Ukraine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Russia considered our invasion of Iraq to be illegal and opposed it, how did they punish us? Realistically larger nations can get away with more. We'd never fight the USSR and we're not about to fight Russia or start a second Cold War either.

---

Russia didn't give a damn about Iraq. It gave American a black eye in the international arena (making it that much harder to get legitimacy and economic support for the ensuing occupation) and that's the most it hoped to achieve. Russia had no obligation to protect Iraq and Iraq wasn't exactly seeking to join a major Russian-led organization. I bet we'd get a different response if we tried to invade Belarus or Kazakhstan.

On a related note, it's amazing just how stupid and delusional a majority of the comments about this conflict are in places like CNN, Washington Post, and NY Times. FFS people, would it kill you to at least read a wikipedia entry on the topics you're pretending to be an expert on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Only one step from us ignoring a security guarantee to us finding a way around our NATO commitments; where there's a will there's a way. Say another "Russian militia" does something in Latvia. We can reasonably claim that it's not an external threat and we're therefore not obligated to intervene militarily. Europe is making it very clear that it has little intention of punishing Russia in a serious way. That's a very shortsighted signal to send. And I'm not convinced the US risks a nuclear war over a European country even if that country is part of NATO. And I'm much easier to convince than Putin.

---

Should that happen, it'd probably be the end of NATO - not much point for anyone to be a member of an organization which weasels its way out of serving the function it was created to serve in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Is that why Merkel (Germany) is reluctant to enact economic sanctions?

I'm not even sure this is about Ukraine, but Crimea. Where are all the forum IR know-it-alls when we need them? :mong:

---

Yes, this is why Merkel is reluctant. For Cameron the reasons lie in the fact that Russians bring their cash to London, and here in Holland the government is loathe to risk trade with the Russians at the time that our economy is tottering on the verge of recession.

I think you can say that the closer to Russia you come in the EU the more enthousiasm you will find for sanctions against the aggressors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Russia didn't give a damn about Iraq. It gave American a black eye in the international arena (making it that much harder to get legitimacy and economic support for the ensuing occupation) and that's the most it hoped to achieve. Russia had no obligation to protect Iraq and Iraq wasn't exactly seeking to join a major Russian-led organization. I bet we'd get a different response if we tried to invade Belarus or Kazakhstan.

---

Is Ukraine really that much part of the Western sphere that 'we' would go to war over it? I doubt it very much. It's very hard to forget that without Kiev there wouldn't have been a Russia to start with. It also would be a bit naive to think that an empire of the size and nature of the USSR would simply fade into history. With only limited sympathy for the Russians; it's quite hard to not see the pendulum went a bit too far against them when the borders were drawn.

On the upside; I think the time we heard European politicians talk about the 'Peace dividend' is over. I guess cutting of Defense budgets is not going to rank very high in the next few years.

I'm not sure they can be cut much further and still maintain the notion that they're credible armed forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalticSailor

Should that happen, it'd probably be the end of NATO - not much point for anyone to be a member of an organization which weasels its way out of serving the function it was created to serve in the first place.

---

Considering that NATO over the last decade has been synonymous with the US and a little bit of Britain, with pretty much everyone else a free rider, I'm not sure that would have as much resonance as it had in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Is Ukraine really that much part of the Western sphere that 'we' would go to war over it? I doubt it very much. It's very hard to forget that without Kiev there wouldn't have been a Russia to start with. It also would be a bit naive to think that an empire of the size and nature of the USSR would simply fade into history. With only limited sympathy for the Russians; it's quite hard to not see the pendulum went a bit too far against them when the borders were drawn.

---

Is Latvia? If you're not going to go over a country of 46 million that's right on EU's borders, I'm not convinced you go to war over a country of two million that's on your side of the border. And realistically, no one is asking Europe to go to war over Ukraine. They're asking Europe to make some tough economic decisions. If losing a few billion in trade (let's be honest, Russia won't cut off gas to Europe; where else would it sell it?) over Ukraine, is it going to risk a nuclear war over Latvia or Estonia?

Latvia is marginally more than Ukraine. They can only hope that the EU hasn't suffered so much from euroscepticism that if Russia would make a move on it the other members will be concerned more with solidarity than their balance books.

I am quite pessimistic. I also know who we've got to thank for our present predicament. One of their advocates is a regular on this forum.

I realize that Latvia is viewed marginally more important than Ukraine, but what's marginally tougher actions than nothing? I'm not sure how much of this can be blamed on euroscepticism versus blaming deteriorating European armies and an unwillingness to diversify away from Russian gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I realize that Latvia is viewed marginally more important than Ukraine, but what's marginally tougher actions than nothing? I'm not sure how much of this can be blamed on euroscepticism versus blaming deteriorating European armies and an unwillingness to diversify away from Russian gas.

---

Euroscepticism is based in the believe that we have nothing to almost nothing in common with other nations in Europe and that therefore basing intra-European relations on solidarity amongst Europeans is destructing the only structures we can rely on (the nation states).

Ukraine isn't a part of the EU though; European solidarity wouldn't necessarily make a difference in that case. I should add that the UK (along with the US) has guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity, so it looks particularly bad when we find out that anything that might make Russian oligarchs take their money out of London is a red line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Ukraine isn't a part of the EU though; European solidarity wouldn't necessarily make a difference in that case. I should add that the UK (along with the US) has guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity, so it looks particularly bad when we find out that anything that might make Russian oligarchs take their money out of London is a red line.

---

I don't disagree with you on your analysis of the situation. I am just extremely pessimist about alternative outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I think you can say that the closer to Russia you come in the EU the more enthousiasm you will find for sanctions against the aggressors.

---

I'd hope so. While the Crimea is on the Black Sea and has local autonomy, it's still part of Ukraine and they're on your guys' border. The only way Russia could be aggressive even closer but not over your guys' own territory is to make a move on northern Belarus.

Russia has seriously overplayed its cards. All the leverage is in American and European hands. Any threats Russia is making are borne out of weakness and would harm Russia more than it would the West. The EU and the US should call the Russian bluff. Enact sanctions. Winter is almost done and demand for gas will go down. Russia also can't reroute its gas on such short notice. If it stops supplying the West, it will go bankrupt within a year. If the markets sense that the Europeans aren't joking, the Russian ruble will collapse, as will the Russian stock market. Russia isn't Iran or North Korea; its economy is dependent on international trade and investment. It wouldn't be long before we start hearing serious grumbling in Russia over whether this is all worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I'd hope so. While the Crimea is on the Black Sea and has local autonomy, it's still part of Ukraine and they're on your guys' border. The only way Russia could be aggressive even closer but not over your guys' own territory is to make a move on northern Belarus.

---

Anyone in Belarus who'd take part in these kind of actions is either dead or in jail.

http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/03/8/7018182 (use google translate) At least the Europeans are doing something right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Russia has seriously overplayed its cards. All the leverage is in American and European hands. Any threats Russia is making are borne out of weakness and would harm Russia more than it would the West. The EU and the US should call the Russian bluff. Enact sanctions. Winter is almost done and demand for gas will go down. Russia also can't reroute its gas on such short notice. If it stops supplying the West, it will go bankrupt within a year. If the markets sense that the Europeans aren't joking, the Russian ruble will collapse, as will the Russian stock market. Russia isn't Iran or North Korea; its economy is dependent on international trade and investment. It wouldn't be long before we start hearing serious grumbling in Russia over whether this is all worth it.

---

How confident are you in that analysis/prognosis? Do you believe that European nations who are heavily dependent on Russian gas/oil will agree to "economic" sanctions that will hurt their own citizens and economies? Are you willing to bank on Gazprom going bust before massive uprisings and international chaos? Are you sure the Russian ruble hasn't already been entrenched into global markets?

No, I don't see the Europeans agreeing, perhaps not even if Russia invades eastern Ukraine. Now, if Russia unilaterally stopped selling gas to Europe, I can't see the Russian government remaining solvent for long. Even a giant corporation like Gazprom has most of its money tied up in semi-liquid or illiquid assets. Without pipelines to redirect most of that gas, it will run out of money sooner rather than later. The same is true for the Russian government, which is heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues. I also imagine that if Russia did try to renege on its energy contracts, Russian money in Europe would be frozen, which would bring about the Russian bankruptcy even sooner.

As for the ruble and the Russian stock market, both fell by ~10% in a day when the markets thought there might be some kind of a reaction from the West (and the Russian central bank had to throw away $20 billion to prop up the ruble). Without money from exports and having to pay more for imports, how long do you think before Putin's own cronies turn on him? After all, they support him because they benefit from his rule. Long story short, Putin isn't this stupid; he wouldn't unilaterally cut off gas supplies to Europe, at least not for more than a few days or perhaps weeks. That makes the very threat uncredible. Russian businessmen can try to take their money out of European banks (particularly English ones), but where are they going to put it? Dubai? Not exactly the best place to reside permanently.

Do you think Putin is considering those factors? Do you think European energy importers can trust Putin?

When push comes to shove....will nations who rely on Russian oil/gas imports be able (and willing) to reject them, knowing it will cause hardship domestically?

I'm also confused about the loan numbers thrown around. Ukraine "needed" about $20 billion in EU/IMF loan guarantees, but was refused. Russia promised more...which explains the shift of "alliances". Or did I get that wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Russia has seriously overplayed its cards. All the leverage is in American and European hands. Any threats Russia is making are borne out of weakness and would harm Russia more than it would the West. The EU and the US should call the Russian bluff. Enact sanctions. Winter is almost done and demand for gas will go down. Russia also can't reroute its gas on such short notice. If it stops supplying the West, it will go bankrupt within a year. If the markets sense that the Europeans aren't joking, the Russian ruble will collapse, as will the Russian stock market. Russia isn't Iran or North Korea; its economy is dependent on international trade and investment. It wouldn't be long before we start hearing serious grumbling in Russia over whether this is all worth it.

---

And yet we have a British government basically excluding any sanctions that actually hurt with a number of other governments being almost as reluctant to do anything that might reduce their trade with Russia. You may remember that the eurosceptics made certain all decisions on international affairs are made under the rule of consensus (meaning that a single country can stop any action it deems against its interests). A satirical comment here in Holland about the Ukraine crisis was that 'after hours of talks the EU found common ground on how to react to the Georgian crisis of 2008'. A comment on that satire was that 'it was funny, but overly optimistic'.

As long as only the Poles and Baltic states are affraid of Russian boots on their soil, 28 votes are not to be had for real sanctions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Winter is almost done and demand for gas will go down.

---

Large parts of Europe haven't experienced a real winter this year. Reserves are much higher then usually after winter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

And yet we have a British government basically excluding any sanctions that actually hurt with a number of other governments being almost as reluctant to do anything that might reduce their trade with Russia. You may remember that the eurosceptics made certain all decisions on international affairs are made under the rule of consensus (meaning that a single country can stop any action it deems against its interests). A satirical comment here in Holland about the Ukraine crisis was that 'after hours of talks the EU found common ground on how to react to the Georgian crisis of 2008'. A comment on that satire was that 'it was funny, but overly optimistic'.

As long as only the Poles and Baltic states are affraid of Russian boots on their soil, 28 votes are not to be had for real sanctions.

---

Interesting that you said exactly the opposite about Switzerland.

"In a statement, the Russian foreign ministry said masked men fired on and injured peaceful protesters last week.

It also accused Ukraine of not being committed to media freedoms after seven Russian journalists were detained."

:bulb:

Lavrov also said earlier this week that the crisis in Ukraine was "created artificially for purely geopolitical reasons". Yeah, we know Sergey. We know.

Comical Sergei?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Interesting that you said exactly the opposite about Switzerland.

---

Are you seriously expecting me to apply the same set of rules to the relations between the EU and Russia and the EU and Switzerland?

You are honestly suggesting to treat Russia better? On which basis?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/wo...crisis.html?hp