Ukraine Crisis

[Deus Naturae]

Ah, so I see you've fully embraced the "wars are fought for the sake of parasitical Capital" theory of conflict.

Well, many conflicts are fought at least in part to benefit private interests. Most American wars have been. But, it's generally specific interest groups pushing for war to maximize their profits, not "the market" making a decision as if it is were some monolithic entity with some sort of collective will.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Manufacturers, defense contractors, and fossil fuel magnates. That's all you need.

[njwes]

Well, many conflicts are fought at least in part to benefit private interests. Most American wars have been. But, it's generally specific interest groups pushing for war to maximize their profits, not "the market" making a decision as if it is were some monolithic entity with some sort of collective will.

I know this has gone off topic but I'm genuinely curious, if you feel that way which wars do you think haven't been fought to benefit private interests? It seems to me that other than the First Gulf War, all of the US's 20th-century wars (and no, I'm not including the smaller "Savage Wars of Peace") were fought with a genuine strategic interest in mind and the belief that waging them was necessary to the security of the US as a whole.

[Deus Naturae]

Manufacturers, defense contractors, and fossil fuel magnates. That's all you need.

I'm not seeing how the scheme is supposed to work. Manufacturing lobbyists will convince Congress to enact tariffs against Chinese products and then...? It would definitely increase tensions but it's not going to provoke WWIII. Where would it be fought? China is going to invade the US?

Plus, even if such a tariff policy was enacted (I'm sure the manufacturing lobby has been trying to push it for years) it would probably we repealed pretty quickly as it would be terrible for American consumers and tons of other businesses. Sorry, but your theory just isn't plausible (unless I'm misunderstanding you and it has nothing to do with tariffs). The best chance of WWIII breaking out would be if the US tried to invade Iran, which might happen in the future but not because of Ukraine. Claiming that Ukraine will lead to WWIII because gas companies want deposits in Ukraine is just as dumb as Ag's paranoia.

[ag]

"peacekeeping"

Make no mistake, this is two imperialist blocs (NATO and Russia) jockeying for control of natural gas production; Ukraine is an important proxy location as a major pipeline location. It seems now that Russia has at least the economic backing of China with their new gas deals.

This is called not "economic backing" but "economic exploitation". There is a reason the details of those deals were never published fully: rumors are they are horrid for Russia. To begin with, Russia is supposed to build - essentially, on its own - the new pipelines that will only have one possible customer: China. In fact, this pretty much locks those gas fields into China - these are newly developed fields, and they will not have any other easy outlet. China, in contrast, apparently, is pretty much supposed to do nothing, except buy gas - it is not even clear how iron-clad is the Chinese promise to buy anything. This is a textbook recipe for a hold-up problem: once Russians build those pipelines, Chinese can insist on renegotiating the price - at that point, Russia would be better off selling very cheaply than not selling at all.  So, China will get very cheap energy, which it will use to manufacture goods for Western consumption. Everybody wins - except for Russia.

No Russian government, if it were not desperate to show that it still has "friends", would have signed this. In fact, the agreements were not ready before Putin came to China - it was he who was both desperate to sign and able to do this without a fear of being fired. The Chinese got all they wanted - and more. And it does not at all seem they have promised much in exchange - China has been, at best, silent on the Ukrainian business. Actually, it gains one more thing from it: the Stans. Kazakhs are getting pretty damn scared of the Russians, and guess whom they are going to turn to.

[ag]

"peacekeeping"

Make no mistake, this is two imperialist blocs (NATO and Russia) jockeying for control of natural gas production; Ukraine is an important proxy location as a major pipeline location. It seems now that Russia has at least the economic backing of China with their new gas deals.

This is new.

World War I started due to competition between the British and German markets. World War III will start when the will of Western markets on one side and Sino-Russian markets on the other to dominate takes over the will to mutually trade, even if for a single impulsive moment.

China trades a lot more with the West, then with Russia. Apparently, it trades more with Brazil than with Russia. Its sales to Russia are puny by comparison with those to the West. It only needs Russia for energy - and this crisis is exactly what it needs to get that energy cheaply: so that it can continue selling things cheaply to the West. Do not expect China fight on the Russian side. If anything, if things get really rotten for the Russians in Europe, China might try to get its own pound of flesh in the Far East. If I were Chinese I would really not mind a port on the Sea of Japan - Haishenwai would be really nice

[ag]

Manufacturers, defense contractors, and fossil fuel magnates. That's all you need.

And try thinking, what those manufacturers want - both in China and in the US.

[ag]

Ah, so I see you've fully embraced the "wars are fought for the sake of parasitical Capital" theory of conflict.

