Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

for those who didn't get it, my bullying analogy was meant as an allegory or a parable - a simplistic/symbolic way to present a greater/broader truth or idea. the idea that from a moral standpoint, we shouldn't sit by and watch a country violate another's sovereignty with impunity.
but forget the moral aspect of it. from a geopolitical standpoint, there are other reasons for supporting Ukraine.
you may have a different view of this, but I see power and standing in the world as a zero-sum game. states have power and standing relative to one another. and when one state looses power or standing, another (or others) gains it. thus the US's recent involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan reduced our relative power and standing in the world, while the power, standing, influence, etc. of other states like China and Russia increased relative to the US.
in my opinion, helping to arm a Ukrainian resistance would result in a protracted insurgency that Russia would have to sink military and economic resources into combating, with the end result being a weaker Russia. and when Russia loses that power and standing, someone has to gain it - and I think it would be the US.
so at relatively little cost (just the cost of the weapons), the US would strengthen its position in the world relative to other states - and especially a geopolitical rival. not to mention regaining the moral high-ground (protecting the sovereignty of a state) that the US lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think that's a good deal for the US from every perspective.

 

How much worse can it get for the Ukranian government? Actually, they are probably lucky that the army will not fight pro-Russian Ukrainians. The army killing pro-Russian Ukrainians would probably result in Russia openly invading the Ukraine.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA3A1B520140416

 

Looks to me like the Dnieper is the logical dividing point.

By one means or another, Russia is going to take everything East of that.

The military scenario is better for the West, because it makes Russia an international pariah and makes getting consensus on sanctions and isolating Russia that much easier.

The second the tanks roll, retreat across the river, blow the bridges and throw everything into the defense. Putin doesn't even want Western Ukraine, and then it in turn can join NATO. Looks like the bulk of Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk are on the Western side, anyway.

The worst possible scenario for the U.S. is the slow-motion takeover of Eastern Ukraine by proxies and federalization.

 

Ok sir will do.

 

Well when demonstrators illegal remove a freely democratic elected president they should expect some blowback.

 

Parliament removed him.

 

internal yes. but external interference in their own domestic affairs?

 

Who forced their hand.....

 

The Crimea has always been disputed and Ukraine didn't put up a fight for a good reason. It's ok to force a freely elected president out of office because you disagree with what he is doing that is a terrible precedent.

 

You mean like Nixon?

 

Name me the crimes and laws that yanukovych broke?? Not the trumped up charges against him that the opposition attributed it him. I don't have a dog in this fight but I will call a spade a spade. If the opposition really wanted to remove him then defeat him an a free and fair election. Yunukovych was no Mubarak.

 

what a state does internally is its own business. it doesn't give an outside power the right to interfere/intervene in any matter. at least not based on international law/norms.
Crimea was recognized by the UN, Russia itself, and the international community as belonging to Ukraine. there was no boarder dispute about Crimea, and there was no danger of the violation of that boarder until Putin seized on domestic unrest in Ukraine as a pretext for annexing Crimea.

 

Mubarak is probably a good comparison. With the reaction which has taken place in Egypt we will probably never know whether Mubarak's misappropriations match Yukakovich's (sp?). If you are already convinced that any charges against him will be trumped up, it sounds like you are already dog-fighting.

 

Not condoning what Russia did I thought it was a shameless land grab but they took the opportunity when Ukraine was in turmoil and jumped at it. And I'm not condoning removing an elected president because you disagree with them.

 

but the point of the post I was referring back to concerned the rise of a new multi-polar geopolitical reality and the implication of that reality for the US and for the smaller states which happen to be stuck in the sphere of influence of one of those regional powers.

 

Dude seriously?

 

The Dnieper is not a good dividing line because there is no good dividing line.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rainians-russians-want-a-united-single-state/

this was done prior to Russias takeover of the crimea

 

interesting that I'm not the only one who see things this way. only difference is, I saw this over a week ago!

 

but wait! I thought I was just a foreign policy simpleton who probably fell for W's WMD hoax and was on the rah rah bandwagon supporting the invasion of Iraq!

 

A weakened Russia is not in your interest. Much less a Russia hostile to the US.
Russia is going to be a close partner for the US in its containment of China policy.


Is Ukraine in the vital interests of the US? I really dont think so.

 

Russia will not be a close partner for the US in anything. Unfortunately.

The interest of the US in Ukraine lies in not having a failed state on NATO and the EUs borders and not sanctioning the use of force to annex territory. A failed Ukraine would destabilize Poland and the region. Acknowledging that states's can use force to redraw borders whenever they feel like it without any sanction from the international community raises dangerous precedents for other parts of the world like the western Pacific and south Asia.

Unfortunately as song pointed out earlier, the US sort of shot the second one in the foot ten years ago.

 

Its certianly a US interest but a vital national interest? I dont know about that.
Over the long term Russia is going to be a very close ally and partner for US.

Nixon cozied up with a mass-murderer in Mao of China, because of strategic interests.
Putin is pretty benign compared to that. lolz

 

Russian/US cooperation is a myth. especially under Putin's leadership (i.e. for the last 10 years or so), Russia has tried to thwart US interests at every step. sometimes it seemed almost comical to me that whatever position the US took on a particular issue, invariably, Russia took up a contrary position - just for the hell of it, just to be a thorn in our side and thwart our interests.
Russia is already hostile to US interests and seemed to be determined to go down a path of being an international pariah. only thing is, it's too big for the US and the rest of the international community to treat it like a Cuba, a North Korea, or Iran. but seriously, there's very little to be gained from Russian cooperation, because it has been non-existent for the last 10 years.
Russia will serve as a counter balance to China by their sheer size and geographical proximity, which by its very nature will make them competitors. so I wouldn't worry about Russian cooperation in containing China. I think in a world of "balance of power," each great power automatically serves to check and balance the actions of the others. whenever one gets too big, too powerful, or too ambitious, the others will naturally unite temporarily to check and balance it.

 

I think it is emotions talking. I think sooner rather than later you will come to realise that Russia is going to be one of US best friends. lol