Ukraine

das_nut said:
I still think the US and EU should have been stricter on Russia if they valued world peace. But I only base that on Russia's repeated de facto and de jure annexation of neighboring regions.
Click to expand...
I have to agree.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/14/pentagon-russians-black-sea/7700777/
" WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon said a Russian aircraft made about a dozen low level flights near a U.S. Navy warship in the Black Sea, calling the actions "provocative."

The USS Donald Cook, a guided missile destroyer, was conducting routine operations in the western Black Sea on Saturday when the Russian attack aircraft flew near the ship and did not respond to multiple warnings from the American warship.

The incident comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia over Russia's actions in Ukraine.

The Russian Su-24 flew close by but not directly over the American ship, the Pentagon said.

The incident took 90 minutes during which the Americans repeatedly queried the Russians but received no response.

The Pentagon said in a statement Monday that the Russian aircraft was unarmed and never posed a threat to the American warship, but the actions were "unprofessional" and "provocative."

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that President Obama expects to speak "soon" with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin by phone, "perhaps today." "

'PERHAPS' TODAY?!?! Just take your time, no problem here.
 
ledboots said:
The Pentagon said in a statement Monday that the Russian aircraft was unarmed and never posed a threat to the American warship, but the actions were "unprofessional" and "provocative."
Click to expand...

The SU-24 can launch the KH-31 sea skimming anti-ship missile from 100 kilometers away. I doubt they could tell whether or not it was armed from that range, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume the Pentagon is just saying it was unarmed because they realize most people won't know any better and don't want to appear any weaker or unwilling to act than they already do. The politician equivalent of saying "nah, we weren't really scared" while simultaneously searching for a change of underwear. When a SU-24 gets within 100 miles of a ship it is a considered a threat by pretty much anyone qualified to make that determination.

It should also be noted that a modest chunk of Syria's air force consists of SU-24's configured as medium bombers, and they've been quite effective against the rebels (and their neighborhoods).
 
ledboots said:
I have to agree.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/14/pentagon-russians-black-sea/7700777/
" WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon said a Russian aircraft made about a dozen low level flights near a U.S. Navy warship in the Black Sea, calling the actions "provocative."

The USS Donald Cook, a guided missile destroyer, was conducting routine operations in the western Black Sea on Saturday when the Russian attack aircraft flew near the ship and did not respond to multiple warnings from the American warship.

The incident comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia over Russia's actions in Ukraine.

The Russian Su-24 flew close by but not directly over the American ship, the Pentagon said.

The incident took 90 minutes during which the Americans repeatedly queried the Russians but received no response.

The Pentagon said in a statement Monday that the Russian aircraft was unarmed and never posed a threat to the American warship, but the actions were "unprofessional" and "provocative."

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that President Obama expects to speak "soon" with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin by phone, "perhaps today." "

'PERHAPS' TODAY?!?! Just take your time, no problem here.
Click to expand...

So you're advocating for a military response?
 
Mischief said:
So you're advocating for a military response?
Click to expand...

Why military? The United States still swings around about a quarter of the world's GDP. The US could make it very costly for Russia's illegal and questionable annexation of Crimea.

I think military buildups will happen, but that's a given, since Russia has repeatedly invaded and occupied its neighbors, both since the fall of the USSR, and before. But that doesn't need to be the targeted response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
If Russia is saying they don't have anyone in Ukraine, then surely they wouldn't object if we sent in a few troops to help deal with the militants occupying the government buildings.
 
das_nut said:
Why military? The United States still swings around about a quarter of the world's GDP. The US could make it very costly for Russia's illegal and questionable annexation of Crimea.

I think military buildups will happen, but that's a given, since Russia has repeatedly invaded and occupied its neighbors, both since the fall of the USSR, and before. But that doesn't need to be the targeted response.
Click to expand...

The problem is that if we throw in the sanctions, then they do it anyway and find a way to compensate for those sanctions (such as by making agreements with other sanctioned countries like North Korea or Iran), then we lose a lot of leverage with all of the above.

Sanctions can indeed be a valuable tool, but when used in excess they force alliances of necessity.

NK has mineral resources and needs oil. Iran has oil and needs mineral resources. Russia has and needs some of each and has the infrastructure to facilitate the strategic alliance and the military leverage to give pause to those who would interfere.

An oversimplified example, but you see the problem?

