@Oberon
Well, this leaves no room for negotiation then, as Crimea is there to stay. Refer to the address Putin made last Thursday.

The reply (most likely) would be - the other guy (Ukrainian loyalists) didn't uphold it either. That and more complains about double standards.

Sales of weapons are consistent with the expected summer offensive by Ukrainian loyalists, thus this is not surprising.

The issue is less with -proving- it, but with the fact that US broke the INF treaty long time ago... by deploying armed UAVs. You could see that in the deffenition of the "cruise missile" here:

As far as I remember - Reaper UAV has sufficient range to fall under the INF treaty limitations. Though I could be ofcourse wrong - and any correction by a more knowledgeable person would be welcome.
This essentially calls for an establishment of a puppet regime.

p.s. in my opinion the issue with this resolution is less to do with the fact that it states the known (and logical) policy points, but that it precludes a compromise with Russia and goes for a regime change/territorial dissolution type strategy.

I love this one. And I'll love how it will be ignored when western powers will try to intervene in one way or another.

My co-worker is from Moldova. Moldova might rejoin Russia without Russian influence. Since the USSR broke up the living standard reached rock bottom and the sentiment among Moldovans is that being brought back under Moscow will bring in much needed order and capital.

I recall that back in those days either you or Subman said something similiar about Bush's repeated changes in his foul excuses by which he wanted to justify the Iraq war.

Or Georgia, where the US had made a wrong stand as much as "wrong" can go: one again we hear the call from Washington politicians to bring Georgia into NATO nevertheless - no matter what.

This kind resolutions form policies. And if the resolution bases on half-truths, even some lies, then the policy formed on grounds of it - bases not on realities but on half-truths and lies as well.

Led to disaster in case of Iraq. And on many other historical occasions as well. Realpolitik is something different.

Yup, I think that the US/EU is probably a little concerned about falling into a Munich trap, that if they give away something that it'll mean that Russia will be tempted to demand more. To quote Dean Rusk in Thirteen Days "Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive."
This is not necessarily accurate to the situation at hand, but you can see how the viewpoint might be reached in Washington, especially amongst those who never left the 1980s.

Yup, both sides are going to blame each other, it's consistant with this type of war...heck, any type of war.

Yup, it was inevitable that it was going to happen. The only question really is the level of weaponry that will be supplied.

Huh...good point, I never considered the deployment of UAVs falling under cruise missile definitions, but that is true. Obviously though Russia can't object too loudly to such a point since they have UAV designs of their own, plus they don't like the treaty much anyway since it doesn't apply to China.
I think, really, at this stage the INF treaty is heading the same way as the ABM one.

It does seem rather...optimistic, doesn't it?

It is a very hardline approach, but it's one to be expected really. It's not likely to result in a hot war, but it makes a cold war almost inevitable, as if we didn't know such a thing already. I think Putin overextended his hand a little bit with Crimea, and it's going to take a while before things normalise, a few decades at least. There was a brief period of unease with Russia after Georgia, but it balanced out fairly quickly because the war was over fairly quickly, however in Ukraine it's a lot more messy, there's been an overt change of territorial status, the ramifications are a lot deeper than the Georgian conflict, so the diplomatic fallout is going to last a lot longer. At least a decade or two, I'd wager, but things will start to settle into their new places before then. It's an economic staredown at the moment, and it's a question of who will blink first. :hmmm:

There is a difference between arriving towards a compromise of sorts and letting one of the parties have their way (appeasement). That said one needs to look into the objectives of sides in this conflict, to see if a compromise is possible in the first place.

Ie - why did Maidan radicalise? What was the point of said radicalisation (Yanukovich and his party were both political corpses by the time Maidan happened, and it happened not because he refused to join EU, but because he asked for more time, as the then available treaty was horrible for the Ukraine)?

Which objectives do Western Countries (US and EU) seek to achieve in Ukraine?

The Russian objectives are clear and obvious:
- neutral or friendly political status for the Ukraine.
- neutral or friendly economical status for the Ukraine.
- protection of the minorities rights (mainly of the Russian minority), as per the generally accepted Western standards.
- prohibition of radical Nationalist (and NAZI) parties and political movements (again, as per Western norm).

I think really what the Western Countries seek is less neutral and more friendly Ukraine towards western interests and a move away from Russia.
Basically, they'd like another Poland or Baltic states, friendly, open for NATO bases and EU business.
Naturally Russia would like the same but in reverse (or, like you say, a neutral Ukraine which would probably be the best compromise in this situation, but how do you guarantee neutrality in a country which is split between pro-western ideology and pro-Russian ideology?)
There may come a compromise on this, down the road, if IS hadn't reared its ugly head I might have said that Russia leaving Assad out to dry might have been one possible compromise in order to let the US turn a blind eye to Crimea, but that card is off the table now really since Assad is no longer in the cross-hairs and is actually, through a roundabout way, helping the US deal with IS.
Right now though, there's blustering and maneuvering on both sides to draw the maximum amount of prestige out of this situation that they can.

So the objective of Western parties was to push Russia into the corner in the first place (by moving NATO front-line to the Ukraine and taking out a number of critical industries in the Ukraine and what not)?

Maybe Western parties then did (do) not seek a compromise in the first place, but try to force Russia into obedience (after the 080808 war and Assad)?

I don't think they want to force Russia into obedience, it's hard to make a nuclear power be obedient to be honest, however I think they seek to make their position as advantageous as possible, as indeed any major power would do.
This is just guess work on my behalf, by the way, based upon national interests and good old fashioned imperialism (which never really went away).
I take it you've heard of 'The Great Game'? Aside from in my signature, of course, but many people view the war in Afghanistan and events in Georgia and Ukraine as part of a new 'Great Game' and I must admit, their views hold some water in terms of the geopolitical strategy that is being played out between Russia and the west.
Also, perhaps 'The Grand Chessboard', which I admit I haven't read, but the blurb on wikipedia makes logical sense for any American leadership:

"Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence."
The author was Jimmy Carters NSA so he has an idea of what goes on behind the scenes.

I think you are wrong there, at least regarding the US. Some Eurpopeans may have had a more realistic view on Russia at times, but in Washington, encircling Russia, strangling it, pushing it further and further into the corner and finally making it disappear by regime change, is an obsession, and has never been given up since the wall fell - never. Americans have pushing Russia it in their genes, so to speak, like mocking French "cowardice", and an obsessive attitude regarding private firearms.

And from a historians' perspective, it also is not surprising. America has a selfunderstanding of being a global hegemon, the standard and exmaple to whichh all other countries in the world have to follow - so they think. This attitude it shares with almost any empire there ever has been. Its part of the imperial culture. This also means to crack down on every possible, potential challenger whenever it can - this also has been something that every empire ever has done against others.

And if there will rise another empire after America declined, I tell you that that empire will act exactly the same way, and merciless crack down on everybody, by all means promising success, who could put a risk to the new empire's claim for the global pole-position.

Even empires that once have been but are no more, find it difficult to let go that habitus. Britain struggled for long time that it had lost its global empirial status. France dreams of shadows of past glory until today. Russia wants to boast as if it still were the Soviet Union's military block.

Empires are the born egoists. Not even babies are that bad in that regard. :D

I dunno, I think deep in the core of the American political heart, the civil servant territory there exists a more rational hivemind. America wouldn't have gotten to where it is today through pure luck and bravado after all.
It's a bit like Little Kim and his Dad, knowing exactly how far to push the opponent and get what you can out of the deal. Of course, the Kim dynasty has a lot less resources to work with in that regard, but all diplomacy is the same at the end of the day.

I think that bubble is bursting, slowly, but bursting nonetheless...whether it's just because there's a Democrat President, but the old 'Go get 'em cowboy' attitude of the early 2000s has definitely disappeared. I think also getting stuck in the 'Graveyard of Empires' probably did a lot to bruise the self-image of the US.
I just hope that if this is the decline of America as the de jure superpower that it takes place relatively peacefully, but unfortunately it's rare that this happens. The UK lost ours after two world wars, France after the Napoleonic wars, the Spanish after Napoleon thrashed them, and so on.
Fortunately for us, these wars (except the last) were absent of nuclear weapons...a war between major powers now would not be a desirable outcome, so I hope that any decline can be done peacefully, or if not peacefully then with as few casualties as possible.

Reminds me of that song by Tears for Fears 'Everybody wants to rule the world', but yes, every empire or major power will want to maximise its success by controlling or undercutting its rivals. It's almost Darwinian in its simplicity.

Oh, we still struggle, believe me. If we didn't have a strong nostalgia for times past then people like Nigel Farage would not be able to exploit it along with a good dose of scaremongering in order to gain votes...which reminds me, him and Russell Brand are on Question Time on the BBC tonight...should be good for a chuckle.

Mankind is a very egotistical creation, you only have to look at some of the beautiful monuments to our own vanity we have created in history, and an empire is perhaps a concentrated dosage of mankinds ego, fear, pride and anger all wrapped up with a thin red line. :03:

I am not Subman and therefore have no responsibility for anything he might have said.

You know as well as I do that Ron Paul is bat crap crazy but you happily use him as a reference in yet another thread dedicated to bad mouthing my country. How long will you wait before lambasting someone for quoting him in some other discussion?

Don't let it upset you...
 

Our government is always declaring war on something or somebody. Usually not at our behest.:hmmm: Just more smoke screen to make it look like the jokers actually do something worthwhile when they're in session and to cover up yet more pork barrel spending.

At least this time it's a country rather than an idealogy or situation.

Although one could argue the concept of countries is in fact a construct...but that's going off the rails into a long discussion so I'll just acknowledge its existence and skip over it.

Oh dear, August...

Whenever I get such an unsorted reply from somebody I hope that somebody takes the poster's car keys and does not let him drive anymore this evening.

Funny I was just thinking that about you. :hmmm: