The nutters surface.
Put Ukraine under the NATO umbrella
...while a substantial gamble, it may be the only way to get Putin to stand down.
And Kuchins argues that it is a smaller risk than people fear. “Putin is, after all, a calculating opportunist who will take advantage of weakness where he sees it. He is extremely unlikely, therefore, to risk war if he clearly understands the cost of crossing a real red line. The question is whether he has any belief that the United States and its allies will step up.”These people don't seem to get that Putin has already drawn the red line and that Russia is now mobilizing for war. The NATO chief has already said that NATO is not. The West is not going to war with Russia over the Ukraine, especially when Europe needs Russian energy. Oh and did anyone notice that Russia has the most available oil reserves now and is the swing producer?
10 comments:
The west [neocons et al] have gone one too many regime changes with the Ukraine.
The coups d'état which was revealed in advance by Victoria Nuland [she is married to the famous neocon ideologue Robert Kagan] and Ambassador Pyatt was ill-advised, reckless and certainly contrary to international law and decorum.
Of course International law doesn't necessarily apply to the US, however, Obama nonetheless needs to rein in his minions in this case. There is no conceivable way that Russia or for that matter, the population of Ukraine itself will allow NATO to set up shop. When GWB tried to send NATO to Ukraine, Angela Merkel vetoed the effort.
The EU is certainly not going to foot the bill for keeping the Ukraine afloat, when they won't even look after their own current member nations.
Threatening Putin is not a wise thing. Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea have already pushed back and openly rejected the US backed coup and have no intentions of signing up to NATO or the EU.
I can just see the US attempting to persuade the EU to impose economic sanctions on Russia. Good luck convincing Germany and all those people freezing next winter.
Tom -- I have also seen that Russia now has the most oil reserves. However, do they have the excess production capacity to actual act as the swing producer, or are they already operating near their limit? If they are near capacity I would bet that Putin is building more as fast as he can. He would love to be actually in control of the world oil price.
I haven't seen anything on that, John, which is not surprising since it's usually secret. But Russia certainly has the industrial capacity to do so. Resource extraction is it's chief asset, so I would assume that Russia is focused on the technology.
Actually, a European-Russian strategic partnership makes most sense. Russians are Europeans culturally and ethnically in the first place, and it's only historical circumstance that has separated them into enemy camps. Europe has the production facilities and the markets and Russia has the energy and natural resources. Working together, they would be formidable.
If not, Russia will turn to China for its strategic partnership. But Russia is more naturally and culturally European, so this would not be as good a fit, especially now that Russia has abandoned socialism.
I don't see sanctions being effective on Russia, either. This would just provide further incentive to disengage economically from the West and join an alliance of emerging nations wary of Western domination through markets, recognizing that neoliberalism > neo-imperialism > neocolonialism.
China is now India's largest trading partner and Russia and Iran are natural suppliers of energy to China and India.
Moreover, central Asia is in Russia and China's sphere of influence, and the West would have to be crazy to get involved in a land war there.
That would leave Europe dependent on the volatile Middle East for energy.
This is not the slam dunk the neocons think it is.
As long as Putin just grabs the part of the Ukraine that WANTS TO BE part of the Russian sphere of influence, I see no need to "get tough". If part of the Ukraine wants to be part of that sphere, I have no objections.
It's truly laughable to hear Kerry and Obama pontificate to Russia relative to so called unjustified worldwide aggression. The Ukraine mess is much too complicated, even for the world's super power to intervene into, which makes State Department platitudes embarrassingly unnerving. Putin holds all the cards here, and you can bet the farm the EU isn't going to do shit to stop him (only takes one country to veto any sanctions).
As far as conflicts go this is largely an internecine battle among countries with close family ties. We might have a tangential national interest in the outcome, but for the most part it's none of our business. I realize the Obama administration is still pissed at Putin over Syria but this isn't the time nor place to get even.
We might be the biggest kid on the block, but anyone who thinks we can impose our will in order to dictate marching orders to Russia is delusional at best, neocon rhetoric notwithstanding.
"It's truly laughable to hear Kerry and Obama pontificate to Russia relative to so called unjustified worldwide aggression. "
How true!
Kerry to Russia: "You Can't Just Invade A Country on False Pretenses"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsg5qnNFWzw&feature=youtu.be
Most people don't seem to realize that Crimea was Russian territory until Khrushchev gave it to the Ukraine as a gift.
I don't think that Putin ever expected that there would be military action. The Ukraine military is divided between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians in the first place, and in the second, they are no match for Russia. It was clear from the get-go that NATO would not be going to war over the Ukraine any more that it would over Georgia. Putin made his point, which was to draw a red line.
This is not over yet, however. Since the deposed president was democratically elected and he has not yet been impeached.
The US is not coming out of this with clean hands either, since it is looking more and more like a coup engineered with the aid of US black ops — yet again, as in "disaster capitalism." The US is all for democracy unless the vote goes against what it perceived is US interests. Then the machine goes into action, as it is now in other democratic countries that have tilted leftwards. It's a pattern.
The big question still to be resolved is who is going to pay for stabilizing Ukraine economically.
"The US is not coming out of this with clean hands either, since it is looking more and more like a coup engineered with the aid of US black ops — yet again, as in "disaster capitalism."
Exactly, Tom.
Listening to Obama and Kerry gloat about our moral supremacy along with the need to let Ukrainians self determine (supposedly) their mode of democratic outcomes (one corrupt faction replacing the other--lol_) rings awfully hollow.
The administration doth protest too hard here. Something else if afoot , but I don't know precisely what it is. Treating Russia like some two-bit rogue entity is surely a bit much. It almost has a gratuitous provoking feel to it. It's as if the US is picking a fight for general purpose, certainly not national interest. Then again, it could be as simple as payback for the Syrian fiasco. At any rate, it sure doesn't have the feel of thoughtful diplomacy on our end. It feels more in your face than anything.
"The big question still to be resolved is who is going to pay for stabilizing Ukraine economically"
Who do you think is going to pay, Tom? We are, of course. Obama has already asked Congress for a big aid package.
This comes as he cuts food stamps, unemployment insurance and other means of support for needy Americans. The lack of any jobs program. Higher taxes unless you're rich of course, then they're lowered.
Shameful. Monumentally hypocritical in all respects.
Post a Comment