The United States will not have a military response to what is

[MineralMan]

going on in Ukraine. There is zero chance of that, and it needn't be a topic of discussion here, really. Anyone who is suggesting that we react with any sort of military threat is either simple-minded or has no idea what they are talking about. No treaty compels any such response. We have no real interest in Ukraine or Crimea. We won't be threatening Russia over it in any military terms.

Our participation will be purely diplomatic, and that's all it should be. Trying to gin up a fear of military involvement distracts from what really can be done and what will be done. This whole thing will be a matter for international diplomacy and the United Nations to discuss.

We are not going to engage in any sort of military operations having to do with Ukraine. It's that simple.

[Fumesucker]

1. K&R

[TwilightGardener]

2. I wouldn't go that far. NATO has a stake in protecting its members from

instability, refugees, and aggressive moves on its borders. If if appears Russia intends to take a sizeable portion of Ukraine, NATO may mobilize.

[LisaL]

4. Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

[TwilightGardener]

6. No (and in fact one of Russia's fears is that it WILL be)--but Poland is.

Latvia and Lithuania have invoked emergency meetings of NATO to discuss security measures.

[MineralMan]

12. But, what military resources do Latvia and Lithuania bring to

the discussion? Essentially none.

[TwilightGardener]

15. You got me. But apparently they are in NATO, so they get protection

under that treaty.

[MineralMan]

21. Yes, but they're not being threatened with anything.

So, there's nothing to do. It's understandable that they might be worried, but Russia doesn't seem that interested in them at the moment. During the days of the Soviet Union, those areas were buffer zones for the USSR. That's not important in 2014 and into the future.

Ukraine and Crimea are important to Russia, economically and because of a large ethnic Russian popular in parts of Ukraine. Unrest there is of concern to Russia, primarily for agricultural and natural resource reasons. Russia doesn't want instability in Ukraine. Russia also doesn't want Ukraine to be aligned with the EU. Economics are pretty much the issue here.

Right now, Ukraine is unstable. Russia believes it is in Russia's interest to make it more stable.

But Ukraine is not part of NATO, and right now, no NATO countries are seriously threatened by Russia.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Poland also doesn't want instability in Ukraine. And Poland is a NATO member.

And Poland does have some of our missile defense capabilities being put in place, or already in place. You see what sort of problem that would present to Russia, right? They're hopping mad about missile defense. And no, Russia isn't invading because Ukraine is unstable. That's a bald lie. Ukraine is REMARKABLY stable, considering all it's been through, and no threat to anyone. Russia is invading because Putin lost his influence with the government and wants to hang on to as many assets as possible.

[MineralMan]

25. Poland may have facilities on its soil, but

can't use any of them unilaterally. The issue of missile defenses is not between Poland and Russia. That's an issue between major powers, and Poland is not such a power.

Ukraine is not remarkably stable, and the instability has become more obvious lately. I won't get into a discussion of Russia's military actions and the reasons for them in this thread. That's not the subject of the thread.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Russia is going in to PROVOKE violence and instability, provoke civil unrest, gin up

pro-Russian protests, try to demoralize the Ukraine military with tales of defections. Everything Russia is saying is a lie. So, no, Ukraine's people have shown remarkable restraint and cooperation so far. Be that as it may, you're damn straight the missile defense system is a huge bone of contention between US, NATO, and Russia, and that is certainly a factor that will come into play should Ukraine fall, or will be used as a bargaining chip (as per John McCain today).

[bigbrother05]

45. Bulgaria & Romania will be the places to watch

US military sites have been established in those two countries within the last ten years garnering Russian concerns. A US presence in those Black Sea countries makes this a touchy area, under the radar but nearly as contentious as the Middle East.

These are new NATO members.

[TwilightGardener]

46. We are now relying on Romania as a transit base to and from Afghanistan,

as well. Yep, good point. Edit to add, Putin succeeded in making NATO look pretty relevant.

[PosterChild]

42. "One of Russia's fears is that it WILL be" +10 (nt)

[MineralMan]

9. NATO's not going to mobilize anything more than

some diplomatic protests. That's just silly. Since Ukraine is not even a member of NATO, there's simply not going to be any such reaction. You're getting way ahead of yourself in thinking about what's going on.

[TwilightGardener]

13. I don't think it will come to that. If Ukraine WAS a member of NATO we wouldn't

be having this conversation, so yes, I am aware that it's not. But NATO countries surrounding Ukraine are nervous for their own security, and if Ukraine turns into a horrendous bloodbath, I would not rule out a move by NATO to try to contain Russia's advances--that's way down the road, hopefully, and the threat of having to mobilize may be enough. Russia probably won't be stupid enough to try to take an entire REBELLIOUS country and try to occupy it, but if they do, the West would probably decide a military response is finally in order. Hope not.

[MineralMan]

26. It's doubtful that Ukraine will turn into

a "horrendous bloodbath," as you put it. I don't see that coming.

[TwilightGardener]

28. Right now it's a carefully choreographed dance, with backchannel

communications and expectations of behavior. But it might all go badly wrong. It's truly a frightening situation, that will hopefully be resolved peacefully.

[MineralMan]

33. You and I apparently look at this differently.

That's fine. My OP is solely about the possibility of the US making some sort of military action part of the question. It's not going to happen. What happens in Ukraine will happen, and diplomatic efforts are ongoing to limit its impact. Those will continue. But saber rattling will not be part of them, and needn't be.

Such saber rattling would be instantly seen as a bluff by all parties, so there's no leverage to be used. It will not happen.

If you're frightened about what might occur in Ukraine, you may well have reason to be. In another OP I posted today, I suggested that people with non-Ukrainian friends or family in that region encourage those people to make their exit for a time. It's not going to be a safe place, particularly in the larger cities, for a while.

We all hope the situation will resolve peacefully.

[TwilightGardener]

35. Here's a view on NATO involvement:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/01/nato_needs_to_move_now_on_crimea

[Mojorabbit]

40. Are you an expert in this field?

I am trying to learn as much as possible about the situation. It seems to me that it could take only one mistake to set in motion events that could get out of hand as has happened before. I am glad we have the board to discuss the situation and I am interested in any and all opinions on the subject.

[MineralMan]

48. Nope. I'm just an observer who has been interested

in the region since the late 1960s.

[Bonobo]

3. k&R nt

[agent46]

5. Some interesting background history

If you want to place what is happening in context, two essential books are Neil Ascherson's "Black Sea" (especially on Crimea and the Tatars) and Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands" (on the awful geographic destiny of the peoples located between Russia and Germany). Snyder's current series of articles in the NY Review of Books are also must reading for those who want to go beyond the breaking news.

[Democracyinkind]

8. Also:

http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=CattaruzzaTerritorial

(Disclaimer: DiK was involved in the publication of this book)

[Heidi]

18. Thank you for this recommendation, Democracyinkind.

Hi from Ticino!

[Democracyinkind]

20. You're welcome!

from Bern(e) Heidi!

[bigdarryl]

7. Of coarse we won't respond militarily

Because Russia has Nuclear weapons pointed at us.Plus they have an Air Force if it wasn't for those two we would be keeping a military option on the table

[MineralMan]

10. The economic factors are far more important than

Russia's nuclear capabilities in this case. Truly. For Russia, Ukraine is very important economically, given it's land area, natural resources, and moderate weather. For the US, Russia is important economically, but we have little interest in Ukraine.

Cui bono? That should be the question people are asking. There's no possible benefit to either the US or Russian in rattling sabers over dealing with a troubled border country of Russia. No benefit whatever.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. Ukraine is ecnomically important to Russia because of natural gas transit to Europe

and because of Ukrainian agricultural production (which isn't technically a "natural resource&quot , and militarily important because of their naval base at Sevastopol.

[MineralMan]

34. Yes, exactly. Russia has important economic

interests in Ukraine, as I said. Agricultural production isn't a natural resource, per se, but Ukraine is unusually well situated for such production, unlike a great deal of Russia. So, again, it has serious economic importance to Russia.

[n2doc]

32. The war machine benefits

Now congress has an excuse to oppose defense reductions, and to push for more cutting edge, expensive, jets, subs and ships. And on Russia's side, Putin gets to show off how strong he is and put fear back into Russia's neighbors.

[lostincalifornia]

11. Absolutely, this talk about military response is turning the clock back to the good old cold war

days. It is pure insanity. It was this B.S. that got us into Viet Nam, and definitely got us into Iraq.

Coincidently, both of those incidents were based on a lie.

[MineralMan]

16. Truly, we have learned something from the cold war.

We're not going to be rattling those sabers over a border country of Russia. Russia has legitimate economic and ethnic interests in Ukraine, and the Crimean Peninsula in particular. An unstable Ukraine is not a desirable thing for Russia, now or any time. For the United States, however, we have little interest in Ukraine, economically or ethnically. Even so, an unstable country on the northern shores of the Black Sea is of interest to us, as well.

