If regime change by economic trouble is the goal, linking to the 1930s might be a bad ideaOriginally Posted by Loki
If regime change by economic trouble is the goal, linking to the 1930s might be a bad idea
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Putin's Russia is no Weimar.
Hope is the denial of reality
Hope is the denial of reality
How much do the "skittish Europeans" and their fragile economies factor in? Unless Germany, France, and UK are fully on board and prepared for energy pains, there's not much of a united alliance.
SourceKiev (CNN) -- A contingent of U.S. Army paratroopers arrived in Poland on Wednesday, the first of what will be a "persistent presence" of U.S. troops as the crisis in nearby Ukraine continues to unfold.
The company-sized contingent will conduct training exercises with Polish counterparts and is visiting at the request of Poland.
The joint exercises are a symbol of force as the conflict in Ukraine between pro-government and pro-Russian factions continues unabated. The United States and Russia accuse each other of fomenting unrest in Ukraine.
The U.S. troops stood in formation at an airfield next to Polish troops as military leaders from both countries addressed them, reiterating the alliance between their nations.
"Poland has been there for the United States, and today, as the transatlantic community confronts Russia's unacceptable aggression against Poland's neighbor, Ukraine, a sovereign and independent state, we have a solemn obligation in the framework of NATO to reassure Poland of our security guarantee," said Stephen Mull, the U.S. ambassador to Poland.
The United States will maintain a presence in Poland at least through the end of the year, he said.
Russia has deployed what NATO estimates to be 40,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, something that has made other countries like Poland nervous.
The military exercises in the Polish city of Swidwin are "a result of what's going on in Ukraine," Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said Tuesday. "What we're after here is persistent presence, a persistent rotational presence."
Four companies of paratroopers based in Italy will be sent to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia over the next few months for military exercises, he said.
Addressing the assembled troops from the U.S. and Poland on Wednesday, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Richard C. Longo said the joint exercises are a manifestation of the strong commitment the two countries have to each other.
"Despite the uncertainty of the world and this region, I am certain of one thing about the United States Army in Europe: We have the capacity, we have the commitment, we have the will to fulfill our NATO obligations," he said.
Anti-terror measures in Ukraine
Pro-Russian militants will be targeted in four key cities in Ukraine's restive east, Ukraine's deputy prime minister said Wednesday.
"The active phase of the anti-terrorist operation continues," Vitaliy Yarema was quoted as saying by state-run news agency Ukrinform.
Militants in the four cities -- Kramatorsk, Slaviansk, Donetsk and Luhansk -- have seized government buildings and show no signs of giving them up despite an international deal agreed to last week in Geneva, Switzerland.
On Tuesday, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov also urged a renewal of anti-terror measures after a truce called during the Easter holiday, citing the discovery of two tortured bodies near Slaviansk -- one of them a pro-Kiev politician from his own party.
A statement from a pro-Russian leader in Slaviansk, de facto Mayor Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, rejected Turchynov's claim and blamed the deaths on far-right Ukrainian nationalist extremists.
Under the Geneva deal, illegal militia groups were to disarm and vacate occupied buildings, with an amnesty promised in return.
But the pact, aimed at easing tensions in eastern Ukraine, appears to be faltering six days on, with Kiev and Moscow accusing each other of failing to live up to its commitments.
Meanwhile, the war of words continues.
How will the crisis end? 5 possible scenarios
Lavrov: Americans 'running the show'
Ukrainian and U.S. officials say they think Russian special forces are in the region and are behind efforts to seize government buildings and generally promote unrest -- a claim Moscow denies.
On the contrary, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Russia's state-run RT news channel Wednesday that the United States is calling the shots in Ukraine.
As proof of this, he pointed to the timing of the Ukrainian government's relaunch of its security operation, just after a two-day visit to Ukraine by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
"Now that Joe Biden visited Kiev, this counterterrorist operation was declared in the active phase again," he told RT.
"I don't have any reasons not to believe that the Americans are running the show in a very close way."
Lavrov also said that Russia would "certainly respond" if its interests were attacked in Ukraine.
"If our interests, our legitimate interests, the interests of Russians have been attacked directly, like they were in South Ossetia for example, I do not see any other way but to respond in accordance with international law," he told RT.
"Russian citizens being attacked is an attack against the Russian Federation."
Lavrov added that U.S. involvement in Ukraine "is just one manifestation of the American unwillingness to yield in the geopolitical fight. Americans are not ready to admit that they cannot run the show in each and every part of the globe from Washington alone."
Russian media on Ukraine: Does Kremlin control the autocue?
Ukraine to request IMF loan
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Wednesday that the Cabinet has approved a formal request to the International Monetary Fund for a loan, which would help stabilize the economic situation in Ukraine. Yatsenyuk said he hoped to receive the answer by the end of the month.
Ukraine's dire economic situation has added to the pressures on the interim government ahead of national elections due on May 25.
Speaking in Kiev on Tuesday, Biden said he expects an IMF package for Ukraine to be finalized imminently.
He also promised U.S. support for Ukraine and stressed that the United States won't recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea.
The United States also promised Tuesday an additional $50 million to support political and economic reform in Ukraine, including just over $11 million to help run the elections next month.
In another sign of international support for the government in Kiev, the Vatican said Pope Francis would meet Yatsenyuk on Saturday in Rome. The prime minister will meet afterward with the Vatican Secretary of State, Monsignor Pietro Parolin.
American journalist held
An American journalist working for Vice News is being held by pro-Russian separatists in Slaviansk, Vice News said in a statement posted on its website Tuesday.
The international channel said it is in contact with the U.S. State Department and other appropriate government authorities to secure the release of Simon Ostrovsky.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Wednesday, "We are deeply concerned about the reports of a kidnapping of a U.S. citizen journalist ... reportedly at the hands of pro-Russian separatists."
Such hostage takings violate the terms of the Geneva agreement, she said.
"We call on Russia to use its influence with these groups to secure the immediate and safe release of all hostages in eastern Ukraine," Psaki added.
Torture, detention allegations
Ukraine's Interior Ministry said Wednesday that Vladimir Rybak, the politician found dead near Slaviansk, died as a result of injuries from torture and drowning.
His body was discovered Saturday, two days after witnesses said he was kidnapped by men in military clothing and balaclavas, following an altercation with protesters at the local city hall, the ministry said.
According to investigators, representatives of a separatist group involved in seizing the Security Service office in Slaviansk were also involved in torturing him, the ministry said.
An adviser to the interior minister, Stanislav Rechinsky, also pointed the finger at pro-Russian separatists Wednesday.
"We already know the location where the torture took place and where an unknown number of kidnapped residents of Slaviansk and journalists are held captive," he said at a news conference.
"We have eyewitnesses who testified about hearing the so-called little green men bragging about the murders. We have another eyewitness who saw these men alive in the torture cells and who was able to escape."
The term "little green men" has become widely used for the unidentified armed men who have appeared in eastern Ukraine in recent days. Russia has denied they are Russian military forces in uniforms that don't bear insignia.
tl;dr: American troops land in Poland, Russia continues insisting that they're not behind the Ukrainian problems, actually it's the Americans.
In other news, the US State Department is claiming it has evidence that Russian special forces are active in Ukraine.
Source(Reuters) - Ukrainian forces killed up to five pro-Moscow rebels on Thursday as they closed in on the separatists' military stronghold in the east, and Russia launched army drills near the border in response, raising fears its troops would invade.
The Ukrainian offensive amounts to the first time Kiev's troops have used lethal force to recapture territory from the fighters, who have seized swathes of eastern Ukraine since April 6 and proclaimed an independent "People's Republic of Donetsk".
Ukraine's acting president accused Moscow of supporting "terrorism at the state level" against his country for backing the rebels, who the government blames for kidnapping and torturing a politician found dead on Saturday.
The Ukrainian Interior Ministry said its forces backed by the army had removed three checkpoints manned by armed groups in the separatist-controlled city of Slaviansk.
"During the armed clash up to five terrorists were eliminated," it said in a statement, adding that one person had been wounded on the side of the government forces.
A rebel spokeswoman in Slaviansk said two fighters had died in a clash in the same area, northeast of the city center. Slaviansk's separatist self-proclaimed mayor, Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, quoted on a local news site, said one man was shot dead and another badly wounded on the northeastern outskirts of the city. He said the dead had been unarmed.
The Kremlin, which says it has the right to invade its neighbor to protect Russian speakers, has built up forces on Ukraine's border - estimated by NATO at up to 40,000 troops.
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu announced Moscow had launched military drills near the border in response to "Ukraine's military machine" and NATO exercises in eastern Europe. Kiev demanded an explanation within 48 hours of action on the border.
Russia already seized and annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine last month after President Vladimir Putin overturned decades of post-Cold War diplomacy by announcing the right to use military force in neighboring countries.
An invasion of mainland Ukraine's industrial heartland would be a far more serious action. It had seemed beyond contemplation only weeks ago but now looks like a real threat, although the full extent of Putin's territorial ambitions remains a mystery.
In St Petersburg, Putin said that if the authorities in Kiev had used the army in eastern Ukraine, it would be a very serious crime against their own people.
"It is just a punitive operation and it will of course incur consequences for the people making these decisions, including (an effect) on our interstate relations," Putin said in a televised meeting with regional media.
Washington criticized the Russian drills on the frontier. It was "exactly the opposite of what we have been calling on the Russians to do, which is to de-escalate the situation," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said.
Reuters journalists saw a Ukrainian detachment with five armored personnel carriers take over a checkpoint on a road north of Slaviansk in the late morning after it was abandoned by separatists who set tires alight to cover their retreat.
However, two hours later the troops pulled back and it was unclear if Kiev would risk storming Slaviansk, a city of 130,000 that has become the military stronghold of a movement seeking annexation by Moscow of Ukraine's industrialized east.
...
SourceWASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon says Russia's defense chief has assured Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that Russia will not invade Ukraine.
Hagel spoke by phone Monday with his Russian counterpart, and afterward Hagel's press secretary, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, issued a statement saying the two men had discussed the crisis in Ukraine.
Kirby said Hagel requested clarification of Russia's intentions in eastern Ukraine, and the Russian defense minister, Sergei Shoygu (sayr-gay shoy-goo), reassured Hagel that Russian forces will not invade.
Hagel also asked for Russia's help in gaining the release of seven inspectors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, who are being held in eastern Ukraine by pro-Russian separatists.
And Hagel called for an end to what he called Russia's destabilizing influence inside Ukraine.
My good friends, a US Defense Secretary has returned from Russia bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
I hear the Russian thugs in eastern Ukraine have put down their weapons and returned home a week ago.
Hope is the denial of reality
SourceThe commander of U.S. air forces in the Pacific is reporting a significant increase in activities by Russian planes and ships in the region.
Gen. Herbert Carlisle linked that to the situation in the Ukraine. He said Russia was demonstrating its capabilities and gathering intelligence on U.S. military exercises.
Carlisle said there had been long-range Russian air patrols to the coast of California and a circumnavigation of the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam. He said a U.S. F-15 fighter jet intercepted a Russian strategic bomber that had flown to Guam.
He also reported a sharp increase in Russian air patrols around Japanese islands and Korea.
Carlisle said there was a lot more Russian ship activity too.
He was speaking Monday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.
Ukrainian self-defense bombers in the Pacific. Man, those guys are a long way from home. Hopefully they don't run into any NATO-backed fascists in Guam and have to glass them.
I know they've been doing this to Japan and European/Baltic states for a while now to test their response times and protocols, but this is the first I've heard of them doing it to the US since the Ukraine thing started. Anyone (wiggin, I guess), is this normal since the cold war? At what point should I start getting concerned?
Last edited by Wraith; 05-05-2014 at 11:47 PM.
Yes, the Soviets did this kind of stuff whenever there were tensions with the US. I always was amused when you get people in the US who attacked certain politicians here for pretending that the Cold War is still ongoing. Well in Russia, the Cold War resumed by the mid-1990s and Russia has acted accordingly.
Hope is the denial of reality
So....when is the EU and IMF going to step up to the plate?
Hope is the denial of reality
You skipped a question I think is important: At what point should we start getting concerned? I'm trying to avoid a state where we go into denial - where something bad happens and we all start ignoring how bad it is because we don't want to believe it's that bad. So before we get to that point, where is it?
I think we can probably be alright with an East Ukrainian puppet state ofthe USSRRussia, as long as Russia doesn't openly send their armies in. But if we can get past that, Russia invading any other country in the near future could be disastrous. At that point, I'm afraid we'd have to choose between pushing for war, or coming to terms with a world where Russia is unchecked and free to do whatever it wants. I think we're already at the point where there's a high danger of a second cold war, and Russia's moves to form a new Axis is worrying.
Concerned about what? There's virtually no risk of war between the West and Russia over Ukraine. The only way I see conflict arising is if Russia feels emboldened by conquering half of Ukraine and tries the Crimea scenario in Latvia. Then it's a crapshoot if we respond militarily.
