Politics Ukraine and Putin's power grab

Baraka_Guru · Mar 23, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

These are silly questions. The global demand for steel is strong and will be strong for decades to come - the demand is there. There are costly barriers for entry into this business - for example I doubt Greece could replace Russian steel production in my life-time. Russia produces as much steel as UK, Germany, Spain and France combined. Russian production is close to US production. The industry in Russia is strong today and will be strong into the future - does any reasonable informed person dispute that? Are your questions attempting to dispute that? Do you read about international economic issues?
Click to expand...

They were silly questions because you seem to assume that the Russian billionaires are totally okay with economic sanctions on top of an already fragile Russian economy.

That the EU lacks the conviction to directly respond to Putin's aggression with serious economic sanctions. Were my previous comments not clear?
Click to expand...

Not entirely clear, no. There is obviously a challenge regarding the sanctions. What you haven't really discussed is what should be done.

No, I compare empty rhetoric and symbolic gestures to complacency. Many are very busy patting the President on the back for his use of sanctions and his talk about not tolerating this or that - I say it is b.s. - the smugness in this is a problem. Thinking something is being done when it is not is the worst form of complacency in my opinion.
Click to expand...

What president? Yours? I was talking about the Russian oligarchs. I'm don't think Obama is all that relevant at the moment. Try not to get too caught up in Amerocentrism here. It might make you myopic. What do you have to say about my questions as originally directed?

I read what they write, I listen to what they say, and to the degree possible study what they do. One difference between billionaires and you is perspective or outlook. In an earlier post I paraphrased Warren Buffet on this topic - and his view is a long-term view. Yours is not.
Click to expand...

You will find the politics, views, and ideology of Warren Buffet(t) much different from the Russian oligarchs'. Again, perhaps it may help to view the issue from the right perspective. What have you read about the Russian oligarchs lately?

Also, you clearly have little idea what my views are (not much can be found here). Don't pretend. It casts into serious doubt whether you even understand the likes of Warren Buffett (as irrelevant as that may be) and greatly undermines your positions.

Many billionaires buy when the masses sell and sell when the masses are buying based on headlines. The RSX is an ETF based on Russian leading stocks, it is down over 20% YTD - $22.31 Fri. close. Put it on your watch list and ask yourself at points in time, what type of person is buying @$22.31.
Click to expand...

It's a challenge to bring your recently shifted assets back to Russia when they're frozen, no?

redravin · Mar 23, 2014

Here's where is gets complicated.
We signed the Budapest Memorandum back in 1994 in order to get the Ukraine to give up it's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons.
The had most of the USSR's forward missile stocks and gave them up when the US, Great Britain and Russia signed a statement saying their borders would be recognized.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:

Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.

Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.

Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.

Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.

Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

Click to expand...

We made a promise to help when we wanted to get rid of dangerous nuclear weapons.
We can't run away from that responsibility.

rogue49 · Mar 24, 2014

The situation kicks it up a notch on all sides.

Obama to Urge Exclusion of Russia From G-8 Talks

Russia Facing Recession as Sanctions Likely to Intensify

And also I "hear" that certain Russian troops are gathering near the Eastern border of Ukraine...in one or two news summaries. (ex. Yahoo)
But I haven't seen other outlets that are announcing this, so right now I'm ruling this out as hype or yellow/bleeding.

I don't note something until you see a trend or pattern.
This is how things escalate and rumors get spread.
Bad enough that it's escalating the way it is already.

Aceventura · Mar 25, 2014

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

They were silly questions because you seem to assume that the Russian billionaires are totally okay with economic sanctions on top of an already fragile Russian economy.
Click to expand...

Can you stop with this kind of stuff? I never wrote "totally okay" with anything - I wrote what I actually wrote. "Totally" suggests completely satisfied, I doubt that is true - I think they would prefer to not have geo-political uncertainty - far different than them having confidence in their business and confidence in Putin.

Not entirely clear, no. There is obviously a challenge regarding the sanctions. What you haven't really discussed is what should be done.
Click to expand...