There will be no U.S. saber rattling over this situation. There's no benefit to that.

[stevenleser]

14. So far, I only see one person suggesting a military response and they were roundly criticized.

The really interesting thing going on here on DU is the attempt by a fairly size-able contingent to try to put a positive spin on an unprovoked war of aggression, i.e. a war crime.

International law is really clear on what a country that starts a war has to have as far as conditions are concerned for a war to be legal. This isn't close.

[MineralMan]

17. It's more the worry about any possible military response that I'm

addressing in this thread. Our role in this is going to be diplomacy only. We can discuss it at the U.N. And that's what we'll do.

[reformist2]

19. The US won't even have an economic response. Russia's main exports are oil & gas.

You can't boycott a commodity. It doesn't work.

As I read somewhere else, all the US/EU can do is go "bark, bark, woof, woof," but nothing will come of it.

[MineralMan]

22. That's pretty much the case.

You're right.

[MineralMan]

24. Why Ukraine and that region is of interest to me.

Many years ago, while serving as a Russian linguist in the USAF, I spent 15 months at a small base in Samsun, Turkey, overlooking the Black Sea. What I was doing there is not something I can address, but that's where I was stationed. Since I was there, however, I took an interest in the Crimean peninsula and Ukraine. I learned about both and their relationship with what was then the USSR.

I'm still interested in the area, 45 years later.

[aristocles]

29. Ah, a former Cold Warrior. I suspected you

...had some knowledge of the Great Game.

[GP6971]

54. Ah......

my old command logistically supported your base at times.....not a lot, but I recognize the name. We had port operations at Izmir, Iskendren (sp) and one other location I can't for the life of me remember the name.

[Vinnie From Indy]

31. Bravo!

You are absolutely correct on this point.

I think some have no understanding of the realities of tangling militarily with Russia in their own backyard. The logistics alone boggle the mind not to mention the cost of such a response. It is sheer madness to even discuss the option as one to be considered.

[OregonBlue]

36. I also believe there will be lots of sabre rattling but the U.S. is not going to take on Russia.

It would make no sense militarily or economically. This is just a chance for McCain and Graham and the right to trot out there "Obama is weak" meme. The E.U. will be the ones who do the actual negotiations.

[paleotn]

37. Agreed....

....we will respond similarly to the Russian invasion of Georgia. No matter what happens, the natural gas flow to Western Europe will not diminish one bit, since without petro dollars, Russia is financially broke.

[watoos]

38. I see no mention in this thread about the people who orchestrated the coup

on a democratically elected president, neo-Nazi militias. Maybe we should be cheering Russia's intervention?

[Gman]

39. I don't believe that's true

I think there was a post about that not being true a week or so ago.

[TwilightGardener]

44. Propaganda effort:

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/

[TwilightGardener]

43. Oh, man, more of this. It's everywhere, all saying the same things.

[Demeter]

41. Aside from the agit-prop, of course

[2banon]

47. Thanks for posting this rational op.

[IrishAyes]

49. Have read all the comments with great care; thanks, MM, for a very helpful OP.

[B Calm]

50. We don't fight countries who have nukes.

[The Magistrate]

51. I Agree One Hundred Percent, Sir

There is no military option against Russia in the region, and not much room for economic measures, unless matters get much more intense than they look like getting at present.

Russia probably is going to emerge from this with the Crimea; it is very important to them militarily. They have no right to it but might, mind, but might they have.

What is important is to ward off Russian incursions in Ukraine proper, and slicing off a portion of its eastern territory.

I am largely untroubled by who at present seems in charge at Kiev: the Ukraine deserves independence from Russia, given the ghastly history there under the Soviets well within living memory, and when matters come to violence, hard men tend to rise. They do not have much staying power, though, particularly the bad hats among them, unless the society around them has been badly injured, which does not seem the case here.

[DesertFlower]

52. i agree. nt

[Benton D Struckcheon]

53. The war thing is a straw man for the

I'm-not-a-Putin-apologists to use when justifying the presence of the I'm-not-a-russian-soldiers on Ukrainian soil.

[backscatter712]

55. That's the truth. Russia is still a nuclear power.

We'd have to be insane to get in a slugging match with them - these things have a way of escalating, perhaps even to nukes, and nobody with any sense in Washington and the Pentagon would support taking that risk.