ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

one thing i noticed during obama's speech yesterday is that he really didn't threaten russia w/ anything. not military action (okay, bush took military action off the table for georgia) but not even trade agreements, partnerships, etc (which iirc gates threatened pretty early on in the georgia campaign). he was basically like "ukraine deserves to determine their own fate, russia it won't be great if you stay" and that was that. idk. it seems of a piece w/ his general policies imho.

I'm not sure any US President would have enough weight to shift Russia's thinking. Military action is not a credible threat and iirc Russia exports less to the US than it does to Poland. EU would have more muscle but needs gas / coal.

Yeah, Obama could do absolutely nothing. Bush wrecked the foreign policy for decades to come.

and, it seems to me from mordy's comment, that the kinds of things obama arguably could have done to scare russia away from its ukraine intervention -- e.g., a u.s. strike on syria; increasingly hostile posturing, and possibly a u.s. strike on, iran -- could have been disastrous episodes for the u.s.

at the very least re syria he shouldn't have made a red line that he wasn't prepared to back up

like it's one thing to not threaten at all and so much worse to threaten and then not follow up on the threat

that part's fair.

yeah there's nothing obama can do. i agree that he shouldn't have made threats.

The Kyiv chief prosecutor (from Svoboda) has said that any groups holding referenda will be "severely punished".

he's the neo-nazi one, right? that's charming.

yeah, you're right that russians in the east have some legitimate reasons to fear, or at least not to recognize, the new government, such as it is. i highly doubt any of the big words coming from kyiv would amount to much in the end, though, even w/o russian invasion.

The irony is that if Russia were at peak Cold War powers, the US would probably have more power to persuade, and likely be forced to intervene. But because Russia is nowhere near at peak power, and because Russia these days has little direct bearing on US policy, despite being more "powerful" the US is almost forced to take a sideline stance.

That said, I'm not even going to bother reading an opinion, any opinion, from Palin. She's an idiot who has proven her worthlessness so many times over that an opinion from her likely ratifies the opposite as the valid opinion. See also: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton ...

this seems so oversimplified and pollyannaish that it defies belief: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nyrblog+%28NYRblog%29

the author seems to think that "propaganda" is wholly the product of one "side" of this conflict.

we've seen similar articles about the arab spring - it's inevitable that revolutions, esp in infancy, will always seem more romantic and charming than they later turn out.

he does get at some of the complications in the latter half of the article, but i think he is naive in thinking that the character of the "transitional government" is fundamentally liberal and multicultural—some of the actions taken by kyiv in the preceding days suggest otherwise. none of this of course justifies Putin's invasion of opportunity.

Sunday, March 2, 2014 in WASHINGTON, DC, MEETING AT NOON WITH FRIENDS TO DEMAND "RUSSIA - GO HOME" AND #stoprussianoccupation of #Ukraine. Dupont Circle
PLEASE JOIN US!!!!

Facebook message I received

rubio: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/8-things-obama-must-do-about-ukraine-104128.html#.UxLAHtxRhO5

"Fifth, the U.S. and our allies should put forward a condemnatory resolution in the United Nations Security Council. A Russian or Chinese veto would make clear to the world the hypocrisy of these governments, since they say they oppose foreign intervention into the affairs of sovereign countries—unless of course they are the ones intervening."

THAT'LL SHOW EM

rubio's 8 things obama must do about ukraine are lame.

rush's 8 things obama must do about ukraine are bold.

• resign;
• resign;
• resign;
• resign;
• resign;
• resign;
• apologize and resign;
• resign in disgrace;

http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/

i think i just got my brain into a knot

greenwald's response to the above: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/01/journalistic-independence/

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/

this seems like a good roundup for people who are behind

Yanukovych built for himself a series of extravagant homes, perhaps the ugliest in architectural history.

