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

donsutherland1 said:

As noted earlier, I do believe our allies should also take measures to strengthen their defense capabilities. At the same time, I don't favor a policy of abandoning allies for numerous reasons:

1. The benefits that have flowed to the U.S. from a stable, prosperous, and peaceful Europe have repaid the costs of U.S. security investments and the Marshall Plan many times over. The dividends continue to flow to this day.

Click to expand...

The question is how to allocate the costs of a stable world order. Obviously we benefit from a stable system which allows ME oil to flow to industrialized nations friendly to us. Absent oil from the ME it's hard to articulate a national interest for the US which would warrant our involvement in the region. There is a "security charge" that could be assigned to each barrel of oil and those costs should be borne by the nations that benefit from the oil, the secure transit routes and the stable international commercial environment created during Pax Americana. All those shoulds amount to nothing because the cost of providing the system falls on us.

3. Germany has contributed manpower and equipment to U.S. conflicts, including in Afghanistan. So, Germany has been actively backing the U.S., and even losing lives in the process.

Click to expand...

And the US interest in Afghanistan is what exactly? Sure, sure, it benefits us to not have them be a terrorist base from which future attacks on the US could be launched, but beyond that why are we there trying to stabilize and modernize? Why is Germany there? Why was Canada there? We see that drone strikes into Waziristan work fairly effectively at disrupting terrorist operations, so if an Afghanistan absent western military presence ever began to move back towards being an Al Queda launching pad, the same drone policy could be rolled out there. Why are we wasting blood and treasure there?

4. Had the U.S. listened more carefully to German and French reservations about Iraq and chosen not to go to war, it might have saved some $2 trillion or more in direct and indirect costs, not to mention avoided human war casualties.

Click to expand...

Let's keep in mind that the issue was never "go to war" versus "not go to war" for there still remained the issue of what to do with Saddam and the fraying sanctions regime. The alternative was "don't go to war and keep Saddam in power." I'm not saying that this would have been the wrong choice, just that the decision wasn't as simple as "don't go to war."

Without a prosperous and stable Europe, it is very unlikely that the U.S. economy and U.S. standard of living would be what it is. It is probably more likely than not that the U.S. would have been confronted with far more security threats than it has and just maybe the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War, creating a vastly different world than the one in which we live.

Click to expand...

This is an extension of past policies being used to justify present policies. We can dispense with the past because that's a sunk cost. We have a stable and prosperous Europe now, so the justification for keeping up the military strength by appealing to Europe seems kind of weak. The issues today are different than in the immediate post-war era and during the Cold War. American strength vis a vis the world has declined in the intervening years. Secondly, as the years have progressed the allocation of budget resources in the Federal Government has changed as well. There has been a relentless increase in the social welfare component of the budget and this has been crowding out the growth of other functions. Defense is next on the chopping block because a.) people like free stuff and b.) our population is aging and they want their free Medicare.

The cost of maintaining American supremacy is high - what costs are we willing to bear in order to do so? Why should the cost of maintaining Pax Americana fall solely on the shoulders of the American taxpayer? Frankly, I can't see a way to reconcile what you suggest with both an aging population and the thirst for increased welfare dependency in the US.

donsutherland1 said:

Russia understands that there is no effective military response without the parties to the conflict incurring prohibitively high costs relative to the military objectives involved. Hence, it has calculated that it has the strategic flexibility to act as it has.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, I support providing economic and financial assistance to Ukraine. Hopefully, that assistance can help it overcome its substantial economic and financial problems, begin developing a stable and response political system, and improve the living standard of its people.

Click to expand...

Economic and financial assistance, really the same thing, won't help much at all against the force of the Russian army. There has to be a counter attack, though not necessarily militarily. The Russian economy is weak and they cannot take a sustained hit for very long. Get them where they are vulnerable as well as moving forces into the area, and they will settle with the Crimea. Anything less than that and they will naturally advance.

donsutherland1 said:

I'm not advocating anything close to trillion dollar annual budgets. I do believe a budget that maintains the military's manpower at current levels and is at least stable as a share of GDP at current levels would be a better approach than the sharp reductions that have been proposed.

