Politics Ukraine and Putin's power grab

Yes. To seriously want to remove Putin would be folly. He's only one of the most powerful men in the world. Some would argue he's more powerful than Obama.

It would be better to influence him into a direction that's more palatable.

You might be interested to see how things work in Russia. The power of oligarchs in Russia is far more influential than the power of oligarchs in America. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that America is more corrupt than Russia. I would say it's not.

In Canada, power is more diffuse. Much of the same happens in terms of monied interests vs. more balanced political means, but we have different regulations when it comes to money and politics. There are limits that cannot be broached without suffering the consequences. There does occur on occasion more concentrated power, but that's achieved through the electorate. When a prime minister has a majority government, he or she holds more power over Canada than an American president could ever dream of having over America. Not a bad accomplishment for a politician who doesn't garner votes outside of his or her own riding.

Canadian politics is a different creature from either Russian or American politics.

The point is that those who have enabled (and continue to enable) Putin won't be happy with the sanctions being exacerbated to a point of financial loss. So far, much of the sanctions are highly targeted or symbolic. If things get out of hand, especially militarily, crippling economic sanctions will certainly hurt everyday Russians, but it will also hit the pocketbooks of the Russian oligarchs, who are otherwise mocking Obama's ineffective (to them) sanctions (thus far). If it comes to that, you can bet the oligarchs will pressure Putin for a quick resolution. Most of these folks care about one thing: money. If they are cut off from international markets, it's really going to piss them off.

This isn't true. Refer, please, to my reference to the Enlightenment. The Age of Reason ushered in a decoupling of religion and law. Much of the world moved away from concepts such as the divine right of kings or laws to prevent sacrilege to concepts such as social contract theory, leading to the separation of church and state.

Whether one argues that law is based on morality, legal positivism, will to power, or a combination thereof is one thing, but it's an error to assume that morality is a concept exclusive to religion.

Morality is basically a determination of what is right vs. what is wrong. These are difficult to determine in absolutist terms, which is why laws vary jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I don't want to get into a debate about the nature of law and morality. My point is that the Ukrainian issue is relevant because Russia is violating the concept of national sovereignty. Ukraine isn't in a position to defend that on its own. The rest of the world could ignore the situation, but that's not very practical given existing economic and political ties. Why do we have foreign policies and international relations? It's because of the interconnectedness we share around the world. What happens between Russia and Ukraine matters for a number of reasons. To ignore it is to undermine the very idea of national sovereignty, and it would suggest that it is permissible for Russia to use its military and political power to annex whatever territory it sees fit.

It may or may not be a moral question to you, but I'm wondering if you have any problem with autocratic expansionism.

I'm not sure where you want to go with this. Are you suggesting Russia is right to break away from the idea of national sovereignty in the name of autocratic expansionism?

 

This is an excellent summary and good positive perspective of what mindset we should take during this situation. IMHO
What do you think?

 

Judges would have also accepted reprobation.

 

Well, maybe the U.S. isn't the best example of who should tell them they can't have it. It's a good thing there are several others who are also saying that. Not even China is siding with Russia, which is telling.

Actually 46% of Crimeans aren't Russian. There are two sizeable minority groups of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars (or native Crimeans). We're talking about three quarters of a million people (Crimea is only about the size of Maryland). They aren't Russian, but they are now supposed to suddenly accept that they are a part of the Russian Federation?

Also, consider this: How Russia Rigged Crimean Referendum - Forbes

And this: Crimea's referendum was a sham display of democracy | Ian Birrell | Comment is free | theguardian.com

I think it's about balance. It's one thing to be a warmonger; it's another to be an isolationist. Either can be harmful.

 

Let's just say he might win this battle, but he'll lose the war overall.
Putin's short-term gain will be a long-term pain.

You're already seeing tons of money, resources and trust...lost from the move.
People outside of Russian have changed their view of the nation...and not for the good.

And now they are planning for additional aggression...or other "what if" scenarios.
After Crimea, West plans for Russia military threat

My question is this...will Putin survive the damage?
And if not...who'll be up next?

 

Look at the big picture. The sanctions we've seen so far are only a start. They could get much worse, but nobody wants that. Do you think this is something to take lightly?

Even still, what has happened so far has already had an impact. It could still get far, far worse. Russian Economy, Tycoons Take Hit In Crimea Crisis

No it's not. You should know your American history. Going "all in" is often a mistake. Perhaps this is why sanctions have been highly selective so far.

Regardless, sanctions still have much potential to be highly punitive. Merkel: "G8 no longer exists"; as EU plans further sanctions on Russia | euronews, world news

 

Do you even read?

It wasn't subjective. Try this: take lightly - Wiktionary

The Russian economy has been shaky for months now. Even if the EU is reluctant to turn off the oil taps flowing to Europe, other measures can still penalize a weakened economy that has put Putin on the defensive domestically.

It's a difficult situation, which is why "all in" would be foolish.

Rumour has it that billions have already flowed away from Russia domestically over the past few months. Rumour has it that several of those in Russia with wealth have sanctions against them, limiting their options, and more are being targeted.

Have you dug into the numbers deeply enough?

You think this is all symbolism? You think Putin is winning? You think Putin wanted all of this? Why do you think he made this move? Because conditions were just right?

Putin perhaps is the closest we've seen as being "all in." (I never considered "all in" meaning "going to war.") Unfortunately for him, he's not likely to come away from this unscathed. The damage has already been done, and it will have a long-lasting impact on the future of Russia.
--- merged: Mar 21, 2014 at 11:59 AM ---

This is false. It claims that the nonreligious are amoral or immoral, or that there is no such thing as being irreligious or nonreligous.

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. (Thankfully.)

But perhaps it is a topic for another thread.

 

So operating a business is kinda like autopilot? It will probably take care of itself?

What are you betting on, exactly?

Do you mistake silence for complacency? Contentedness? I think that's making too much of an assumption.

Do you know of any billionaires who don't care a whit about the economy? How much do you know about these Russian billionaires? (I don't think they're really the type to complain.)

Oh, I get your vague concept of "all in." What you don't seem to get is how diplomatic/political situations can unfold. You cling to the idea of symbolism, the idea of stasis. I have no idea why.

Won what, exactly? A mess? He's certainly doing well so far, at least.

I hope you don't think Putin is motivated only by narcissism. It's more dangerous than that. Add money and nationalistic pride, and you'd be much closer to the mark.

I think the West understands him perfectly. He's hardly enigmatic. He isn't exactly a new player, either.

 

FYI

Putin formally gets Crimea; Ukraine & EU sign deal

 

This is the thing. The EU was pained to have lost a Ukraine trade deal last year to a Russian bailout. Now they've gained Ukraine possibly more than they had hoped for back then.

Again, Crimea relies greatly (or had relied greatly, as the case may be) on Ukraine for resources.

I'm sorry. Who's winning exactly?

 

Well, perhaps a Russian Chess Grandmaster can tell us.
And someone who's actually gone up against Putin politically and internally.

If anyone knows, he does.
Hopefully, we'll stop fooling ourselves.

 

Yes, as always, it comes down to the money. I wasn't sure how/if targeted sanctions would work to that extent. Certainly, if the West can economically cripple the wealth/power elite in Russia, it would pose a threat to Putin's power base.

A house of cards sort of thing.

That's the risk, I suppose, when your power base is so narrow and concentrated.

 

Perhaps we can out-Putin, Putin. A very Machiavellian thing.
Where as he's given an excuse to be fiscally/politically attacked, under the premise & rationalization of punishment for his aggressive actions.
Then you not only undermine him, his allies and his nation all-together,
but this allows transfer of funds, resources and projects over to other nations, especially those acting...thus gaining themselves and leveraging advantage.

It's been done before.
He hasn't played "fair" (at least from the international media/political mindset at the moment) So all bets are off.
Then you can take advantage of the play & punishment.

That's what happened in WWI...Germany attacked, the Allies fought back, then after the fact, punished them with reparations,
increasing their own power bases as Germany's waned.
Except that was with guns, not electronic policy...and they did overkill, triggering Germany's depression and setting up the rise of the Third Reich.

So, if they're going to do it...they better do it to cause pain and gain advantage, but not so much that you make Russia desperate.