The State of Affairs in Russia

[chipwich]

Incidentally, there's a Catalan saying that goes "God give us water, clear days, and war in Sevastopol" 

??? what is the origin of that saying?

[Admiral Yi]

I don't get it either.

[DGuller]

I guess the Sevastopol part is the wish to be involved in a war where you get to trounce your enemy?

[Jacob]

My guess:

War = opportunity to get wealth and - for the officer class, promotions.

In Sevastapol = far away such that the local population doesn't suffer; possibly the saying was saying when Crimea was a focus of international conflict.

Alternate guess:

War in Sevastapol is associated with conflicts in which Spain's enemies got deeply involved, interfering less in Spanish affairs.

[crazy canuck]

In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007.  In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored.  The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent.  This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call.   It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project.  It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum.  The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.

No, read what it actually authorized.  It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership.  But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994.  Those are two very different things.
 
The US has never actually authorized the Ukraine to join but rather to take steps to pursue an application to join which application would be assessed.  Fancy footwork that came about because the Neo Con agenda to include Ukraine within NATO was rejected by other NATO countries. 

It is not surprising it passed unopposed, it doesn't actually mean anything other than give access to aid.

[Admiral Yi]

I guess the Sevastopol part is the wish to be involved in a war where you get to trounce your enemy?

Nobody really did any trouncing in the Crimean War.

[DGuller]

I guess the Sevastopol part is the wish to be involved in a war where you get to trounce your enemy?

Nobody really did any trouncing in the Crimean War.

The war was a pretty devastating blow to Russia, and it was knee-capped for at least a couple of decades.  Now that I think of it, though, it does seem more likely that as far as Spaniards are concerned, the Crimean War is a calamity that keeps all their potential rivals occupied.

[Admiral Yi]

The war was a pretty devastating blow to Russia, and it was knee-capped for at least a couple of decades.  Now that I think of it, though, it does seem more likely that as far as Spaniards are concerned, the Crimean War is a calamity that keeps all their potential rivals occupied.

Well, I'm more informed about the battles than I am about the geopolitical consequences (based largely on an excellent SPI quadrigame), but I thought the Russians were rampaging through Ottoman controlled Balkans not long after.  And the battles were certainly no cake walk for the French, British and Sardinians(!).

And were the British, French, and Russians really military rivals of the Spanish at the time?

[The Minsky Moment]

No, read what it actually authorized.  It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership.  But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994.  Those are two very different things.

I would not say there are very different things.  In fact, they were very similar things. The 94 Act was the framework for promoting NATO membership of former eastern bloc countries.  The Act directs the President to establish a program to "facilitate the transition to NATO membership."  That was the whole purpose: to "furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership at an early date."

So designating Ukraine (and the others) as participants in the 94 Participation Act means to get them into NATO.  And that's exactly what the US Congress unanimously declared in the 2007 legislation:

Contingent upon their continued implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reform, and their willingness and ability to meet the responsibilities of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a clear expression of national intent to do so, Congress calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to promote security and stability in Europe

[DGuller]

The war was a pretty devastating blow to Russia, and it was knee-capped for at least a couple of decades.  Now that I think of it, though, it does seem more likely that as far as Spaniards are concerned, the Crimean War is a calamity that keeps all their potential rivals occupied.

Well, I'm more informed about the battles than I am about the geopolitical consequences (based largely on an excellent SPI quadrigame), but I thought the Russians were rampaging through Ottoman controlled Balkans not long after.  And the battles were certainly no cake walk for the French, British and Sardinians(!).

And were the British, French, and Russians really military rivals of the Spanish at the time?

Russians lost every battle of consequence during the war, and it was a huge shock for Russia.  They also essentially had Crimea demilitarized.  The allies did lose a mind-numbing number of people considering their overwhelming success in the war, but almost all of them were due to disease (Ottomans excepted).  It wasn't until 1877 that Russians could resume confidently pecking on the Ottoman corpse.

[grumbler]

No, read what it actually authorized.  It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership.  But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994.  Those are two very different things.

I would not say there are very different things.  In fact, they were very similar things. The 94 Act was the framework for promoting NATO membership of former eastern bloc countries.  The Act directs the President to establish a program to "facilitate the transition to NATO membership."  That was the whole purpose: to "furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership at an early date."

So designating Ukraine (and the others) as participants in the 94 Participation Act means to get them into NATO.  And that's exactly what the US Congress unanimously declared in the 2007 legislation:

Contingent upon their continued implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reform, and their willingness and ability to meet the responsibilities of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a clear expression of national intent to do so, Congress calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to promote security and stability in Europe

And the 2007 act passed with unanimous consent in both houses.  Can't really argue that every senator and congressman of the time was a neocon.

[Admiral Yi]

Russians lost every battle of consequence during the war

I wouldn't call Balaclava a loss for Russia.

[Razgovory]

Russians lost every battle of consequence during the war

I wouldn't call Balaclava a loss for Russia.

But it was a big win for terrorists, hijackers and that robber guy who keeps trying to get me to buy a security system on TV.

[crazy canuck]

No, read what it actually authorized.  It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership.  But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994.  Those are two very different things.

I would not say there are very different things.  In fact, they were very similar things. The 94 Act was the framework for promoting NATO membership of former eastern bloc countries.  The Act directs the President to establish a program to "facilitate the transition to NATO membership."  That was the whole purpose: to "furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership at an early date."

So designating Ukraine (and the others) as participants in the 94 Participation Act means to get them into NATO.  And that's exactly what the US Congress unanimously declared in the 2007 legislation:

Contingent upon their continued implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reform, and their willingness and ability to meet the responsibilities of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a clear expression of national intent to do so, Congress calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to promote security and stability in Europe

I think you need to read it a little more carefully.  You know the part where the Ukraine and Georgia were expressly given different treatment from the rest.  The clause that is specifically only about them...   The obvious explanation is that they needed to be treated differently because the NATO allies objected to treating Ukraine and Georgia the same, and so despite the wishes of the Bush administration that is as far as they could go.  If you can explain to me how allowing a country to prepare to make an application which will be made at a later date and then assessed to see if they should be admitted is the same as all the others who were give much more favourable treatment, I would be much obliged.  But there seems to be a clear difference between being welcomed into the alliance and being told that if you just wait outside and in future tell us why we should let you in and we will think about it.

And after all, that is why Ukraine is not in NATO today. 

[Jacob]

So apparently Putin has spoken to the current situation (for the first time in weeks). Highlights include:

- The West is attempting to lure Russia into a war, so they can justify harsh sanctions to hinder Russia's development.

- It is clear that the West is completely ignoring Russia's legitimate security needs.

- The West (which is the US, helped by its European allies) doesn't care about Ukraine, but is using it in an attempt to harm Russia.

- The 100,000 troops are purely there in response to the increasing threat from NATO.

- One scenario that illustrates Russia's very reasonable demand for NATO to never accept Ukraine is this: imagine Ukraine is part of NATO and Ukraine then attacks Russia in an attempt to regain Crimea? This could mean war between Russia and NATO. Did anyone think about that? Apparently not.

Separately, apparently Orban - having talked to Putin - agrees that the differences between NATO and Russia are significant, but he is convinced that a solution can be found that's acceptable to all parties.

... so... looking at it positively, if Putin is framing the potential for a conflict as a Western ploy to trick Russia into starting a war, that suggests that he's trying to make "no invasion" the clever move for Russia.