I posted My assessment Sunday about the Situation in the Ukraine. I commented further today, but since the post is so old, it did not show up on the newsfeed so I am resharing it with my new observations added. If you have already read the first part, feel free to skip to the more recent stuff. Originally posted March 2nd: For the past few days, I have been watching the events unfold in The Ukraine. With other things going on, I have not been able to keep up in as timely a manner as I would like to, and therefore have been reluctant to comment. I have had some people privately solicit my opinion on the matter, but I did not feel sufficiently updated to venture any kind of assessment. I have since updated myself reasonably on the events going on there. I am still not sure exactly what course of action we should take, not taking any action being one possible course. I would also argue that most armchair quarterbacks on here, not unlike myself would also be foolish to be endorsing any specific course of action at this time. That is not to say that I am endorsing the wait and see approach either, as time may very well be of the essence in this situation. I am saying that the information available to me, and likely you, if you are bothering to read this limits our ability to understand the nuances and dynamics of the situation. This should not however prevent us from discussing the elements of the situation that we are aware of, while keeping in mind that we will still be likely missing large parts of the puzzle. So, what do we know? The Ukraine is a more secular Nation than the Soviet Union. It is 62% not religious. Conversely in Russia, Only 38% describe themselves as either atheist or spiritual but not religious. Religion in Russia is dominated by the Russian Orthodox Church. Therefore in The Ukraine, we are likely to see Less religious based and anti gay persecution, and therefore they are much more likely to be a natural ally of the United States. The Ukraine is not a member of NATO. However, they are as about as close as one can get to being a member of NATO, without being one. We could probably expedite their membership. I am however not aware how long this would take, even if expedited. It probably would not take much arm twisting to get them to formally request assistance from NATO, but before considering this, we might need to ask ourselves if this is a can of worms we wish to open up? We could make threats of such a kind, but in doing so, are we willing to have our fists cash the checks that our mouths write? When we look at the areas in question, Many are dominated by people with ties to Russia. Overall, about 17% of the people in The Ukraine are ethnic Russians. Most of these folks live in the east and Southeast. If Roles were Reversed, Americans would be feeling entitled to many of these areas. They also have the advantage of Control over The Crimea, and Odessa and have recently made efforts to reinforce that control. In an effort to extract them, they would be heavily defended. One should also consider that such areas are very important strategically and perhaps one should think twice about giving them up, even if it means preventing a war, and even if we would feel entitled to it if we were in Russias place. We also do not know how much the Ukrainian government wants our help, nor do we know how much they will have our backs if we choose to intervene. I would suggest that we refrain from intervention without a strong backing from both the Ukrainian government, and the Ukrainian people. The Ukraine is also, a strong agricultural area, and Russia is largely dependent on it for food. They might see it as something worth taking a great risk to control, especially if they see their nations very survival and independence necessitating that control. Both have very similar quality of life indicators. Both have declining population sizes, so growing room does not seem to be a priority for either country. The US. has a vested interest in being a thorn in Russias side since they are a current economic adversary, and potentially a military one. The converse is also true. Viktor Yanukovych was ousted from power, and there is legitimate argument as to whether his ouster was legal. Whether Russias involvement is to be considered an invasion, or assistance hinges on that. So, who has the right? Viktor Yanukovych was the recognized President of the country. He was formally impeached. Let me go on record as saying that it appears to me that the impeachment was legitimate. Therefore he is no longer the acting president of that country, therefore the request for Russian assistance does not come from a legitimate source. I do not know everything though. If someone would like to argue that his impeachment happened outside the law, I would like to hear their argument. That being said, I am quite sure that if we were in a situation similar to the Russians, we would view it differently as Americans, particularly if our well being were at stake. This does not tell us that Russia is right, only that they will be able to sell the notion that they are right to Russians, and ethnic Russians within The Ukraine, just as we would be able to sell the alternate notion to Americans. There are many more questions to answer here, but let us explore some scenarios. The scenarios themselves might generate better questions. Let me also state that by postulating a scenario, that I am not advocating for it. Let me get out in front of this by stating exactly what I am advocating. I am advocating that we trust the Judgement of our Commander in Chief to continue to do what is in our best interest as a nation. Where I realize that some of you Do not trust the judgement of our Commander in Chief as I did not trust the judgement of our Previous Commander in Chief. In response to your anticipated outcry, let me remind you of the words that our previous Commander in Chief once uttered. “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 election.” Simply put, elections have consequences, and whether Democrats liked it or not, the people had spoken. Elections Have Consequences. So, let us say we meet with the Leaders of the Ukraine. We get a formal request of assistance. We get a guarantee that NATO troops will receive absolute cooperation and support nearly to the extent that they literally kiss our asses. We receive assurances that we will be reimbursed for part, or perhaps all of our expenses incurred in securing their country. We receive assurances that their military will share the risk. We get formal commitment of other NATO and perhaps other nations to commit troops. In some cases Formidable, and in other cases nominal amounts. We go in. We blockade The Crimea from the south and siege them from the north. We notify them that they are under arrest and order them to stand down. We march them in shame to the Russian boarder, and the ones Russia accepts, we eject. The remainders are treated by The Ukraine as traitors. Sounds simple enough right? So what might be the problem? Well first since we are doing all of this from such a long distance, and Russia from such a short one. The expense would be much greater, especially if we are going to manifest a force capable of being an adequate deterrent. Approaching other nations would likely give Putin a heads up about our intentions and motivate him to intrench further. Others might not be so willing to show their support. Ukrainians might not be willing to compromise their sovereignty by allowing us in, despite the potential existential threat presented by Russia. To insure that a guarantee is upheld might be more difficult than having the guarantee made originally. Russia may be willing to risk more in defending their claim to the Crimea, and or other areas, than we are willing to risk in order to successfully challenge that guarantee. Presuming that we do take it, The Ukraine will be dealing with populaces in those areas dominated by hostile ethnic Russians for years to come. Where from our side this would look like we were protecting the Sovereignty of The Ukraine. Russians, and Ethnic Russians in The Ukraine, would see it as an invasion by outsiders. They would be wondering what we would do next. They would call Putin a weak leader. not that this would be a bad thing for us, but that it simply would be unlikely to go down like that for that exact reason. So let us say that we stay out of this. Russia Protects the Crimea, perhaps with a few other areas in the east and southeast, where an ethnic population dominates. Perhaps these areas get annexed by Russia. Ethnic Russians in the remaining parts of The Ukraine in large migrate into these areas and Ethnic Ukrainians migrate in large back into what is still The Ukraine. The Ukraine faces less internal resistance in joining NATO, and the European Union. Russia maintains their bases to their Black Sea Fleet, and a corridor to reach them. Perhaps Odessa is left to The Ukraine, and they to are left with Black Sea access. Perhaps Russia completely blocks The Ukraine from access to the Black Sea. A still very large country becomes a member of the EU. Russia must deal with the Country on equitable terms in order to purchase food, and the Russians maintain their Black Sea military capability and possibly dominance. Peace in our time? Probably not. Any such move would likely not offer Russia a sufficient deterrent from wishing to go further either now, or later. Keep in mind that they feel as entitled to the Ukraine as Americans would if we were in their shoes. I think it would be a matter of time before they took the rest, and perhaps attempted to bring back some of the other former Soviet Republics (the potentially profitable ones) into their sphere of influence. The attempt would be largely unsuccessful as would be their management of The Ukraine. It is easier to trade with someone who does not like you than it is to micromanage someone that hates you. But not unlike the Americans, I think the Russians would have to live this lesson in order to learn it. I do not think that the consequences to the people involved would merit the lesson. All and all doing nothing would likely cost nearly as much as going too far. On the other hand, a much larger cost is placed on Russia. Think Afghanistan with indoor plumbing. So what can I say about these two solutions? Neither of them is likely to result in world war three nor are they likely to result in Russia knocking over countries like dominoes. Both offer what is among the worst likely outcomes, and neither offers the kind of outcome that the End is Nigh people would suggest. Though given the two choices, doing nothing sounds better because it minimizes our costs and leaves an Afghanistan sized crippling thorn in Russias side of course better than leaving it alone, there might be little ways to pee on that thorn and maybe cause a nice little infection. I would not advise this path unless we were fairly certain that Russia would walk away from this feeling that they got the raw end of the stick. So, What does that leave us with for a middle ground? Let them have something, but at a price that will make them regret their effort. Is that vague enough for you? I apologize for that, but I really do not know how else to put it as a work describing all such solutions would be of epic length and any one solution pulled out by itself would seem highly unlikely. But let me throw out some Ideas. Perhaps we blockade the Black Sea at Turkey Bottling up the Black Sea Fleet and making it virtually worthless to Russia. We cut the Crimea off from Russia, until they surrender it, but allow them to hold onto the Oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk. or perhaps vice versa. Perhaps challenge their dominion over Kaliningrad Oblast arguing that it is legitimately a part of Lithuania, or Poland, or some combination thereof. We could make regaining that as problematic for Russia as regaining the Crimea might be for the Ukraine. Where the possibilities are endless, a general theme emerges. That is we should give them a price that they will be reluctant to buy at again. Give them a victory as they are in a position to take that anyway, but make it a Pyrrhic one. Now I have talked about The win lose and the lose lose situations, let me throw another sort of scenario into the mix. That is the win win scenario. Let me caution that first Russia would have to be convinced that this would be a better solution for them than to try to do otherwise. Like America, they will do what they feel is best for Russia regardless of how others might come out. So, what do they want, and what might they have to offer? I am sure they want The Crimea pretty badly and probably Odessa too. I am sure they would want to protect those Ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the Ukraine as well. They would probably like a food supply that they could count on. Ukraine would probably like to have their own source of oil and or natural gas. Again, the possibilities are endless. So let me say the following in closing. Many of my fellow armchair quarterbacks will have answers to this situation that they will assure me are just obvious. It does not matter which end of the spectrum your answer falls upon. Putin is not a stupid man, and if it is an answer obvious to you. It will be one that is easily anticipated by him. Keep in mind that when you answer, your confidence in the wisdom of your solution, will not be viewed as a sign of intelligence. That was the Original Comment. I then got a reply from Bev Marker that was useful, thoughtful, and informative. Bev Marker First, I do not believe the ouster of Yanukovych was constitutional. In 2004, the 1996 constitution was restored and was in effect at the time of the ouster. Yet the 1996 and 2004 constitution uniformly state the parliament has the right to initiate impeachment proceedings for treason or other crimes. Since the stated grounds were abandonment of his office and the deaths of 80 protesters and police over a violent week, I do not consider it legal. Next, I believe that the United States should do nothing. Let Europe handle it, we have too much on our plate. There is the stalled Israeli Palestinian talks, Saudi Arabia, how to handle Egypts increasing authoritarian regime, Chinas expanded claim of air space and the impending crisis in North Korea. March 2 at 9:42pm · Edited · Unlike · 1Reply And now we get to today. I posted this without considering that the original post would be almost a week old, and therefore few people would actually see it. I am doing my best to remedy that here: Patrick Henson So, one of the folks who emailed me really did not care for my assessment on this. I though I would share their reply along with my response. This is their reply (2 messeges): Loren Bowman So, is it fair for me to believe that you support Russia, and you support a new soviet empire. Loren Bowman And Patrick, your last statement clearly shows that you abhor America and its people. I will re-post it to my friends so that they can see that there are actually people like you out there. This is my response: Let me start by saying that I neither support Russia nor do I support a new Soviet Union. I also should state that I love the United States of America Warts and all. I am just not in a position to pretend that we do no wrong. If I were to pick a side in this conflict between Ukraine and Russia based on Ideology, I would pick Ukraine. They are a much less Religious, Much more Secular, and a much more Liberal nation than Russia. That being said, I would also pick doing what is in the best interest of the United States, over not doing what is in the best interest of the United States. Where I do not claim to be in the know as to the specifics on the ground, I am confident that we have a President who is both in the know, is capable of making a wise decision, and has our best interest at heart. I should let you know that I too am sharing your comments along with my original post. And finally my last comment: So, let me make a few more observations today. The Crimea is part of the Ukraine, but is dominated by Russian culture. If the Crimea were to have a Plebiscite as to whether they would remain as part of The Ukraine, or become part of Russia, it seems likely that they would become part of Russia. We can also presume that without The Crimea, The Ukraine would be a much more westward leaning country. The people in Russia think of Crimea as Russians, as the people in The United States thought of the American Settlers thought of the Americans living in Texas prior to the independence and annexation of Texas. We felt our Americans in Texas deserved our protection as Russians likely feel that Russians living in The Crimea deserve theirs. Keep in mind I am not arguing that either of these groups are right or wrong, and that I am just presenting the reality to you. That is to say, if we take strong actions, to enforce Ukraines dominance over the Crimea, it will be very costly, and it will gain Putin much Support at home in Defending it. We will have to move in. Russia is there. Once secured, the Ukraine will have an area that will continue to be a thorn in its side for years to come. Ukraine will remain evenly divided between east and west. Now let us say that we essentially let Russia Annex the Crimea. By that, I do not mean we do so without exceptions. We put forth all the rhetoric about how awful and illegal it is. We even impose a few toothless sanctions, but in the end, The Crimea becomes part of Russia. The ethnic Ukrainians then become a thorn in Russias side, Ukraine becomes demographically less tied to Russia, and more tied to Europe. They become par of NATO and the EU. We are justified then in putting NATO troops in the eastern part of the country to protect boarders, and our European allies become more willing to take on a larger share of that deployment. Putin does not gain the public support in Russia that he would have gained by our forcing him out, and the trap he has set for us, becomes a snare fore himself. Thank you all for bearing with me.
Posted on: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 14:51:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015