You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
Ukraine: Dangerous bovine blundering from John Kerry
2014-03-10
On Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the Kremlin annexing Crimea would “close any available space for diplomacy.”

The warning is disconcerting because there are three general ways that this crisis could play out: Russia keeps advancing into east and south Ukraine, Russia annexes Crimea and then applies further financial and political pressure on the new government in Kiev, or Russia makes limited concessions and the crisis de-escalates.
Or the Ukraine would agree to a partition, or the Ukraine would throw the Russians out (right), or the EU could grow a spine (double right)...
By Kerry saying that the diplomatic window is closed if Russia annexes Crimea — which is almost a forgone conclusion — then the best path for de-escalation is obstructed.

"We need a de-escalation and that can only happen via talks," German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, who spoke with Putin in Moscow last week, told Der Spiegel. "It's not a question now of whether we react in a 'hard' or 'soft' manner; rather we have to act in a clever manner."
You can almost see Sigmar wringing his hands...
Furthermore, on Sunday U.S. national security official Tony Blinken said that America won't recognize the March 16 referendum and will increase sanctions on Moscow if and when Crimea secedes.

Meanwhile, experts agree that Vladimir Putin is not going to give up Crimea.
Why should he? He has a winning hand internationally and at home. This is extremely popular in the Russian Federation and in the Crimea itself.
"What's happened in Crimea is a fait accompli. You aren't going to get the Russians out of there," Stephen Larrabee, who specializes in European Security at Rand, told NPR. "I can't see Putin agreeing to withdraw troops that are already there. It would be losing face with his own public."
It would be an invitation for him to be overthrown as the now-weak horse...
Last week geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer told Business Insider that "Russia is not going to back down from Crimea, irrespective of U.S. pressure," and that the Obama administration is "going to have to find a way to come to terms with that."

Given that Kerry says that the diplomatic window would be closed if Crimea joins Russia, it doesn't sound like the White House has come to terms with what's happening.
The White House hasn't come to terms with reality lots of stuff so this isn't surprising...
Bremmer said the U.S. "should be working to get the Ukrainians to accept a referendum on [Crimea] in exchange for Russian recognition of Ukrainian territorial integrity and a process that will lead to the election of a new Ukrainian government."

On Sunday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said that “not an inch of land” will be ceded to Russia.
You're a little behind, Arseniy. Have you been talking with John Kerry instead of minding the store?
Events on the ground imply further escalation of the crisis, both politically and militarily, which is exacerbated by Kerry's threat that the diplomatic window is closing as the annexation of Crimea plays out.
Posted by:Besoeker

#10  * TOPIX > [Various] LAVROV: RUSSIA DEVELOPING PROPOSALS TO SOLVE UKRAINE CRISIS.

Again, a possible "Guantanamo" Scenario or Solution for Crimea???

versus

* TOPIX > [North Jersey] OPINION: UKRAINE INVASION A MODEL FOR FUTURE CONFLICTS.

OWG Co-Superpower Rising China = East Asia-Pacific, + OWG Co-Superpower Rising Iran = ME + Persian Gulf, ... ... Brazil?, I'M A'LOOKIN AT YOUSE.

* SAME > [NRO] KRAUTHAMMER'S TAKE: CRIMEA WILL LIKELY BE PART OF RUSSIA WITHIN TWO WEEKS. Thers nothing the Bammer = USA can do about it in the short-run.

* SAME > CRIMEAN TATARS FEAR RETURN OF RUSSIAN CONTROL.

This where thingys may get subjectively problematic for Putin as per local Tatar resistance [mass civil disobedience?], BUT MOST ESPEC AS PER FOREIGN MILTERR/JIHADI DESIRE TO UNILATERALLY HELP THEIR MUSLIM TATAR BROTHERS BY "LIBERATING" THE CRIMEA, ETC. PERPHERALS FROM PUTIN'S CONTROL IN THE NAME OF ALLAN + 72 RAISINS.

* WAFF > [Ria.RU] CRIMEA PREPARATIONS FOR JOINING RUSSIA ALREADY UNDERWAY - AKSYROV [Crimea PM Sergei A.].

* SAME > RUSSIA DEPUTY PM [Rogozin] SAYS RUSSIA SHOULD RE-ARM AMID US, ANTO "THREATS".

* RUSSIA TODAY > CRIMEA CREATES OWN MILITARY BY SWEARING IN SELF-DEFENSE UNITS.

* VOICE OF RUSSIA > CRIMEAN AUTHORITIES TO NATIONALIZE UKRAINIAN FLEET, MINERAL-PRODUCING FACILITIES.

versus

* Also from VOICE OF RUSSIA > US WISHES TO SHAKE OFF FINANCIAL AID BURDEN TO UKRAINE ON TO EUROPE [EuroUnion] - PUSHKOV.

Iff true, this is NOT going to endear Amerika's EU Allies to the Bammer + SecState Jaawhn [aka MSM-Net's "Lurch"].
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-03-10 20:45  

#9  "Harder in practical terms - easier from the standpoint of American public opinion. Russia has been the enemy for close to 70 years,"

Lets see that a staunch Cold War warrior, the man who played an important (perhaps critical) role in US adoption of SDI --- IMO, the proximal factor of Soviet Union's collapse, Jerry Pournelle says
The great fear of the Cold Warriors – at least all of my colleagues and those I associated with – was that the USSR would destroy the world in its death throes. Sun Tzu said you should build golden bridges for your enemies. Machiavelli tells us never to do an enemy a small injury. One must strive to keep the respect of your enemies, and never confuse your real objectives with speculative dreams.

And so, when the USSR dissolved, and Yeltsin essentially ended the rule of Communism and the Party and the Nomenklatura, and tens of thousands of nuclear weapons were dismantled, there was some euphoria. A few of us worried, particularly since YeltsinÂ’s influence and power began to melt. Putin emerged: a KGB Colonel who restored the established church and made it clear he put Russian national interests ahead of all else: a Tsarist without a Tsar.

And there was opportunity for the United States to play the realist balance of power game in this suddenly created New World with Russia, China, Europe, as players, and the United States as the sole superpower. It was possible to build a world on that.

And then came Clinton and Madeleine Albright, and the Balkan crisis. Of all places where the US had few interests the Balkans ranked quite high: yet because we had this great army we had to do something with it, and liberal ideology prevailed. We intervened in a territorial dispute in Europe, and we did so to the chagrin and humiliation of Russia. It came close to a shooting engagement. And then our air power dropped bridges over the Danube. We wrecked the economy of the lower Danube to no gain of our own, thus infuriating the pan-Slavic Russians and leaving a lasting grudge that will not go away. Instead of looking for common interests with Russia, we chose hostility for its own sake with no national interest of ours at stake, and chose sides in the ancient blood feuds of Christian and Moslem inhabitants of the Balkans. We chose to bomb Christian Slavs, thus making enemies of pro-Slavic Russia.

We sowed the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind; and now we are supposed to ‘rescue’ Crimea from Russia? It was crazy to intervene in the Balkans. It is stark raving madness to contemplate intervention in the Crimea. Perhaps we can send The Light Brigade?


"Arming Ukraine would help deter further Russian adventurism"

(a) Protecting one's vital national interests i.e. Russia only access to Mediterranean---is not adventurism.
(b) You give staff to Ukraine it'll end in Russia. Though Russians don't really need it now: they've access to US tech in Egypt, and---through Iran, in Iraq.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2014-03-10 15:31  

#8  A bit harder than backstabbing Israel, is it John?

Harder in practical terms - easier from the standpoint of American public opinion. Russia has been the enemy for close to 70 years, responsible for close to 500K American GI deaths via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The real difficulty is Obama's unwillingness to move beyond pro forma steps against Russia. Arming Ukraine would help deter further Russian adventurism, but Obama's timid steps have opened the door to the annexation of Eastern Ukraine and the Baltics after that of the Crimea is done. The EU's purely self-interested actions haven't helped. Maybe the only way to inject some spine into these people is to withdraw from NATO.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2014-03-10 14:42  

#7  ..Obama stages of grief:
1.Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.
2.See Above
3.Blame George Bush
4. Rinse-lather-repeat..
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2014-03-10 11:02  

#6  He's up to his old stuff again, he's opening his mouth !
Posted by: Besoeker   2014-03-10 09:40  

#5  ..but bovine scatology is a major export of the Beltway.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2014-03-10 08:47  

#4  A bit harder than backstabbing Israel, is it John?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2014-03-10 06:25  

#3  More as related to a possible "GITMO/GUANTANAMO" solution in the Crimea. ...

* BHARAT RAKSHAK > [Independent.UK] DESPITE THE FEARS OF SMALL STATES, PUTIN IS UNLIKELY TO REDRAW HIS COUNTRY'S [Russia] BORDERS.


and

* SAME > [Guardian.UK] NICK CLEGG [UK Deputy PM] HINTS AT CRIMEA DEAL IFF VLADIMIR PUTIN DROPS "KGB MENTALITY", DEPUTY PM SAYS CRIMEA IS A DIFFERENT CATEGORY NEXT TO THE UKRAINE, + RUSSIA [already] HAS A "PRONOUNCED IMPRINT" THERE.

British geopol pragmatism or reality, or the Brits = Clegg proudly surrrendering like France???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-03-10 03:12  

#2  See WORLD NEWS > [Sacramento Bee] CRIMEA SHIFT TO RUSSIA NOT CERTAIN, US OFFICIAL SAYS | RUSSIA'S TAKEOVER OF CRIMEA "IS NOT A DONE DEAL".

I say again - Putin desires a "Guantanamo" Scenario in the Crimea, not annexation of the Crimea or breakup of sovereign Ukraine???

and

* SAME > [Various] KIEV HAS NO PLANS TO DEPLOY ARMED FORCES/TROOPS TO CRIMEA.

* 1ST HEADLINES > [WaPo] ROBERT GATES PREDICTS CRIMEA WILL COME UNDER RUSSIAN CONTROL.

'Tis a "lost cause" as far as Gates is concerned.

See above???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-03-10 01:40  

#1  I just want everybody to know that the diplomatic waters are pretty deep over there in the Ukraine and the Russian Bulldogs are very fierce protecting what they think is their territory. I'm just warning you that I have to take a tough stand against these people, and the odds of winning are very difficult to predict, especially with me on your side.



Posted by: Glomons Omoth1944   2014-03-10 00:25  

00:00