Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ukraine: how far will Putin go?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ukraine: how far will Putin go?
There are two sorts of country in the world: superpowers and everyone else. Superpowers can – and often do – act as they see fit, constrained only by domestic factors or the opposition of other superpowers. The rest exist only to the extent that the superpowers allow, a fact that this week’s events have brought into stark focus.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There's a Russian naval base in Crimea. They have an agreement to have forces there up to a certain limit. Part of the reason the Western response has been so floundering is Putin hasn't actually done anything except move some pieces into attacking positions.
(Also, lest we forget, the current government came about as a result of a western-backed coup.)
"Russia invaded Georgia to ‘protect’ ethnic Russians in 2008"
That began with a western-backed coup as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution
"We should remember what kicked all this off: Kiev’s desire to look to Brussels rather than Moscow."
Technically true if by Kiev you mean West Ukraine but if you mean Ukraine as a whole then it's the other way round. The western-backed coup was to topple the relatively more pro-Russian side because they won the last nation-wide Presidential election and canceled moves to join the EU and NATO.
Russians 49.6%
Crimean Tatars 19.4%
Ukrainians 13.7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea#Ethnic_groups
239 people of 13 nationalities on board.
Mostly Chinese and Malaysians.
When Prince George was born, I was 2/3rds right in predicting/wanting his name to be "Alexander Louis". I wanted "Louis" because of the gorgeous Prince Louis of Luxembourg, but I also wanted "Alexander" because it's the name of two of the most gorgeous men in the world: (a) Alex Pettyfer, and (b) Skandar Keynes. Skandar's real name is Alexander but they call him Skandar because of his Lebanese ancestry.
There is no way on God's earth the West would ever have intervened in that way, against Russia, in an area that is clearly in Russia's zone of interest - it has bases there for heaven's sake.
Domestically, Putin had no other option but to act. Like it or not Russian nationalism inside Russia is a profound and powerful force. To be perceived to have left ethnic Russians unprotected and at the mercy of Ukrainian nationalists would have been disastrous for him.
What has happened in Ukraine is terrible, dreadful, unpleasant. To all intents and purposes Putin is a despot. But he is one that controls energy supplies into large parts of Europe, a vast army and nuclear weapons. And all of that applied before the Syria vote. This is realpolitik at play, just as it was in Georgia five years ago.
Putin was seen by the West as the least worst option in Russia, primarily because although he is a nasty piece of work he is pragmatic, intelligent and rational. Give him his zone of influence - ie the ex-USSR the Baltic States excepted - and he'll leave the rest of the world, including Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, alone. We helped to create him, we've spent 15 years accommodating him and we've done it because if it wasn't him in charge in the Kremlin it might be a much less predictable, less pragmatic Russian nationalist with a Yeltsin-like taste for the sauce.
The situation in the other regions is going to be more contentious. I cannot see plebiscite by oblast being agreed, even if that were the best way out.
Ukraine means border or edge (as does the Kranj region of Slovenia etc) and much of what is now Eastern and Southern Ukraine was part of the Ottoman Empire, and settled by ethnic Russians after it was taken by Catherine the Great as a protection against encroachment by other powers. Borders in Eastern Europe do not match ethnicity and culture as well as in Western Europe, being rather more recently drawn.
Trying to make ethnicity the deciding factor in borders and nations is a rather twentieth century concept though. One of the strengths of the EU is making these borders less important, as without a higher structure borders act more as barriers than portals. We do not want to see the mass population exchanges and expulsions that came about after the first and second world wars, so as to align ethnicity and state.
Russia was reacting to events rather than directing them, and has done so pretty peacefully so far. The violence happened before, not after Russia got involved. The real cause is the collapse of the Ukranian economy, in part due to endemic corruption. Fix that and most of the other problems will sort themselves.
If we get this right, we can extend western European values and prosperity to another 54 million people. And destabilise Russia's deeply corrupt regime. That's the important thing happening right now. Crimea is a sideshow.
The EU did a fantastic job in Warsaw Pact Europe. It's time to do the same in Ukraine.
One thought it provokes in me is; how different are the Russian and Ukrainian languages? Are we in a “Scandinavian” situation?
He argues it is not legitimate because it was an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected president who can only be deposed, according to the Ukraine constitution, by impeachment. Furthermore there are some very unsavory characters with fascist backgrounds in the new regime who pose a threat to Ukrainians who lean towards Russia. The new anti-Russian language "laws" might be only the start.
I can see Putin's point. The West was very quick to recognise the new regime because it is very much in the interests of the West and against the interests of Russia. Realpolitik indeed.