With respect to Iran, both the U.S. and EU have significant differences and concerns with Iran. Whether Iran is willing to accommodate those needs in exchange for a peaceful civilian energy program remains to be seen. Moreover, Iran has shown little indication that it will cease supporting its proxies e.g., Hezbollah, who pose threats to strategic U.S. Mideast allies.

Click to expand...

It seems a given in some quarters that Iran will side with Russia but that ain't necessarily so. If Iran can sell their oil to Europe, to make up any Russian shortfall, it would likely be welcomed.

joko104 said:

At this point Iran would be totally nuts to not pursue its nuclear weapons program as its #1 national priority. Ukraine - potentially militarily as powerful towards Russia as Iran is in relation to the USA - gave up the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world - - and it cost them military defeat otherwise impossible with the nukes. The result is a trillion dollars in oil, gas and natural resources have been stolen from them, their most critical defensive territory taken, and their now perpetually in economic dependency on Russia.

There is no deal we can make with Iran since it is known that deals made with the USA, the EU or anyone else are absolutely worthless and basically just trickery. A rational view of Iran for what has happened to Ukraine is to believe "we're next without nuclear weapons."

Click to expand...

You may be right but I doubt Iran fears a nuclear attack from anyone. The question Iran must ask themselves is what will benefit them in the shorter term. Would a nuclear race and threats to Israel be a priority to them right now? I rather doubt it, not the way the world is on edge at the moment.

donsutherland1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

None of this will happen with a Congress interested more in scoring political points and Europeans who refuse to spend their Euros on defense. A lot of partisan hacks don't seem to realize that part of the reason why the President is stickless is because a sizable number of one party in Congress will not support any action that would result in favorable light for the President. They hark back to Reagan but utterly fail to understand that when push came to shove, Congress had Reagan's back on holding the Soviets, it was a Democrat Congress under Reagan who shared in the near bankrupting of America in the Cold War. We have a Congress that doesn't care about anything but making the other party look bad. Every leader on the planet knows this. It doesn't matter if we spend the money on additional military if our political structure hamstrings any actual action. And let's not forget that coming up on 1.5 decades of foreign adventures the American public is tired. We simply do not have the political will to support the kind of Cold War mentality. It's quite frightening how the US is starting to resemble its depiction in World War Z. What you describe is a superficial fix that does nothing to solve the underlying problems America has in taking the lead. I don't doubt for a second that a sizable number of both Democrats and Republicans would throw obstacle after obstacle in the President's execution of NATO obligations should they come due. America is tripping on its own shoelaces and its politicians keep making the knots tighter and tighter.

And let's not forget those Europeans. Most of whom are far from their required NATO spending obligations. The Europeans have mooched off the US for decades, relying on us to protect them as they curtail spending after spending on military. And the whole integration and shared equipment makes it worse. When the Dutch and Belgians share artillery, what happens when one gets cold feet and doesn't want to partake in the conflict? As much as it does save money, it hamstrings the Europeans in ways worse than our own Congress.

I don't doubt that the military post planned cuts could take Russia without trying. It's just that the politics are our biggest problem. Romney was wrong in saying Russia is the biggest threat. We are our biggest threat. I'd never thought this was a sane comment before, but we need to remove gerrymandering in the name of national security.

Grant said:

Economic and financial assistance, really the same thing, won't help much at all against the force of the Russian army. There has to be a counter attack, though not necessarily militarily. The Russian economy is weak and they cannot take a sustained hit for very long. Get them where they are vulnerable as well as moving forces into the area, and they will settle with the Crimea. Anything less than that and they will naturally advance.

Click to expand...

