Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[mheslep]

I don't discount Putin's previous threats because they were targeted at "just neighbors" - why do you?

A threat is a threat.

I'm drawing a distinction between Putin's previous military aggression against neighbors (Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, the list getting long) with the like of little green men, and Russian threats with nuclear weapons since the Ukrainian invasion. I don't mean to diminish Russia's border countries, rather I mean to point that out that they are "just" the ones that have been attacked, no others so far. I dismiss neither (armed border incursions and nuclear threats), but they are not the same thing and require very different responses.

 

[Dotini]

Meetings are taking place this weekend amongst Hollande, Merkel and Putin, with Biden, Poroshenko and various European Defense Ministers on the sidelines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-Do-not-try-to-scare-Putin-warns-Merkel.html

Is there a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis emerging that wants to ease sanctions and avoid weapons shipments to Ukraine? Are the US media, Congress and elements of the administration banging the drums for new weapons shipments? Somehow I don't see a united western position anymore.

Edit: Meanwhile, on the ground, a gritty narrative of the battle for Debaltseve, a strategic railway junction.
http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-ukrainian-forces-agree-humanitarian-corridor-082121426.html

 

[Astronuc]

Ukraine leader shows off captured Russian military IDs
http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-leader-shows-off-captured-russian-military-ids-160048355.html

Of course, Russia denies Russian troops are in Ukraine. Or are they just advisors, or observers?

Well - I suppose they could have taken a wrong turn in Albuquerque. It happened to Bugs Bunny all the time.I sure hope the EU and US don't agree to territorial cession to stop Russian aggression - and violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. I'm thinking a Fox commentator might be right that we need another Winston Churchill, not a bunch of Neville Chamberlains.One doesn't stand around and talk about fighting a raging fire. One fights the fire, extinguishs it, then talks about it.

 

[Dotini]

Poroshenko is holding passports, which I am informed Russian soldiers are not required to possess. So I think the polite term for these troops is "volunteers".

 

[Astronuc]

Russian-backed rebels massing to attack key Ukrainian towns: Kiev
http://news.yahoo.com/five-more-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-east-kiev-military-111245078.html

 

[Dotini]

IMO, it's time to start thinking very clearly about whether or not we want total war with Russia.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/vladimir-putin-west-divisions-war-ukraine
Fear of Vladimir Putin grows in EU capitals amid spectre of ‘total war’
Analysis: That Angela Merkel has gone to Moscow speaks to the sudden gravity of the situation in east Ukraine


President Vladimir Putin with Chancellor Angela Merkel and President François Hollande in Moscow for an urgent meeting over Ukraine. Photograph: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP
Ian Traynor, Europe editor

Friday 6 February 2015 11.12 EST

In Brussels and other European capitals, the fear of Vladimir Putin is becoming palpable. The mood has changed in a matter of weeks from one of handwringing impotence over Ukraine to one of foreboding.

The anxiety is encapsulated in the sudden rush to Moscow by Angela Merkel and François Hollande. To senior figures closely involved in the diplomacy and policymaking over Ukraine, the Franco-German peace bid is less a hopeful sign of a breakthrough than an act of despair.

“There’s nothing new in their plan, just an attempt to stop a massacre,” said one senior official.

Carl Bildt, the former Swedish foreign minister, said a war between Russia and the west was now quite conceivable. A senior diplomat in Brussels, echoing the broad EU view, said arming the Ukrainians would mean war with Russia, a war that Putin would win.

Edit: Ukraine's currency has collapsed 50% in the last two days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-currency-has-fallen-50-percent-in-two-days/

 

[Astronuc]

Russia warns US arms to Ukraine will cause 'colossal damage' to ties
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-us-arms-kiev-cause-colossal-damage-004307353.html

Obama's Ukraine policy at crossroads as fighting rages on
http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-ukraine-policy-crossroads-fighting-rages-004700222.html

WASHINGTON/MUNICH (Reuters) - Russian-backed rebels' violent offensive in eastern Ukraine leaves President Barack Obama with perplexing and urgent choices, but aides say he will exercise his typical caution in deciding his next move.

Should Obama provide lethal weaponry to the Western-backed Kiev government to staunch Europe's worst conflict in two decades? Many U.S. lawmakers and some of Obama's own advisors are calling for that step, but it risks igniting a proxy war with Russia and driving a wedge between Washington and western Europe.

Or wait until Russia has defact annexed eastern Ukraine? It's about Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. EU and US should have acted more carefully 2 or more years ago, before Russia entered Crimea. Now the risk too little and too late.Meanwhile - Merkel takes peace plan to Obama
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31279621

Obama, Merkel rally behind diplomacy in Ukraine conflict
http://news.yahoo.com/merkel-brief-obama-four-party-talks-ukraine-crisis-053358535.html

and EU delays sanctions by a week to support Ukraine peace talks
http://news.yahoo.com/eu-backs-ukraine-peace-drive-hawks-urge-no-110022139.html

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union delayed putting more Ukrainian separatists and Russians on its sanctions list on Monday to give a Franco-German peace plan for Ukraine time to work.

 

[Czcibor]

Except of long speeches there is lots of fighting going on:

Something like 5000 Ukrainians are encircled (or close to be encircled) near Debaltseve (so far there are conflicting claims)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31332524

It seems however, that Ukrainians are trying to counterstrike on the south, near Mariupol:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-forces-launch-offensive-near-port-of-mariupol-1423563475

 

[nikkkom]

To end all discussions about cluster munitions. Soviet large-caliber MLRS usually carry cluster warheads. Any time any side uses such MLRS, they will employ cluster munitions, since they simply have no unitary warheads in storage.

Cluster munitions are not universally banned, even though it is often (incorrectly) claimed they are.

Here is today's video of Kramatorsk (held by Ukrainian forces) being hit by Smerch MLRS:

 

[Dotini]

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The United States is to be blamed for Ukraine’s use of cluster bombs since it hasn’t provided the country with different weapons, US Senator John McCain, who serves as a Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, told Sputnik on Thursday.

“I think that if we had provided them with the weapons they need, they wouldn’t have felt they had to use cluster bombs. So, it’s partially our fault,” McCain said.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150205/1017844947.html#ixzz3RM46bapW



Edit: Extremely ugly rumors persist on social media that 5000-6000 Ukraine troops are trapped in the Debaltseve pocket. If true, they would make great bargaining chips. If they are eliminated from the fight, this could imply the fall of Debaltseve within days, and perhaps the collapse of the entire Ukraine front line within weeks. ​

 

[mheslep]

EU and US should have acted more carefully 2 or more years ago, before Russia entered Crimea.

Acted "more carefully"? What can than possibly mean in terms of some tangible action?

 

[mheslep]

WASHINGTON (Sputnik)

Posting quotes from a so called news outlet which is wholly owned by the Russian Federation is furthering propaganda.

 

[Dotini]

Posting quotes from a so called news outlet which is wholly owned by the Russian Federation is furthering propaganda.

You're right. My faux pas. I'd delete it if I could.

 

[Astronuc]

Putin gets a stern talking to from Obama.
Obama talks to leaders of Russia, Ukraine ahead of talks
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-talks-ukraine-leader-us-weighs-lethal-aid-170234077--politics.html The needs to be on the people in the regions affected. Their lives are affected by the insanity of others.
http://news.yahoo.com/life-under-shelling-eastern-ukraine-battle-survive-132207500.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

Russia warns US arms to Ukraine will cause 'colossal damage' to ties

Why should they care? They say they have no troops in the area. ;)

 

[Dotini]

EU and US should have acted more carefully 2 or more years ago, before Russia entered Crimea.

I agree very much with this.
I'll go further and say that IMO Defense and CIA wanted no part of the action, and that it was the State Department in particular that acted so unwisely. It should have been realized that at the end of the day, Ukraine and Crimea mattered more to Russia than to the US and EU.

 

[mheslep]

it was the State Department in particular that acted so unwisely.

Both you and Astronuc apparently have strong opinions on some point which remains ambiguous. Acted how? What should have been done?

 

[Dotini]

Dear mheslep, thank you - I hope - for your question. Now I can only wish that my explanations are as strong as my opinion.