When I was young in my neighborhood we called it "selling wolf tickets" - it is when a person is talking shit with no intent or ability to back it up with real action. These people had no credibility, no respect, no trust - they were considered fools. What would I do? Well first if the issue is important - I would have a face to face meeting with Putin and I would, in no uncertain terms, look him in the eye, and tell him his use of his military will lead to a greater use of our military - any intervention on his part will be met with greater intervention on our part. Then we wait and see who makes the next move! Then I respond accordingly. However, this issue is not important to me - and in that case I do nothing, I don't make a big deal about it, my words are de minimus.

I recall reading a think tank study some time ago - they concluded that given problems, most often it is the obvious solution that is the best solution. With Putin talk to the man and ask him what he wants, what are his issues and return say to him what we can tolerate.

Baraka_Guru · Mar 25, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

Can you stop with this kind of stuff? I never wrote "totally okay" with anything - I wrote what I actually wrote. "Totally" suggests completely satisfied, I doubt that is true - I think they would prefer to not have geo-political uncertainty - far different than them having confidence in their business and confidence in Putin.
Click to expand...

Sorry if it goes this way. You have a tendency to gloss over things and ignore the important aspects. This leaves me to assume things. I can't win either way, so I just take the easy road.

My point is that I doubt they're going along like it's business as usual. I'm sure most of them have considered this a crisis that needs to be dealt with to prevent any serious damage. To assume otherwise would be foolish.

When I was young in my neighborhood we called it "selling wolf tickets" - it is when a person is talking shit with no intent or ability to back it up with real action. These people had no credibility, no respect, no trust - they were considered fools. What would I do? Well first if the issue is important - I would have a face to face meeting with Putin and I would, in no uncertain terms, look him in the eye, and tell him his use of his military will lead to a greater use of our military - any intervention on his part will be met with greater intervention on our part. Then we wait and see who makes the next move! Then I respond accordingly. However, this issue is not important to me - and in that case I do nothing, I don't make a big deal about it, my words are de minimus.

I recall reading a think tank study some time ago - they concluded that given problems, most often it is the obvious solution that is the best solution. With Putin talk to the man and ask him what he wants, what are his issues and return say to him what we can tolerate.
Click to expand...

This seems to assume we're dealing with a situation of legitimacy and political integrity. This isn't simply a military problem.

What's the most obvious solution when a nation violates the national sovereignty of another and has no intention of rectifying it but to make it permanent?

Sometimes there are no simple solutions despite their obviousness. Such is the way of the universe.

rogue49 · Mar 26, 2014

The morning after...and the morning after the morning after...

Putin and the Laws of Gravity

Great lines...Thomas Friedman is excellent. (I was lucky enough to meet him once, we were both having sushi)

But he's right...and Putin just shot a gun off in the middle of a party and groped a party-goer.
People are going to be wary of that person now...

And you gotta love this line,
“The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.”

redravin · Mar 28, 2014

Putin called Obama to ask for a diplomatic resolution to the situation.
Either he is trying to drag things out and keep the US from messing with the oil deals or he's realizes he pushed too hard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/europe/putin-calls-obama-on-Ukraine.html?emc=edit_na_20140328&nlid=57057685

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia called President Obama on Friday to discuss a proposal by Mr. Obama for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis in Ukraine, and the two leaders agreed that diplomats for both countries should meet soon to discuss it, the White House said.
In a statement from the White House, officials said that the telephone call from the Russian president followed a proposal presented by Secretary of State John Kerry to Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, during talks at the Hague earlier this week.
Officials did not describe details about the proposal but said that Mr. Obama told Mr. Putin during the call that the United States would like to see a diplomatic solution that involves Russia pulling back its troops from the Crimean Peninsula and not making any further steps to invade other parts of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Mar 28, 2014

redravin said: ↑

Putin called Obama to ask for a diplomatic resolution to the situation.
Either he is trying to drag things out and keep the US from messing with the oil deals or he's realizes he pushed too hard.
Click to expand...