If you mean concerned about an explicit Russian military attack against Ukraine, well that's pretty damn high as things stand and I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen.
I'm just amazed China is keeping quiet. Russia is explicitly violating the norms of non-intervention in domestic affairs and territorial integrity. Those norms are at the heart of Chinese diplomacy.
Hope is the denial of reality
I believe that an actual war is extremely unlikely, but there's going to be a point where we have to go through the motions of a prewar in order to avert it (and although it won't be a full war, I think there's a good chance of casualties) or we have to surrender and admit that Russia can conquer whoever they want and we're not going to do jack about it. Basically I think we might see a Cuban Missile Crisis type scenario soon, and I'm wondering when we need to start treating it like that.
I'm also worried that our slow and tepid reaction to this situation is only increasing the chance of entering that sort of scenario. The type of response the west has collectively taken, I think, been correct, it's just been too slow, and not of the right scale.
Well, it can been argued that the IMF contributed to Ukraine's vulnerability to Putin's Russia in the first place, because it didn't want to extend loan guarantees. Since the IMF seemed more concerned with EU economies still struggling to pull out of recession, I wanted to pose the question to heavy hitters like Germany, France, Italy, Britain. And the European Central Bank.
Europe is far more exposed to Putin's antics than the US. They could enact "severe sanctions" right away if they had the political will to do so...instead of waiting for the US to lead the way.
Let's put it like this: Russia is about 2 steps away from an invasion of eastern Ukraine (the first being sending in a limited number of troops). We're probably half a dozen steps away from leveling really serious sanctions. And sanctions will come long before we even pretend to use our military. There's always some possibility that an unforeseen incident can escalate to unwieldy proportions, but I really don't see it happening over Ukraine. The difference with Cuba is that the US considered Soviet weapons in the Americas to be crossing a red line. Russia can conquer the entire Ukraine and massacre tens of thousands of Ukrainians and it wouldn't have crossed the same kind of red line.
I more or less agree. I think our non-response might very well encourage Russia to cross some red line because it will take our threats as pure bluffs. That would most likely entail some form of military intervention in a NATO country, like Estonia or Latvia, with the Russian expectation that as long as the formal Russian military isn't involved, we won't send in the Marines. That might or might not be true, but we're certainly leading Russia to think that way.
What are you talking about? The IMF doesn't deal with recessions and it doesn't deal with Western countries (except for the lagging ones, like Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland). Considering that giving money to the lagging countries seems to have actually helped, while previously giving money to Ukraine led to that money disappearing, I think the IMF has its priorities straight.Well, it can been argued that the IMF contributed to Ukraine's vulnerability to Putin's Russia in the first place, because it didn't want to extend loan guarantees. Since the IMF seemed more concerned with EU economies still struggling to pull out of recession, I wanted to pose the question to heavy hitters like Germany, France, Italy, Britain. And the European Central Bank.
Europe is far more exposed to Putin's antics than the US. They could enact "severe sanctions" right away if they had the political will to do so...instead of waiting for the US to lead the way.
They're not waiting for the US to lead the way. They might not follow, period. I really don't get the feeling that the Europeans are taking this crisis sufficiently seriously.
Hope is the denial of reality
Why should US actions be the base-line metric...when EU nations have more at stake, and more control over Russia's global economic status?
The Europeans are not equipped for a military confrontation and they don't really care enough about Ukraine to jeopardize their economic well-being over it. Just remember 1938. No one did anything over Czechoslovakia (twice) or Austria; the Soviet invasions of Finland, the Baltics, and Poland; or the Japanese annexation of chunks of China. Until this hits closer to home, the Europeans will stick their heads in the sand and hope Putin is satisfied with Ukraine.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think the Chinese are just happy to have Russia occupied way the hell over there and not anywhere in their own sphere of interest. Their interest in non-intervention is primarily realpolitik they're better served by Russo-Western tensions than they are by defending a principle Russia is not likely to use against them anytime in the forseeable future.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If you violate a principle often enough or flagrantly enough, it stops being a principle.
It's not that Russia was going to bother China in the near future anyway. It would amuse me to no end if China was to end up using this exact excuse against Russia (i.e. oppression of ethnic Chinese in eastern Russia) a few decades down the line.
Hope is the denial of reality
But the world will blame the US....if Europeans continue to bury their heads in the sand?
