Ukraine crisis: Obama orders ban on Crimea trade

[Mindlight]

I was unclear. Russia's military threat to Nato is simply a soft invasion by supporting paramilitary uprisings such as that in Moldova and Ukraine. It's more about Putin's prestige as the defender of greater Russia than any actual substance in protecting a minority. Russia probably does perceive a real threat of Nato and the US moving to make Russia's nuclear threat less of an actual threat. But, the question is whether Nato can allow Russia to continue its soft invasions.

Russian fears are exaggerated in line with their leaders ambitions. But a Barbarosa against Russia today is not that far from Moscow at start.

Also people who live in the Eastern Ukraine are suffering massively in this continual conflict and the innocent are dying in this fight. Putin keeps the conflict going like an open wound on the Ukrainian state but he has not been clear about what he actually wants. I suspect he wants it all but realistically a the Crimea and perhaps Donetzk is the most he can expect. This callous indifference to the loss of life being incurred has undermined his reputation and the passion of the locals for Russian rule.

He has not done these soft tactics in any NATO state though Russian groups have been on peaceful marches in the Baltics for instance and there was a lot of Facebook activity by pro Russians at the outbreak of the Ukrainian problem.

We would not need a missile shield so much if we could establish clear boundaries.

Putin invaded Georgia on W Bush's watch, so I can't see him as much of a strong leader in Europe. He's not the man his father was, or even Clinton. But, Obama's foreign policy is inconsistent, and was initially naïve.

Bush would probably also have considered the ukraine like Georgia to be Russias back yard. The Cuba or Mexico of Russia. Obamas activity in opposing Russian aggression was magnified by his ambitions to squeeze Russia here. But his policy in the Ukraine increasingly appears to have been a unilateral American one or if the EU was involved a badly thought through one which failed to consider the costs of such ambitions and what they would provoke

 

[Mindlight]

I suspect you are correct that the EU was not involved in pushing the Maiden, and I suspect that there were rogue official and non-official US movers supporting the Maiden protests, and especially in opposing moves that aimed at just delaying any approval of economic alliances until after new elections. Further, I believe we both agree that Russia's interests in Crimea are much stronger and different than in Eastern Ukraine. And, Russia's commercial ties to western companies like Volkswagen and GM are implicated in whatever the EU does with Ukraine. But all that can be negotiated.

Yes

I suspect that Putin views the US's endgame at removing him. That's counterproductive unless there's actually no way to work a deal with him to leave political boundaries as they are, and protect minorities within them by political accommodation. But the problem is he now has a track record going back through two US administrations of acting differently. You cannot do a deal with a guy you don't trust to abide by the deal.

It seems clear to me that removing Putin is the ambition of significant factions of the US government though I do not know to what extent this has State department support. Forbes voted him rather than Obama as the most powerful man in the world. My barber a Kurdish Christian refugee was singing his praises while cutting my hair just a month ago. He is perceived as standing up to america at a time when Americas failures in ME policy for instance are assumed to be obvious.

Also i do not think this double dealing has been one sided. Obama was actively seeking to remove Assad ( not a major issue with me were it not for IS being the main alternative). Assad is a major Russian ally and buys Russian weopans and hosts a Russian naval base in the Med. Then Obama was perceived rightly or wrongly to have supported Euromaidan deposing a pro Russian premier of the Ukraine. The Secession of the Crimea and subsequent annexation by Russia seems to have had overwhelming local support.

Putin like Obama is a politician playing to his local electorate. Staying in power and achieving his vision of a resurgent Russia are Putins key motivations here.

Putin aside, I don't think it's in anyone's interest to encourage anyone in the east to think military moves against Russia are in their interests.

Absolutely

 

[georgephillip]

That map makes more sense than the current boundaries. How clear are you that is an actual plan though. Turkey for example is far more powerful than it was in the 80s and has moved in an Islamist direction. It is blocking an independent Kurdish state and publically American policy is for a united Iraq.

Colonel Ralph Peters is one voice calling for the map in question:
"Regarding Iraq, he (Peters) wrote, 'might it not have been wiser – as several of us suggested in 2003 – to shake off Europe's vicious legacies and give Kurds their state, Iraqi Shias their state, and the country's Sunni Arabs a rump Iraq to do with as they wished?'"
You make a good point about Turkey's move toward Islamism. I'm not sure if that would trump its current NATO status and possible integration into the EU, or not; however, I'm pretty sure the US policy for a united Iraq is just another lie the Rich tell. As far as Saudi Arabia and Jordan are concerned, I suspect their elites will do as they are told or face regime change.
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Mindlight]

That map makes more sense than the current boundaries. How clear are you that is an actual plan though. Turkey for example is far more powerful than it was in the 80s and has moved in an Islamist direction. It is blocking an independent Kurdish state and publically American policy is for a united Iraq.

Colonel Ralph Peters is one voice calling for the map in question:
"Regarding Iraq, he (Peters) wrote, 'might it not have been wiser – as several of us suggested in 2003 – to shake off Europe's vicious legacies and give Kurds their state, Iraqi Shias their state, and the country's Sunni Arabs a rump Iraq to do with as they wished?'"
You make a good point about Turkey's move toward Islamism. I'm not sure if that would trump its current NATO status and possible integration into the EU, or not; however, I'm pretty sure the US policy for a united Iraq is just another lie the Rich tell. As far as Saudi Arabia and Jordan are concerned, I suspect their elites will do as they are told or face regime change.
Ralph Peters - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The map makes sense. An independent Kurdish state seems fair to me given the suffering of those people under Sadam and the Turks. In the days of the Cold war it made sense to oppose the Communist elements in Kurdish terrorist groups in Turkey. Today the Kurdish enclave is one of the few areas of the Middle East with a reasonable government, competent military and protection for minorities like Christians. But if the Americans propose this Turkey will just start supporting IS and Irans influence in Shia Iraq would grow. Also the rump Sunni state proposed would be dominated by IS. Maybe this should have been done in 2003

 

[georgephillip]

The map makes sense. An independent Kurdish state seems fair to me given the suffering of those people under Sadam and the Turks. In the days of the Cold war it made sense to oppose the Communist elements in Kurdish terrorist groups in Turkey

Kurds and Palestinians certainly deserve sovereignty, but I can't help wondering how independent either state would be. The Kurdish homeland may depend on a "buffer zone" between Syria and Turkey with NATO playing a prominent role.
"Much of the conflict between Washington and Ankara has focused on whether to establish a buffer zone between Turkey and Syria and, if so, how it might be policed;

"Erdogan wants the Unites States to establish a no-fly zone, claiming that the two nations have a shared interest in defeating the Baathist regime led by Bashar al-Assad;

"Obama, however, wants to minimize direct American involvement.

"Much of the territory that would be in the buffer zone now is home to Kurds.

"Allowing Turkey to assert hegemony over this region would jump-start a radical demographic shift, eliminating the spirit of Kurdish nationalism in western Kurdistan and undermining efforts to ensure non-Islamist influence within any future Syrian government.

"Creating a 'Turkish belt' above the 'Iranian belt' (linking Tehran to Lebanon) would essentially supplant Kurds from land they’ve inhabited for millennia.

"Kurds would justifiably oppose establishment of settlements by Turkish Turkmen that, along with those built by Arab Baathists, would infiltrate this region with peoples who predictably would harbor fealty to Ankara or Damascus."
NATO Must Help the Kurds Now National Review Online

 

[bendog]

Responding to posts 41 and 42.

I really don’t think George W and Obama have any differences in regard to Putin and Ukraine. The difference is that W was a pariah in terms of any foreign policy coalition after the Iraq invasion. Georgia took W by surprise. Obama has options. I don’t think anyone can know whether Obama foresaw, or helped engineer, the Maiden overthrow of the pro-Moscow govt. What’s officially said is that our policy was not overthrow, but merely to halt any economic deals till a new election. I believe some Americans acted contrary to that policy and pushed overthrow.

US foreign policy often is hopelessly naive. Germans certainly don’t see Reagan’s role in ending the cold war as do most Americans, and personally I think the Germans are more realistic. BushI knew foreign policy from day one. Clinton had the good sense to stay away from it, until the EU told him what they wanted.

Curiously, there’s a similarity between W and Obama. W bought the neocons’ fantasy that there was some social pining for democracy in Iraq. Obama bought the liberal fantasy that the Arab Spring was going to lead to arabs embracing democracy. They both became more realists after their fantasy turned into horrors.

As for Crimea, generally secession is a dangerous thing. It tends to be very destructive to nations. (Iraq, Rwanda, Syria, etc) But, Crimea was actually Russian, and not Ukranian, for decades prior to Kruschev "giving it back." And prior to recent events, Ukraine was essentially leasing it to Putin.
Putin’s really been his own worst enemy in this. Prior to mechanizing the annexation, Putin had all the land bridge from Russia to Crimea that he wanted. Ukrainians would let him drive as many trucks as he wanted in exchange for cheap gas. The part of Ukraine that is most ant-West and pro Russian in terms of both identity and economics is the east. Prior to that, I don’t think there was any chance of the EU dealing with Ukraine in a partnership. Now ..... maybe Ukraine can emulate Poland.

I cannot agree that there’s a comparison between Obama and Putin. Obama is done in two years. He has no future in politics. Perhaps he’ll go back to being a pontificating elitist law school professor. Putin has no intention of exiting the political stage. His economic lifesblood demands that he remain at least the defacto head of state, with the power to destroy any oligarch who defies him.

There are pretty clear solutions to this, or at least parameters to a solution. But they depend upon Putin being rational. His constituency is not rational, so there’s no guarantee. But, if he agrees to enforceable prohibitions on soft invasions, then Ukraine can go back to getting gas and allowing Crimea to remain Russian, or at least an independent territory with Russian bases. Ukraine sells food and water to Crimea. There are no Nato ties.

Prior to the Russian support of separatists in the East, the obvious solution was a Ukraine with no economic affiliation, but rather a more or less free trade zone, with either the EU or Russia having a power to enforce a tariff on any Ukranian good. I suspect Putin has poisoned the chances for that. Perhaps the eastern Ukraine is nominally Ukranian, but essentially non-aligned with Kiev. Ukraine is set for eventual EU membership with requirements for free market reforms along the way.

 

[Mindlight]

Kurds and Palestinians certainly deserve sovereignty, but I can't help wondering how independent either state would be.

Given the radicalised nature of Palestinians in Gaza I do not think a 2 state solution is viable. The Palestinians on the West bank are more responsible. But there is some basic geography to consider here. Israel is so small one wonders if it can be a viable state without the West Bank.

My preferred solution would be to give a coastal part of Saudia Arabia to the Jordanian Palestinians on the West Bank and to return Gaza to Egypt. But neither Saudia Arabia or Egypt are keen on this idea.

This matter will come to head very soon because of the water issue. The Palestinians are trying to outbreed the Israelis but there is not enough water for the projected population. Since the Israelis have control of all the water resources....

The Kurdish homeland may depend on a "buffer zone" between Syria and Turkey with NATO playing a prominent role.

"Much of the conflict between Washington and Ankara has focused on whether to establish a buffer zone between Turkey and Syria and, if so, how it might be policed;

"Erdogan wants the Unites States to establish a no-fly zone, claiming that the two nations have a shared interest in defeating the Baathist regime led by Bashar al-Assad;

"Obama, however, wants to minimize direct American involvement.

"Much of the territory that would be in the buffer zone now is home to Kurds.

"Allowing Turkey to assert hegemony over this region would jump-start a radical demographic shift, eliminating the spirit of Kurdish nationalism in western Kurdistan and undermining efforts to ensure non-Islamist influence within any future Syrian government.

"Creating a 'Turkish belt' above the 'Iranian belt' (linking Tehran to Lebanon) would essentially supplant Kurds from land they’ve inhabited for millennia.

"Kurds would justifiably oppose establishment of settlements by Turkish Turkmen that, along with those built by Arab Baathists, would infiltrate this region with peoples who predictably would harbor fealty to Ankara or Damascus."
NATO Must Help the Kurds Now National Review Online

I think the Turks are being short sighted here and the Americans are overestimating their value to NATO. They have been no help whatsoever in most recent conflicts. The Kurdish enclave in Iraq (which has oil) should be expanded into the Kurdish parts of Syria and granted sovereign independence. This gives the US a ground force (the Peshmerga) to work with against IS and Assad if necessary.

 

[Mindlight]

Responding to posts 41 and 42.

I really don’t think George W and Obama have any differences in regard to Putin and Ukraine. The difference is that W was a pariah in terms of any foreign policy coalition after the Iraq invasion. Georgia took W by surprise. Obama has options. I don’t think anyone can know whether Obama foresaw, or helped engineer, the Maiden overthrow of the pro-Moscow govt. What’s officially said is that our policy was not overthrow, but merely to halt any economic deals till a new election. I believe some Americans acted contrary to that policy and pushed overthrow.

US foreign policy often is hopelessly naive. Germans certainly don’t see Reagan’s role in ending the cold war as do most Americans, and personally I think the Germans are more realistic. BushI knew foreign policy from day one. Clinton had the good sense to stay away from it, until the EU told him what they wanted.

Curiously, there’s a similarity between W and Obama. W bought the neocons’ fantasy that there was some social pining for democracy in Iraq. Obama bought the liberal fantasy that the Arab Spring was going to lead to arabs embracing democracy. They both became more realists after their fantasy turned into horrors.

As for Crimea, generally secession is a dangerous thing. It tends to be very destructive to nations. (Iraq, Rwanda, Syria, etc) But, Crimea was actually Russian, and not Ukranian, for decades prior to Kruschev "giving it back." And prior to recent events, Ukraine was essentially leasing it to Putin.
Putin’s really been his own worst enemy in this. Prior to mechanizing the annexation, Putin had all the land bridge from Russia to Crimea that he wanted. Ukrainians would let him drive as many trucks as he wanted in exchange for cheap gas. The part of Ukraine that is most ant-West and pro Russian in terms of both identity and economics is the east. Prior to that, I don’t think there was any chance of the EU dealing with Ukraine in a partnership. Now ..... maybe Ukraine can emulate Poland.

I cannot agree that there’s a comparison between Obama and Putin. Obama is done in two years. He has no future in politics. Perhaps he’ll go back to being a pontificating elitist law school professor. Putin has no intention of exiting the political stage. His economic lifesblood demands that he remain at least the defacto head of state, with the power to destroy any oligarch who defies him.

There are pretty clear solutions to this, or at least parameters to a solution. But they depend upon Putin being rational. His constituency is not rational, so there’s no guarantee. But, if he agrees to enforceable prohibitions on soft invasions, then Ukraine can go back to getting gas and allowing Crimea to remain Russian, or at least an independent territory with Russian bases. Ukraine sells food and water to Crimea. There are no Nato ties.

Prior to the Russian support of separatists in the East, the obvious solution was a Ukraine with no economic affiliation, but rather a more or less free trade zone, with either the EU or Russia having a power to enforce a tariff on any Ukranian good. I suspect Putin has poisoned the chances for that. Perhaps the eastern Ukraine is nominally Ukranian, but essentially non-aligned with Kiev. Ukraine is set for eventual EU membership with requirements for free market reforms along the way.

The neocon and Liberal fantasies relating to the Middle East have probably as you say evaporated in the light of events. They have been replaced by a complete scepticism as to the value of intervention of any sort. The people of the ME are regarded as untrustworthy, partisan and duplicitous because all the regimes we have supported have been pretty much like that. But the Kurds might be considered an exception. They look after minorities, they have administered their own area with some success for many decades and they have an effective fighting force in the Peshmerga that can work with Coalition air forces to get stuff done. So it is a bit of mystery to me why we favour our alliances with Turkey and Saudia Arabia and refuse the Kurds independence.

George W became an international Pariah in part because an estimation by America that friends were a nice to have extra rather than a necessity. Americas war machine was all powerful. The world of Bush 1 was one still coming out of the Cold War and was viewed as one where allies and respect for international law were still necessities. So Bush 1 could have finished Sadam in the early nineties but instead chose to follow the letter of the agreements that he had negotiated with allies and the UN. Bush was wrong that America could do it all alone.

With Obama there has been almost no confidence in the military as the solution and the exertion of soft diplomatic, NSA spying and economic power has been the preferred focus. So they are very different presidents with very different styles and motivations. Obama has dithered and his avoidance of short sharp military interventions has ironically made the world a more dangerous place.

Reagan was a big factor in the end of the Cold War as was the triumph of Margaret Thatcher in Europe. Communism was finally called what is was - an evil empire and Reagans jokes about nuking the place and building of SDI absolutely terrified the Russian regime. Gorbachev and the pope were also factors and the failure of the regime on a moral and economic level.

I agree Putin is here to to stay and if goes he will go down fighting. He is playing to his home audience. I think the Crimea will remain Russians but there is uncertainty about the other more Russians areas of the Ukraine. If clear borders are not established then this conflict will continue to bleed like an open wound. Possession of the Crimea gives Russia an immense military advantage in the Black Sea and over Ukrainian air space that makes military intervention by NATO in the Ukraine seem very foolish. Donetsk sits more logically with the Russians also. But if they gain it may well be at the expense of their wider ambitions and Putin does not look like wanting to do that right now.

 

[georgephillip]

Given the radicalised nature of Palestinians in Gaza I do not think a 2 state solution is viable. The Palestinians on the West bank are more responsible. But there is some basic geography to consider here. Israel is so small one wonders if it can be a viable state without the West Bank.

Palestinians have watched their homeland disappear over the last hundred years to such an extent their radicalization seems more like a foregone conclusion.

They share some interesting parallels with Ukraine, Russia, Syria, and natural gas deals, however:
"IDF's Gaza assault is to control Palestinian gas, avert Israeli energy crisis."

IDF s Gaza assault is to control Palestinian gas avert Israeli energy crisis Nafeez Ahmed Environment The Guardian

 

[Mindlight]

Given the radicalised nature of Palestinians in Gaza I do not think a 2 state solution is viable. The Palestinians on the West bank are more responsible. But there is some basic geography to consider here. Israel is so small one wonders if it can be a viable state without the West Bank.

Palestinians have watched their homeland disappear over the last hundred years to such an extent their radicalization seems more like a foregone conclusion.

They share some interesting parallels with Ukraine, Russia, Syria, and natural gas deals, however:
"IDF's Gaza assault is to control Palestinian gas, avert Israeli energy crisis."

IDF s Gaza assault is to control Palestinian gas avert Israeli energy crisis Nafeez Ahmed Environment The Guardian

Basically I believe God gave the land to the Jews.

The approaching energy and water crises in Gaza necessitate that some kind of peaceful solution is reached. But Hamas are not interested in peace. They want to remove the Jewish state of Israel. That is not going to happen.

So the world has a choice to support a Jewish homeland or the aspirations of Hamas to displace them. Whichever choice will probably result in a great many dead people. In 1949 some 40% of Palestinians were Christians. That % is now 5%. The Christians have emigrated. In the context of the ME right now I hold little hope that Palestinians will do anything but become more radicalised. They are a lost cause. The only solution that will really work is to have Gaza absorbed into a larger state so that Palestinians can move to find work in that state or to give them a homeland elsewhere. Maybe Egypt should be bribed to take on Gaza with full rights to its coastal gas fields.

 

[georgephillip]

So the world has a choice to support a Jewish homeland or the aspirations of Hamas to displace them. Whichever choice will probably result in a great many dead people. In 1949 some 40% of Palestinians were Christians. That % is now 5%

In 1948, 650,000 Jews inflicted an ethnocracy on 1.3 million Arabs. 700,000 Arabs were driven from their homes, businesses and bank accounts, and what they left behind was given to European Jews. The offshore gas fields stretching from Egypt to Cypress would seem to offer a chance to enrich millions of Jews and Arabs alike, but not as long as one nation occupies the land and water resources of the other.

"RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan. 23 (2014) (UPI) -- Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is in Moscow on a four-day visit seeking to secure a $1 billion deal with Russia to develop a natural gas field off the Gaza Strip,

"The move would expand what appears to be a determined Russian push into the energy-rich Eastern Mediterranean, Russian media reports indicated.

Read more: Report Russia s Gazprom may develop Gaza natural gas field - UPI.com

 

[longknife]

What the hell does all this Israel/Palestine BS have to do with the OP?

 

[georgephillip]

What the hell does all this Israel/Palestine BS have to do with the OP?

Some of the world's largest natural gas fields lie in the coastal waters off Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, and it is possible that apparently unrelated military activities from Cast Lead in late 2008 to the regime change in Kiev in early 2014 are related to a geopolitical struggle for control of those gas fields.

"The U.S. Geological Survey reported in 2010 that the basin, which covers Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Cyprus and the Gaza Strip, contains at least 123 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas and 1.7 billion barrels of oil.

"The Syrian deal gives Russian President Vladimir Putin a way into a region whose resources have barely been tapped and is becoming a strategic energy source that will transform regional economies and open up new supplies of natural gas to Europe.

"Moscow also is maneuvering to get a stake in the gas bonanza in Israel."

Read more: Report Russia s Gazprom may develop Gaza natural gas field - UPI.com

 

[Mindlight]

Putin is popular with Christians in Russia who see him as a moral figure standing up to the West.

Why Russia s Evangelicals Thank God for Putin Christianity Today