Until we are able to see the conflict from Putin's point of view and not simply brand him as an opportunistic thug we are not going to help resolve the conflict.
The first step I would suggest is for the West to work with Russia on steps to legitimise the government of Ukraine including revisiting the aqreement made the day before the President was forced to flee for his life.
I'm a terrible flyer, but the 777 would make me feel relatively safe. A 787, on the other hand ...
I don't think it's true that Putin is the West's choice now, nor was he ever. The US and Europe has done almost nothing to help Putin assume or retain power. Frankly, I doubt that he is the least worst option. Medvedev by himself may be better from the West's point of view (and from Russia's neighbours). There are probably others. It doesn't really matter: Putin reigns ascendant. The way in which Bush rode roughshod over his opposition to Iraq probably meant he never could be: he has learned that lesson well.
As an aside, there were plenty of analysts at the time who made similar comments about Stalin and how he was a moderating influence against the real hardliners, when in fact he himself was the hardest of hardliners.
The question, however, is whether the Ukraine *is* to be regarded as Russia's backyard, rather than an independent state with its own right to self-determination. I do note that Russia has bases in the Crimea in the introduction (though it doesn't have the right to blockade Ukrainian bases there), which is one reason why I believe the best solution is to accept the fait accompli, despite the dubious process, and then grant the remainder of the Ukraine NATO membership. As you say, membership without recognising Crimea's transfer would be tantamount to declaring war.
What I am saying in the intro is that had the NATO countries not got into a funk over Syria - either taking decisive action or taking no action because they saw no reason to intervene - Putin may have been a good deal more reticent because as it is, he knows there'll be no price to pay.
Regarding the revolution, it was backed but not encouraged by the West. There is a difference (and yes, I did mean Kiev as a city in the intro rather than as shorthand for the country - but then in revolutions, capturing the capital is usually enough). Why not, if it's what they want. The previous regime was corrupt - why support it simply because it was elected some time ago. In any parliamentary democracy, its failings would surely have brought it down some time ago; in a genuine democratic presidential one, he'd have been impeached.
Ehh...?
Stick to COBOL son; Munich was '38 (and Anschluss was when Mussolini started the downfall of European pan-state socialism*). Personally I blame the "Senior Editor": When will Junior replace the out-moded paradigm...?7
* Except in the minds of Lavalite Tromso Trolls.
:waves-at-sven:
Both the union between Austria and Germany, as per the link above, and the Sudenten Crisis occurred in 1938. Both are relevant to the current Crimean situation, though as I've said, no parallel is exact.
From browsing my usual sites, I have seen the following rumours / speculation / statements of fact:
1) The plane landed safely in China after an electronics failure.
2) There was a known Chinese terrorist on board.
3) It has been shot down by the NK / Chinese / aliens (I made that last one up).
4) It was pilot error
5) It was technical / structural failure.
6) It was terrorism.
7) The plane lost a wingtip during a ground collision in 2012.
8) The weather was good.
9) The weather was bad.
10) The plane plunged dramatically and changed direction in the last minute of radar contact.
11) The plane was flying normally.
12) Pilot and co-pilot become sick simultaneously.
13) It happened at FL350 (35,000 feet).
Try making some sense out of all of that! On t'Internet, we're all experts now.
It seems as though full details - including names, nationality and DOB - of passengers has been released. If so, it seems rather early for that ...
RIP.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=anschluss+österreichs+1936+pictures&client=firefox-a&hs=oXt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=e9MaU4DzCZKqhAf3yIHoDw&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=657
'Nuff Zed.
E.T.A.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=htIhC8RCpj_EpM&tbnid=qV5A3lFULsuXHM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.alemannia-judaica.de/badenbaden_synagoge.htm&ei=CtQaU9jyEcSShQe-5IDYDg&bvm=bv.62578216,d.ZG4&psig=AFQjCNGBQ88isdJAvSmqWh1bSxCBHfoIMw&ust=1394353458839961
@Barnesian - the anti-Russian language law was vetoed. This does seem to be turning into a fairly moderate and restrained interim government. As for impeachment, Yanochvyk (?spelling) was voted out as leader of his own political party (party of the regions) as well as being voted out of office by an overwhelming majority of a democratically elected parliament. I'm sure you can argue about due process and right to representation but a parliamentary vote is a pretty good way of impeaching someone.
@OldKingCole Russia conquered Crimea in 1783 and it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954
Read it again. Do you really believe that or are you post-rationalising? Would you will that as a universal rule as part of international law?
The agreement made the day before the President fled reduced the powers of the president and made provisions for new presidential elections. It was signed by the President and the Opposition. It should be honoured or built on as part of the deal to stabilise the situation. NATO should also back off and make clear that it has no ambition to include Ukraine.
Unless the West gets off its high horse we (but not the US) will certainly be without Russian gas and we may have a bloody war in Ukraine and perhaps beyond.
There was an Austro-German agreement in 1936, which might be what you're thinking of? The remilitarisation of the Rhineland also occurred in the earlier year (though obviously, that was already part of Germany).
But there will be (broadly) free and fair elections in the rest of the Ukraine, and it is hard to see them electing a Russian-facing leader.
So, Russia will end up with an increasingly Western-aligned neighbour, whom it is enormously financially exposed to. Oh yes - Russian banks have massive exposure to the economic catastrophe zone that is the Ukraine. Were rUkraine to collapse, it would be terrible for the people there, and for Russia's under-capitalised banking system.
No, that's the U.N.'s job - but when the West "goes into" a country somewhere else in the world, isn't it just "cutting out the middle man"?
Question for David Herdson: Would you argue against Cameron/Obama seeking a U.N. vote condemning Putin (OK. he vetoes it, but then we know where we stand - we leave the U.N. and create a "son of U.N." we don't let him into...)?
The reality is that even if Putin set up camps to torture to death all those whose names begin with vowels we would vote against going to war with him. He's got nuclear bombs and effective delivery systems...
So what do we have now? Crimea, historically part of Russia full of Russians, speaking Russian looking at the provisional anti-Russian government in Kiev and deciding they want to part in it. The referendum is the trump card. Two questions - to rejoin Russia, to remain part of the Ukraine with autonomy as they previously had. Whichever way people vote they are given a choice and that choice will have more democratic legitimacy than the Kiev government.
So what should we do? Nothing. NATO especially needs to keep away as the one thing both side in the Ukraine were clear on was their non-interest in NATO membership. And remember that Russia is rather critical in EU gas supply and can dump enough US T-bills to collapse the dollar.
As for the Syria vote crack, I do appreciate the superhuman powers that Tories assign to Labour leaders. Brown single-handedly flogged US mortgages and forced banks to gamble with them, made Bush renationalise half of wall street, and now Milliband is directly responsible for Putin. Personally I am glad that we chose not to be Qatari puppets and massacre Syrian civilians so that they could build their pipeline. And remember that the Russian navy physically separated NATO forces and the Syrian coastline, and China also explicitly warned America that it could crash the dollar if it chose in retaliation.
Its very simple. The west is broke, impotent and clueless. We can no more intervene in Ukraine than we can build a ladder to heaven - all we are capable of is killing wedding guests by drone and reminding everyone that we still have nukes. As do Russia. And China.
Was that the case here? Not entirely, as you say, but nor was the transitional process constitutionally legitimate. Once you start making up the rules as you go along, all bets are off. It seems to be picking at points to support an ousted and clearly corrupt and incompetent regime merely for reasons of procedure.
I'm not instinctively a hawk on international affairs (I was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq), but Putin's actions re Crimea are to my mind unacceptable and to take no meaningful action now would not only betray the rest of the Ukraine, it would betray British interests (and those of other European countries), and invite repetitions down the line.
The transitional process agreed between the President and the Opposition was more legitimate than the current revolutionary process - and I'm not sure why you consider the transitional process illegitimate.
I'm not simply "picking at points" I'm talking about the rule of law.
I'm embarrassed by the rhetoric coming from the West. "The rest of the world" will not recognise Crimea as part of Russia.. Read that as "Nato countries will not recognise". I suspect China and a few other insignificant countries will.
O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
More importantly, though, it blurs tactics and strategy. What should we want to happen? Surely that most people can live in the countries they feel closest to, rather than being forced by anyone - Putin, the EU, the Maidan, possibly venal politicians, whoever - to accept being ruled by people who they regard as actively hostile to their interests. It's important to realise that there is really deep ethnic hostility here for all kinds of real and imagined past acts - we are not talking England and Scotland, but more like Yugoslavia. The decision to ban the use of Russian for official purposes, even though hastily vetoed, was entirely typical, as deliberately "us and them" as though Plaid came to power in Wales and as its first act banned the use of English for official purposes in Cardiff. Conversely, though, Ukrainians have a legitimate grievance that they've been dominated by Russia for generations when they clearly want to be separate.
If we accept that communities should be largely entitled to choose who they belong to, a reasonable Western poolicy would be to demand international observers in the Crimean poll (which Putin might refuse, but clearly it would weaken his position if he did) and to offer Ukraine NATO membership on condition that they hold regional referenda on which state the local people wish to belong to (which Kiev wouldn't like, but refusing would weaken their moral position). I don't believe the West will do that, since I don't think we are primarily interested in what people want, but rather in strategic advantage. If so, though, we should not engage in moral posturing.
Leaving the UN isn't an option. Setting up an international version of the Comment Is Free echo chamber is not a means of legitimising action anywhere. The only reason the UN has the respect is does is because it includes everyone.
As for going to war with Russia based on what he does in his territory, no, we won't. It is, however (or should be), a different matter where countries that are part of a military alliance are concerned. Hence the desire of the ex-Warsaw Pact countries to join Nato asap. If belief in that alliance is undermined, the whole structure of our defence system breaks down. If rump Ukraine doesn't want to join Nato, fine - that's their call. But if it does, it should be accepted immediately.
Oh, and we still have Bombs as well. Long may it stay that way. It's the one thing that does deter even superpowers.
I agree that many countries would recognise a transfer of Crimea after the referendum. I've already explicitly said that the UK and other EU and Nato countries should do likewise, while simultaneously pursuing closer links with the remainder of Ukraine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1gT033JytU
How else can we understand and explain "societies" failures...?
Incidentally, it seems likely that we'll end up with Crimea being part of Russia and everyone else being part of Ukraine without consultation, and tacit acceptance of that all round despite long-term grumbling - much in the way that the shift of the Polish border after 1945 was resisted for many years but eventually accepted. It's rough justice but possibly not that far from what people want, and better than any kind of shooting war.
By and large I agree with what you've said, in particular your final two sentences. Moral posturing never sits well with strategic thinking and is best avoided as it leads inevitably you into being faced with contradictions or implied policy options that are all impossible. (So does wholly strategic thinking, but it seems easier to prioritise strategic objectives than moral principles).
I was going to mention Gladstone in reference to the above. Referencing him in relation to the Irish problem might be just as relevant!
Expect USA lovebombing of China from a global trade perspective.
http://www.politics.hu/20140306/eu-should-lift-visa-requirement-for-ukrainians-says-orban/
After all, we do want to help Ukraine, don't we?
If we are heading towards a point where foreign policy / diplomacy becomes more relevant, balancing strength with caution, the Hillary and Kerry's chances have just taken a boost. As, given the lack of alternatives across the aisle, have the Democrats as a whole. The entire Republican field is short. It's remarkable given that Bush was in the White House only recently, but all his officials rule themselves out for one reason or another.
I am not saying Russia has any "rights", I am saying that in certain territories it has always had de facto freedoms to operate and that what happened with Syria made no difference to that. Domestic demand plus long-established realpolitik principles led Putin to do what he has done. Syria is irrelevant.
London’s Laundry Business
LONDON — THE city has changed. The buses are still dirty, the people are still passive-aggressive, but something about London has changed. You can see signs of it everywhere. The townhouses in the capital’s poshest districts are empty; they have been sold to Russian oligarchs and Qatari princes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/londons-laundry-business.html?_r=1
Here's to hoping that our parliament and political process will look far more representative of the people it seeks to serve in the future.
It also says a lot about what education the so called educated are getting.
Urrrm, your point is? Most subtitles of this sort are produced automatically by speech-to-text machines, meaning you get all sorts of hilarious transcription errors.
Obama seems absolutely disinterested in any foreign intervention. He had to be pushed into Libya by us and the frogs. One suspects he doesn't want to add a foreign misadventure to his legacy.
I've long said we should spend more on Defence.
pic.twitter.com/Xe0HlVZV3i
A significant problem is trying to define the threat our military is supposed to deal with. Up to 1989 it was the Soviets; in the 1990s there was a little focus on large powers in the Gulf; from 2001 onwards it was insurgencies and c/t.
Each of these requires different sorts of kit and, to a certain extent, training.
London's Laundry Business.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/londons-laundry-business.html?_r=0&referrer=
Although a military threat to Gibraltar would lead to us taking on Spain, a fellow EU country that might well mean a much wider conflict. And I doubt the Argentinians have the wherewithal to threaten the Falklands - their military's in a much worse state than it was in 1982.
I'd add c/t operations, special forces, disaster relief and especially a Navy capable in theory at least, of keeping our sea lanes open. The biggest threat we've faced in several wars is blockading, and we've only narrowly won each time.
Whilst doing all this, make the forces and weaponry as flexible as possible.
But, it won't happen. Cameron's soft on defence, Miliband would worry about the carbon emissions of frigates and Clegg would want to hand over command to Brussels.
The army at 80,000 is probably at about the right size if not a little too big (forget the nonsense plan for 30k reserves), but probably needs rebalancing - lose some more cap badges and put back the engineering and logistics enablers that have been cut recently. Any land operations we are likely to get involved in will be optional wars.
Rebuilding the RN is a ten year plus project but one capability that was cut that urgently needs to be rebuilt is maritime patrol aircraft, whether operated by the Crabs or the RN, I don't care but for an island nation dependent on sea trade not to have an MPA capability is asking for trouble. The P8 production line is in full swing so we would be able to buy off the shelf from the Yanks.
None of the above need necessarily cost too much more than we are already spending on defence. The Japanese have a defence budget or the same sort of scale as ours but get much more out of it, we should look closely to see how.
Or do you mean he's overjoyed that the Russian banking system may go bust under the weight of unpaid loans from Ukranian corporates?
The family of F1 legend Michael Schumacher have been informed by doctors treating him that the chances of recovery are now so slim that only 'a miracle' can save him.
Today the 45-year-old winner of seven grand prix titles has been in an artificially induced coma for 69 days since badly injuring his brain during a low-speed ski accident in the French Alps on December 29. Most artificial comas last for a period of two to three weeks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575531/Doctors-tell-Michael-Schumachers-family-miracle-save-say-reports.html#ixzz2vMvN1Vjd
It doesn't look good.
•Rand Paul 12.21%
•Chris Christie 11.50%
•Jeb Bush 9.39%
•Paul Ryan 9.15%
•Jon Huntsman 8.22%
•Scott Walker 6.57%
•Marco Rubio 5.63%
•Mike Huckabee 5.40%
•Ted Cruz 4.93%
•Scott Brown 4.69%
•Bobby Jindal 4.23%
•Rick Santorum 2.35%
•Undecided 14.32%
Who would be your second choice?
•Chris Christie 12.26%
•Ted Cruz 11.70%
•Marco Rubio 11.14%
•Jeb Bush 10.86%
•Rand Paul 10.03%
•Mike Huckabee 7.80%
•Paul Ryan 5.29%
•Scott Walker 5.01%
•Scott Brown 4.18%
•Jon Huntsman 3.34%
•Rick Santorum 3.06%
•Bobby Jindal 2.79%
•Undecided 12.53%
•Ted Cruz 16%
•Rand Paul 14%
•Chris Christie 12%
•Jeb Bush 11%
•Mike Huckabee 11%
•Paul Ryan 8%
•Scott Walker 8%
•Marco Rubio 4%
•Bobby Jindal 2%
•Someone else/Not sure 13%
Arizona General Election 2016
•Jeb Bush (R) 45%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 44%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 44%
•Chris Christie (R) 41%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
•Rand Paul (R) 43%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 47%
•Mike Huckabee (R) 41%
http://order-order.com/2014/03/08/international-womens-day-political-history-for-ingenues/
Correlation =/= causation.
Sven is at a loose-end (and claims to be good at translations)....
http://xkcd.com/552/
It remains the case that if he'd remained a racing driver he would not have been skiing.
For an island nation the navy is the right answer, and has been for centuries. So for all of the budget-led abuse thrown at our new aircraft carriers, they are what we need. Unless they are right for everyone else and not for us suddenly....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=340
What's actually happening here is about achieving something called "full spectrum dominance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance
It's standard imperial stuff with a new name but the critical point is the US are trying to achieve this *after* they off-shored their economy and can no longer support their military. What this means is they had a very narrow window c. 1990 to 20?? to achieve this goal before they had to start paring away at their military strength.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26326969
It's like the last throw of the dice before they have to contract and the world goes back to being a collection of regional superpowers.
Which is why they're being so reckless about starting a big war.
As for Ukraine, Obama has now sent fighter planes to the Baltic as a clear sign that military involvement is not off the table and is also pushing serious financial and economic sanctions. That is the sort of minimum response needed for a clear violation of sovereignty in a nation that has done nothing wrong. Territorial integrity is a vital part of enforcing a stable and peaceful international system, and if that falls apart we will seriously go back to 19th Century imperialist politics where the lesser peoples of the world are just sacrificed. Now, there are some areas where other things become more important, such as enforcing non-proliferation, a response to an attack on your own soil, or to prevent mass slaughter, but none of these apply in Ukraine's case.
This is the sort of stuff great countries need to think about when shaping the world for the better. It seems, as you suggest, that Britain has given up on being one of these, and is instead going back to the mentality it had in the 16th century, where a few got rich off the back off the suffering of others, like the slave traders Drake and Hawkins. We're putting dirty Russian money ahead of a million of 50 million people struggling to be free. It's shameful.
Thatcher was willing to put her neck on the line for Eastern European countries because she actually believed in Western freedom and was prepared to stand up for its spread. Cameron is obviously unfit to fill her shoes.