The world doesn't seem to care.
Hope is the denial of reality
The world will blame the US for anything and everything no matter what. It's not worth fretting over.But the world will blame the US....if Europeans continue to bury their heads in the sand?
I broadened your statement. Blaming someone makes people feel better.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Whoops:
Who'da thunk that there was something dodgy with the votes...Putin's 'Human Rights Council' Accidentally Posts Real CrimeanElection Results
The website of the “President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights” posted a blog that was quickly taken down as if it were toxic radioactive waste. According to the Council’s report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout was a maximum 30%. And of these, only half voted for annexation – meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.
The fate of Crimea, therefore, was decided by the 15 percent of Crimeans, who voted in favor of unification with Russia (under the watchful eye of Kalashnikov-toting soldiers).
The official Crimean election results, as reported widely in the Western press, showed a 97 percent vote in favor of annexation with a turnout of 83 percent.
No international observers were allowed. This pro-Russia election pressure would have raised the already weak vote in favor of annexation.
To make sure no one misses this:
Of icial Kremlin results: 97% for annexation, turnout 83 percent, and percent of Crimeans voting in favor 82%.
President’s Human Rights Council results: 50% for annexation, turnout 30%, percent of Crimeans voting in favor 15%.
Putin’s people pulled this “rather unfortunate” report from the President’s Human Rights Council website, but council member Svetlana Gannushkina talked about this subject on Kanal 24 (as reproduced on Ukrainian television), declaring that the Crimean vote “discredited Russia more than could be dreamed up by a foreign agent.”
Putin plans to repeat the Crimean election farce in the May 11 referendum on the status of the so-called People’s Republic of Donetsk. He will use the same tricks to produce an overwhelming vote for “independence” and a high turnout. The few international election monitors will object, but Putin counts on repetition of his Big Lie to convince his own people and sympathetic politicians and press in the West that the people of east Ukraine actually want to separate from Ukraine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...or-annexation/
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Wraith, Loki:
I think that we're very far away from an outright military confrontation between the US and Russia. The sort of military actions we've seen by Russia outside of the immediate Ukraine area are standard stuff they do whenever they want to flex their muscles - not really any different from China sending a boat to some random islands in the S. China Sea or whatever. Except that in the case of Russian planes, the US has a lot of experience in calibrating their response to stop shy of precipitating a military confrontation, while I'm rather more concerned of a shooting war erupting over various rocks near China due to simple miscalculation.
The Russians, however, know how far they can push before getting a US response on the typical 'harassment' runs with long range bombers and the like, and have done it frequently in the past. They also know, as Loki pointed out, that the issue in Ukraine is not going to elicit a significant response; pretty much anything in Russia's immediate neighborhood that doesn't impinge on a NATO member isn't likely to engender a US military response. So I'm not particularly concerned on that front - I can't imagine that Putin really thinks he can get away with extending his nonsense to NATO members in the Baltics.
I think that the US/EU response to Ukraine from a military perspective was not unexpected and not too terrible either; they essentially did nothing except mildly boost hardware/troops on the eastern edge of NATO territories. I think that a more robust buildup of forces might have been even better, but it still sent the basic message of 'we're not going to fight you on this one, but keep your hands off NATO.' I think the real policy failure here is on the economic and diplomatic front. As soon as the annexation of Crimea was announced as a fait acccompli, the US (and, ideally, Europe) should have enacted much more far-reaching sanctions that would really bite, to signal our displeasure. Just because we won't risk a military confrontation over a kleptocratic state in Russia's sphere of influence doesn't mean we have to accept naked aggression. A vigorous, coordinated sanctions campaign with clearly defined red lines could ratchet up the pressure far more than the piecemeal and largely symbolic moves put in place so far. It would avoid military entanglements but would send a clear signal rather than the muddied mess we're currently dealing with.
I'm more worried about years down the road than this year. I know there's almost no chance of a large scale war over Ukraine. It's a nagging feeling that we're setting up a chain of events that's going to lead us to having to choose with only terrible options to pick from, and it's getting more and more expensive to ensure a good option remains to us.