But he is still not very good on figuring out what the interests of that Capital are

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Putin is probably okay with being China's economic client, in that case. Russo-Chinese trade will surely increase thanks to the EU/American sanctions. China is diplomatically neutral on Ukraine because they ultimately don't care about it, but also because Russia makes a nice attack dog, because it brings the Kazakhs and Uzbeks more into Beijing's sphere, and because Russia and China both have disputes with Japan.

[ag]

Putin is probably okay with being China's economic client, in that case. Russo-Chinese trade will surely increase thanks to the EU/American sanctions. China is diplomatically neutral on Ukraine because they ultimately don't care about it, but also because Russia makes a nice attack dog, because it brings the Kazakhs and Uzbeks more into Beijing's sphere, and because Russia and China both have disputes with Japan.

So, this is it: China will not help Russia. This crisis is great for China - the longer it lasts, the more likely those pipelines will get built and that China will get oil very, very cheaply forever - that is the power of holdup. And the worse things go for Russia, the more goodies China will get from it in exchange for very little. So, it is in the interest of China to have Russia screwed in Ukraine. They have no reason to support Russia there at all.

And, in fact, at present, at least, Europeans would much prefer the very cheap oil to go to China  - a) Russia is getting screwed and b) the gas does get to the international markets and fuels the world economy. Win-win!

[Simfan34]

Putin is probably okay with being China's economic client, in that case. Russo-Chinese trade will surely increase thanks to the EU/American sanctions. China is diplomatically neutral on Ukraine because they ultimately don't care about it, but also because Russia makes a nice attack dog, because it brings the Kazakhs and Uzbeks more into Beijing's sphere, and because Russia and China both have disputes with Japan.

From where do your insights derive, oh sage? The collected faculty of my university who have long studied such things have not made pointed observations as this. Share with us the source of your powers of prognostication!

[ag]

Putin is probably okay with being China's economic client, in that case. Russo-Chinese trade will surely increase thanks to the EU/American sanctions. China is diplomatically neutral on Ukraine because they ultimately don't care about it, but also because Russia makes a nice attack dog, because it brings the Kazakhs and Uzbeks more into Beijing's sphere, and because Russia and China both have disputes with Japan.

And as for trade... Russian GDP is comparatively minuscule. However much Russo-Chinese trade grows, it will not come close to US-Chinese or EU-Chinese. For the Chinese Russia is simply a source of cheap resources - like Venezuela or any number of African countries, just closer. And now it is a captive source: that is (from the Chinese standpoint) really great

[Beet]

No doubt China wants to take down the US, but they have no reason to do so militarily when they can do so economically. Buying up Treasuries and promoting de-dollarization via direct bilateral trade and currency swap agreements (you mention the gas deals with Russia) are perfectly good strategies to end USD monetary hegemony and bring the US to its knees via debt and inflation.

This is absurd, China doesn't want to "take down" the U.S., as the U.S. is one of its biggest markets. If the U.S. went down, the Treasury bonds China owns and the trillions of China's dollar reserves would become worthless. China is just like any other country, it wants to do what is best for itself. If it thinks the U.S. is going to stand in the way, then yes it is going to disagree with the U.S., but it has no intrinsic hatred of the U.S. A bilateral currency swap agreement literally just means that if China trades with South Korea, they exchange Chinese currency with South Korean currency. Why must they use dollars if the U.S. is not involved? All it does is increase the costs needlessly. Its not some conspiracy against the dollar. When the U.S. is involved in the trade, dollars will still be used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually there is some talk of Russia shipping gas to India via pipelines and since Pakistan would charge extortionist prices for crossing its territory Russia could, in the long term, ship gas to India (and all of Southeast Asia for that matter) via China. This would open up a market with over 3 billion people to Russia's gas, nearly half the world's population. It is very good strategic deepening for Russia's energy options.

[ag]

Actually there is some talk of Russia shipping gas to India via pipelines and since Pakistan would charge extortionist prices for crossing its territory Russia could, in the long term, ship gas to India (and all of Southeast Asia for that matter) via China. This would open up a market with over 3 billion people to Russia's gas, nearly half the world's population. It is very good strategic deepening for Russia's energy options.

Well, and what would make you think that China would abstain from extracting the full surplus in exchange for transit in that case? Does Russia have any alternatives?

[ag]

Anyways, the problem is not China, it is US, EU and NATO.

Looks like Ukraine has been sold wholesale. MM Chamberlain and Daladier are toasting from wherever they are: they are surely happy to know that 75 years later their successors have judged them right.

[Simfan34]

Anyways, the problem is not China, it is US, EU and NATO.

Looks like Ukraine has been sold wholesale. MM Chamberlain and Daladier are toasting from wherever they are: they are surely happy to know that 75 years later their successors have judged them right.

I struggle to see this from what I have been reading. How have you come to that conclusion? How expansive is the ceasefire? Does it pertain only to DPR and LPR forces in Ukraine, or anyone coming from anywhere (i.e. Russia) to fight the Ukrainian government? If it is the former I imagine that this would give Ukraine the freedom to retaliate against any incursions into its territory from Russia.

What is the situation on the border as of now? The Ukrainians should certainly try to get full control of the border (perhaps to prevent "ultranationalist militias from conducting attacks from Ukraine into Russia" or some sort of benign motivation. They should certainly step up (with NATO assistance) surveillance of the border; it was only through sheer luck that a reporter from the Guardian stumbled upon an armored convoy moving across the border into Russia a few weeks ago. Certainly there should be more rigorous observation.

But if Ukraine can effectively monitor the border (and preferably control it) it would have complete latitude to detect and retaliate against any incursion by "militants/volunteers/partisans" from Russia into the Ukraine... as long as Putin continues to hold the line that there are no Russian troops anywhere in the Ukraine (as he defines it- sans the Crimea). And certainly NATO could do its part to help Ukraine "secure the border", as people like to say.

It boils down a great deal to semantics, actually. In Russia the government in Kiev is presented as an illegal self-proclaimed "junta" (despite the fact it is an elected civilian administration) whose actions therefore are, at the very least, no more or less legitimate than those of the self proclaimed "People's Republics" in the Donbas.

And it of course it goes without saying that the "Self-Defence Forces" of these self proclaimed states are fighting agents of the "fascists in Kiev", or better yet, fighting actual "neo-Nazi pro-Kiev Self-Defence Forces", who are no less legitimate than the "Self-Defence Forces" of the self-proclaimed states, on top of being neo-Nazis.

But Putin said he would "respect" the results of the election, so he has at least conceded, technically speaking, that the "People's Republics" are legal fictions. Which means that Ukraine has every right to control its border with Russia.

So what I would think should be done here- again, I am making assumptions as to the details of the agreement- is that Ukraine should quickly move to monitor its border with Russia, at least far more thoroughly than it has before, and, where possible, physically secure it so to stem the flow of troops and arms into the the hands of the separatist militias. If the agreement allows for the separatists to control border posts with Russia then it would be completely useless.

A peacekeeping force of some sort (NATO? EU? OSCE?) should be authorised to "maintain the ceasefire" and, again, contain the separatist militias and block reinforcements from Russia. Ukraine should meanwhile feel free to fully retaliate against the "militants/volunteers/partisans" from Russia (who Putin continues to maintain are not at all Russian soldiers, which would mean they are actually breaking Russian law), destroy arms shipments, and arrest and try all of the "volunteers" for illegal immigration, weapons smuggling, things like that. In effect they should play along with the Russian charade, as opposed to going and using captured "volunteers" (who are of course Russian soldiers) as proof of Russian intervention. In effect, Ukraine should act as if this was a completely internal affair- denying Russia excuses to get involved without openly intervening.

I haven't seen the details of the agreement, however.  So for all I know this might not be possible.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anyways, the problem is not China, it is US, EU and NATO.

Looks like Ukraine has been sold wholesale. MM Chamberlain and Daladier are toasting from wherever they are: they are surely happy to know that 75 years later their successors have judged them right.

This is no Munich Agreement.

[ag]

It is not the ceasefire, which is the problem. It is that Ukraine has been pretty much abandoned. There is no meaningful support - not even the real sanctions on Russia. That IS the problem.

[ag]

I struggle to see this from what I have been reading. How have you come to that conclusion? How expansive is the ceasefire? Does it pertain only to DPR and LPR forces in Ukraine, or anyone coming from anywhere (i.e. Russia) to fight the Ukrainian government? If it is the former I imagine that this would give Ukraine the freedom to retaliate against any incursions into its territory from Russia.

What is the situation on the border as of now? The Ukrainians should certainly try to get full control of the border (perhaps to prevent "ultranationalist militias from conducting attacks from Ukraine into Russia" or some sort of benign motivation. They should certainly step up (with NATO assistance) surveillance of the border; it was only through sheer luck that a reporter from the Guardian stumbled upon an armored convoy moving across the border into Russia a few weeks ago. Certainly there should be more rigorous observation.

But if Ukraine can effectively monitor the border (and preferably control it) it would have complete latitude to detect and retaliate against any incursion by "militants/volunteers/partisans" from Russia into the Ukraine... as long as Putin continues to hold the line that there are no Russian troops anywhere in the

I think you badly misunderstand the situation. The Russians are in full control of several hundred kilometers of the border. In those areas there are no Ukrainian troops or guards not only on the border, but anywhere near the border - they all have either fled or have been killed. Even before the latest offensive the "rebels" managed to control a good chunk of it. By now, any Ukrainian attempt to restore control has long been abandoned. The fight goes on far inside Ukraine. In fact, that was one of the points of this offensive: to make sure Ukrainians cannot come within a long shot of the border. Big chunks of the border where there had been no "rebel" activity before have been completely wiped out by an assault from the Russian territory (preceded by artillery bombardment that went on for days - from the Russian territory).  

Russians have been able to drive into Ukraine in tanks during the whole summer, but, at least, by early August it seemed like Ukraine has restricted the hole to the far Eastern sector of the frontier (and nearly to cut off much of the rebel activity from the affected sector of the border). Then, even before the latest offensive, a big Ukrainian group was surrounded (with the help of Russian artillery fire) and nearly wiped out (only with great difficulty, by launching a dangerous counteroffensive Ukrainians were able to salvage part of that force). But that meant tripling of the border segment controlled by Russians. Shortly before the full-blown assault another group got cut off further West. And in the latest assault Russians went in along the Black Sea (while simultaneously wiping out Ukrainian defenses between the Sea and the previous rebel area).  Basically, at this point the front line in most places between Mariupol (still in Ukrainian hands, but semi-besieged) and Luhansk (by now firmly once again under Russian control) is far inside Ukraine. Look up the map to understand what it means.

Asking whether Ukrainians control the border is like asking whether the Poles controlled the border in mid September 1939 or whether the Soviets controlled the border in July 1941 - this is long, long past that stage.

[ag]

What should have been done? It should have been made clear, that IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT UKRAINE AGREES TO, major economic sanctions were to be introduced immediately against Russia (I discussed what these would be). In addition, NATO and allied troops should have been moved towards the Russian borders everywhere - from Norway to Japan. Kaliningrad transit routes should have been cut yesterday - a month ago, really - with a good NATO force stationed to make sure Poles and Lithuanians would feel comfortable about it. It should have been made clear that no relaxations of this sanctions would even be discussed until every bit of Donetsk and Luhansk territory is under the control of the Kiev government: to put this clearly enough, ambassadors should have been recalled and Russian ambassadors expelled.

It has to be understood, that this is NOT the Ukraine problem that Europe is facing. It is the Russian problem. Ukraine is not important by itself - it is important only because, by virtue of geography, it is what protects Europe from Russia. Putin thinks he is facing a bunch of weak-kneed schoolgirls in the West - they will flee if he so much as looks at them. Pretty soon we are going to have Russians moving into Estonia - will it be similarly let to sign a  "cease-fire agreement" with the People's Republic of Narva?

[ag]

Those are the minimal steps that should have been taken. Ideally, of course, Ukraine should have been offered direct help. The biggest problem for their army, as I understand, that their air force, long in a state of lazy decay, has now been pretty much wiped out. One could only dream of US doing for Ukraine what it is doing for Iraq, but at least some help there would have been valuable.

[dead0man]

I agree with you.  It's funking disgusting how the West has hung Ukraine out to dry.  It's funking disgusting that 80% of Germans wouldn't want to defend the Baltics if they're attacked.  Obama made a nice speech the other day saying how we're totally onboard with defending the Baltics, but are we going to do it alone?  Merkel gave a similar speech, but she also stressed how important the NATO-Russia Founding Act is to her.  And do they actually mean it?  Will Obama have JFK's balls if the Putin hits the fan?  I fear he won't.  If we let Putin turn NATO into a joke, we'll all deserve the sh**tty future we get.  It shouldn't have gotten this far, it should have been stopped in Georgia.  It should have been stopped when the issues in the Ukraine first popped up.  It definitely should have been stopped when we had proof Russia itself was invading the Ukraine.

[Silent Hunter]

I don't really think that hitting Russia with sanctions on the same day a ceasefire is reached is the right thing to do.

[ag]

I don't really think that hitting Russia with sanctions on the same day a ceasefire is reached is the right thing to do.

Hitting Russia with sanctions on any day is the right hing to do. Those sanctions should have been imposed months ago.

[Beet]

Well that didn't last long.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraines-fragile-cease-fire-seems-to-be-holding/2014/09/06/b799a458-35fa-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html