Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Razgovory]

The position you take on who is at fault in this situation, seems to map pretty neatly onto leading anti-war figures. And the anti-war movement itself hasn't spent their time criticising Russia but blaming the US and the EU (see the Stop the War Coalitions '10 things about Crimea). There are honourable exceptions of course.

Having said that there's not been any surprises to me so far. Generally the hacks and politicians I'd expect to back Russia in this situation, have.

I looked it up. It is unbelieveable.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/ten-things-to-remember-about-the-crisis-in-ukraine-and-the-crimea

These people are like the leftists Orwell was writing about. 'Imperialist war is bad mkay ... oh, but if Russia is doing it ... '

I don't get it. Russia isn't even pretending to be Communist any more. Why are these folks still backing them?

Funny how you guys have finally caught up to what I was saying over a decade ago about the "anti war" movement. Back in 2002 I infiltrated some of their earliest gatherings and it was quite clear that they were all suffering from oikophobia "fear of the familiar".  Creatures of the west who feel the need to reject their own heritage.  I blame Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, Avatar etc.

Let's see, 10 years ago you were telling us that the Insurgency had no legs, the president should be granted wider powers,  the Democratic party was on the verge of disappearing, that no Republican has ever opposed a war, and you were promoting a book written by a 9/11 truther.  I don't recall you bringing up this infiltration.

[Hansmeister]

 

[CountDeMoney]

He had infiltrated the EUOT.  And he was in it balls deep.

[garbon]

And he was in it balls deep.

Can you imagine?

[Siege]

Don't feed Raz after midnight.

[Hansmeister]

Then, don't talk in a conciliatory manner.  Don't talk about the UN, or a fact finding mission, or negotiations, or settlements.  At this point any appeal to reason is seen simply as weakness. Talk about punitive actions, economic, political, and military.  If a reporter asks an outlandish question such as "will you consider a nuclear first strike", the response needs to be " at this point all options are on the table".  Of course we will not do a nuclear first strike, the point is to make it clear that we're angry and will punish Russia. Putin needs to think "fuck, this time I went too far", or the situation will just continue to deteriorate until things go too far.  At this point belligerence is the best way to prevent war.

I guess what I'm unsure about is why we wouldn't want to keep trying to cultivate Russia as an ally like I think we've sort of been trying to do since before Yeltsin.  As far as I can tell China is a much greater potential long-term threat and the Russians could prove quite useful as cannon fodder if we ever got into a shooting war with the Chinese.  I'm not sure I see why it matters to US strategic interests which tribe of Slavs owns the Crimea.  I was joking about this earlier in the thread but I don't quite get why Ukraine has a strong claim to the Crimea in the first place.

I just don't see China as a long term threat.  China is very inward looking, with weak foreign influence, and is currently rapidly aging.  China will grow old before it can grow rich.  It's economy is fundamentally hollow.

The only way I see China become a threat is if it becomes politically unstable, with a much higher risk of implosion than explosion.  China will never become a true superpower with the ability to project power beyond its shore.

The Pentagon loves china as a bogeyman because they can use it to justify the many expensive next-generation toys it wants, instead of the less sexy grunts it needs to fight in an unstable world.

[garbon]

Generally I find men more sexy than toys.

[frunk]

First off, stop ruling stuff out. Any statements made should include the phrase "all options are on the table". Create as much uncertainty as possible as to how far we are willing to so as to make Putin hesitate as to how to proceed.

Then, don't talk in a conciliatory manner.  Don't talk about the UN, or a fact finding mission, or negotiations, or settlements.  At this point any appeal to reason is seen simply as weakness. Talk about punitive actions, economic, political, and military.  If a reporter asks an outlandish question such as "will you consider a nuclear first strike", the response needs to be " at this point all options are on the table".  Of course we will not do a nuclear first strike, the point is to make it clear that we're angry and will punish Russia. Putin needs to think "fuck, this time I went too far", or the situation will just continue to deteriorate until things go too far.  At this point belligerence is the best way to prevent war.

I think this is one of the few Hans posts on which I unequivocally agree.

[derspiess]

I dont even understand what he is saying.

He's saying that many of the supposed ball of light pro-peace lefties are functionally anti-American pro-Russian shills regardless of the facts on the ground; contrary to what they might claim themselves.

I don't think that is true at all, but I am amazed at how vociferous the support for (of all people) Putin and his merry horde is out there in Internet-comment land. It's bizzare. 

You're guaranteed a certain percentage of support simply by being opposed to the US.

[Razgovory]

Creating uncertainty is generally a bad idea in international relations.  You want the other guy to know how you'll react to his moves.  If he's uncertain he may take a greater risk and you'll both blunder into war.  A concrete action, for instance guaranteeing the Ukraine with a promise of military force is more likely to dissuade Russia where as vague statements of support can encourage Russian aggression.

[frunk]

Creating uncertainty is generally a bad idea in international relations.  You want the other guy to know how you'll react to his moves.  If he's uncertain he may take a greater risk and you'll both blunder into war.  A concrete action, for instance guaranteeing the Ukraine with a promise of military force is more likely to dissuade Russia where as vague statements of support can encourage Russian aggression.

A concrete action is best when you have decided on a concrete action.  Right now it is thoroughly clear that no major western government has any clue on how they want to react.  The same thing happened with Syria, with the response being so muddled and vague that what concrete actions were taken had less than ideal effect.  Until you decide on what your concrete action is going to be don't hem yourself in by saying what you won't do.

[Hansmeister]

Creating uncertainty is generally a bad idea in international relations.  You want the other guy to know how you'll react to his moves.  If he's uncertain he may take a greater risk and you'll both blunder into war.  A concrete action, for instance guaranteeing the Ukraine with a promise of military force is more likely to dissuade Russia where as vague statements of support can encourage Russian aggression.

That is quite nonsensical and easily disproven.  Just look at this current crisis.  Do you think Putin would be in a stronger position if he announced precisely what he was willing to do and what he was not?  Of course not, it is the uncertainty of how far he is willing to go that has left the west in shambles. Uncertainty when dealing with your enemies is always the best strategy, whether it is poker or foreign diplomacy. Always keep your enemies guessing and they will use the cautionary principle to reduce their risk.  Because Putin knows what we were willing to do, or not do in this case, he felt comfortable invading the Ukraine.

[Admiral Yi]

Disagree Square.  What you're describing is playing chicken.  That's not always, or even frequently, an optimal strategy in international relations.

[katmai]

Careful Yi, he'll get you fired.

[Valmy]

I just have to say Hans it is good to see you and I hope you can drop by more often.