I kinda like it?

http://www.nybooks.com/media/img/blogimages/yanukovych-house_jpg_600x654_q85.jpg

rubio/cruz 2016 -- ukraine, you saw, you conquered

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhvIcQ2CQAAttsr.jpg:large

http://i.imgur.com/85nDLvk.jpg

I lol'd

The Admiral Kyiv made head of the Ukrainian navy yesterday has just sworn allegiance to the Republic of Crimea and told all the troops under his command to ignore any orders coming from the capital. Not sure how many will follow him.

russia didn't hesitate invading georgia even w/ meathead warking bush in office

worth noting that this was a response to georgia's invasion of south ossetia.

https://24.media.tumblr.com/90c89980510c84634ef509adf5de3a0e/tumblr_n1sjpnqwic1r6s5zro1_250.gifhttps://24.media.tumblr.com/ea0deff2a634c1f5503d88d4af298ba1/tumblr_n1sjpnqwic1r6s5zro2_250.gif

This is a bold move:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/ukraine-turns-to-its-oligarchs-for-political-help.html?referrer=

Kyiv has put billionaire oligarchs in charge of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk, presumably because they have enough influence behind the scenes in the East to theoretically keep some of the institutions onside.

Appointing oligarchs could go down very badly with pro-revolution, anti-corruption groups though.

Yes, they should be freely elected in totally transparent and totally fair elections.

Lots of interesting perspectives on this thread. Perhaps surprising, but when I was thinking of where to go online for well-rounded analysis I thought of ILE first, and you guys didn't let me down. The major media outlets (NY Times, WaPo, etc) have an annoying tendency to frame things in terms of US domestic politics - like everything that happens is portrayed as either a rebuff to Obama or a victory for him - as though the number of one thing on people's minds in Russia and Ukraine is what does the US president think. Personally I'm 100% A-OK with Obama's handling of this so far. I certainly don't think US needs to be out in front of EU in taking a hard line - it's their backyard.

is there gas and oil ukraine ? is taht what theyre really after

Well, no. But important gas-lines from Russia runs through Ukraine.

er yes there are: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26418664

Yes, that article is about the gas-lines. Ukraine doesn't even have enough gas for themselves.

This is bleak

http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/russian-invasion-ukraine-push-west-economic-war/441

xp q was whether there are gas fields in the Ukraine, which there most definitely are

q was on whether or not Russia was after the gas in Ukraine, so the relevant information must be that Ukraine doesn't even have gas enough for themselves. Whether or not they have some gas is not really important, they obviously don't have enough to cause the invasion.

couple days old now, but:

http://world.time.com/2014/02/28/crimea-russia-putin-night-wolves/

Because their uniforms and vehicles had no identifying markers of any kind, the troops patrolling the streets, highways and airports of the Crimea could at least plausibly have been part of irregular militia forces, which locals have been forming to defend against the revolution. Moscow was therefore able to deny any knowledge as to which troops were part of the regular movements of the Black Sea Fleet and which ones weren’t. This meant that on Friday, the only identifiably Russian force descending on the Crimea were the Night Wolves.

Since 2009, they have been one of the defining elements of Russian soft power in Eastern Europe. Their biker rallies and mass rides through countries like Ukraine, Estonia, Serbia, Romania and Bosnia serve to promote Slavic pride and Russian patriotism in Moscow’s former Soviet dominions. President Putin has often joined them on these rides, although he usually plays it safe by choosing a three-wheeler.

obv the "unidentified" troops have been now

Ukraine's position as a gas transit route is hugely important to Russia and the EU but I don't think it's directly relevant here.

The bigger issue for Russia and the US is NATO membership, which is one of the few things that Yanukovich and Tymoshenko disagreed on. The US, since Clinton, has been trying to encircle Russia with sympathetic allies with mixed success.

The suggestions that this was a US coup are daft but there has been a lot of meddling and it's not all in the services of advancing democracy.

Xps

what about the euro? I thought that was the unreast

Ties to Europe are a big factor in domestic politics, and from the Russian side, but the EU doesn't really have a stake in destabilising Ukraine to achieve them and the US, although it supports pro-EU parties, does so for other reasons I think.

walt weighs in: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/03/no_contest_ukraine_obama_putin

There's plenty of room for finger-pointing and blame casting here, but the taproot of the debacle in Ukraine was a failure to distinguish between power and interests. Power is a useful thing to have in international politics, but any serious student of foreign policy knows that the stronger side does not always win. If it did, the United States would have won in Vietnam, would have persuaded India, Pakistan, and North Korea not to test nuclear weapons, and would have Afghan President Hamid Karzai dancing to our tune. In the real world, however, weaker states often care more about the outcome than stronger states do and are therefore willing to run more risks and incur larger costs to get what they want.

Unfortunately, U.S. leaders have repeatedly lost sight of this fact since the end of the Cold War. Because the United States is so powerful and so secure, it can meddle in lots of places without putting its own security at risk. United States officials tend to think they have the answer to every problem, and they reflexively assume that helping other societies become more like us is always the "right thing to do." Because we've become accustomed to our self-appointed role as Leader of the Free World, Washington is quick to proclaim redlines and issue high-minded demands, convinced that others will do its bidding -- if it barks loudly enough.

Unfortunately, America's remarkably favorable geopolitical position also means that the outcome of many global disputes don't matter all that much to Washington, and still less to the American people. The result is a paradox: primacy allows the United States to interfere in lots of global disputes, but many of the issues it gets involved in are of secondary importance and not worth much risk, blood, or treasure. Why? Because the United States will be fine no matter how things turn out. It has the power to act almost anywhere, but its vital interests are rarely fully engaged.

That is certainly the case in Ukraine, a country whose entire economy is about the size of Kentucky's. Last year, total U.S. trade with Ukraine was a measly $3 billion, less than the city budget of Philadelphia and about .00018 percent of America's gross domestic product (GDP). Ukraine's political system has been a mess ever since independence in 1991 and its economy is nearly bankrupt and needs massive outside assistance. It would be nice if Ukraine developed effective political institutions, but neither the security nor prosperity of the United States depend on that happening, either now or in the foreseeable future. Put simply: Ukraine is not an arena on which America's future depends in the slightest.

Since 1992, the U.S. approach to Russia and Eastern Europe has been guided by the assumption that Western-style democracy was the wave of the future and that the United States could extend its reach eastward and offer security guarantees to almost anyone who wanted them, but without ever facing a serious backlash.

Tbrr, I would say that US policy both within Russia and wrt its neighbors hasn't been about extending democracy, it has been about limiting the ability of Russia to pose a threat to the US again. Perhaps understandably given the context most of them grew up in, a lot of politicians and security officials are convinced Russia could somehow regain its Soviet might and challenge the US head to head again.

It's not going to happen but the focus / obsession with Eastern Europe central asia throughout the Clinton years has been convincingly argued to have led to not enough attention was paid to threats from the middle East, the rise of Chinese power in Africa, the estrangement of Latin America, etc.

Weird grammar going on there.

in addition to the institutionalised framework of Cold War understanding, I'm wondering how much this sort of annexation triggers basic responses derived from understanding of late 19thC/WW1 balance of power and WW2 causes.

feels like the interpretation of the strategic value of the Crimea is still likely to based on that period of history.

idk whether Russia controlling the Crimea and the Black Sea is still that big a deal - it probably is, right? also if the response is beset by military teaching of that period of history, it's understandable: the manner of the trigger - the fabrication of incidents requiring a defence force and the deniability of the initial occupying forces has a childish duplicity that's characteristic of that period, esp with Hitler's annexations.

it's going to make any military strategists jumpy as hell even if S Walt's modern interpretation of the value of Ukraine to the US is correct.

President Barack Obama said on Monday that Russia violated international law with its military intervention in Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLNqTbBu-zo

A couple of links:

Fascinating (and prescient) Charles King piece on Sevastopol from 2009:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2009/05/01/city-on-the-edge/

Interesting analysis of current situation by Anatol Lievin:

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2014/03/02/why-obama-shouldnt-fall-for-putins-ukrainian-folly/ideas/nexus/