That's the problem. He's put himself in a lose-lose situation in terms of long term outcome no matter the status of Crimea he may feel compelled to double down and cause more damage.
That's happened a lot to me when I lose a few hands of poker.
It will have to be ensured that Russia does not send troops into eastern Ukraine.
What mercenaries?
I dont get the thread title what do you mean IF the Crimea says DA. The conclusion has already been decided by Putin. The vote is merely a prestaged bit of theatre.
The conclusion was decided by the US long ago. Putin is responding. He's not the instigator or aggressor in this. Do you think US foreign policy is run by Jesus Christ.
Putin probably would have been happy keeping his puppet in power but he has no problems with plan B.
If Crimea says 'Da!,' what's next?
I had no idea that the "leader" only received 4% of the vote.
The article makes a interesting point that this entire situation is in Putin's hands.
The bear is out of the cage. Are we prepared to in a Cold War Era again?
What happens next? I don't think Obama and the EU can balk from their threats to slap some pretty tough targeted sanctions on Russia and Crimean parliament leaders. There's been too much hype and buildup now to go back. If Obama does balk, then I think we can kiss what little tatters of credibility we have left goodbye.
Assuming that sanctions go ahead, then we are looking at reciprocal actions from Russia, though they won't have much affect on the US directly, the EU will feel them to a more or less extent and that would tangentially affect us in some markets. Basically, the market will lose another few percent or more until things stabilize.
Then the question will really become, what will Putin do next if anything. Will he eye eastern Ukraine thinking that we've exhausted our commitment and political capital? Will he try to force-ably evict the Ukrainian bases in Crimea, thereby provoking war with Ukraine? Will he completely turn off the gas pipes to the EU (which would hurt him just as much as it would the EU)? Or will he realize the difficult economic position he's putting himself in, ratchet down the tension, negotiate with the Ukraine, and simply settle for the same old international agitation that has characterized his dictatorship.
What happens next? I don't think Obama and the EU can balk from their threats to slap some pretty tough targeted sanctions on Russia and Crimean parliament leaders. There's been too much hype and buildup now to go back. If Obama does balk, then I think we can kiss what little tatters of credibility we have left goodbye.
Assuming that sanctions go ahead, then we are looking at reciprocal actions from Russia, though they won't have much affect on the US directly, the EU will feel them to a more or less extent and that would tangentially affect us in some markets. Basically, the market will lose another few percent or more until things stabilize.
Then the question will really become, what will Putin do next if anything. Will he eye eastern Ukraine thinking that we've exhausted our commitment and political capital? Will he try to force-ably evict the Ukrainian bases in Crimea, thereby provoking war with Ukraine? Will he completely turn off the gas pipes to the EU (which would hurt him just as much as it would the EU)? Or will he realize the difficult economic position he's putting himself in, ratchet down the tension, negotiate with the Ukraine, and simply settle for the same old international agitation that has characterized his dictatorship.
Allegations with no proof.
Oh dear lord. Did you miss the part when Hillary Clinton said to listen to Al Jazeera, if you want "real news"
I think the US State Department knew when they initiated this intrigue that Russia had 26,000 troops in Crimea and would respond exactly as has transpired. The USA must consider getting control of the Ukrainian pipelines (can be filled from the Atlantic Coast by USA energy) and gettting radar and missile sites to surround Russia as worth the cost. As far as sanctions go, the USA wants to be very cautious because our "fiat" currency and the "confidence" that supports it are are not tangibles. The USA has intentionally created this crisis, and the Militry/Industrial/Corporate marketing arm will automatically benefit, at a time when, here in the USA, there is pressure to reduce Military Offense budgets. This agenda also forces Putin to redefine who his economic allies are and reinforce those alliances, and he will, by necessity, aggravating "Cold War" scenarios and improving marketing for weapons systems worldwide to the benefit of the World's largest arms salepeople (the USA). A win-win for USA CORPORATE.
In growing numbers, Americans are loosing their stomachs for US interference in foreign countries. 70% were against any military intervention in Syria, and almost certainly had some effect on us keeping out. (Overtly, that is)
Ah yes, it is all the fault of the US. Never mind that Russia is militarily occupying Crimea and digging in. It was such a morally righteous move on the part of Russia that these troops wear no insignia and identifying markings, took over bases and government buildings in the middle of the night, and have been physically intimidating opposition at gunpoint. Are those the actions of a country that is simply protecting its military interests and providing order? No. Try to not let yourself be blinded to facts due to your distrust of the corporate system.
One would have to believe that the US State Dept and the CIA are idiots otherwise. Now the USA spends $5 billion creating an insurrection, even knowing about these 26,000 troops and the agreement that has them in the Ukraine. That agreement pretty much handed Putin a royal flush in the geopolitical poker game, and we had to know that. Now, we know that, so we're going to try to bluff against the royal flush that we already know about. As low as my opinion of these State/CIA players is, even I know better. Ergo, it must have been in the original scenario, because Russia was putting its' money where its' mouth was and helping Ukraine and the below market price on gas to Ukraine proves that without a doubt. There's something rotten and it's not in Denmark.
Then explain how it was all right for the USA to spend $5 billion to create NGOs, train protestors and militants, establish supply and transportation networks, and support the overthrow af a DEMOCRATICALLY elected scumbag in Ukraine and install the leader chosen by our State Department/CIA as acknowledged by the Victoria Nuland phone conversation? And now to have OLIGARCHS in control of some areas? CORPORATE hegemony, eh?
If he does move into eastern ukraine however... then yes, he'll lose everything. He'll lose the trade agreements with the EU and the USA and that's over 10% of the Russian economy. There is no way he can get that money from elsewhere, not even trading with China. Losing that = recession or even a depression = mass unemployment = mass protests = bye bye 2nd term... his only chance is to have 140% of the population come out to vote again... but he'll have to become RasPutin to do that.
.
But it's OK to have mercenaries in there. Hypocrisy! I think it needs Russian troops to ensure its' stability and protect the citizens from Western Banks and Energy Conglomerates.
I believe it is giving Putin waaaay too much credit to think he engineered this. He is responding to a revolt in the Ukraine that threatens a strategic interest in the Black Sea. He didn't send in millions of ethnic Russians over the years to tip the demographics. He is trying to maintain the Military bases Russia has had since before the Crimean war in the 1850's.
A prime minister isn't elected in some sort of voting system by the general population such as our President through an electoral college. He is most often appointed by the majority party in Parliament. So it doesn't matter if the new Prime Minister ever won an election by popular vote, it only matters that the Parliament sees him as a worthy PM.
Putin holds all the aces, but he didn't draw any of them- they were dealt to him.
What mercenaries?
I think you're straw-manning it up here. I don't think anyone has applauded the US for anything during this situation. All that was stated by Blue_State, with which I totally agree with, is that the Ukrainian people decide what their fate is. Why would you rather have a foreign country decide what's best for a sovereign nation? How would you like that happening to you?
"China's a better pimp for us than Russia, so we should let China have the US".
Of course your comment assumes that popular uprisings can't occur in and of themselves without the omniscient CIA being involved which is a paranoid statement at best. I think you give too much credit to the CIA and not enough to the people of Ukraine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?