• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

Europe and Japan should be put on notice that America is reducing its capabilities to what it can afford, and that they need to start building their own capabilities so that we can shift our focus more to those other 'peripheral American interests'. I disagree that an Empire showing budgetary cracks should continue to strain itself to maintain its ability to project power. We can only be as strong as our domestic strength will allow us to be, and we do need to focus on fiscal responsibility and national economic competitiveness.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask Japan and Europe to make a larger contribution to their defensive capabilities, but that does not mean that the forthcoming cuts in defense spending are aligned with the evolving security environment. If one examines the projected spending over the next 5 years, Defense is slated to be reduced an average of 1.8% per year in nominal dollars and 3.2% in real (after inflation) dollars assuming that the abnormally low inflation rate of the last five years continues. U.S. nominal and real GDP are both projected to continue to grow, meaning that the U.S. will be spending less on defense per dollar of GDP. After 5 years, U.S. defense spending will have decreased approximately 17% in real terms.

Can one reasonably argue that the world will have become comparably safer five years from now to justify such a reduction? Can one maintain U.S. power will have remained essentially stable relative to the world at large in which China will likely have increased its own military spending by 10% or more each year (published figure) and Russia will have carried through with additional significant investments in modernizing its conventional and nuclear forces?

In the longer-term, that growing disinvestment in U.S. defense spending relative to the rest of the world could erode the present U.S. technological military edge. For example, with China and Russia actively investing in hypersonic jet and space-related research, even as the U.S. is currently maintaining a managed retreat from both areas, would there be implications were either one of those countries to achieve a qualitative breakthrough in some of that technology? For instance, would the military balance of power shift if one of those countries achieved a breakthrough in developing a hypersonic fighter jet (not likely in 5 years but something that can't be written off in the medium term, much less beyond)?

The above longer-term discussion is more speculation right now. The slowly shifting balance of power in a multipolar world is current reality. Ignoring it creates longer-term risks. Furthermore, addressing it does not require the U.S. to embrace radical measures that would lead to fiscal ruin. It does not require spending levels relative to revenue and/or GDP consistent with the Cold War or a perpetual war footing. In addition, to reduce or avoid less than necessary expenditures, the U.S. could refrain from intervening militarily in areas where critical American interests or strategic allies are not at risk. Examples would including refraining from playing any military role in Syria's civil war (the U.S. wisely backed off military intervention there), not having gotten involved in Libya's civil war, having maintained the prior deterrence regime against Iraq, etc. Deterrence is far less expensive than the costs of war (human, financial, and economic), but deterrence requires sufficient power, a willingness to use it when critical interests/allies are threatened, and a would-be adversary's clear understanding of a nation's power and willingness to use it.

Prudent defense policy cannot be tied solely to a nation's domestic desires, even as it might be tempting to turn inward. Instead, its defense posture needs to be consistent with the security environment that confronts it. In that environment, careful attention should be given to the requirements of protecting its critical interests and strategic allies and maintaining a balance of power to deter would be aggression against its interests, strategic allies, and itself. Afterward, financing should be consistent with its long-run economic capacity. Sources of defense funds would depend on its level of taxation, ability to reallocate existing spending to make its fiscal policy more consistent with the nation's priorities, and leveraging possible opportunities for savings from efficiency, etc. Alliances and partnerships can also magnify its hard and soft power.
 
Everything is on hold until Ukraine's upcoming election in May. It should be interesting because Ukraines' past elections were filled voter fraud. One out of five Ukraines polled said they have or would sell their vote because they need the money. But thats just the tip of the voter fraud ice berg.

I wish I had as much hope in Ukraine over coming it's economic problems as you do. But the odds don't seem in Ukraines favor. 1. The government is too corrupt and infiltrated with oligarchs, cronyism and self interest. 2. There are too many political factions to get any meaningful reforms passed and implemented. 3. The people are poor and average income is $300 a month. The government subsidizes residential gas, so people aren't used to paying for the gas they use. They still want the government to support them but don't want to pay taxes. The people want to keep main industries nationalized. Loan rates are 13 to 14%. Add all that together and the results are plain to see in the streets of Ukraine....poverty and civil unrest. I don't see it changing anytime soon...especially now that far right parties hold seats in parliment and top position in government.