First I would refer you to this wikipedia article for important background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland

My opinion that the US State Department acted unwisely is mainly for these reasons:
- Participated in organizing and funding protests and other activities leading to an overthrow of the elected government and subsequent revolution of Ukraine.
- Said revolution, though vigorous at first, was poorly thought out, fatally unconsummated and led to secession of Crimea, rebellion of eastern provinces and nearly broken and failed state status for Ukraine.
- Open-ended and quite unnecessary but very dangerous conflict looms with Russia, a partner we desperately need for solving so many other problems in the world.
- The parties pertinent to the revolution should have anticipated the response of Russia, but to our sorrow, they did not.

 

[Czcibor]

Dear mheslep, thank you - I hope - for your question. Now I can only wish that my explanations are as strong as my opinion.

First I would refer you to this wikipedia article for important background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland

My opinion that the US State Department acted unwisely is mainly for these reasons:
- Participated in organizing and funding protests and other activities leading to an overthrow of the elected government and subsequent revolution of Ukraine.
- Said revolution, though vigorous at first, was poorly thought out, fatally unconsummated and led to secession of Crimea, rebellion of eastern provinces and nearly broken and failed state status for Ukraine.
- Open-ended and quite unnecessary but very dangerous conflict looms with Russia, a partner we desperately need for solving so many other problems in the world.
- The parties pertinent to the revolution should have anticipated the response of Russia, but to our sorrow, they did not.

I see two main possible explanations:
1) There were first happy Ukrainians. Then US gov hired hundred of thousand actors to protest on streets and oust their president. Stunningly, after such logistic miracle the USA decided to abandon its new ally and was unwilling to provide much cheaper aid. What an outraging waste of taxpayers money spent on the prior investment.
2) Ukrainians, angry because of crisis and corruption, made the protest that after police brutality evolved to revolution on their own, to some surprise of all including Yanukovych and all main powers. Later Russians invaded, EU/USA mostly ignored this problem, while you just from some weird reasons believed to Russian propaganda.

 

[nikkkom]

Dear mheslep, thank you - I hope - for your question. Now I can only wish that my explanations are as strong as my opinion.

First I would refer you to this wikipedia article for important background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland

My opinion that the US State Department acted unwisely is mainly for these reasons:
- Participated in organizing and funding protests and other activities leading to an overthrow of the elected government and subsequent revolution of Ukraine.

There is no evidence State Dept was in any way involved in organizing the uprising. My guess they had no idea it will erupt.

 

[jim hardy]

I only know what i read in the newspapers..

While the Putin regime’s actions are unfair to Ukraine and have shocked the West, they reflect Great Power sensitivity to borders and demand for respect. U.S. and European leaders can forever assert that NATO poses no threat to Russia, but Moscow policymakers are not stupid. The Washington-dominated alliance was created to contain the Soviet Union and was extended up to the borders of the Soviet-successor state, Russia, after the end of the Cold War. NATO incorporated most of Moscow’s former allies which had provided a buffer to the traditional invasion route from Europe. Then Washington led NATO to dismember Serbia, an historic Russian ally.

Russia is the only serious nation against which NATO is directed. The war-hawks who dominate Washington’s foreign policy discourse made their designs clear. For instance, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke of “creating a democratic noose around Putin’s Russia,” which he equated with flying “the NATO flag as strongly as I could around Putin.”

Obviously the alliance did not force Moscow to act in Ukraine. But Western attempts to dominate border territories historically part of Imperial Russia as well as Soviet Union looked particularly threatening to many Russians. Jack Matlock, former U.S. ambassador to the U.S.S.R., wrote of a “cycle of dismissive actions by the United States met by overreactions by Russia [that] has so poisoned the relationship that the sort of quiet diplomacy used to end the Cold War was impossible when the crisis in Ukraine burst upon the world’s consciousness.”

Worse, in Ukraine the West helped fund the “Orange Revolution” which brought to power Viktor Yushchenko, a virulent critic of Russia—which he accused (and later recanted) of trying to poison him—who wanted his nation to join NATO. The next president hailed from Ukraine’s pro-Russian east, but maintained Kiev’s distance from Moscow and won Russian subsidies for merely delaying his signature on a trade agreement with Europe. Then European states and America backed protestors demanding that the government accept an EU trade agreement that required painful reforms and placed Europe before Russia economically.

Next the West endorsed a sometimes violent street revolution backed by nationalists and neo-fascists against a democratically elected leader. Carl Gershman, head of the Washington-funded National Endowment for Democracy, called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and talked of that nation’s role as a tool to oust Putin. The Obama administration’s Victoria Nuland discussed with America’s ambassador to Ukraine who Washington wanted to take power in Kiev. Russians didn’t have to be paranoid to view this policy as hostile to their nation’s interests. Observed Ruslan Pukhov, a former Moscow defense official now with the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies: “The West underestimates the importance of the Ukrainian issue for Russia and the role of Ukraine as a colossal destabilizing factor in Western-Russian relations.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban...in-ukraine-is-not-americas-business-part-one/

If not state, then who?

 

[nikkkom]

I only know what i read in the newspapers..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban...in-ukraine-is-not-americas-business-part-one/

Article paints mostly correct picture how Russia sees things,
BUT
somehow it makes it look like Russian position is logical and should be "respected". For example:

"Worse, in Ukraine the West helped fund the “Orange Revolution” which brought to power Viktor Yushchenko"

"Worse"? As in, "It was a mistake"? That is, "West should not be backing people trying to get rid of corruption and tyranny"? Am I getting this right, this guy says West should throw other people under the bus simply to placate Russian paranoia? Will he be willing to be a citizen of some nation to be thrown under the bus in a similar situation? I suspect not!

 

[jim hardy]

Nikkom's point that the piece is written to persuade is right enough.

somehow it makes it look like Russian position is logical and should be "respected".

What is Russian logic?
I still think this goes back several years , to Russia not wanting US missiles on its border
just as we didn't want Russian missiles on ours in 1962 Cuba, (which I'm old enough to remember)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm

Last Updated: Tuesday, 12 February 2008, 18:11 GMT http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
Russia in Ukraine missile threat

Russia has warned that a new arms race is unfolding around the world
Russia has said it may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins Nato and accepts the deployment of the US missile defence shield.
Russian President Vladimir Putin made the comments in Moscow alongside Ukraine's President, Viktor Yushchenko.

Mr Putin has condemned US plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic in its missile defence shield.

Crafty statesmen on both sides twist and reshape public perception of the real issue to their advantage, good little propagandists that they are,
and i don't trust any of 'em.

Of course i'd lend my garden hose to a neighbor whose house is on fire
but i wouldn't use the occasion to put my gun emplacement on his roof, pointed at HIS neighbor .
That his neighbor is a wife-beater is a different issue.

old jim

 

[nikkkom]

Of course i'd lend my garden hose to a neighbor whose house is on fire
but i wouldn't use the occasion to put my gun emplacement on his roof, pointed at HIS neighbor .
That his neighbor is a wife-beater is a different issue.

old jim

Your analogy is subtly wrong.

His neighbor is not a wife beater. His neighbor has a long history of attacking him, and other neighbors. Helping them to defend themselves is not a wrong thing to do.

Finland, three Baltic states, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Czech Republic _all_ dislike Russia. Most of them (except Finland... for now) did not merely agree to join NATO - they _rushed_ to join it as soon as they could. This can't possibly be a coincidence. Even if you did not study the history of this region in detail, just this fact alone tells you a lot.

 

[jim hardy]

I don't think it is so wrong.

I have to expect my neighbor's neighbor to act in his interest as he perceives it
even if he is a ruffian.

If Kiev agrees to sign up to Nato, it could host US anti-missile defences on Ukrainian soil.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/12/russia.ukraine
That seems to be a rough spot .
Does Putin remember Stalin? Surely he remembers when Stalin's lackeys were still in power.

 

[lisab]

I can only wish that my explanations are as strong as my opinion.

Dotini, this is truly brilliant! Would that all of us posting in Current Events be able to post explanations as strong as our opinions! :D

 

[russ_watters]

I only know what i read in the newspapers..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban...in-ukraine-is-not-americas-business-part-one/

Illogical: in order to "contain", something, it must be trying to expand. But yeah: the Russians aren't stupid, they know who is the threat to world peace, them or NATO.

 

[russ_watters]

Your analogy is subtly wrong.

His neighbor is not a wife beater. His neighbor has a long history of attacking him...

A long history that ended - even reversed - 60 years ago. The reversal of which is why NATO exists!

 

[Czcibor]

I only know what i read in the newspapers..

So lect me run a simple fact check:

While the Putin regime’s actions are unfair to Ukraine and have shocked the West, they reflect Great Power sensitivity to borders and demand for respect.

For example - why should it be a military threat? Do you imagine unprovoked NATO invading nuclear armed Russia?

Moreover NATO needing to open Ukrainian front and not being enough to attack from Baltic States, Alaska, Turkey, Japan or just from sea coast at Arctic ocean?

Ukraine is crucial in such highly probable scenario, isn't it?

NATO incorporated most of Moscow’s former allies which had provided a buffer to the traditional invasion route from Europe.

Allies? Author should either run a fact check or stop speaking misleading language.
It surprising to me, all my life, I thought that I lived in a formerly subjugated country

But Western attempts to dominate border territories historically part of Imperial Russia as well as Soviet Union looked particularly threatening to many Russians.

So local people are s****** for ever because were already conquered by Russian more than once and that makes new conquest justifiable?

I'm curious would a bandit that already robbed you a few times, be somewhat entitled to rob you once more? (following that logic, it would be less wrong than robbing a new guy)

Anyway, do you live in territory that was historically part of British empire? You don't feel obliged to pay some back taxes to British monarch, do you?

Worse, in Ukraine the West helped fund the “Orange Revolution” which brought to power Viktor Yushchenko, a virulent critic of Russia—which he accused (and later recanted) of trying to poison him—who wanted his nation to join NATO. The next president hailed from Ukraine’s pro-Russian east, but maintained Kiev’s distance from Moscow and won Russian subsidies for merely delaying his signature on a trade agreement with Europe. Then European states and America backed protestors demanding that the government accept an EU trade agreement that required painful reforms and placed Europe before Russia economically.

So many weasel words...
"helped to fund"? So it means anyway that it generally speaking financed locally? Does it mention that in the same time Russia was mending in Ukrainian affairs even more?

"who wanted his nation to join NATO"
Another weasel word. Was it part of any real political agenda, while this idea had microscopic support in Ukraine?

"backed protestors"
Orally - by making a few speeches and trying to mediate a resolution. Sounds impressive, comparing to dominating hypothesis that it was Russia who hired (a) sniper(s) to turn protest into a blood bath.

"painful reforms"
Like fighting corruption. Or stopping market distorting subsidies. Sounds quite sinister.

 

[nikkkom]

A long history that ended - even reversed - 60 years ago. The reversal of which is why NATO exists!

You remember wrong. USSR ended its occupation of Baltic countries not 60, but merely 20 years ago. Warsaw pact countries too, since they only "technically" weren't ruled by occupation government, but anytime they tried to elect somebody "wrong", Russian tanks rolled in. Czech Republic, 1968. Rings any bells?

 

[russ_watters]

You remember wrong. USSR ended its occupation of Baltic countries not 60, but merely 20 years ago. Warsaw pact countries too, since they only "technically" weren't ruled by occupation government, but anytime they tried to elect somebody "wrong", Russian tanks rolled in. Czech Republic, 1968. Rings any bells?

That's not what I mean -- and maybe I misread who was who in the analogy and we might be on the same side. I'll be more explicit:

It is often said that Russians legitimately fear invasion from Europe due to a long history of it. But that threat ended and reversed after WWII. The USSR immediately established itself as the expansionist aggressor. That Russian expansion was knocked-back in the early '90s, but that's not the equivalent of being invaded, nor is it the same as what Russia "fears" today. NATO "expansion" is just the USSR's former subjigants trying to avoid the USSR's resurgence, subjugating them again. There is no two-sided coin or sympathetic Russian history in play today. Russia is an imperialist/expansionist aggressor and NATO is trying (ineffectively) to stop it. Russia is not being threatened in any real way by NATO.

Note: I have to put "fears" and "expansion" in quotes because they are being misused by Russian supporters. This would be a funny joke if people weren't dying over it.

 

[JonDE]

Reading a few articles about the new cease fire that was just signed, none of them mentioned any rebel leaders being at the peace talks. So either the articles were incomplete, or they actually weren't there. If they weren't, then is Putin basically openly admitting he has full control over them?

 

[Dotini]

Reading a few articles about the new cease fire that was just signed, none of them mentioned any rebel leaders being at the peace talks. So either the articles were incomplete, or they actually weren't there. If they weren't, then is Putin basically openly admitting he has full control over them?

I have read that a delegation of representatives from the rebels was present at the peace talks, but were not of leadership status and had no standing to either reject or accept the peace terms. They were observers only. I seem to recall Putin stating that he does not control the rebels. But I assume he enjoys considerable influence.

 

[Czcibor]

Concerning Russian logic, I would rather suggest The Economist:

As Ukraine suffers, it is time to recognise the gravity of the Russian threat—and to counter it
Feb 14th 2015

HE IS ridiculed for his mendacity and ostracised by his peers. He presides over a free-falling currency and a rapidly shrinking economy. International sanctions stop his kleptocratic friends from holidaying in their ill-gotten Mediterranean villas. Judged against the objectives Vladimir Putin purported to set on inheriting Russia’s presidency 15 years ago—prosperity, the rule of law, westward integration—regarding him as a success might seem bleakly comical.

But those are no longer his goals, if they ever really were. Look at the world from his perspective, and Mr Putin is winning. For all his enemies’ machinations, he remains the Kremlin’s undisputed master. He has a throttlehold on Ukraine, a grip this week’s brittle agreement in Minsk has not eased. Domesticating Ukraine through his routine tactics of threats and bribery was his first preference, but the invasion has had side benefits. It has demonstrated the costs of insubordination to Russians; and, since he thinks Ukraine’s government is merely a puppet of the West (the supposed will of its people being, to his ultracynical mind, merely a cover for Western intrigues), the conflict has usefully shown who is boss in Russia’s backyard. Best of all, it has sown discord among Mr Putin’s adversaries: among Europeans, and between them and America.His overarching aim is to divide and neuter that alliance, fracture its collective approach to security, and resist and roll back its advances. From his tantrums over the Middle East to his invasion of Georgia and multiple misadventures in Ukraine, Mr Putin has sometimes seemed to stumble into accidental disputes with the West, driven by a paranoid fear of encirclement. In hindsight it seems that, given his outlook, confrontation may have been inevitable. Either way, the contest he insists on can no longer be dodged. It did not begin in poor Ukraine and will not end there. Prevailing will require far more resolve than Western leaders have so far mustered.

What the Kremlin wants
Last year Mr Putin lopped off Crimea, redrawing Europe’s map by force. The war he hallucinated into reality in eastern Ukraine has killed thousands. Even if the ceasefire scheduled for February 15th holds (unlikely, on past form), he seems certain to get what he wants there: a wretched little quasi-state in the Donbas, which he can use to stall and warp Ukraine’s development. Yet these incursions are only his latest bid to bludgeon former Soviet states into submission, whether through energy blackmail, trade embargoes or war. For Mr Putin the only good neighbour is a weak one; vassals are better than allies. Only the wilfully blind would think his revanchism has been sated. Sooner or later it may encompass the Baltic states—members of both the European Union and NATO, and home to Russian minorities of the kind he pledges to “protect”.

The EU and NATO are Mr Putin’s ultimate targets. To him, Western institutions and values are more threatening than armies. He wants to halt their spread, corrode them from within and, at least on the West’s fragile periphery, supplant them with his own model of governance. In that model, nation-states trump alliances, states are dominated by elites, and those elites can be bought. Here, too, he has enjoyed some success. From France to Greece to Hungary he is cultivating parties on Europe’s far right and left: anyone who might lobby for Russian interests in the EU, or even help to prise the union apart (see article). The biggest target is NATO’s commitment to mutual self-defence. Discredit that—by, for example, staging a pro-Russian uprising in Estonia or Latvia, which other NATO members decline to help quell—and the alliance crumbles.

Mr Putin’s stranglehold on his own country means he has time and freedom for this campaign. As he has amply demonstrated, he has no qualms about sacrificing Russians’ well-being to satisfy his coterie’s greed or to further his geopolitical schemes. He persecutes those who protest. And in the echo chamber his propaganda creates, the nationalism he peddles as a consolation for domestic woes is flourishing.

What is to be done?
The first task for the West is to recognise the problem. Barack Obama has blithely regarded Russia as an awkward regional power, prone to post-imperial spasms but essentially declining. Historians will be amazed that, with Ukraine aflame, the West was still debating whether to eject Russia from the G8. To paraphrase Trotsky, Western leaders may not have been interested in Mr Putin, but Mr Putin was interested in them.

The next step is to craft a response as supple as the onslaught. Part of the trouble is that Mr Putin plays by different rules; indeed, for him, there are no inviolable rules, nor universal values, nor even cast-iron facts (such as who shot down flight MH17). There are only interests. His Russia has graduated from harassing ambassadors and assassinating critics to invasions. This is one of his assets: a readiness to stoop to methods the West cannot emulate without sullying itself.Russian timeline: The road to 2015
The current version of this quandary is whether, if the latest ceasefire fails, to arm Ukraine. Proponents think defensive weapons would inflict a cost on Mr Putin for fighting on. But anyone who doubts his tolerance of mass casualties should recall his war in Chechnya. If arms really are to deter him, the West must be united and ready to match his inevitable escalation with still more powerful weapons (along, eventually, with personnel to operate them). Yet the alliance is split over the idea. Mr Putin portrays the war as a Western provocation: arming Ukraine would turn that from fantasy to something like fact, while letting him expose the limits of Western unity and its lack of resolve—prizes he cherishes. If fresh Russian aggression galvanises the alliance, arming Ukraine will become a more potent threat. Until that point, it would backfire.

A better strategy is to eschew his methods and rely on an asset that he, in turn, cannot match: a way of life that people covet. If that seems wishy-washy beside his tanks, remember that the crisis began with Ukrainians’ desire to tilt towards the EU—and Mr Putin’s determination to stop them. Better than arms, the West must urgently give Ukraine as much aid as it needs to build a state and realize that dream (and as much advice as it takes to ensure the cash is not misspent or stolen). The IMF deal announced on February 12th should be only a start. Mr Putin wants Ukraine to be a lesson in the perils of leaning West. It should instead be an exemplar of the rewards.

Just as urgently, those former Soviet countries that have joined Western institutions must be buttressed and reassured. If the case for sending arms to the Donbas is doubtful, that for basing NATO troops in the Baltics is overwhelming, however loudly Mr Putin squeals. Western leaders must make it clear, to him and their own people, that they will defend their allies, and the alliance—even if the struggle is covert and murky.

And it isn’t only its allies who appreciate the West’s virtues. So do many Russians, including shameless Putinists who denounce the West’s decadence but exploit its schools and stockmarkets. It is long past time for every Russian parliamentarian and senior official to join the sanctions list. Far from being relaxed as, after Minsk, fellow-travellers may suggest, sanctions must be tightened—and sanctions-busting curtailed (see article). In the end, they will prove a stronger lever than weapons.

At the same time, the West should use every available means to help ordinary Russians, including Russian-sympathisers in the Baltics and Ukraine, learn the bloody, venal truth about Mr Putin. It should let them know that Russia, a great nation dragged down a terrible path, will be embraced when it has rulers who treat the world, and their own people, with respect not contempt, however long that takes.

Threat aren't armies that he is afraid of, otherwise he would not flirt so much with Chinese. Threat for his regime would be a moderately successful Ukraine that could inspire his own subjects in ending dictatorial kleptocracy. Of course such imperial logic of turning nearby countries into vassals/failed states tend to backslash. (Think a while why Poland is so pro-American and is willing to support the USA in Middle East, where from practical perspective we have no interests)

 

[Czcibor]

Reading a few articles about the new cease fire that was just signed, none of them mentioned any rebel leaders being at the peace talks. So either the articles were incomplete, or they actually weren't there. If they weren't, then is Putin basically openly admitting he has full control over them?

Putin stance is very flexible. I like it the most when his paid trolls accuse Ukrainians of both being neo-nazi and being led by Jews.