For the same reason that Hawaii (tourism and federal spending) and Texas (hydrocarbons and federal spending) are vulnerable economies, so is Russia. A petrostate like Putin's requires high hydrocarbon prices. Unfortunately, there's really no way we can quickly add supply to the market. What we can do however, is accelerate LNG export terminals, open up the strategic petro reserve to the Europeans, conclude negotiations with Iran to bring their oil back to the market, and reduce the amount domestically used. A significant drop in US consumption at the same time increasingly global supply should slow down Putin. Russia needs oil at over $90 a barrel to be stable. If we can knock that back to $70, we can throw a monkey wrench into his plans. I've been saying for years here that the way to destroy the regimes in Tehran, Moscow and Caracas is to kill the price of oil. Crimea is lost, we just have to accept that, but we are now faced with a choice now that is way more than simply climate change, it's regime change without firing a shot.

donsutherland1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

What a load of neo-con nonsense (the highlighted part).

Talk about an over reaction to this.

The Ukraine illegally changed governments with a coup of a legally elected (if crappy) government. And the masses are fine with that.

Then the Crimea government overwhelmingly decides to have a referendum, which they do and they vote to join Russia (no surprise considering most Crimeans are of Russian decent PLUS the new government in Kiev had previously decided to basically ignore Russian as an official language from then on). And the west freaks out. Funny how the west thought it was wonderful when ex-Soviet republics just broke away from the crumbling SOviet Union. But it's an entirely different matter if the Crimea votes to break away from the crumbling Ukraine.
Hypocrisy.

But the Neo-cons use this as a pretext to start arming again...this is a dream to them; an incident that cost America nothing (except the stupid billion they 'lend' to the Ukraine) and gets the ignorant masses scared of Russia again thus justifying beating the cold war drums again. They must be in a little heaven.


Then this OP suggests that America must 'maintain military credibility''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'.

America, even with these 'drastic' cuts' will spend about 7 times what Russia does on it's military and still will be spending more then Russia, China, Japan and the U.K. combined...and this despite running a $500+ billion dollar deficit which the CBO says will start to rise again after the next FY.

How on Earth can the U.S. need more 'military credibility' when it is hip deep in debt and yet still spends way more then Russia and China combined on their militaries? What nonsense.

Just more Neo-con type talk...more money for military spending, more war planning, more U.S. expansion, more 'us vs. them' neuroticism.

America is an economic mess - with stubbornly high unemployment despite huge deficits, record low interest rates and the Fed dropping helicopters of money on America...and these people just want more and more money.


America needs to slash military spending, balance the budget, get off the Fed teat and concentrate on getting her economy strong again...not putting up posters of Reagan to masturbate to, spend like even drunker sailors then they already are and dream of the 'good ole' Cold War days.

Rainman05 said:

Are you not getting this? Moldavia, Crimea, Ukraine, Kosovo are not pawns to be played by the greater powers of the world, trading favors or benefits. That's not how it should work IF we want a civilized world. You're cynical because you hint at that. You want some entity (EU or USA )to betray Ukraine's trust in regards to Crimea in order to make a deal with Russia for some other countries to get something out of the whole crisis. This is cynical to the bone.

Click to expand...

Those are some of my political opinions.

You can deal with my opinions by calling them "cynical." But I shall make you aware that you called me cynical personally in the above post?!

DDD said:

Those are some of my political opinions.

You can deal with my opinions by calling them "cynical." But I shall make you aware that you called me cynical personally in the above post?!

Click to expand...

Your political opinions are that major powers should divide the world how they see fit? Trade nations' sovereignty and independence and favors.... that seems quite cynical don't you think?

You are what your opinions are, aren't you? Since they're cynical, I have to assume you are too.

Rainman05 said:

Your political opinions are that major powers should divide the world how they see fit? Trade nations' sovereignty and independence and favors.... that seems quite cynical don't you think?

You are what your opinions are, aren't you? Since they're cynical, I have to assume you are too.

Click to expand...

Yet we deal with the topic not the person here. Now how about you take these assumptions back in a civil way?

Grant said:

It seems a given in some quarters that Iran will side with Russia but that ain't necessarily so. If Iran can sell their oil to Europe, to make up any Russian shortfall, it would likely be welcomed.

Click to expand...

Mornin' Grant. :2wave: And you know it. Especially the French who has Billions tied up in Iran that they are just dying to get their hands on.

Grant said:

Are you quite certain they weren't referring to the upcoming elections to be held on May 25 of this year?

Click to expand...

Yep.....they said going back to May.....not the coming Election.

joko104 said:

At this point Iran would be totally nuts to not pursue its nuclear weapons program as its #1 national priority. Ukraine - potentially militarily as powerful towards Russia as Iran is in relation to the USA - gave up the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world - - and it cost them military defeat otherwise impossible with the nukes. The result is a trillion dollars in oil, gas and natural resources have been stolen from them, their most critical defensive territory taken, and their now perpetually in economic dependency on Russia.

There is no deal we can make with Iran since it is known that deals made with the USA, the EU or anyone else are absolutely worthless and basically just trickery. A rational view of Iran for what has happened to Ukraine is to believe "we're next without nuclear weapons."

Click to expand...

I disagree in strongest terms that Iran would be nuts NOT to pursue a nuclear weapons program at this point. Actually the total opposite is true, i.e., they would be totally nuts if they did. Why? Because right when they are trying to make an agreement that would relieve their almost dead economy of crippling sanctions, they would be doing the thing that with absolutely make the sanctions worse and practically ruin them. Not only that, but it would be the perfect excuse for the United States to make for a military strike against Iran. Not only that, but if they actually were doing that, the United States could make a very strong case, that it was time for an all out invasion of Iran. So no, IRAN WOULD BE NUTS TO MAKE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM A NUMBER 1 PRIORITY.

The thing is this, the first place Russia is going is to Iran now. They are going to try to mend the fences after they threw Iran under the bus and left them at the mercy of the US. The US needs to go in, make an attractive offer to Iran, and let them know that they would be better off by siding with the US. The US should make it clear that if only Iran does not pursue the development of nuclear weapons, and refrains from attacking US interests, that the US has no reason to regard Iran as an enemy and would rather have friendly relations with them. The US could use the energy, Iran could use the money and US technical assistance. It's a win win for both sides. Then perhaps, after that fence has been mended the US could work towards the goal of persuading Iran to use it's considerable influence with Syria to convince them to get rid of the Russian base in Syria. This would be a very big setback for Russia as their ability to project power into the Middle East, and also into the Mediterranean and therefore Europe, would be extremely eroded.

Therefore the US needs to go through Iran to effectively get to Russia.

MildSteel said:

What you said you would like to see is this



In order to do that, it's going to require spending at least at current levels, which all total is about one trillion dollars. The US simply can't afford that. It's not going to be possible to maintain, for the reasons I mentioned.



The US and Saudi Arabia have significant differences in the way they view Israel. It doesn't stop the US from working constructively the Saudi Arabia. The will to do it has to be there. Moreover, I think the US may be able to exploit the fact that Russia essentially threw Iran under the bus not to long ago to accommodate the US. If the deal is right, Iran may be persuaded that they have a better future with the US rather than Russia.

Click to expand...

Defense spending has two components:

1) Annual appropriations
2) Supplemental appropriations that have been adopted to fund war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and provide for other special needs.

The large cuts I cited are cuts in the annual appropriations. Annual appropriations came to nearly $600 billion in FY2013. I favor reduced cuts in that spending.

Supplemental appropriations can and should be reduced as the war efforts and related activities are wound down in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

DA60 said:

What a load of neo-con nonsense (the highlighted part).

Click to expand...

The neoconservative foreign policy advocates using power as an instrument to expand democracy, liberal values, etc. Calls for U.S. military intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict reflected neoconservative goals.

I'm not advocating anything like that. In fact, I repeatedly opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria and Libya, as no meaningful U.S. interests were involved.