I think he's realizing he's leaking a shit load of money from the nation
and his cronies & friends are too.

He can't even sell bonds.

rogue49 · Mar 29, 2014

Yet, even though he's looking like he's starting to communicate right now.
He did go so far as to intimidate other nations into voting his way.
Russia threatened countries ahead of UN vote

Typical Bully.
Smile one way, kick others while VIPs are looking away.

Don't trust him as far as I could throw him.
(And that would be hard considering he's a master in Judo...)

Aceventura · Apr 1, 2014

RSX is trading at about $24.06 today, that is about a 7.8% return in about a week. Not much different than Feb. before the crisis. Billionaires may engage in day trading based on headlines, but generally have a long-term outlook. The loyalty to Putin is not as superficial as some would hope it is and perhaps some Russian billionaires understand that if not for Putin their billions would be nationalized. - perhaps a far greater risk than Western sanctions on some bank accounts.

rogue49 · Apr 1, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

RSX is trading at about $24.06 today, that is about a 7.8% return in about a week. Not much different than Feb. before the crisis. Billionaires may engage in day trading based on headlines, but generally have a long-term outlook. The loyalty to Putin is not as superficial as some would hope it is and perhaps some Russian billionaires understand that if not for Putin their billions would be nationalized. - perhaps a far greater risk than Western sanctions on some bank accounts.
Click to expand...

Keep your assets close...keep your dictator closer.

Aceventura · Apr 9, 2014

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

This isn't simply a military problem.
Click to expand...

Until we reach the next level in human evolution, everything is a military (reflected in ability to use physical force to support conflict resolution) problem. On this point I am being an absolutist - in both common uses of the term. A government with an absolute powerful military can do whatever it wants - overthrowing the foundation of that military, addressing a military problem is the only way.

Putting flowers into the barrels a rifles and/or singing songs hand in hand won's solve the problem. You might suggest, Ghandi's approach and I would argue that Ghandi's approach was to show the British that their military was not capable of controlling the people of India and that a negotiated settlement was in the best interest of the British - but actually lead to years of conflict and great suffering between India and Pakistan - a new military problem.
--- merged: Apr 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM ---

rogue49 said: ↑

Keep your assets close...keep your dictator closer.
Click to expand...

Same can be said of US Presidents - as we give our government more and more power over time to pick economic winners and losers.

Baraka_Guru · Apr 2, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

Until we reach the next level in human evolution, everything is a military (reflected in ability to use physical force to support conflict resolution) problem. On this point I am being an absolutist - in both common uses of the term. A government with an absolute powerful military can do whatever it wants - overthrowing the foundation of that military, addressing a military problem is the only way.
Click to expand...

It's a fallacy to assume that anything on a national or international scale can be solely a military problem. For example, what's the difference between the military of North Korea and the military of Switzerland?

Show me something that's solely a military problem, and you'll likely be showing me a problem of logistics or physics.

Speaking specifically about the Russia/Ukraine issue, it's clearly not simply a military problem.

Putting flowers into the barrels a rifles and/or singing songs hand in hand won's solve the problem.
Click to expand...

I'll add: neither will baking cookies, nor rewriting Milton's Paradise Lost in iambic pentameter with illustrations by Banksy.

You might suggest, Ghandi's approach and I would argue that Ghandi's approach was to show the British that their military was not capable of controlling the people of India and that a negotiated settlement was in the best interest of the British - but actually lead to years of conflict and great suffering between India and Pakistan - a new military problem.
Click to expand...

And obviously not solely a military problem (if you know anything about the region).

Do you see my point?

Shadowex3 · Apr 3, 2014

There's an informal law in political science called the Hitler Rule: If your only example of something involves Hitler (or someone similarly absurd) you're discussing an outlier and not a case.

In my opinion that holds true for Gandhi as well. Gandhi's success had nothing to do with his strategy and everything to do with the people he was using it on. Politics back home and a powerful media image worked to effectively shame the British into backing out of India. If you try his strategy against the Nazis, Hamas/PA, North Koreans, or pretty much any serious repressive government they'll be more than happy to simply kill you off without a fight.

Aceventura · Apr 10, 2014

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

It's a fallacy to assume that anything on a national or international scale can be solely a military problem. For example, what's the difference between the military of North Korea and the military of Switzerland?
Click to expand...

Switzerland is not a problem, North Korea is a problem - the North Korean problem is a military problem.

Switzerland is a member of NATO - I believe they take pride in their contribution to the alliance of nations in partnership for peace - via military power.

Show me something that's solely a military problem, and you'll likely be showing me a problem of logistics or physics.
Click to expand...

History is full of examples from the scale of the issues preceding and during WWII down to the scale of neighborhood street gangs using force to control a public park in a city.

Speaking specifically about the Russia/Ukraine issue, it's clearly not simply a military problem.
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view. I understand the point of view of the administration and European nations - I think the focus is on the wrong issues. Let's recap:

Putin used his military and took control of Crimea.
The West responds with empty rhetoric.
Putin retains control of Crimea.
The West announces sanctions on a select few Russians to put economic pressure on Putin.
Putin retains control of Crimea.
The West responds with more empty rhetoric.
Putin retains Crimea.
US is set to send $1 billion in aid to Ukraine.
Russia increases prices for gas and oil to Ukraine.
....what?....
The billion dollars in aid is going to Russia??? Did the US just subsidize the Russian use of the military to take control of the Crimea???
Is this a military problem? Or, are we just stupid? What we would call this in my old neighborhood is no longer PC, what would you have called it in your old Canadian neighborhood?

Russian natural gas producer Gazprom announced a more than 40 percent increase in the price of gas for Ukraine on Tuesday, stepping up economic pressure on Kiev in its crisis in relations with Moscow.

Price rows have in the past led to cuts in Russian gas supplies to Ukraine and decreases in onward deliveries to Europe, but this time the financial blow to Kiev is set to be cushioned by a new International Monetary Fund loan package.

Ukraine will now have to pay $385.5 per 1,000 cubic metres of gas in the second quarter, an increase from the $268.5 agreed in December and higher than the average price for clients in the European Union but around the level Kiev had expected.
Click to expand...

UPDATE 2-Russia tightens squeeze on Ukraine with gas price rise| Reuters

I'll add: neither will baking cookies, nor rewriting Milton's Paradise Lost in iambic pentameter with illustrations by Banksy.

And obviously not solely a military problem (if you know anything about the region).

Do you see my point?
Click to expand...

Yes. We have different perspectives.
--- merged: Apr 3, 2014 at 12:07 PM ---

Shadowex3 said: ↑

There's an informal law in political science called the Hitler Rule: If your only example of something involves Hitler (or someone similarly absurd) you're discussing an outlier and not a case.

In my opinion that holds true for Gandhi as well. Gandhi's success had nothing to do with his strategy and everything to do with the people he was using it on. Politics back home and a powerful media image worked to effectively shame the British into backing out of India. If you try his strategy against the Nazis, Hamas/PA, North Koreans, or pretty much any serious repressive government they'll be more than happy to simply kill you off without a fight.
Click to expand...

I was anticipating a potential response to my post - I do not think it to be a good counter point. In fact I believe Gahandi actually failed to resolve the conflict in a manner meeting his goals of pacifism based on the resulting conflicts and suffering.

Fundamentally disagree with the premise that Gahndi or Hitler are not worthy of discussion because they are so called outliers. They are not in proportional terms to many other historical events.

Baraka_Guru · Apr 4, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

Switzerland is not a problem, North Korea is a problem - the North Korean problem is a military problem.

Switzerland is a member of NATO - I believe they take pride in their contribution to the alliance of nations in partnership for peace - via military power.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. What is the difference between North Korea and the U.S.? You know, they are virtually the same.

As an aside, did you know that NATO is based on a treaty?

History is full of examples from the scale of the issues preceding and during WWII down to the scale of neighborhood street gangs using force to control a public park in a city.
Click to expand...

These aren't military problems. You could argue they are examples of military successes. It depends on the example.

Either way, none of these are purely military issues.

I understand your point of view.
Click to expand...

I don't think you do.

I understand the point of view of the administration and European nations - I think the focus is on the wrong issues. Let's recap:

Putin used his military and took control of Crimea.
The West responds with empty rhetoric.
Putin retains control of Crimea.
The West announces sanctions on a select few Russians to put economic pressure on Putin.
Putin retains control of Crimea.
The West responds with more empty rhetoric.
Putin retains Crimea.
US is set to send $1 billion in aid to Ukraine.
Russia increases prices for gas and oil to Ukraine.
....what?....
The billion dollars in aid is going to Russia??? Did the US just subsidize the Russian use of the military to take control of the Crimea???
Is this a military problem? Or, are we just stupid? What we would call this in my old neighborhood is no longer PC, what would you have called it in your old Canadian neighbourhood?
Click to expand...

This isn't a military problem, and the picture you painted is problematic. I'd get into the details, but I don't have a lot of faith in the potential outcome.

Yes. We have different perspectives.
Click to expand...

It's not my perspective.

rogue49 · Apr 8, 2014

You better watch out...you might get what you wished for...

How Putin is losing in Crimea: A reality check
By Michael Cohen

A funny thing happened on March 21: Russia lost a war and virtually no one noticed.

On that day, at the same time Russian President Vladimir Putin was signing a treaty finalizing the annexation of Crimea, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was putting his own signature down: on a partnership pact between Ukraine and the European Union (EU).

It was precisely this agreement — and the refusal of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to sign it — that led to the bloody demonstrations in Kiev that forced Yanukovych from power and spurred Russia’s seizure of Crimea.

It’s the kind of trade that looks bad for Russia on the surface — and will only look worse in the future. Russia’s political influence in Ukraine and its dreams of creating an economic union to compete with the EU lies in tatters. Rather than push the U.S. and EU away from his western border, Putin’s actions have practically invited them in by strengthening the bonds between Kiev and the West. It is yet another reminder that Putin’s decision to seize Crimea, rather than serve as a triumphant moment, is far more likely to end up a disaster.

Economic costs

While Putin clearly imagines Russia to be a great power, the country is a hollow shell of its former self, with waning political and military influence and an economy that is teetering on the brink. Higher inflation, a weakening ruble, huge capital outflows and a lack of economic reforms contributed to a major slowdown in the growth rate last year — from a projected increase of 3.6 percent to a mediocre 1.3 percent clip. The Crimea crisis will only add to these economic woes.

A recent World Bank report makes clear that even in a best case scenario, Russia will be treading water economically for the near future. The bank’s worst-case scenario is, well, a lot worse — a contraction of 1.8 percent for 2014.

The near-term indicators are certainly alarming. The ruble remains in decline (down 9 percent for the year), the stock market has dropped by 18 percent, and money can’t find its way out of the country fast enough. According to the nation’s economy minister, Alexei Ulyukayev, as much as $70 billion left the country in just the first quarter of the year, and if that number reaches $150 billion, that projection of a nearly 2 percent contraction will become a reality.

While sanctions are drawing the most attention — and contributing to the increasingly dire economic situation — they are actually the least of Russia’s problems.

The far bigger one is that major financial institutions like Deutsche Bank are recommending that their clients keep their money out of Russia; two of the biggest ratings agencies, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, have downgraded Russia's investment rating from "stable" to "negative”; and even MasterCard and Visa are ending relationships with key Russian banks to avoid the snare of U.S. sanctions.

In the near term Russia is likely to be bypassed by international investors and multinationals. As a result, it will miss out on the sort of economic innovation that the country desperately needs to diversify its oil-reliant economy. It is small wonder that even Putin’s own deputy economy minister can’t deny the truth, that “the economic situation shows clear signs of crisis.”

Energy

Those oil reserves, which spurred Russia’s growth in the recent past, are no panacea either. Moscow is frighteningly dependent on oil and gas revenues. They represent a stunning one half of the country’s federal budget. And while European countries buy a disproportionately large share of Russian petroleum, their dependence is declining.

So if Russia were to try to use its oil and gas assets to flex its muscles and pressure European countries — as it has done in the past — the impact will not necessarily produce results. In the aftermath of Crimea — and even without further provocation from Russia — European countries may look to further diversify their energy use (even if moves like the U.S. increasing its exports of natural gas to Europe won’t have a serious impact for years) or even reverse recent decisions, like in Germany, to move away from nuclear power.

The reality is that Russia is far more dependent on selling oil and gas to Europe than Europe is on buying oil and gas from Moscow. If the Russians try to play hardball with European countries — in retaliation for sanctions — they will pay the biggest price. And with an economy already on the precipice of free fall, that’s hardly a choice that Russian leaders want to be making.

The even worse potential outcome is that irrespective of what Russia does, European countries may wake up to the reality that their dependence on Russian oil is also feeding Russian militarism — and respond accordingly.

Crimea

OK, so maybe things don’t look so great with the economy, but hey the Russians have Crimea — that must be worth something, right?

While the peninsula does offer some strategic benefits and certainly safeguards the Russian fleet that has been docked there since the end of the Cold War, Crimea might as well be the Russian word for “millstone.”

According to one analysis, Moscow could be looking at a bill as high as $20 billion over the next three years to fully integrate the peninsula into Russia.

Before annexation, 90 percent of Crimea’s water, 80 percent of its electricity and about two-thirds of its gas came from Ukraine. Eventually those supplies will need to come from Russia, which means new cables must be laid, and a bridge connecting Crimea to the Russia mainland must be built — along with new highways, airports and seaports.

Then there are more mundane public benefits. Crimea has long been one of the more dependent regions of Ukraine, with a majority of its budget subsidized by Kiev. Now Moscow will have to pick up the tab — at a price that could run as high $3 billion a year. Considering that nearly 30 percent of Crimeans rely on public pensions and another 10 percent are public employees, the region will likely be yet another one underwritten by the Russian government.

New passports need to be issued, currency will need to be converted, street signs changed, the legal and tax systems will need to be married. All of this will run the costs up even higher.

Ideally, Crimea would be able to offset some of these huge outlays, but while the region has some offshore reserves of natural gas, that's unlikely to have much of a near-term effect on the region’s budget woes. The peninsula’s main economic asset is tourism, and it’s hard to imagine many foreigners taking a fun-filled week of vacation there anytime soon.

Political costs ... or benefits

Even if one were to put aside the economic costs of Russia’s actions, there are the larger political costs.

G-8 membership: gone. Russia’s membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: postponed. Relations with the West: in tatters. Russia’s international standing: hurting (a fact made even more evident by a recent U.N. General Assembly vote that saw only 11 states side with Russia’s annexation of Crimea). The glow from Putin’s $51 billion Sochi Olympics: extinguished.

And how much does Vladimir Putin care about this? Not much, actually.

For all the larger economic hits, political benefits for Putin are not to be underestimated. His personal approval stands at more than 70 percent, and across the Russian political spectrum his moves in Crimea have broad support.

Whatever political cost there is for Putin “underestimates the Russian ability to muddle through,” said Matthew Rojansky, director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center. “They are willing to sacrifice something in return for the right to return Russians to Russia.”

The fight over Crimea and in turn with the West also “serves an ideological and political benefit,” says Rojansky, by not only cultivating nationalist fervor but also proving Putin's longstanding argument that the West, and the U.S. in particular, is “fundamentally hostile” toward Russia and a “hypocritical force in international affairs.”

For all of the West’s denunciations of Putin, there is little it can do to reverse his actions or even fully punish him. With overnight reports of violent pro-Russian protests in three Ukrainian cities, Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv, (and Russian efforts to raise gas prices on sales to Ukraine) it is a reminder that Putin has the potential to further destabilize the region. While Ukraine may have moved more into the Western orbit, Putin can still make plenty of trouble there.

Moreover, economic sanctions are well and good, but they will do limited damage to the eighth biggest economy in the world, especially when many countries are unlikely to go along with them.

In short, seizing Crimea plays to the political cheap seats, and the West’s reaction, rather than weakening Putin, works in his favor. From a narrow political perspective, Putin has likely won.

The problem of course is that Russian pride, while politically useful, won’t attract foreign investment, won’t convince Europe to continue its reliance on Russian oil and gas and won’t pay the bills in Crimea.

Once the immediate glow of Russia asserting itself fades, the Russian people will find themselves in a far worse place than they were when Crimea was safely ensconced in Ukraine. And while Russians in the past were willing — and often forced — to sacrifice, today’s Russia is a very different place with a growing middle class that doubled between 2000 and 2010.

Putin has long talked about creating an independent foreign policy separate from that of the West. He has pushed for Russian businessmen and oligarchs to keep their money in the country (something that international sanctions may actually help occur). And he has tried to create an alternative economic union to that of the EU.

But in a globalized economy that is lubricated by foreign investment and open trading borders and an international political system defined more by cooperation than old-fashioned power politics, the deck is stacked squarely against Putin’s experiment. Other countries may be as resentful of U.S. power as Russia is, but very few seem willing to back Moscow’s power play.

In effect, Putin is trying to roll back history and return Russia to a period when it was not only a great power but one that stood serenely and confidently outside the U.S.-led global system. If early signs are any indication, it’s a gambit that is likely to fail.
Click to expand...

Just another case of a nation paying the long-term costs of their leaders' short-term gain.
(**And it doesn't happen in just Russia...the US & Europe has gotten a few of those too... )

rogue49 · Apr 15, 2014

Why does Europe do this? So wishy-washy.
Oh, oh...woe is us, someone is doing wrong.
But then, when it's needed to be determined, firm, unified.
Well...
Fragile Europe Weakens U.S. Push for Russia Sanctions

And you wonder why the US is the world's policeman. (whether you want it or not, whether we want it or not)

Sorry, in the real world, assholes try to take advantage.
They do not wait for you to talk it out.

If Putin was such a nice guy, you wouldn't be having the issues with him in the first place.

rogue49 · Apr 16, 2014

And I wake up this morning to see that the "liberal" New York Times agrees. (Of course this is a US newspaper, so their liberal isn't as liberal as other nations)
Mr. Putin’s Power Play
and
Russia Is Quick to Bend Truth About Ukraine

But you've got to wonder about the sense of urgency even by the US...as Congress is taking their own sweet time...
and even Obama is multi-tasking other things. (then again, he claimed that ability at the start of the economic crisis in the Sept '08 before his initial win)
Ukraine is business as usual in Washington

Makes you wonder how our current Washington and Prez would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis? (where the encroachment was closer to home)

Baraka_Guru · Apr 16, 2014

What a cozy thought....

Today, Russia's policies and actions toward Ukraine's Crimea region demonstrate complete disregard for this critically important memorandum [in 1994, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom entered into an agreement to remove former Soviet nuclear weapons from Ukraine] and international law.

As a response, some within the Ukrainian government are looking beyond an immediate call for Western help to a more proactive means of guaranteeing their national security, i.e. regaining nuclear weapons status.

The recently introduced legislation is the latest expression of the growing sentiment that a nuclear Ukraine is a protected Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Opinion: Is Ukraine about to go nuclear again? - CNN.com

Log in or Sign up

Politics Ukraine and Putin's power grab

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Shadowex3 Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Log in or Sign up

Politics Ukraine and Putin's power grab

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Shadowex3 Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Useful Searches