Reckless Congress declares war on Russia

[vanjast]

Hey.. USA.. don't start another war you'll lose...again.
Hell's you cannot whip a bunch of non-techno-savvy sand crawlers with towels on their heads, now you want to pick a fight with better technology

If you look at recent history, the USSR also has a history of getting their butts whipped. Just let them continue.. it'll blow up in their faces... again.

[ikalugin]

@Oberon

Urinating into the wind here, but they can't except the loss of Crimea without inviting the possibility of more concessions down the line.

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

I believe the reply will be "prove it"

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

The only part of that which could be sticky is the training, especially if it results in US troops on Ukrainian soil, but no mention made of bases or major deployments of US forces

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

Again, I can foresee the answer to this being "Prove it" and unless the US is willing to disclose pictures of Russian nuclear forces in or near Ukrainian territory ala the Cuban Missile Crisis then that's just urinating into the wind again.

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:

 

2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

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.

(25)calls for the reestablishment of a close and cooperative relationship between the people of the United States and the Russian people based on the shared pursuit of democracy, human rights, and peace among all nations.

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.

[Betonov]

(2)affirms the right of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and all countries to exercise their sovereign rights within their internationally recognized borders free from outside intervention, and to conduct their foreign policy in accordance with their determination of the best interests of their peoples;

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.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

@Oberon

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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:

 

2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

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.

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.

This essentially calls for an establishment of a puppet regime.

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

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.

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.

[ikalugin]

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).

[Oberon]

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.

[ikalugin]

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)?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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.