My focus is not expanding U.S. military guarantees to non-NATO members and I don't support expansion of NATO. Instead, I believe there should be greater security cooperation and integration among existing NATO members. Moreover, I'm suggesting that it would be better for U.S. military strength to be maintained near current levels rathern than slashed to pre-WW II levels in some areas. I am not calling for any kind of new arms race, though I believe the ongoing managed retreat from space-related R&D is short-sighted.

Finally, I favor medium-term fiscal consolidation. That effort cannot fall mainly or wholly on the Defense budget. Mandatory spending programs will need to be reformed to become fiscally sustainable. Some degree of tax hikes will likely also be needed to bridge financing gaps.

NIMBY said:

Got a link for that Montecresto?
Actions of KGB Komrade Putin have consequences and have kicked off Cold war 2.0 .

Click to expand...

What do you mean a link?? Both the West and Russia were vying for Ukraine, in the end, Ukraine went with Russia. It was as simple as that. However, fair ball wasn't acceptable to the West and encouragement and support for the violent overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine followed, with the establishment and immediate recognition of a pro-Western government. And you guys think Russia is suppose to take that setting down.

Only the non partisan, non patronising see this for what it is.

obvious Child said:

None of this will happen with a Congress interested more in scoring political points and Europeans who refuse to spend their Euros on defense. A lot of partisan hacks don't seem to realize that part of the reason why the President is stickless is because a sizable number of one party in Congress will not support any action that would result in favorable light for the President. They hark back to Reagan but utterly fail to understand that when push came to shove, Congress had Reagan's back on holding the Soviets, it was a Democrat Congress under Reagan who shared in the near bankrupting of America in the Cold War. We have a Congress that doesn't care about anything but making the other party look bad. Every leader on the planet knows this. It doesn't matter if we spend the money on additional military if our political structure hamstrings any actual action. And let's not forget that coming up on 1.5 decades of foreign adventures the American public is tired. We simply do not have the political will to support the kind of Cold War mentality. It's quite frightening how the US is starting to resemble its depiction in World War Z. What you describe is a superficial fix that does nothing to solve the underlying problems America has in taking the lead. I don't doubt for a second that a sizable number of both Democrats and Republicans would throw obstacle after obstacle in the President's execution of NATO obligations should they come due. America is tripping on its own shoelaces and its politicians keep making the knots tighter and tighter.

And let's not forget those Europeans. Most of whom are far from their required NATO spending obligations. The Europeans have mooched off the US for decades, relying on us to protect them as they curtail spending after spending on military. And the whole integration and shared equipment makes it worse. When the Dutch and Belgians share artillery, what happens when one gets cold feet and doesn't want to partake in the conflict? As much as it does save money, it hamstrings the Europeans in ways worse than our own Congress.

I don't doubt that the military post planned cuts could take Russia without trying. It's just that the politics are our biggest problem. Romney was wrong in saying Russia is the biggest threat. We are our biggest threat. I'd never thought this was a sane comment before, but we need to remove gerrymandering in the name of national security.

Click to expand...

IMO, the public is right to be weary of the current war footing. Bad planning led to muddled outcomes in Iraq (which had effectively been contained prior to the war) and Afghanistan. Those conflicts are now being wound down.

Going forward, the U.S. should better focus its foreign policy and defense resources where it has critical interests at stake and/or strategic allies. Military intervention in the name of abstract ideals e.g., calls to get involved in Syria's sectarian conflict which involves few U.S. interests is one example, are the kind of temptations policy makers should resist.

Finally, I don't believe the current situation justifies a new Cold War or that it will initiate one. I suspect that in the weeks ahead, tough rhetoric will fade, the kind of sanctions that would be mutually destructive to both parties won't be imposed, and both the U.S. and Russia will make a pragmatic decision to find ways to work together in areas of shared interest, even as both parties maintain profound disagreements concerning Russia's annexation of Crimea.

A policy approach by one or both parties that essentially puts cooperation on hold where major interests are involved would not benefit either side. If anything, it would be irrational. At the same time, it would not reverse the outcome in Crimea. Both parties will likely be more cautious in how they work with one another and give greater attention to due diligence, but they will begin to work together again. Some ideologues won't like it, but policy making is not solely the dissemination of ideology.

Higgins86 said:

Keep defending Putin. First death today in his 'peaceful revolution'...

Click to expand...

Yes, well let the West continue to stick a stick in and stir, as they have done in Syria, and your bound to see many more. How many civilians did you guys kill in a decade long war in a country that never attacked you. Seems to me you're the defender of violence.

Grant said:

Economic and financial assistance, really the same thing, won't help much at all against the force of the Russian army. There has to be a counter attack, though not necessarily militarily. The Russian economy is weak and they cannot take a sustained hit for very long. Get them where they are vulnerable as well as moving forces into the area, and they will settle with the Crimea. Anything less than that and they will naturally advance.

Click to expand...

In the medium-term, the U.S. has the capability to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy resources. Such a move would give Europe greater strategic flexibility vis-a-vis Russia. Policy aimed at building greater U.S.-Europe energy ties would be constructive and mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Europe.

Finally, with respect to Russia's capacity to absorb economic shocks, I don't believe one can underestimate it. During the Soviet era, Russians faced much greater economic challenges than they do today and they demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to cope and endure in the face of hardship. Even if Russia slid into a prolonged recession, I doubt that such an outcome would lead it to give up Crimea. Moreover, Russia has commercial openings that were not available to the Soviet Union. China is one big market that is looking for a lot more Russian energy resources. India is another one. In short, it would be far more difficult to isolate Russia economically than it was to isolate the Soviet Union.

donsutherland1 said:

In the medium-term, the U.S. has the capability to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy resources. Such a move would give Europe greater strategic flexibility vis-a-vis Russia. Policy aimed at building greater U.S.-Europe energy ties would be constructive and mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Europe.

Click to expand...

The dependency on Russian Gas varies according to country, with many Eastern European Countries and Countries such as Finland totally dependent, whilst other have less dependency.

Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Britain does not rely on Russian Gas instead relying on North Sea Gas and Gas shipped in on large LNG Carriers and stored in places such as the Isle of Grain near London.

The Isle of Grain alone having the ability to supply 20 per cent of the UK’s forecast gas demand. However to build more LNG storage facilities, LNG Ships and other such facilities in order to supply whole European countries in the short term would be a mammoth task, and as for other alternative fuel sources they tend to be far more long term options.

A loss of Russian Gas would have serious implications for Russia and many European countries including Germany, and to replace Russian Gas with LNG would require a concerted effort by the west not seen since the Berlin Airlift. Whilst the West would have to take control of whole industries, markets and resources, although it's certainly not an impossible scenario, especially as many western countries such as the US, Canada and Australia have significant Natural Gas Supplies and emerging shale gas deposits, and Europe itself has the potential to carry out future shale gas extraction in certain regions.

If the West was to work together to negate the European reliance on Russian Energy it would without doubt be a devastating blow to Russia's Economy.

LNG Carrier

National Grid - Isle of Grain LNG

Europe looking at alternatives to Russian Gas

What further sanctions could Russia face?

Montecresto said:

Yes, well let the West continue to stick a stick in and stir, as they have done in Syria, and your bound to see many more. How many civilians did you guys kill in a decade long war in a country that never attacked you. Seems to me you're the defender of violence.

Click to expand...

Iraq didnt attack the west or break international laws?

donsutherland1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wow!!!!!!

MaggieD said:

I agree. I would love to know Don's back story. There is always a very diplomatic approach to his posts that's hard to miss. And an underlying understanding of the world stage and how the actors are playing the game.

Click to expand...

Nope, he's just the only real Centrist on this website.

Rainman05 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why should they cut it off, money is money. Just tell them they'll have to pay an export tariff now.