is not concerned about loss of life-Ukraine is.

If a truce is forced on Ukraine--it will be temporary at best-- a breather for Russia before embarking on the next stage of invasion-and disruption.

This will only end when Ukraine is capable of stopping Russia--and removing them entirely from Ukraine.

[JayH]

The scepticism about any truce is widespread-below are views of a guy in a hotspot.
The previous "truce" was a compromise Poroshenko was forced to make in the uncertainty of Russian intentions at that time.History shows Russia used the period to reinforce,expand and basically ignore the terms of the truce to their own advantage
The acceptance of a ceasefire made some sense at the time-but history has not proven it that way.Poroshenko intention was to buy some time for diplomacy/sanctions to work--but- as we can now see-- Russian intentions are far wider than the Donbass.

Quoting-
Appeal Andrew Bielecki Why do we need a truce? signed in September last year truce was called to strengthen our Oborne, restore combat effectiveness of troops and saturate their equipment and weapons. It was assumed that these processes take place here faster than your opponent. That did not happen. Unilateral truce ended with the release of his fighters and their active attack. As a result - Ukrainian army has lost control of the psychologically important object - Donetsk airport significantly worsened for a configuration of the front in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Obviously, from a military point of view, the truce did not bring us any good. However, hostilities after a truce violations, despite the human and territorial losses led to a gradual wearing down the enemy forces and grinding. The last days we are seeing clear signs of exhaustion its offensive capabilities. The loss of manpower and equipment may not recover quickly even with the active assistance of. And here to help DNR / FSC come new talks, negotiators and truce with the EU. soberly assessing these "peace initiative" with a high degree of probability can predict the following: another truce will be used to restore the manpower and equipment of the enemy, its combat readiness and training. We at this time we hope to starry-eyed Western "friends" and their support. It armistice end as abruptly as the previous one. Once the enemy will be ready to attack - undermine it. And how to bite another piece of territory and exhausted in the fighting, we again pidsunut new truce. And so on without end. The strategic goal of the enemy - not Donetsk and Luhansk (as initially thought Crimea), and not "New Russia" from Odessa and Kharkov. Its strategic aim - the destruction of the Ukrainian state.
Andrew Beletsky Ynf.ystochnyk: http://vk.com/batalion.azov?w=wall-72444174_4838

[fathertime]

The quickest way to a diplomatic solution is to arm Ukraine . A Ukraine on a military roll will see Putin getting involved to try and hold what they already have.

This particular comment provides further evidence that arrogance and ignorance often walk hand in hand!


The New York Times today has a piece describing the likely disaster in arming Ukraine...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/dont-arm-ukraine.html?_r=1




Excerpt:
But the conflict will not end there. Russia would counter-escalate, taking away any temporary benefit Kiev might get from American arms. The authors of the think tank study concede this, noting that “even with enormous support from the West, the Ukrainian Army will not be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military.” In short, the United States cannot win an arms race with Russia over Ukraine and thereby ensure Russia’s defeat on the battlefield.
[/size][/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Fathertime!  [/color]

[Gator]

Merkel and Obama seem to be on the same page.   No weapons for now.  So we wait until Wednesday. 

Merkel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for this effort if she can make any progress. 

During the Merkel-Obama press conference after their meeting, one reporter asked, "What does the Nobel laureate suggest for bringing peace in Ukraine?"  OUCH!!!

[lordtiberius]

The New York Times today has a piece describing the likely disaster in arming Ukraine...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/dont-arm-ukraine.html?_r=1

JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER

known pro #KremlinTroll

[Brasscasing]

Merkel made this comment through translator at the Obama-Merkel presser after the meeting...

..."Merkel, who has perhaps the most productive relationship with Putin of any Western leader, said reaching a diplomatic agreement was crucial to keeping the peace in Europe.

"I myself actually would not be able to live without having made this attempt," she said through a translator."...

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/02/09/merkel-to-brief-obama-on-four-party-talks-on-ukraine-crisis

That's nice. So glad your conscious is clear Frau. Merkel. However, you satiating your guilt will come at the cost of countless more Ukrainian lives. 

Strong work Europe, NATO, Western leaders. Sleep well knowing you've again managed to duck your responsibilities.

Brass

[Boethius]

Merkel and Obama seem to be on the same page.   No weapons for now.  So we wait until Wednesday. 

Merkel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for this effort if she can make any progress. 

During the Merkel-Obama press conference after their meeting, one reporter asked, "What does the Nobel laureate suggest for bringing peace in Ukraine?"  OUCH!!!

I understand Obama's position.  Throughout, he has stated that being on the same page as their European counterparts is important to the U.S. 

[calmissile]

Merkel and Obama seem to be on the same page.   No weapons for now.  So we wait until Wednesday. 

Merkel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for this effort if she can make any progress. 

During the Merkel-Obama press conference after their meeting, one reporter asked, "What does the Nobel laureate suggest for bringing peace in Ukraine?"  OUCH!!!

You have to be kidding me!

