"The Myth Of Putin’s Foreign Policy Dominance Over Obama"

[applegrove]

The Myth Of Putin’s Foreign Policy Dominance Over Obama

by Daniel Lewin at neontommy

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2014/03/myth-putin-s-foreign-policy-dominance-over-Obama

"SNIP....................




In this case, Putin rightly concluded that there was a good chance he could send troops (sorry, “unaffiliated self-defense forces”) Crimea and the US would not intervene. But he reached this conclusion because he knows the US has virtually zero strategic interests in Crimea, not because he thinks Obama is weak and afraid to do anything. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and thus cannot invoke Article 5 requiring the United States and other members to come to its defense when attacked. If you think Putin is so emboldened by the way Obama handled Syria or by his taste in pants (those do look a lot like mom jeans, Mr. President) wait and see if Russia ever attacks one of their NATO neighbors like Latvia or Lithuania. There isn’t a chance in hell that will happen because he knows that he would be absolutely crushed if he did so. Once again, current assessments of rational self-interest are driving these decisions, not past precedent.

Still regardless of why Putin is behaving as he is, he has been able to invade a neighboring country and, if things continue the way they have been going, annex a portion of their territory without repercussions. He must be winning the battle against the West and Obama if he is able to do that, right? Well, not so fast - lets not forget what this situation is all about in the first place.

You can read more about the background of the issue here but I will recap quickly. In the fall of last year, Ukraine faced a decision to either take steps towards joining the EU by signing a long-negotiated trade partnership or to strengthen their ties with Russia and Putin’s proposed Eurasian Union. As by far the largest Eastern European country, both geographically and economically, Ukraine is absolutely crucial to any possibility of Putin’s Eurasian union succeeding and so, as Ukraine moved closer and closer to signing the EU pact, Putin threatened President Yanukovych with an end to vital gas subsidies and bailouts that Moscow had been providing Ukraine. Yanukovych duly capitulated and rejected the EU agreement This backfired on Russia however. While the eastern half of Ukraine is heavily pro-Russian, the Western half (which includes the capital city of Kiev) is much more pro-EU and Yanukovych’s decision to forgo the EU pact led to widespread protests in the streets of Kiev and, eventually, the president’s overthrow. With Yanuovych out and a fledgling interim pro-Western government in place in Kiev, Putin chose to cut his losses and annex the isolated Crimean peninsula.

But this is not 1940 or even 1988 and war is not power in today’s globalized world. It is important to look at the actual geopolitical outcomes of what is happening here. Putin’s main objective, to get Ukraine to reject the West and strengthen their ties with Russia, is dead in the water. On top of that, he is now almost completely isolated from the rest of the world while the US forges closer ties with their European allies as they rally against their common Eastern enemy. Remember all the vitriol directed at the US from Europe over our aggressive spying program? Funny how that has not been mentioned much lately. Already, economic sanctions are rolling in from nations around the globe. The G8 is now being referred to as the G7 and the upcoming G8 summit scheduled to be held in Sochi is now almost certain to be canceled. Combined with the roundly mocked Sochi Winter Olympic Games that recently concluded, it would seem that Russia is less powerful than ever. In today’s globalized, connected world unilaterally invading neighboring territories is not a sign of strength, its a sign of weakness and desperation! Let’s start assessing the relative strength of world powers based on actual geopolitical analysis and not which leader looks the best with their shirt off.




....................SNIP"

[Cha]

1. Thanks apple! Marking for later..

[LittleBlue]

2. lol you just knew it was coming

Putin annexes Crimea and it's an Obama victory. Good one!

[geek tragedy]

4. What strategic advantage did Russia gain from annexing Crimea?

Do you think it was worth getting kicked out of the G8 (now just the G7) for him?

[LittleBlue]

6. It's a political advantage

This is legacy mode for Putin. If I recall my history, the last Russian leader to conquer Ukraine was Catherine the Great.

His approval rating just broke 70% I believe.

[geek tragedy]

7. Conquer Ukraine? He conquered Crimea. And the last Russian to rule over Ukraine

was Gorbachev.

Congratulations to Russia's dictator on achieving 70% support, though. At this rate Obama will never win an election there.

[ProSense]

8. "This is legacy mode for Putin."

His "legacy" could be Russia's economic ruin: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024692917

"His approval rating just broke 70% I believe."

He's now in Bush territory with the massive protest to show for it.

The other was called a “March for Peace,” convened by the opposition to President Vladimir V. Putin. Holding paper doves aloft, they chanted “Putin Is Afraid of the Maidan” and a Ukrainian phrase that translates as “Putin, Get Out!” The police estimated that there were 3,000 people in this crowd, but it seemed many times larger, in the tens of thousands, filling a boulevard with bodies for many blocks. The split reaction here reflects domestic tensions. Mr. Putin, who was shaken by large antigovernment demonstrations in Moscow two years ago, is using the confrontation to consolidate the public behind his rule, tapping into the deep well of emotion about the Soviet Union’s suffering at the hands of Nazi Germany. The authorities have tried to mobilize support on federal television channels, and have muted independent voices on the Internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/world/europe/as-putins-popularity-soars-voices-of-opposition-are-being-drowned-out.html



Damn!

[kardonb]

10. advantage

the advantage of a large naval base , his only access to the Black Sea , which is very important for Russia .

[karynnj]

11. He already had uncontested and not disputed control of his naval base

Not to mention, Russia itself has some of the Black Sea coast.

Map of countries around the Black Sea
http://www.blackseagrain.net/information/maps/++resource++agro.archetypes/bsgmigrate/blackseagrain.net/information/maps/foto/foto/black-sea-map-with-surrounding-countries-gif/image

[ProSense]

14. France is threatening to cancel a ship contract

France Threatens to Cancel Russian Ship Contract Over Crimea Annexation

—By Kevin Drum

So what can Europe do to express its displeasure over Russia's annexation of Crimea? Robert Farley writes that France is currently building a pair of amphibious helicopter carriers for Russia's Pacific fleet:

That sale is now in considerable doubt. Because of Russia’s invasion and presumed annexation of Crimea, the European Union is considering a variety of sanctions against Moscow. The biggest stick, in military terms, may be the Mistrals, a pair of 21,000 ton warships capable of carrying over a dozen helicopters, in addition to a well-deck for amphibious landing craft. That the Russians chose to name the second ship Sevastopol, after a city not in Russian possession until after the recent invasion, only makes the sale so much uglier from the European point of view.

....The purchase of the Mistrals (which was to include a pair of ships built under license in Russian yards) was controversial in Russia, given that it represented a transfer of scarce defense monies to a major foreign contractor. Some Russian analysts also expressed concern about what technologies the ships would include. However, given the inability of Russian yards to turn out large, quality ships since the end of the Cold War, the Mistrals represented the best chance of adding aviation and amphibious capabilities to Russia’s decaying fleets.

That final sentence is crucial. Russia didn't agree to buy French ships because it wanted to. It signed a deal to buy French ships because it had to. The Russian military may still be able to take on Crimea or South Ossetia—neither one larger than Vermont—but it no longer has the capability to do much more. For all his nationalistic bluster, Vladimir Putin has done nothing to address this shortfall, contenting himself instead with creating a comfortable, oligarchic state that can, for the time being, live off its mineral wealth. Putin may or many not decide to invade Eastern Ukraine, but if he does, he'll only do it if he believes that Ukraine will fall with barely a shot fired. He really can't afford to fight a serious war.

In any case, the French foreign minister said today for the first time that the Mistral deal might well be canceled—but only if other countries pitch in. "We will ask others, and I'm thinking namely the British, to do the same with the assets of the Russian oligarchs in London," he said in a TV interview. "Sanctions have to be shouldered by everyone."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/03/france-threatens-cancel-russian-ship-contract-over-crimea-annexation

[Lurks Often]

16. That's incorrect, Novorossiysk is a Russian naval base roughly 225 miles east

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiysk

and has been receiving money to upgrade the port. There were Russian warships, mostly missile corvettes, docked there as recently as mid-October of 2013 based on imagery from Google Earth.

[applegrove]

9. Putin is weak. He lost a trade union with Ukraine. Because the people want to be

with Europe. Putin lost. Obama didn't win any big prize. He doesn't win at all. But this is not about Obama. Not everything is about the USA you know. Putin can lose and just be a loser.

[nikto]

13. But more importantly...

What does Ted Nugent think?

[William769]

3. Kick & recommended.

[sheshe2]

5. K&R

[nikto]

12. Ghenbazi! Ghenbazi!

Zabenghi! Zabenghi!

[WinkyDink]

15. Newsflash: The lying liars know they are lying liars. Don't bother to engage.