Anybody look at Ukraine lately?

[East Coast Hustle]

Too bad we can't agree on any point but it's hard when you can't see any part of my post where I might have credence or sense 

You're supporting military invasion of sovereign states as a way to solve political boundary issues. Or maybe not. I can't hang with that, I must be a craaazy American. And it's true, we are Free men and women. We have no Czar like Russia, we have no King or Queen, Pope or Junta.

You should probably lay off the hippie lettuce. Especially before you argue geopolitics with Cain, who does that for a living. And especially especially if you think there's some meaningful and monumental difference between "America/Americans" and "those other countries/people"

[Reginald Ret]

Too bad we can't agree on any point but it's hard when you can't see any part of my post where I might have credence or sense 

You're supporting military invasion of sovereign states as a way to solve political boundary issues. Or maybe not. I can't hang with that, I must be a craaazy American. And it's true, we are Free men and women. We have no Czar like Russia, we have no King or Queen, Pope or Junta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

[P3nT4gR4m]

You're supporting military invasion of sovereign states as a way to solve political boundary issues. Or maybe not. I can't hang with that, I must be a craaazy American. And it's true, we are Free men and women. We have no Czar like Russia, we have no King or Queen, Pope or Junta.

This is awesome satire.

This is awesome Kool-Aid consumption. Dude could drink Jim Jones right under the table.

[Cain]

I'm not 100% sure that the US-Europe axis doesn't have the stones to impose sanctions on Russian energy exports, which would have a very real and immediate effect.

I'm fairly sure the UK would have no choice but to decline sanctions against Russia, given the large number of Russian transactions that take place via London banks.  The City is already feeling the strain, and thats just due to the uncertainty of Russian businesses in the current climate.  Russian business makes up a good 1/6th (or thereabouts) of IPOs in London in recent years...and that aint exactly small change.

And if London declines, the rest of Europe doesnt really get a choice in what follows, since I believe under EU rules, once it is in London it can go elsewhere in the Union without restrictions.  And leaked documents from the UK have basically already said "we don't have any real options or leverage, let's make lots of noise and hope Putin doesn't call our bluff".  Because, of course, Putin has shown he is easily cowed by international condemnation and pressure before now.

That said, Cameron is making up policy on the fly now, and ignoring the advice of the civil service quite frequently.  And with an election due next year, he's especially tempted into making populist moves which make no sense in reality, but look good when you view the world via polling companies.  But I think, for the moment, William Hague is exerting a significant amount of influence on the FCO response, so it will probably be more measured than what Cameron may be tempted into doing.

[Cain]

The beginning of the South Ossetian conflict is debated by both sides. Georgians say the Russians and South Ossetians shelled them and uplayed the whole thing to invite conflict. The russians say they were shelled first. What ended up happening was Russian expansion.

Data from international observers with no affiliation with Russia (Western European) and military training show Georgian troops shelled Russian positions first.  This was preceeded by small arms fire, but this is not uncommon in the region, where border skirmishes are frequent.  And the result of the conflict was a restoration of the post-1994 status quo.

If that's Russian expansion, then it's practically glacial in speed.

You seem to forget that Vladmir Putin is a Dictator who, when it was time to leave office in Russia, created a WHOLE NEW POSITION TO INSERT HIMSELF INTO. He has now served as the De Facto head of Russia since 1999 under various guises of supreme ruler.

You seem addicted to emotional arguments and sweeping statements.

Despite an authoritarian and illiberal style of rule, calling Putin a "dictator" is a term of abuse masquerading as political analysis, obscuring more than it reveals.  Putin uses a number of means to sustain his administration, including "managed democracy" and a variety of institutional mechanisms, including the United Russia Party, the siloviki and oligarchs.

And your lack of knowledge about the Russian political system is obvious when you declare Putin "created" a new position.  The role of Prime Minister has existed in Russia since Czarist days, and continued to be used during the Soviet period and afterwards. Putin himself was appointed to the position of Prime Minister by Yeltsin in 1999.

He ruthlessly crushes public opposition and simply incarcerates those who speak out against him. And here we are again, with Russia poised for another Hitleresque military expansion and people want to just applaud along happily.

Does he.  That's news to most international human rights groups and organizations, who characterize Russia as a hybrid regime with a partially free/illiberal rating.  That's certainly better than, lets say, China, or Saudi Arabia, while of course being entirely insatisfactory on other grounds.

Nor is this new.  Russia had these exact problems under Yeltsin.  Or do I really need to go into the whole "fantastic dead journalists of the 1990s" and "dead Chechens voting for the man who bombed their villages into dust" debacles?

Of course, if you're determined to oversimplify a complex and constantly shifting civil liberties environment, feel free. 

I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone but the most severe Kremlin apologist could defend him right now.

Given your apparent definition of "defend" involves "pointing out the world is more complex than you'd like to believe", you should probably re-examine your assumptions.  And, I don't know, maybe read the thread?  Because if you did, you'd see I'd already criticized Russian conduct.  In fact, I've had dealings people within Putin's inner circle, both in Ukraine and Russia, who know me by name and don't have anything nice to say about me.  Admittedly in circles unrelated to their politics, but I dare say I have more personal reasons to criticize Russia than anyone of non-Chechen heritage on this board.  And yet, I'm taking a nuanced approach.

Maybe you should ask why that is.

[Cain]

Too bad we can't agree on any point but it's hard when you can't see any part of my post where I might have credence or sense 

Maybe because I have actual knowledge of and contacts in that part of the world, and enough expertise in the area and the vagaries of international politics that my opinion is sought by private parties on these situations, and you're some guy on the internet, relying on news feeds. 

You're supporting military invasion of sovereign states as a way to solve political boundary issues. Or maybe not. I can't hang with that, I must be a craaazy American. And it's true, we are Free men and women. We have no Czar like Russia, we have no King or Queen, Pope or Junta.

Yes, I'm clearly supporting a military invasion.  You can tell this, because earlier on ITT, I called Russia's invasion illegal and a flagrant violation of international law with no good basis, and that they should withdraw immediately.  I furthermore said that even though Russia has a point about the Crimea, the way in which they are going about it sets a dangerous international political precedent.

You should see me when I criticize someone.  It's truly vicious.

And LOL.  Americans are amusing when they fall for their own ideological posturing.

[Cain]

idk if i cant recall or i wasnt around yet =\

He was a long time ago.  Some Bush supporter type.  Standard Neocon nutter circa 2004, thought the Iraq War was peachy, jokes about France were the height of wit, and that the spirit of Churchill flowed through his every pronouncement.

[Cain]

I'm not 100% sure that the US-Europe axis doesn't have the stones to impose sanctions on Russian energy exports, which would have a very real and immediate effect.

I'm fairly sure the UK would have no choice but to decline sanctions against Russia, given the large number of Russian transactions that take place via London banks.  The City is already feeling the strain, and thats just due to the uncertainty of Russian businesses in the current climate.  Russian business makes up a good 1/6th (or thereabouts) of IPOs in London in recent years...and that aint exactly small change.

And if London declines, the rest of Europe doesnt really get a choice in what follows, since I believe under EU rules, once it is in London it can go elsewhere in the Union without restrictions.  And leaked documents from the UK have basically already said "we don't have any real options or leverage, let's make lots of noise and hope Putin doesn't call our bluff".  Because, of course, Putin has shown he is easily cowed by international condemnation and pressure before now.

That said, Cameron is making up policy on the fly now, and ignoring the advice of the civil service quite frequently.  And with an election due next year, he's especially tempted into making populist moves which make no sense in reality, but look good when you view the world via polling companies.  But I think, for the moment, William Hague is exerting a significant amount of influence on the FCO response, so it will probably be more measured than what Cameron may be tempted into doing.

Just to follow up on this

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/us-eu-sanctions-russia-ukraine-crimea-referendum

The US and the European Union retaliated over the Crimea referendum by targeting sanctions against Russian and Ukrainian officials on Monday, a move widely greeted with scepticism as "toothless".

The White House imposed sanctions against 11 named individuals: seven senior Russian politicians and officials and four Crimea-based separatist leaders accused of undermining the "democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine".

But the US pointedly avoided targeting the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, or key figures in his inner circle.

"We think they will be effective," one senior administration official told reporters in Washington. But the kind of sanctions that might bite, such as hitting Russian oligarchs or even their companies, particularly energy firms, were pointedly absent.

It's more than I expected, to be perfectly honest.  But then I do sometimes underestimate the temptation to give into Dosomethingitis.

Of course, this could just be the opening round, and Obama is going to apply pressure in a staged manner, leaving him with options to escalate should the political situation demand it.  But I don't think that is the case.

[LMNO]

Cain, thanks for the knowledge in the face of bombast.

[Cain]

You are most welcome.

I'd also like to point out I got 4 hours of sleep yesterday (after a 12 hour night shift), and 2 last night.  Hence why I haven't hyperlinked the fuck out of everything.

[LMNO]

Jeez, get some sleep already!

[Cain]

Yesterday was justified.  Had an 8pm appointment, but wanted to be on a better sleep schedule for today.

Tried sleeping today, but I think I had too much coffee.

[LMNO]

If you start heading into sleep-deprivation psychosis, keep posting here so we all can watch.

[Cain]

Will do.  I got no plans for today anyway. 

[The Johnny]

Getting picked apart sucks.

The jist of what I have been saying is still this:

Putin is an aggressive expansionalist and Russian invasion of Crimea violates a treaty signed by the US.

Beyond that I'm not all sure why anyone is arguing with me but for lack of something better to post.

LALALA I CANNOT HEAR YOU OVER MY AMERIKAN DEMOKRACY BLARING IN THE BACKGROUND