The only thing on the table should be how quickly Russia...
1. Returns Crimea to Ukraine
2. Removes all Russian terrorists, troops, mercenaries, etc from Ukraine
3. Abandons all Russian weaponry presently in Ukraine.
4. Repays Ukraine for all the damage caused to the infrastructure in Ukraine and Crimea.
5. Pays compensation to the families of Ukraine soldiers killed by Russians and their operatives.

For some reason it seems once a bully invades a neighbor, negotiations should be limited to how much territory the bully gets.  How illogical!

Obama should give Merkel a new ultimatum.....
The US will make an offer to Putin........... a chunk of Germany in exchange for returning Crimea to Ukraine!   
Then lets see how Merkel wants to talk, talk, talk about appeasement with the Kremlin.   

[fathertime]

known pro #KremlinTroll

Not true.  He is very credible.
Here is his biography...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer


His positions are well-reasoned and history has proven many to be correct! 
Fathertime!

[lordtiberius]

Merkel and Obama seem to be on the same page.   No weapons for now.  So we wait until Wednesday. 

Merkel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for this effort if she can make any progress. 

During the Merkel-Obama press conference after their meeting, one reporter asked, "What does the Nobel laureate suggest for bringing peace in Ukraine?"  OUCH!!!

Nobel Peace Prize?  You mean one like Obama's?  Because at least Obama earned his.  He got reelected 2x. 

McCain bitch slapped Merkel.  Calling her foolish and asking, how many Ukrainians have to die?

Obama on the same page with Merkel?  Obama is awesome at doing nothing.

Try again

[Larry1]

Merkel will be in Washington tomorrow. 


She is right, that this requires a diplomatic solution.  However, I don't see how sending Ukraine defensive weapons would be a game changer.

Anne Applebaum wrote an interesting piece after the Munich security conference.  Here are a few snippets:

... when Malcolm Rifkind, the former British foreign secretary, asked her (Angela Merkel) how she would stop Russia without military force, another part of the audience applauded. Even watching online, the conundrum in the room was clear: Everyone agrees that the Russians were lying, and no one believes Russian promises of a cease-fire. But nobody agrees on what to do about it.

The “civil war” that ensued is an artificial conflict, run by Russian security and enhanced by a sophisticated pan-European disinformation campaign...

 We could treat this as a very long-term project, as Merkel suggested on Saturday, build a Berlin Wall around Donetsk in the form of a demilitarized zone and treat the rest of Ukraine like West Germany.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-long-view-with-russia/2015/02/08/cdd7a6a4-aee8-11e4-abe8-e1ef60ca26de_story.html

[Boethius]

She's right.  Set up a defended border, as with the Berlin Wall, based on the Minsk agreement.  Let "Novorossiya" survive on its own.  Those that want to be Ukrainians can move to Ukraine, the rest can stay where they are, funded by Novorossiya.

[fathertime]

She's right.  Set up a defended border, as with the Berlin Wall, based on the Minsk agreement.  Let "Novorossiya" survive on its own.  Those that want to be Ukrainians can move to Ukraine, the rest can stay where they are, funded by Novorossiya.

Sounds a LOT like what I was saying last year!   A divided Ukraine...hopefully that will work....it would have been a win-win if it happened last year before all the fighting/deaths...now it is simply a potential answer to end the fighting.... 


Fathertime!   

[Boethius]

No, you said give the land to Russia.  Russia doesn't want Novorossiya.

[fathertime]

No, you said give the land to Russia.  Russia doesn't want Novorossiya.

I believe I said 'Influenced by Russia' more often then 'given to'....I'm almost certain....So yes this is very close to the type of solution I was thinking was reasonable!  '


I'm going to go back and review some prior posts and see.


Fathertime!   

[Boethius]

Doesn't matter.  This is not what Putin wants.  He wants a conflict that will weigh Kyiv down for decades.  So, building a wall won't be a solution both sides agree to, it must be something one side does, possibly with foreign (non Slavic) peacekeeping forces in place.

[calmissile]

She's right.  Set up a defended border, as with the Berlin Wall, based on the Minsk agreement.  Let "Novorossiya" survive on its own.  Those that want to be Ukrainians can move to Ukraine, the rest can stay where they are, funded by Novorossiya.

Disagree.  There is no reason for appeasement to Russia and Ukraine giving up sovereign territory.  The Russians in the East already have the ability to move to Russia if that's what they want.  The door is open.  IIRC Ukraine supplied 10 buses to the region and gave the locals the opportunity to go to locations out of the war zone, or to get on the buses going to Russia.  Did you see how many wanted to go to Russia vs. the number that chose to stay in Ukraine?

Appeasement to Russia is not the answer!  Who will be next to capitulate to the big bully?

 

[Boethius]

At some point, living under the criminals who from the terrorists rebels, if Ukraine can be stable and move to a non oligarchic, kleptocratic government, the region, like East Germany, will reunite.  At this point, it is not worth the continued bloodshed and loss of soldiers' and civilians' lives.