Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Caliga]

Bring Dubya back.  At least he had a strategery.

[Berkut]

Those of you wondering about our strategy, what are you looking for? What are the goals that should be pursued? What are actions that would facilitate those goals?

Personally, I'm not super keen on going all-out to the mat against Russia over the Ukraine. So along those lines, I'm not really in favour of blustery rhetoric. Bright red lines are only worth something if there's muscular action ready to go behind it, and much as I loathe Putin I don't think the possible upsides of muscular action is worth the potential downsides.

I also think that if Putin wants to turn Russia into some version of a totalitarian propaganda driven state then that's what he's going to do, whatever the West does. Influencing that is pretty outside our range of actions at this point; the end to that will come, if it comes at all, as a result of internal Russian conditions.

It seems to me that the way to play this is to try to bleed Putin out rather than give him a big confrontation. So yeah, economic sanctions that hurt and proxy war in the Ukraine, escalating from soft to medium firm or even hard over time. Right now, Putin is all tough and winning and oh so macho, but how long is this going to last? What are the achievable exit strategies for Putin? It seems to me that he runs a real risk of this turning into another Afghanistan or Iraq occupation and those aren't that fun.

So yeah, I don't know enough about the particulars of every given response, and I find the mealy mouthed wishing things were different or straight up Putin appreciation out of certain quarters pretty annoying, but it seems to me that what's happening now is more or less what we should be doing - ratcheting up the consequences and laying the rhetorical groundwork for funnelling in support to the Ukraine.

What should we be doing?

That all sounds great, but it strikes me as slapping a "strategy" on what we are doing, not what we are doing being the result of a strategy.

Slowly, ever so painfully, excruciatingly slowly, ratcheting up sanctions? Is that really a strategy, or is it "Well, we gotta do something, and I can't think of anything else to do, and this is irrelevant enough that nobody will actually object, so...yeah, sanctions..."?

That is what it looks like to me - this doesn't look like a thought out plan for containing Putin, it feels like trivial reactions to very non-trivial actions. Let's have another meeting, and see what the Committee thinks.


I don't know what we should do - I have some ideas, of course, but I don't pretend to have the right answers. Maybe this is really a well thought out, intellectual tight and controlled response, and everything is going right to plan.

But if so, they are doing an excellent job of hiding it. Right now it feels mostly like "Stop! Or I might form a committee to discuss telling you to Stop! again. Or maybe not."

[celedhring]

I don't know what we should do - I have some ideas, of course, but I don't pretend to have the right answers. Maybe this is really a well thought out, intellectual tight and controlled response, and everything is going right to plan.

What about a Western military exercise on Ukrainian soil? Oh wait, it's happening later this month.

I think you're overly harsh. There's little that the West can do that's not been done. NATO is sounding for strengthening in the East, sanctions are in place. Spain sent some defensive materiel to Ukraine this week, I'm sure other countries are doing similarly. Ultimately we want to be seen as proportionate, while showing that actions have consequences.

[Razgovory]

Those of you wondering about our strategy, what are you looking for? What are the goals that should be pursued? What are actions that would facilitate those goals?

This is actually about something Obama said the other day.  He stupidly stated that we don't have a strategy concerning ISIS yet.  That may very well be honest, but it's not a good thing to say publicly. A lot of us are seeing this same weakness in dealing with Putin.

[Jacob]

That all sounds great, but it strikes me as slapping a "strategy" on what we are doing, not what we are doing being the result of a strategy.

How can you tell?

Slowly, ever so painfully, excruciatingly slowly, ratcheting up sanctions? Is that really a strategy, or is it "Well, we gotta do something, and I can't think of anything else to do, and this is irrelevant enough that nobody will actually object, so...yeah, sanctions..."?

I'm under the impression that the sanctions are not irrelevant at this time, and that several of the ones being discussed are not irrelevant either.

That is what it looks like to me - this doesn't look like a thought out plan for containing Putin, it feels like trivial reactions to very non-trivial actions. Let's have another meeting, and see what the Committee thinks.

So what are some potential non-trivial actions that make sense?

I don't know what we should do - I have some ideas, of course, but I don't pretend to have the right answers. Maybe this is really a well thought out, intellectual tight and controlled response, and everything is going right to plan.

I'm curious what your ideas are, even knowing that you're not claiming they are clearly the right ones.

I don't think this is - as you put it - a really well thought out, intellectually tight and controlled response where everything is going right according to the plan. In fact, I think it's a pretty messy situation.

I do, however, think that it's probably the best course of action (or reasonable facsimile thereof) given the circumstances, though I'd like a little more teeth on the sanctions and some slightly less mealy mouthed words out of the Europeans.

But if so, they are doing an excellent job of hiding it. Right now it feels mostly like "Stop! Or I might form a committee to discuss telling you to Stop! again. Or maybe not."

My impression is that that is a rather unfavourable description of what's going on. As I understand it, the sanctions are having an impact, leaving room for Putin to back down with some measure of face is worthwhile.

That said, I could be wrong and I'm very open to hear how and why.

[mongers]

Evidence of Russian presence in Eastern Ukraine:

http://www.channel4.com/news/tensions-still-high-in-ukraine-video#c4news

[Berkut]

That all sounds great, but it strikes me as slapping a "strategy" on what we are doing, not what we are doing being the result of a strategy.

How can you tell?

It is disjointed, reactionary, and there isn't any consensus among the actors on this side as to how to respond, which I would expect if the response was planned out prior to the provocation (ie, if Putin does this, we all agree to do that in response).

How can *you* tell that this is a strategy, rather than just a reaction to someone else driving events?

Slowly, ever so painfully, excruciatingly slowly, ratcheting up sanctions? Is that really a strategy, or is it "Well, we gotta do something, and I can't think of anything else to do, and this is irrelevant enough that nobody will actually object, so...yeah, sanctions..."?

I'm under the impression that the sanctions are not irrelevant at this time, and that several of the ones being discussed are not irrelevant either.

I've never once heard of an aggressive actor like Putin, throughout history, ever being deterred from what they want to do by relatively light economic sanctions.

And what is more, so far as we can tell, the sanctions have not deterred Putin one bit. He took Crimea, and didn't care what the international community thought, and the international community obliged him by doing...nothing.

Now he has invaded yet ANOTHER country, and we threaten to not sell him grapes? Pfft. I suspect that this is exactly the kind of "response" that Putin predicted and counted on.

That is what it looks like to me - this doesn't look like a thought out plan for containing Putin, it feels like trivial reactions to very non-trivial actions. Let's have another meeting, and see what the Committee thinks.

So what are some potential non-trivial actions that make sense?

Sever econoic sanctions. Refuse to purchase gas.

Start sending arms to the Ukraine. Publicly and loudly prove to the world that we know Russians are inside the Ukraine. Call this what is is - a war of aggression against a sovereign nation.

I don't know what we should do - I have some ideas, of course, but I don't pretend to have the right answers. Maybe this is really a well thought out, intellectual tight and controlled response, and everything is going right to plan.

I'm curious what your ideas are, even knowing that you're not claiming they are clearly the right ones.

I don't think this is - as you put it - a really well thought out, intellectually tight and controlled response where everything is going right according to the plan. In fact, I think it's a pretty messy situation.

I do, however, think that it's probably the best course of action (or reasonable facsimile thereof) given the circumstances, though I'd like a little more teeth on the sanctions and some slightly less mealy mouthed words out of the Europeans.

Then we probably don't disagree all that much.

But if so, they are doing an excellent job of hiding it. Right now it feels mostly like "Stop! Or I might form a committee to discuss telling you to Stop! again. Or maybe not."

My impression is that that is a rather unfavourable description of what's going on. As I understand it, the sanctions are having an impact, leaving room for Putin to back down with some measure of face is worthwhile.

I don't care at all about leaving Putin room to back down - I don't think he has proven time and again that he doesn't operate in that fashion. He doesn't look at a "mealy mouthed" response as "Hey, they are giving me some room to retire gracefully, I should take it..." he looks at as "Fucking pussies, I knew they wouldn't call me on it. I am going to take the rest of the Crimea as well. Or Georgia. Or Azerbaijan".