What gives you that certainty? Because I don't have it, and I'm equally worried that we actually would let him get away with extending this nonsense to NATO members in the Baltics.The Russians, however, know how far they can push before getting a US response on the typical 'harassment' runs with long range bombers and the like, and have done it frequently in the past. They also know, as Loki pointed out, that the issue in Ukraine is not going to elicit a significant response; pretty much anything in Russia's immediate neighborhood that doesn't impinge on a NATO member isn't likely to engender a US military response. So I'm not particularly concerned on that front - I can't imagine that Putin really thinks he can get away with extending his nonsense to NATO members in the Baltics.
I have no issues with the military side of things. I'm good with next to no military movement. My preference is for economic action, but I think the scale needs to be much larger than what we've done.I think that the US/EU response to Ukraine from a military perspective was not unexpected and not too terrible either; they essentially did nothing except mildly boost hardware/troops on the eastern edge of NATO territories. I think that a more robust buildup of forces might have been even better, but it still sent the basic message of 'we're not going to fight you on this one, but keep your hands off NATO.' I think the real policy failure here is on the economic and diplomatic front. As soon as the annexation of Crimea was announced as a fait acccompli, the US (and, ideally, Europe) should have enacted much more far-reaching sanctions that would really bite, to signal our displeasure. Just because we won't risk a military confrontation over a kleptocratic state in Russia's sphere of influence doesn't mean we have to accept naked aggression. A vigorous, coordinated sanctions campaign with clearly defined red lines could ratchet up the pressure far more than the piecemeal and largely symbolic moves put in place so far. It would avoid military entanglements but would send a clear signal rather than the muddied mess we're currently dealing with.
The tensions right now are far milder than they were at the height of the cold war, and I just don't see Russia ever becoming that big of a threat again. They can be belligerent, and they can certainly make all sorts of trouble for us, but I don't see the tensions escalating to anything like they were a few decades back. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant, but frankly there's not much we can do other than respond vigorously to bad behavior and underline our commitment to treaty allies.
[quote]What gives you that certainty? Because I don't have it, and I'm equally worried that we actually would let him get away with extending this nonsense to NATO members in the Baltics.
Certainty? I have absolutely no certainty on this. I heard an interesting discussion a number of weeks ago on the radio where a political scientist was suggesting that something in Putin's fundamental calculus of risk has changed in recent years, allowing him to become much more assertive in areas where he might have tread more carefully in the past. Certainly he's gotten a lot more blatant about election rigging (at home and elsewhere) as well as crushing dissent, expanding his sphere of influence, and trying to antagonize America. He's clearly dropped any pretense of being interested in engagement after Obama's attempted 'reset' of relations early in his first term.
In that light, I can't predict with any certainty what Putin will do. He clearly thinks downside risks to his current policies are far less than we might have thought, and so far it appears that he's right. That's precisely why I think we should ratchet up the economic and diplomatic pressure over Ukraine while simultaneously reaffirming our commitment to NATO's integrity with both words and actions. It wouldn't hurt if major European defense spenders announced important spending plans and redeployments as well. Clarifying for Putin exactly what sort of risks he will face in this and future interventions will help to stabilize future confrontations IMO.
If we let Putin start doing this in, say, Latvia, then that is a colossal failure of US strategy and NATO in general. I can't see any US administration being that dumb.
Agreed on the economic issue. I actually do think that a modest redeployment of US and Western European assets would not be a bad idea, though. We've moved a few fighter squadrons and the like eastward, but I think that some additional capabilities would not be uncalled-for: a boosted naval presence in both the Baltic and Eastern Med, increased air defenses (e.g. Patriot batteries, AWACS), and perhaps a rotation of a NATO combat brigade through Poland or the Baltic states. Not enough to scare anyone into thinking we'll invade anywhere, but enough to send a message both to Russia and our treaty allies.I have no issues with the military side of things. I'm good with next to no military movement. My preference is for economic action, but I think the scale needs to be much larger than what we've done.
In addition, I think that the long-overdue overhaul of Europe's defense posture and readiness should be undertaken immediately - no reason to waste a crisis. Most NATO members don't spend anywhere near the recommended 2% of GDP on the military, and what they do spend is generally wasted on antiquated manpower-heavy formations and bespoke equipment. Major defense spenders should pool resources and use common technologies to reduce costs (I'm thinking mainly of France, UK, and Germany here), money should be spent on making agile, highly trained, interoperable forces rather than keeping large numbers of poorly trained troops (looking at you, Germany and Italy), etc. A coordinated overhaul in NATO readiness would send an important message, even if it takes years for changes to take effect. Europe needs to stop being a consumer of security, but a producer of it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote