Russia has annexed Crimea, will it stop there or go further?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What happens if the post-May Ukrainian government openly seeks admittance to NATO and the EU. Should they be turned down?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just saw this on BBC:

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26680250

In practical terms what does this "Association Agreement" mean? Is Ukrain now a junior member of the EU or something?

[Prosesskrift]

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania are all NATO members, so all of the countries bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in Eastern Europe count as having "allies with nukes". Putin can't do anything to them whatsoever without risking WWIII.

This severely limits Putin's options for any kind of further expansion or intervention. Closer ties with Belarus (possibly including future full reintegration with Russia, although that loses the useful position of Belarus as a buffer with Europe) might be the only remaining option for expansion after doing whatever he's going to do in Ukraine. I think Putin is more of an opportunist (with Crimea as with South Ossetia) and his long-term gameplan can't really go much further than preventing further NATO expansion into Ukraine and the Caucasus.

Unless there's a regime change in Belarus integration into Russia is not going to happen without another invasion. Lukashenko has show numerous times that he's perfectly willing to play the part as a close friend of Russia only for as long as that provides benefits for him without limiting his ability to run Belarus as he sees fit.

[broken one]

Unless there's a regime change in Belarus integration into Russia is not going to happen without another invasion. Lukashenko has show numerous times that he's perfectly willing to play the part as a close friend of Russia only for as long as that provides benefits for him without limiting his ability to run Belarus as he sees fit.

Russia spent too much money on Belarus to ever let it go. Without the help Lukashenko would fall within several months (uneffective economy - quite like in good old days of USRR). When he dies Russians will take whats theirs imho.

btw A group of Crimean Tatars reached Polish border, asked for asylum and was let in. I think its just a beginning.

[snake]

What happens if the post-May Ukrainian government openly seeks admittance to NATO and the EU. Should they be turned down?

Yes. At least turned down by NATO.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

Two questions:

1. If Ukraine were ro be brought into NATO do you think Putin would attack and take Ukraine for Russia?

2. Do you think he would be justified in doing so if he did?

[snake]

Scot,

1) I'm not 100% certain. But Russia has always maintained that Ukraine/Georgia entry into NATO was a red line that they would not tolerate being crossed. Thus far I'm inclined to believe that Russia would be very aggressive if such an offer was made. They would look at such a move as an extreme provocation.

2) I don't think they would be justified no, just as they are not justified in annexing Crimea, but I also think NATO should take Russian concerns, real or imagined, into consideration. I know that is not fair to the smaller countries involved but unfortunately, that's the way the world works. Recent developments are a perfect example of that.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Then it is time to change the way the world works. Russia is doing what it is doing, because it thinks it can get away with it. Offering NATO membership to both Ukraine and Georgia would put a stop to it.

[Maithanet]

Miodrag,

Thanks for the response. I don't think we're going to find a lot of common ground here, but I think a reply is needed nonetheless.

In the intercepted conversation, Nuland shows no respect for Ukrainian sovereignty at all. She speaks as if its up to her (and Pyatt) to form the new government of Ukraine. She obviously thinks and acts as if she's to decide who should rule Ukraine and in what capacity. It has to mean one of these two options: 1) she's delusional, or 2) she actually has some level of control over the forming of next Ukrainian government. If she's delusional, that is a big problem in its own right, but she broke no international law and she didn't violate Ukrainian sovereignty (therefore, she's an internal issue of USA, with which I definitely have no business at all). If she's not delusional, as in, if she partially or entirely controlled the forming of next government, then she violated Ukrainian sovereignty. And when I say she, I obviously don't think Victoria Nuland as an individual, but Victoria Nuland as a high-ranking official of the US State Department. Considering the entity she represents, I'm positive she's not delusional, and that she knew what was she talking about when she was instructing Pyatt.

"some level of control?" Why do you assume that she controls anything? Isn't it more logical that she is a diplomat trying to influence the future leaders of Ukraine, form coalitions between like minded people, etc? As in, what diplomats do? I mean, if the shoe were on the other foot, and this were, let's say the Russian ambassador of Ukraine and Sergei Lavrov (Russian SecState), I wouldn't object in the least. I 100% assume this is the kind of conversation that diplomats of all countries have essentially all the time.

Some usage of that power may be a grey area ("soft power", as it's usually called), but this Nuland incident is obviously something else entirely, because no "soft power" allows you to dictate who's going to enter the next government of a sovereign nation and in what capacity.

Dictate who's going to enter the government and in what capacity? That is indeed pretty damning stuff. Too bad nothing in this discussion is anything like Nuland deciding the fate of Ukraine. Let's go to the most damning quotes that you selected.

As for relevant passages, the whole conversation is incriminating, but these parts are probably most flagrant:

Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.

-----

Nuland thinks that Klitsch is not the leader that she (and arguably the US) would prefer. So what? This isn't a public statement, this is a private phone call. Why is her opinion on this matter relevant to anything? How could this possibly indicate her "control" over the situation?

You have connected the dots of "some of what Nuland wanted came to pass". But surely even you would admit that is just conjecture, and I find it very dubious.

Nuland: [breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Again, she thinks that Klitsch and Tyahnybok would be less preferable leaders to Yatseniuk.....and that means what?

I feel like your agenda is really shining through here, and you are creating this narrative that this sort of talk is totally unacceptable and virtually unprecedented meddling on the part of the West. It is not. This is what diplomats do, regardless of allegiance. And again, if this were two Russians that got recorded, I think we wouldn't be having this conversation, because it would just be met with a shrug. Because we have evidence of actual wrongdoing on the part of the Russians (namely invading and occupying a sovereign nation), rather than sorta maybe misconduct unbecoming of a diplomat.

[snake]

Then it is time to change the way the world works. Russia is doing what it is doing, because it thinks it can get away with it. Offering NATO membership to both Ukraine and Georgia would put a stop to it.

Not thinks, knows. But things could have turned out differently if this had been handled properly.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Miodrag, Dicer,

I agree with Maithanet. Do you think there were no conversations in the Kremlin about Yanukovych that patterned after the one you are upset about Nuland having? Surely the Kremlin had people they would prefer to be in power in Kiev? I really do not see how this private conversation is damning in any way.

[Werthead]

What happens if the post-May Ukrainian government openly seeks admittance to NATO and the EU. Should they be turned down?

The interim Ukrainian government has already ruled out pursuing NATO membership as either a short-term or long-term policy goal, and the same with the Russian equivalent, the CSTO. They have stated they want to retain friendly military relations with both NATO and CSTO but not join either.

The EU is another matter, as there are some significant trade and travel benefits to being a member of the EU and taking on board a stronger currency. Russia has no real fear of the EU, which they seem to regard as toothless and ineffective in the military sphere and a useful trading bloc in the economic one. NATO is their primary concern.

Offering NATO membership to both Ukraine and Georgia would put a stop to it.

NATO membership is not on the cards in the short term for either. Georgia might have had a shot, but not before it opened fire on the overwhelmingly superior forces of Russia during the South Ossetian crisis. That kind of recklessness is something NATO can do without (although, technically in that case, NATO would not have been obliged to intervene because Georgia fired first).

[KAH]

Robin;

Yeah, I don't think so. NATO is far too important for it's member states, in particular it's European member states, to dilute it with some form of umbrella protection for Ukraine and Georgia.

First off, to become a bona fide article 10 NATO member takes years. That gives Putin ample opportunity to f*ck up any such moves in his so-called "backyard". Any real moves to expand NATO in that way certainly may prompt Putin to f*ck up things, because frankly, NATO will not go to war against Russia over aggression against anything but a bona fide article 10 NATO member state. And Putin very likely knows this.

That's also a reason to oppose any kind of quasi-NATO membership, because it may fuck up the impression what is NATO and what is not. That's a dangerous game to play. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't fancy risking a conflict spiralling out of Control and possibly turning nuclear because of blurred lines. Let's keep a NATO with clear red lines, namely the borders of it's actual member states.

Kissinger may be a scumbag, but at least he can rub two brain cells together and produce something else but crap. In this case we should listen to him, not your garden variety idiot Neocon.

[KAH]

Werthead;

A few months ago I would have agreed with you, but the recent events makes me think that the EU/NATO sphere is getting mixed up for Putin. If he can't be convinced otherwise, the EU is better off staying out of this mess.

It sucks for Ukraine, but it could be worse - at least they're not Syria...

[Paladin of Ice]

So the last five years then? :P

Oh, I'd say it goes back rather farther than that.

[Dinsdale!]

I am baffled by the USA's recent aggressive stance against Russia in the Caucuses and the Ukraine. My only hope is that we offered to back off on those arenas if Russia was more helpful with Syria and Iran, and that Russia rebuffed us.

Otherwise, given that the USA has zero national interest in those regions, we shouldn't be more assertive than our regional European allies are. Republicans are not the only ones who are capable of foreign policy follies...

We should invite China to replace Russia in the G8.

[snake]

Werthead;

A few months ago I would have agreed with you, but the recent events makes me think that the EU/NATO sphere is getting mixed up for Putin. If he can't be convinced otherwise, the EU is better off staying out of this mess.

It sucks for Ukraine, but it could be worse - at least they're not Syria...

I read an article where they suggest Putin thinks of the EU as the political arm of NATO. So there could very well be something to what you are suggesting.

Although Russia didn't seem to mind Ukraine having an economic deal with the EU as long as they got a share as well. From what I read the EU kind of gave Ukraine a "one-or-the-other" offer. I would think that they now realize that doing so was a mistake.

[Shryke]

I am baffled by the USA's recent aggressive stance against Russia in the Caucuses and the Ukraine. My only hope is that we offered to back off on those arenas if Russia was more helpful with Syria and Iran, and that Russia rebuffed us.

Otherwise, given that the USA has zero national interest in those regions, we shouldn't be more assertive than our regional European allies are. Republicans are not the only ones who are capable of foreign policy follies...

We should invite China to replace Russia in the G8.

?????

[Shryke]

I read an article where they suggest Putin thinks of the EU as the political arm of NATO. So there could very well be something to what you are suggesting.

Although Russia didn't seem to mind Ukraine having an economic deal with the EU as long as they got a share as well. From what I read the EU kind of gave Ukraine a "one-or-the-other" offer. I would think that they now realize that doing so was a mistake.

Not really. Mostly the EU demanded tighter regulation and such while Russia didn't care.

The Russians launched various anti-EU propaganda campaigns. The EU didn't but there was cooperation, obviously, with the protest movements against the deal with Russia.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dinsdale,

Russia invaded and annexed a chunk of another nation. Oppossing that action is not being agressive toward Russia. It's standing for the proposition that we don't want nations invading and annexing pieces of other nations.