Wanting to give someone room to back down is the kind of thing that is important when you are dealing with actors that are operating under the same basic operating principles as the rest of the west operates under, where the goal of everyone, 99% of the time, is to de-escalate situations far, far, FAR short of violence.

Putin has proven that he is not that kind of actor, and treating him as if he was someone "looking for some room to back down while saving face" is going to (and has, time and again) simply backfire.

That said, I could be wrong and I'm very open to hear how and why.

I am, as always, happy to help.

[Berkut]

Evidence of Russian presence in Eastern Ukraine:

http://www.channel4.com/news/tensions-still-high-in-ukraine-video#c4news

I can't even imagine how there could be any debate, one way or the other, over whether the Russians are there or not.

Either they are there, in which case US/NATO intelligence assets (read: satellite surveillance) certainly is aware of it, or they are not, in which case US/NATO surveillance ability know about that as well.

There is a 0% chance that we simply are not certain one way or the other. You can't march any significant number of troops from Russia into the Ukraine, and you certainly cannot ship in the amount of supplies being talked about, without the US knowing about it. Not possible.

[Eddie Teach]

He took Crimea, and didn't care what the international community thought, and the international community obliged him by doing...nothing.

Now he has invaded yet ANOTHER country, and we threaten to not sell him grapes? Pfft. I suspect that this is exactly the kind of "response" that Putin predicted and counted on.

It's the same country.

[Berkut]

He took Crimea, and didn't care what the international community thought, and the international community obliged him by doing...nothing.

Now he has invaded yet ANOTHER country, and we threaten to not sell him grapes? Pfft. I suspect that this is exactly the kind of "response" that Putin predicted and counted on.

It's the same country.

Was using "another" in contrast to Georgia and Ukraine collectively.

And the response to the Crimea was "Well, it really is kind of part of Russia anyway..." so apparently it wasn't really the same country.

[Maximus]

I don't care at all about leaving Putin room to back down - I don't think he has proven time and again that he doesn't operate in that fashion. He doesn't look at a "mealy mouthed" response as "Hey, they are giving me some room to retire gracefully, I should take it..." he looks at as "Fucking pussies, I knew they wouldn't call me on it. I am going to take the rest of the Crimea as well. Or Georgia. Or Azerbaijan".

Wanting to give someone room to back down is the kind of thing that is important when you are dealing with actors that are operating under the same basic operating principles as the rest of the west operates under, where the goal of everyone, 99% of the time, is to de-escalate situations far, far, FAR short of violence.

Putin has proven that he is not that kind of actor, and treating him as if he was someone "looking for some room to back down while saving face" is going to (and has, time and again) simply backfire.

All we are saying is give peace for our time a chance.

[Razgovory]

What Russia fears is being boxed in.  That's always been their fear.  I think the strategy should be move turn members of the CIS away from Russia.  I think the threat of that may bring him to heel.

[jimmy olsen]

Slowly, ever so painfully, excruciatingly slowly, ratcheting up sanctions? Is that really a strategy, or is it "Well, we gotta do something, and I can't think of anything else to do, and this is irrelevant enough that nobody will actually object, so...yeah, sanctions..."?

That is what it looks like to me - this doesn't look like a thought out plan for containing Putin, it feels like trivial reactions to very non-trivial actions. Let's have another meeting, and see what the Committee thinks.


I don't know what we should do - I have some ideas, of course, but I don't pretend to have the right answers. Maybe this is really a well thought out, intellectual tight and controlled response, and everything is going right to plan.

But if so, they are doing an excellent job of hiding it. Right now it feels mostly like "Stop! Or I might form a committee to discuss telling you to Stop! again. Or maybe not."

I was under the impression that the sanctions are materially damaging the Russian economy.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/russia-lending-sanctions-impact-on-economy

[Razgovory]

That may be, but it isn't stopping them.  The point of sanctions isn't to punish the Russian people.  It's to dissuade the leadership from aggressive actions.

[HVC]

That may be, but it isn't stopping them.  The point of sanctions isn't to punish the Russian people.  It's to dissuade the leadership from aggressive actions.

I thought the point of sanctions was to punish the people so they put pressure on their leadership? Either way Putin won't be swayed by the public and his rich buddies are nowhere near hurting.