Addressing its financial and economic problems is Ukraine's hope. Those are very difficult challenges and I am not confident that they can be addressed anytime soon. Some progress might be made, but real risks exist.
 
The USA doesn't get to decide if Russia gets to keep Crimea. The EU doesn't get to decide if Russia gets to keep Crimea. It's Ukraines' decision whether they accept the reality that there is nothing that anyone can do and bite their tongues and suck it in. that's the of it.

No, but all of those groups get to decide on the ease of which Russia gets to keep Crimea. Then Russia could decide whether the gain is worth the economic pain. Sadly, however, neither Obama nor the EU are up to the challenging Putin in chess or poker.
 
Howdy MMC ;)

How is the US going to export gas to EU cheaper than Russia? Ukraine can't even pay it's bills now so how do you think they will pay for US gas?

The oil industry never lets a good crisis go to waste.


Its not.....that's why I gave you the link. It wont help for the Ukraine nor the EU. Which to me sure if we can sell them something that's okay. But its not going to be able to make up anything for what they get thru Russia now. That's even with the EU looking to find away around it. I think you are correct in what Putin has been pulling in with resources. Even when other defense analysts talk about how he has been underestimated. I don't see how it isn't clear enough for some to see. This was from Post 14 too.



According to one independent analysis being studied by the Kremlin and reviewed by The Daily Beast, such measures could be a drag on the Russian economy over time and an embarrassment for the Russian government, but would only be an “inconvenience” for the Russian economy in the near term. More drastic measures would include going after Russia’s ability to interact in global financial markets, which the analysis calls “disruptive,” and restrictions on Russian energy exports or trade sanctions, which the analysis says would be “catastrophic.”

The analysis by Macro-Advisory, an investment firm operating in Russia, predicts that the West, especially European countries, will not move to impose “disruptive” or “catastrophic” sanctions on Russia until Putin crosses another red line, such as the outright invasion of Ukraine.

“The key risk [for Russia] is Stage 3, i.e. a ban or restrictions on Russia’s interaction in global financial markets and/or any selected restrictions on trade or investment with Russia,” the report stated. “Investors assume that Stage 4 [catastrophic] sanctions are not yet on the agenda simply because these would also have a negative contagion to several EU countries, and many high-profile companies, as well as indirectly on the global economy.”.....snip~
 
It gets all those things from Ukraine. As in, the pipelines and all that come by land from the connection between the crimean peninsula to the territory of Ukraine.
But Ukraine gets most of it's gas from Russia. Not sure about petrol or electricity.

But it's not impossible to build new energy pipelines from the territory of Russia to the crimean peninsula. It's not that hard.

And I don't think Ukraine will cut off utilities to Crimea. It's not just against human rights but also because it'll hurt a lot of ukrainian supporters, around 250k crimean tartars and about 450k ukranian ethnics. So... that's not an option. It's the reason why Crimea was moved to Ukraine's administrative territory in the 1950s under the USSR. Economical and administrative reasons.

This may be true but two facts would remain - 1. Russia would be unable to build the necessary infrastructure to supply Crimea in a short period of time - the suffering and inconvenience experienced by those on Crimea may make them think twice about where their future security lies. 2. Those pro-Ukraine elements on Crimea would gladly, I believe, suffer some inconvenience in the hope that the situation may reverse itself in time and Crimea would move to reestablish connection with Ukraine.
 
This may be true but two facts would remain - 1. Russia would be unable to build the necessary infrastructure to supply Crimea in a short period of time - the suffering and inconvenience experienced by those on Crimea may make them think twice about where their future security lies. 2. Those pro-Ukraine elements on Crimea would gladly, I believe, suffer some inconvenience in the hope that the situation may reverse itself in time and Crimea would move to reestablish connection with Ukraine.

Really? I wouldn't be so sure about point #2. The pro-ukranians aren't radicalized. You don't see them riding motorcycles and intimidating voters. So... I don't know if that's true.
But #1 is true. And that is happening as we speak. It's not hard to make a few new pipelines.
 
Its not.....that's why I gave you the link. It wont help for the Ukraine nor the EU. Which to me sure if we can sell them something that's okay. But its not going to be able to make up anything for what they get thru Russia now. That's even with the EU looking to find away around it. I think you are correct in what Putin has been pulling in with resources. Even when other defense analysts talk about how he has been underestimated. I don't see how it isn't clear enough for some to see. This was from Post 14 too.


According to one independent analysis being studied by the Kremlin and reviewed by The Daily Beast, such measures could be a drag on the Russian economy over time and an embarrassment for the Russian government, but would only be an “inconvenience” for the Russian economy in the near term. More drastic measures would include going after Russia’s ability to interact in global financial markets, which the analysis calls “disruptive,” and restrictions on Russian energy exports or trade sanctions, which the analysis says would be “catastrophic.”

The analysis by Macro-Advisory, an investment firm operating in Russia, predicts that the West, especially European countries, will not move to impose “disruptive” or “catastrophic” sanctions on Russia until Putin crosses another red line, such as the outright invasion of Ukraine.

“The key risk [for Russia] is Stage 3, i.e. a ban or restrictions on Russia’s interaction in global financial markets and/or any selected restrictions on trade or investment with Russia,” the report stated. “Investors assume that Stage 4 [catastrophic] sanctions are not yet on the agenda simply because these would also have a negative contagion to several EU countries, and many high-profile companies, as well as indirectly on the global economy.”.....snip~

The best solution is to develop Ukraines huge oil/gas fields in eastern Ukraine. Cheveron and Exxon were about to sign a deal to do just that but then the protests broke out and I didn't hear anymore about it. If Ukraine had its own oil/gas supply it could become more independent. But that isn't an instant fix because it could still take a few years.
 
Really? I wouldn't be so sure about point #2. The pro-ukranians aren't radicalized. You don't see them riding motorcycles and intimidating voters. So... I don't know if that's true.
But #1 is true. And that is happening as we speak. It's not hard to make a few new pipelines.

Fair enough - I wasn't suggesting that the pro-Ukrainian elements on Crimea were radicalized - they don't have to be - they just have to accept a little short term pain for long term gain - people in Eastern Europe have a long history of suffering for a greater good.

I suppose building pipelines in Russia/Crimea may be easy - certainly easier than building them in the US :2razz:
 
Even when Putin takes Eastern Ukraine, Exxon will still develop the oil/gas fields.
Exxon CEO Tillerson is one of Putin's best buds .
The best solution is to develop Ukraines huge oil/gas fields in eastern Ukraine. Cheveron and Exxon were about to sign a deal to do just that but then the protests broke out and I didn't hear anymore about it. If Ukraine had its own oil/gas supply it could become more independent. But that isn't an instant fix because it could still take a few years.
 
It seems that if the US President Monroe could effectively lay claim to the area surrounding the US, creating the Monroe Doctrine, then Putin and Russia are equally entitled to lay claim to Crimea and other countries in their geographical area. As far as that goes, might makes right.
 
Even when Putin takes Eastern Ukraine, Exxon will still develop the oil/gas fields.
Exxon CEO Tillerson is one of Putin's best buds .

Putin said Russia has no intention in taking eastern Ukraine.....unless the ethnic russians are attacked. For it's part, Ukraine parliment voted to over turn a law banning the russian language and moderate leaders are trying to soften the far right nationalists image and warning Right Sector to behave themselves so as not to give Putin an excuse for invading. If push comes to shove, they want to make it look like Russia is the aggressor.
 
Last edited:
It seems that if the US President Monroe could effectively lay claim to the area surrounding the US, creating the Monroe Doctrine, then Putin and Russia are equally entitled to lay claim to Crimea and other countries in their geographical area. As far as that goes, might makes right.
How do you think we got Texas?
 
Mexico didn't like that very much.
 
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask Japan and Europe to make a larger contribution to their defensive capabilities, but that does not mean that the forthcoming cuts in defense spending are aligned with the evolving security environment. If one examines the projected spending over the next 5 years, Defense is slated to be reduced an average of 1.8% per year in nominal dollars and 3.2% in real (after inflation) dollars assuming that the abnormally low inflation rate of the last five years continues. U.S. nominal and real GDP are both projected to continue to grow, meaning that the U.S. will be spending less on defense per dollar of GDP. After 5 years, U.S. defense spending will have decreased approximately 17% in real terms.

Can one reasonably argue that the world will have become comparably safer five years from now to justify such a reduction? Can one maintain U.S. power will have remained essentially stable relative to the world at large in which China will likely have increased its own military spending by 10% or more each year (published figure) and Russia will have carried through with additional significant investments in modernizing its conventional and nuclear forces?

In the longer-term, that growing disinvestment in U.S. defense spending relative to the rest of the world could erode the present U.S. technological military edge. For example, with China and Russia actively investing in hypersonic jet and space-related research, even as the U.S. is currently maintaining a managed retreat from both areas, would there be implications were either one of those countries to achieve a qualitative breakthrough in some of that technology? For instance, would the military balance of power shift if one of those countries achieved a breakthrough in developing a hypersonic fighter jet (not likely in 5 years but something that can't be written off in the medium term, much less beyond)?

The above longer-term discussion is more speculation right now. The slowly shifting balance of power in a multipolar world is current reality. Ignoring it creates longer-term risks. Furthermore, addressing it does not require the U.S. to embrace radical measures that would lead to fiscal ruin. It does not require spending levels relative to revenue and/or GDP consistent with the Cold War or a perpetual war footing. In addition, to reduce or avoid less than necessary expenditures, the U.S. could refrain from intervening militarily in areas where critical American interests or strategic allies are not at risk. Examples would including refraining from playing any military role in Syria's civil war (the U.S. wisely backed off military intervention there), not having gotten involved in Libya's civil war, having maintained the prior deterrence regime against Iraq, etc. Deterrence is far less expensive than the costs of war (human, financial, and economic), but deterrence requires sufficient power, a willingness to use it when critical interests/allies are threatened, and a would-be adversary's clear understanding of a nation's power and willingness to use it.

Prudent defense policy cannot be tied solely to a nation's domestic desires, even as it might be tempting to turn inward. Instead, its defense posture needs to be consistent with the security environment that confronts it. In that environment, careful attention should be given to the requirements of protecting its critical interests and strategic allies and maintaining a balance of power to deter would be aggression against its interests, strategic allies, and itself. Afterward, financing should be consistent with its long-run economic capacity. Sources of defense funds would depend on its level of taxation, ability to reallocate existing spending to make its fiscal policy more consistent with the nation's priorities, and leveraging possible opportunities for savings from efficiency, etc. Alliances and partnerships can also magnify its hard and soft power.

Come on. We spend profoundly so much more on defense than the next two powers, you can't possibly tell me that we can't cut back and still remain enough ahead for the time being. Well, actually, maybe you can :) but I would like to hear what you have to say.

It seems to me that our posture of having to spend such an incredible amount is a paranoid one. I have not tied our defense policy "solely to domestic desires". However, spending as much as we are cannot be sustained if we slip economically. And stubbornly trying to do so, no matter what the security environment, will certainly lead to economic decline that results in our being even less able to do so. Domestic strength is the foundation of military strength, and if we must choose between them at this point, it should be domestic first.

In the long term, being capable of maintaining World military supremacy is not a given.

Looking at the demographics, it may very well be that the future "natural" order of things is that China will one day surpass us in power. There may be nothing we can do about it without bankrupting ourselves. It seems to me that Empires which have failed to see that their sun is setting and thereby failed to yield to and manage it have imploded more completely than those that were more perceptive.
 
Dezaad and donsutherland: both great posts and points.
 
From CNN:



Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine - CNN.com

This development is not surprising for a number of reasons:

1. Russia has long viewed Crimea as constituting a crital national interest (naval base, majority ethnic Russian population, history).
2. The balance of power favored Russia in moving to regain control of Crimea. Ukraine lacked the military power to impose high costs.
3. Neither the U.S. nor Europe have sufficient interests at stake to consider military options.
4. A military approach would be impractical under any reasonable circumstances.
5. The costs of non-military measures are not likely to be so high relative to the gains Russia perceives it will make so as to reverse Russian policy. Russia also has capabilities of retaliating ranging from restricting access to its resources to withdrawing cooperation on major geopolitical matters e.g., Iran's nuclear program. It expects that its ability to complicate U.S. geopolitical goals will constrain the degree of U.S. economic and other non-military sanctions.
6. Past precedent concerning Kosovo's being separated from Serbia with NATO military force playing a role during what amounted to a civil war.

In his national address, Russian President Putin has cited a number of those factors. He did disavow intentions to become more broadly involved in Ukraine, but he has shown a willingness to act decisively where he perceives major Russian interests are at stake.

This development also speaks anew of the need for the U.S. to develop a clear and coherent foreign policy doctrine and relearn how to engage in contingency planning (military and broader foreign policy). It needs to tighten its integration with existing NATO members so as to make clear that NATO members will be safeguarded under any circumstances, even if the use of force is required. In Asia, the U.S. needs to strengthen ties with its leading allies. Japan and South Korea need to know that American commitments to their security are reliable.

Finally, to maintain military credibility in a world in which the balance of power is dynamic, the President and/or Congress need to abandon planned drastic cuts in military expenditures and manpower, even if that means reducing other expenditures, larger budget deficits than would otherwise be the case, or some combination of reallocated spending/larger budget deficits. Otherwise, the U.S. will be perceived as a great power, but one with declining capabilities. That outcome would rightly worry American allies. It could invite challenges to peripheral American interests by hostile actors.

Let's be clear here. The Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal to protect it until the world convinced them that they did not need it. That is our bad.
Fighting losing battles is what causes the US to lose power in the world. Draining more precious resources on a large military force that cannot be used successfully anyway will makes us fools in the worlds eyes. Russia is no threat to us anymore and sanctions will do far more than puffing up like a chicken hawk to further our ends.
 
Last edited:
We should no longer bother to try to prevent Iran or any other nation from developing nuclear weapons. It is vital to the interests of every country to develop a nuclear arsenal. Nor should any country believe a word any nuclear power says including the United States.

It's official. The United States and NATO are liars acting in conjunction with Russia to divide up the world between us.

Or maybe, the US and NATO pulled a stunt that backfired. Actions have consequences this administration is fond to repeat.
 
Europe and Japan should be put on notice that America is reducing its capabilities to what it can afford, and that they need to start building their own capabilities so that we can shift our focus more to those other 'peripheral American interests'. I disagree that an Empire showing budgetary cracks should continue to strain itself to maintain its ability to project power. We can only be as strong as our domestic strength will allow us to be, and we do need to focus on fiscal responsibility and national economic competitiveness.

The hawks will never buy this.
 
Let's be clear here. The Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal to protect it until the world convinced them that they did not need it. That is our bad.
Fighting losing battles is what causes the US to lose power in the world. Draining more precious resources on a large military force that cannot be used successfully anyway will makes us fools in the worlds eyes. Russia is no threat to us anymore and sanctions will do far more than puffing up like a chicken hawk to further our ends.

You think Ukraine was going to roll out its nukes over this, or that Putin would be concerned about THAT if they had them. We violate the sovereign territory of Pakistan on a regular ongoing bases against their protestations, but they won't be rolling out their nukes either.
 
Let's be clear here. The Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal to protect it until the world convinced them that they did not need it. That is our bad.
Fighting losing battles is what causes the US to lose power in the world. Draining more precious resources on a large military force that cannot be used successfully anyway will makes us fools in the worlds eyes. Russia is no threat to us anymore and sanctions will do far more than puffing up like a chicken hawk to further our ends.

Several points:

1. One can't undo the past. I've often argued that treaties need credible enforcement mechanisms to deal with major issues that may impede their implementation. This is a big reason why I've supported Israel's position with respect to maintaining a military presence along the West Bank's border with Jordan and its rejection of international security guarantees. Reliance on international security guarantees has proved fruitless time and again, as promises are not enforcement mechanisms. One need only look at Hezbollah's actions following Israel's complete withdrawal from Lebanon, Hamas' actions following Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip, etc., for examples.

2. If the U.S. military cannot be used effectively, big changes in leadership and planning need to be made. I don't think things are that bad, but there has been a noted inability to engage in robust contingency planning in recent years.

3. I don't believe Russia poses a direct threat to the U.S. or to NATO allies. True red lines exist where the nation has critical interests. That's the big difference between the boundaries of let's say the Baltic states and Syria's use of chemical weapons. There are no critical U.S. interests in Syria. Pledges in the name of ideals--even well-intentioned ones most of us support--are not concrete red lines. Hence, Russia almost certainly would refrain from using military force against the Baltic States. In contrast, Damascus was not deterred from using chemical arms in that country's bitter sectarian conflict. Nevertheless, certain NATO allies, though, have less confidence. Reassurance can be helpful.
 
You think Ukraine was going to roll out its nukes over this, or that Putin would be concerned about THAT if they had them. We violate the sovereign territory of Pakistan on a regular ongoing bases against their protestations, but they won't be rolling out their nukes either.

That's a good one. So why all the fuss about Iran getting nukes? They won't be able to use them either.
 
Come on. We spend profoundly so much more on defense than the next two powers, you can't possibly tell me that we can't cut back and still remain enough ahead for the time being. Well, actually, maybe you can :) but I would like to hear what you have to say.

It seems to me that our posture of having to spend such an incredible amount is a paranoid one. I have not tied our defense policy "solely to domestic desires". However, spending as much as we are cannot be sustained if we slip economically. And stubbornly trying to do so, no matter what the security environment, will certainly lead to economic decline that results in our being even less able to do so. Domestic strength is the foundation of military strength, and if we must choose between them at this point, it should be domestic first.

In the long term, being capable of maintaining World military supremacy is not a given.

Looking at the demographics, it may very well be that the future "natural" order of things is that China will one day surpass us in power. There may be nothing we can do about it without bankrupting ourselves. It seems to me that Empires which have failed to see that their sun is setting and thereby failed to yield to and manage it have imploded more completely than those that were more perceptive.

Have you been reading Sun Tzu? lol He said something about domestic strength, too. ...
10
Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.

11
On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.

12
When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.

13,14
With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue

15
Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single PICUL of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store.
Sun Tzu's Art of War - Chapter 2: Waging War


Heres what Biden recently said about defense spending.....

2h 4m ago

The Guardian’s Dan Roberts has more on vice-president Joe Biden’s comments about US military presence in the Baltics, made today in Warsaw:

"...<snip>....Biden also told Polish president Bronislaw Komorowski that a dozen F-16s have been sent to Poland, saying “You have an ally whose budget is larger than the next 10 nations in the world combined, so don’t worry about where we are,” according to a White House pool report.
Crimea crisis: Ukraine authorises use of arms in self-defence - live updates | World news | theguardian.com
 
That's a good one. So why all the fuss about Iran getting nukes? They won't be able to use them either.

Well, I don't think that there should be a fuss.
 
Back
Top Bottom