I don't have all the answers, but I know enough about the nature of cause/effect in the context of this global game of chess to see where things are heading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
Sanctions are the easiest option, I would think. I believe Russia was already trading and friends with Iran, right? And now they are friends with North Korea too. A country with a regime that is so repressive and reprehensible it can only be favourably be compared to the Rouge Khmer regime of Cambodia. Not exactly a PR asset.

In the big picture of events, it looks like we're having another "Cold" War. If not already, it certainly is heading in that direction. Russia is allied with Shiite Islam, plus old friends of the Soviet Union. The West are the same as before, plus new friends in eastern Europe. China is only giving cautious support to the Russian alliance, as they probably don't want Russia to grow too powerful, and their interests may be in conflict in some areas.

All sides are playing a cynical game where they try to protect their own interests, whereas ethics is a lesser consideration.
 
yakherder said:
The problem is that if we throw in the sanctions, then they do it anyway and find a way to compensate for those sanctions (such as by making agreements with other sanctioned countries like North Korea or Iran), then we lose a lot of leverage with all of the above.
Click to expand...

We can play this game in a way that benefits us. Right now, Russia's economy is running on commodity exports.

We can attack both the supply and the demand side of the equation. Right now would be an excellent time to take steps to further regulate greater efficiencies in use of petroleum and natural gas. Yes, Russia can try to shift its output to other countries, but there's a few problems with that - infrastructure ain't there, and fungible goods tend to react on a global scale when demand is cut.

Considering how many pipelines are running through Ukraine from Russia to the EU, and their vulnerability to sabotage by a Ukrainian ****** at Russia, as well as previous games Russia has played with natural gas, I'd say it's a wise move for the EU to cut the cord. Russian fossil fuels are no longer a stable supply for the EU.

And the US's dependance on imported fossil fuels (while mostly not from Russia) isn't great for the US's economy either.

Same with other efforts. Actions can have dual purposes. They can both be used to punish Russia, as well as protect the EU and US from economic destabilization brought by Russia's invasions in the near abroad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots and yakherder
Indian Summer said:
Sanctions are the easiest option, I would think. I believe Russia was already trading and friends with Iran, right? And now they are friends with North Korea too. A country with a regime that is so repressive and reprehensible it can only be favourably be compared to the Rouge Khmer regime of Cambodia. Not exactly a PR asset.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure "favourably" is the right term.
 
From the USA Today article:
"...But he said the Russian side has used the specter of anti-Semitism in a cynical manner. Russia and its allies in Ukraine have issued multiple stories about the threat posed to Jews by Ukraine's new pro-Western government in Kiev, Salberg said.

"The message is a message to all the people that is we're going to exert our power over you," he said. "Jews are the default scapegoat throughout history for despots to send a message to the general public: Don't step out of line."
----------
This is so upsetting, as I have see anti-semitism raising its ugly head again in recent years.

My (Catholic) Lithuanian great-grandfather and great-grandmother and their youngest baby, still a nursling, were sent to Siberian work camps and their farmlands confiscated by Russia. They were never heard from again. My grandfather and his 3 younger siblings were sneaked out of the country by Jewish neighbors, in the back of a hay wagon. They risked their lives for these children they barely knew.

My grandfather was only 16, the oldest, and he joined the US Navy to become a citizen. He was a minesweeper on a warship in WW1, pushing mines out of the way with a long pole. Like in the cartoons.

Everything is cyclic. We think the world is civilized, but we are always wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yakherder
That's one reason I love studying my family history, and why I think genealogy is a worthy hobby. It's amazing what an in=depth search turns up.

It reminds me of the alleged African proverb: "When elephants battle, it's the ground that suffers."

(My apologies in advance to those I may offend - I *know* Africa is more than one culture, one ethnicity, one race. But I've always heard it as an "African" proverb. *sigh*)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
ledboots said:
Everything is cyclic. We think the world is civilized, but we are always wrong.
Click to expand...

The advantage of being cynical is that if you never believe the world is civilized or, to be more scientifically accurate, that human nature within the context of civilization, for which we are not yet adapted, is itself the problem, then you don't have to feel too let down when you see those issues materialize you knew were building up all along. Nonetheless it is, again, somewhat frustrating.
 
ledboots said:
"Jews are the default scapegoat throughout history for despots to send a message to the general public: Don't step out of line."
Click to expand...
You can't exaggerate much more than this. Obviously the Indians have suffered more and I could see a person arguing the Russians have suffered more as well since their governments have been very brutal at times. I understand Jews have been victims at times, but a person still shouldn't greatly exaggerate their suffering.
 
Top Bottom