Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paul R.
Yeah, I was referring to a direct conflict between the US and Russia over the Ukraine. As a proxy skirmish, which it is now and has been for a long time now, similar to Georgia, it may simmer for years, but I think it will cool down in the near future. The US is not supporting it and Putin has other things to do, and he can come back to it later. He got the Crimea back, which was the primary goal.

However, I think it's likely that he will use intelligence agents and propaganda to force another political change without the carnage in the Ukraine and do the same with the other former satellites., as Obama is far too weak in the knees to follow through with a US intervention in any way. Even military support seems to be off the table.

Allies, both former and current have already assessed Obama correctly for what he is and they realize that they cannot depend on support, even when it's promised by the US or it's agents. Our ability to project power has been decimated.

Putin will continue doing what he's doing, and nobody will intercede. Not unless there is a major change in US policy and I don't see it happening until the election in 2016.

In the interim he is going to have a unrestricted period of expansion. I don't see anything standing in his way but rhetoric, and even that is weak.

55 posted on 07/21/2014 11:25:25 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Cold Heat

I agree in general, and you may be right specifically regarding Ukraine. But Putin has managed to do something rather unprecedented: Thoroughly P.O. a majority of the Ukrainian population, pretty much disrupting the long link / history of Russian / Ukrainian closeness. If Ukraine can gain back and hold most or all their territory in Eastern Ukraine, that will likely:

1) Give the present gov’t a popularity boost for some time, making attempts at subversion by Russia much more difficult.

2) Give most Ukrainians in general confidence about their own independence.

Now, I have been wondering if Ukraine will succeed in closing the remaining 20 miles or so of border with Russia (and at most two significant roads across the border.) There seems to be little progress on this front, although I’ll grant that accurate & unbiased news about that aspect of the fight is hard to come by. Perhaps it is a sign of Ukrainian weakness, or the strength of the effort by Russia to support the separatists, or both, that there seems to be a stalemate.

But — and I know I’m going pretty far out on a limb here — what if there is more to it?

What if the Western “powers” are privately content with stalemate for now, choosing to only keep Ukraine afloat economically, while bleeding Russia: A sort of war of attrition for a while? Obviously this gets dicey as winter draws nearer.

Or, consider: The Ukrainians in the past have suffered losses and terrors most of us can’t imagine. Even what England went through in WW2 does not compare to the horrors the Ukraine went through. Although I reject the label of “Nazis” that Moscow slaps on Kiev, what if the leadership in Kiev are or are becoming hard-nosed to the tune of finding current casualties acceptable in the context of a longer term plan? I can think of multiple possibilities: One would be the bleeding described above, to erode Putin’s position in Russia, Afghanistan style, while consolidating their own political power in Ukraine. Another might be a sort of limited ethnic cleansing, in which large numbers of the separatists are pushed (or flee) across the border to Russia, altering the political dynamic in Ukraine by a small amount — but enough to (again) keep the current power structure in the clear majority for some time. Or perhaps Kiev feels their kill ratio is high enough that they are content with killing Russians and pro-Russians for a while (vengeance), just so long as Europe keeps them afloat economically (and therefor politically.) Any of these strategies are risky, but would they be more risky than typical Ukrainian politics?

Moving back “in” on that branch :-) , I mostly agree with your assessment of U.S. ability to project power, tho’ I think it’s presently more a question of will than ability. In any event, US weakness is beyond risky: At least some medium powers will arm in response (some are already moving that way); some will likely go nuclear (approx. 25-30 countries are considered capable of joining the nuclear “club”, some more quickly than others of course.) Barring the major change in US policy that you (and I) hope for (in 2017), we will have created the road to disaster, and it may not be possible to get off.


66 posted on 07/22/2014 6:45:21 AM PDT by Paul R. (Leftists desire to control everything; In the end they invariably control nothing worth a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson