Putin seeks Ukraine troop deployment (approval from Russian parliament)

[pampango]

Source: BBC

President Putin asks Russian parliament's upper house to approve use of Russian troops in Ukraine

More to follow.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26400035

---

I thought he already had the authority to use Russian troops in Ukraine.

I wonder if his next step will be to seek approval from the UN Security Council for the use of Russian troops in a foreign country.

[RKP5637]

1. When does it cross the line as being an invasion force? n/t

[pampango]

6. The "old" definition was when foreign troops showed up uninvited on another country's territory.

I'm not sure what the "new" definition is.

[reformist2]

2. This is big. But it is the Russians' "sphere of influence," as they used to say.

Don't be surprised that the US reaction to this is different than when, say, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

[cosmicone]

3. Pretty much because Iraq was a soft target

and US military now-a-days is only good for attacking someone who doesn't passionately fight back. Since the debacle in Vietnam were our ass was kicked, we have succeeded in military operations in Granada, Panama, and Kuwait with so-called victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[7962]

4. Our ass was NOT kicked in Vietnam.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Well, lets put it this way, we lost that war.

Now it is your turn to play the rightwing: "the politicians stabbed us in the back" card.

[Igel]

36. There's a common fiction. Or more.

Tet was a disaster for the US and a great victory (on the battlefield) for the North. So the story goes.

The photos of the evacuation of the US embassy are actually photographs of the Americans evacuating Saigon, for which the US continued to fight until Saigon fell. Some like to believe.

It was a geopolitical defeat as another country, supporting the North, gained the upper hand. It was a defeat on the battlefield of the press. It was a defeat when the US failed to uphold a treaty that had been signed the previous year.

It's like the embarrassment of the "boat people" and the reeducation camps. The good guys could never be responsible for that so all the boat people had to be CIA spies or wealthy oppressors; and for a long time I the reeducation camps were re-imagined as "refugee camps" or some such.

[7962]

69. You hit the nail on the head. TET was a disaster for the VC, but reported here as a VC victory.

Tet was supposed to end the war with victory for the communists; as all their spies rose up and defeated the South and the US. But it didnt work out that way. But the confusion inside the cities was broadcast here as being over run. Cronkite reported as much. But the US was never defeated in any major battles. We also never invaded the North; only bombed. Lincoln knew the only way to defeat the South in the Civil War was to take the war TO the South. We forget military history so quick.

We have decided not to do what it takes to completely defeat an opponent because we're too concerned about what it looks like to the world. Remember Kuwait? The "highway of death"? We could've destroyed Saddams military but the pictures were bad and we stopped a couple days too early. WW2 was the last war fought to completely defeat an enemy.

[pampango]

5. I would say that Russian military is also "only good for attacking someone who doesn't passionately

fight back". The smaller the country, the better. Reminds me of Reagan's bold invasion of Grenada.

[former9thward]

8. I was certainly opposed to the Vietnam War.

But we did not get "our ass kicked" there. Name one battle that we lost. The American people tired of the war so we withdrew. But we did not "lose" militarily.

[cosmicone]

10. 60,000 dead and 200,000+ wounded without victory

is getting one's ass kicked.

Especially when you consider that the enemy had no modern weapons, no air force and no navy.

[former9thward]

13. No modern weapons?

They had AK-47s which was a superior rifle to the American M16. American troops would use captured AK-47s whenever they could. Again name one battle the U.S. lost.

[Swede Atlanta]

24. I think it is important to qualify what is meant by "lose"....

I concede North Vietnam lacked many of the modern instruments of war such as fighters, naval resources, etc. But what they had were AK-47s, SAMs and commitment.

As in Korea the objective of the war continuously shifted. It shifted from defeat meaning conquest in the entire country and removal of the communists even in the north to a secure division of the country in the model of Korea.

Unfortunately command of the war was in Washington and not Saigon. Presidents from Kennedy to Nixon played the war for their political advantage (or disadvantage). The politicians never gave the military a clear objective with adequate resources and then stepped out of the way to let the military prosecute the war.

As several posters have posted, the American people tired of the war. There was no clear objective and with no clear objective there was no end date in sight and with no end date in sight the young men sent to fight that war were nothing more than cannon fodder for the politicians.

No, I would say if we were "defeated" it was because the communists had a clear objective and commitment whereas we lacked any cohesive policy objective and time took its toll on our willingness to commit men, materiel and political capital in the effort.

[cosmicone]

32. One can rationalize three ways to Sunday

but the fact remains that we lost.

Denver lost the superbowl .... just because passes were dropped, bad calls were made by referees and Payton Manning had an off day doesn't change that fact.

[iamthebandfanman]

70. a propor analogy

would probably be that the fans boo'd and threw things at Denver while they were playing the super bowl :p

it was a winnable war, at a high cost. the American people decided it wasn't worth it.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. You lose a guerrilla war while frequently "winning" every battle.

The Vietnamese demonstrated, year after year, that they could continue to kill us in large numbers and that we could not bomb them into submission. That is how a guerrilla war is won by the guerrilla army. By definition, it cannot win "on the battlefield" directly, as it does not have superior military force. Instead it wins by attrition, by convincing their opponents that the material and political cost of continuing the war is unacceptable.

We got our ass kicked, just not in the traditional conventional war sense.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

38. Our Revolutionary War was very similar

This description of the Battle of Kings Mountain in SC is fairly typical of what happens when a foreign force attempts to fight against irregular forces:

These hardy men of the Blue Ridge and Alleghenies, of deep religious convictions, were accustomed to the hardships and independence of a pioneer life, and in their mountain homes in the highlands and the backwaters they but seldom were concerned with affairs beyond their borders or interfered with by Crown or colony. When Ferguson approached their kingdom and threatened to invade their lands and lay waste their country with "fire and sword," and to "hang their leaders," he aroused their indignation and anger to such a degree that they determined to rid the country forever of this enemy, who menaced their independence and the safety of their homes and families...

The causes of the Revolution were but little known to many of these pioneers beyond the Blue Ridge...had not Ferguson from Gilbert Town uttered his threat of fire and sword and the hangman's noose, these mountain men would probably have remained in their homes, and but few of them would have joined with those who were in rebellion against the King...

The Battle of Kings Mountain was not an isolated action; it was the high spot of 1780 in the South. The surrender of Charleston, the defeat of the American forces at Camden on the 16th of August, of Sumter two days later, the many engagements of lesser importance, all added prestige to the royal cause, resulting in the complete subjugation of Georgia and South Carolina. Cornwallis had advanced as far as Charlotte Town in North Carolina and was preparing to move his headquarters to Salisbury, when the unexpected blow delivered by the mountain men at Kings Mountain brought to an immediate end the thought of further conquest and made necessary the withdrawal of the British forces into South Carolina and the assumption of a defensive role for several months thereafter.

https://archive.org/stream/historicalstatem00army/historicalstatem00army_djvu.txt

So, you win battle after battle, but all it takes is one unexpected defeat from a force of men that didn't even exist as a militia, much less an organized army, a few months before, and who came together as a direct consequence of your occupation of their land, and all your plans go up in smoke. Such is the nature of irregular warfare in a foreign land.
The Tet offensive may have been a textbook defeat of the Viet Cong and the NVA, unlike Kings Mountain in the Revolutionary War, but it put to rest any idea the US and its allies had that the war was on the verge of being won, much in the way Cornwallis was forced back on his heels by a single unexpected defeat in South Carolina.
Our generals mostly know their history and realize this stuff, especially after Vietnam. It's our politicians who need schooling re interfering where we're not wanted.

[former9thward]

43. I agree with most of that.

But in the end it was no longer a real "guerrilla war." During the Tet Offensive in early 1968 the Viet Cong were almost completely wiped out. After that our opponent was the regular N. Vietnamese military units coming into the South. The American people tired of the war and Nixon gradually withdrew troops until it was just the South Vietnam troops left. For two years they held their own but Congress cut off funding so the North rushed in April, 1975 and that was that.

[bongiver]

50. Lost battles

Hey player. Here is a list of 70 battles we lost in Vietnam.
http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm
Your revisionist history is cute!

[former9thward]

56. Enjoy your stay.

Your list of "battles" is silly. Almost all of them were not battles in any conventional sense. Every time an American is killed is a lost battle. Ok ...

[bongiver]

62. Enjoy my stay?!

Yeah, like it's some kind of treat to correct ignorant statements like yours.

[former9thward]

66. Two posts and both insults.

Like I said, enjoy your stay.

[tabasco]

52. Ia Drang Part 2

Conveniently omitted from the propaganda movie with Mel Gibson.

[former9thward]

58. Doesn't sound like a loss to me.

This battle can be seen as a blueprint for tactics by both sides. The Americans used air mobility, artillery fire and close air support to accomplish battlefield objectives. The PAVN and Viet Cong forces learned that they could neutralize that firepower by quickly engaging American forces at very close range. The North Vietnamese Colonel Nguyen Huu An included his lessons from the battle at X-ray in his orders for Albany, "Move inside the column, grab them by the belt, and thus avoid casualties from the artillery and air."[13] Both Westmoreland and An thought this battle to be a success. This battle was one of the few set piece battles of the war and was one of the first battles to popularize the U.S. concept of the "body count" as a measure of success, as they claimed that the kill ratio was nearly 10–1.

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

Still looking for a lost battle.

[tabasco]

60. Then you don't know shit. n/t

[former9thward]

61. Devastating retort....

[Adrahil]

11. The risk here isn't the fear of conventional confrontation....

.... Our equipment is better, our training is MUCH better. However, Russia IS a major military power. It is true that any conflict with Russian forces is unlikely to be the cakewalk dealing with, say, the Iraqi forces was. But even that's not the real risk. Russia still has nukes.

[cosmicone]

12. Russia also has anti-ship supersonic missiles

that the US Navy is defenseless against. If they sank a carrier, imagine what it would do to the morale.

Our airforce cannot keep up with Russia's latest Sukhoi jets and we cannot have a numerical advantage there in Russia's back yard.

[Adrahil]

14. Yeah.... no.

That's all I'm saying.

[TwilightGardener]

31. Not really.

[pasto76]

71. whats the 'we' bullshit

the insurgents and mujahadeen I saw in iraq were pretty fucking passionate.

[Junkdrawer]

7. I'll bet it's Syria II in the administration...

Rice, Powers, & Kerry spoiling for War, President Obama wanting to appear tough, but frightened (as he damn well better be) of the Abyss.

[cosmicone]

9. I doubt Rice, Powers and Kerry would propose a war with Russia

so lightly as one with Syria.

No one in their right mind would advocate a war with Russia unless deluded by either greed (a la Cheney) or mental challenge (a la GW Bush).

Ukraine has no oil but has potential for NG -- perhaps Cheney would find the greed in his (transplanted) heart to muster up the recklessness to start a war.

[Junkdrawer]

20. No one in their right mind would advocate a war with Russia....

Unless you represent a dying Empire frightened of the rise of the BRICS.

[cosmicone]

37. Fortunately, we are neither a dying empire nor desperate enough

so cooler heads will prevail.

[Junkdrawer]

76. Cooler heads will prevail - your lips to God's ears...

Let's just agree that that's the desired outcome. We can always pick up the Empire debate some other day.

[Igel]

33. But do look for a different reaction here

from if the US invaded Cuba.

According to some, "spheres of influence" are only for the other guy. (And for yet others, only for the US or its allies.)

[hoosierlib]

15. 1939 all over again...

Soon Russian troops will be "attacked" by Ukrainian partisans (which Putin will label as terrorists) and it be used as a pretext to invade the rest of the country under the guise of "protecting Russian Federation citizens". Remind anyone of the invasion of Poland?

I hope the West puts an end to this soon...only one way to deal with a bully...

[Adrahil]

18. I afraid we'll do nothing....

As in the 30's, we'll be convinced that NOW he'll be happy. Until he decides that ALL the old Soviet states are filled with ethnic Russians under attack.

[mazzarro]

27. So what do you propose?

A pre-emptive WWIII?

[Adrahil]

29. Nope.... but...

... if we do nothing at all, expect more of the same. History is filled with examples.

A lot depends on what our allies are willing to do. If they are willing to do nothing, there's not much we CAN do. This is in Russia's front yard, and it's half way around the world for us. Not a great place fro us to fight. But for the Euros, it's right on their back step. Personally I think cutting off trade, and, potentially, blockading the black sea fleet would be a good start.

But ultimately, I don't think we'll do any of that, and I think ultimately we'll find that was a mistake.

Of course, what I HOPE for is back channel diplomacy to get Putin to end this course of folly. But I have NO faith that would work. I think Putin thinks he can get away with this, and frankly, I think he's probably right.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

41. Russia supplies all of Europe from Germany on east...

...with natural gas. He can cut all of them off in a heartbeat. They will fulminate at the UN perhaps, but no one is going to provoke Putin into cutting off that flow.

[Adrahil]

44. and so, he just does what he wants. Like I said, I think we'll do nothing....

substantive and Putin will continue to do what he wants.

[Shemp Howard]

45. There is only one thing NATO can do.

First off, here's what NATO should NOT do: mobilize its military, send arms to the Ukraine, attempt any sort of naval blockade.

Doing any of the above would be worse than just reckless. It would be both reckless and useless.

The situation in today's Ukraine is not the same in the 1938 Sudetenland. Back then the French had a huge army on Germany's western border. If the French army would have moved, Hitler would have been finished. There is no huge army on Russia's border today.

Here's the only thing NATO can do: refuse, as a group, to buy any more Russian natural gas. That will hurt the Russian bottom line. But then Europe would have to get energy elsewhere. That would be very expensive.

[dipsydoodle]

75. Odd remark.

Not the same situation at all.

[pampango]

22. Or 1938 when Chamberlain proclaimed "peace in our time" for letting Germany have a part of

Czechoslovakia which was populated primarily by ethnic Germans.

If we just let Putin have a piece of Ukraine populated by ethnic Russians, Putin will learn his lesson and we, too, too can have 'peace in our time'.

[ensemble]

23. Seems more like Georgia/ South Ossetia in 2008...

I'm sort of surprised that posters on a Democratic website are licking their chops to get involved in a conflict at the doorstep of Moscow.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. surprised? this is par for the course here.

We have learned nothing. Nothing from Vietnam. Nothing from Iraq. Nothing. When the chance for military madness presents itself, about one third of DU lines up to get its war on. Safely of course, from the comfort of their basements.

[ensemble]

28. and as long as we are talking about Hilter...

how did he meet his demise? Russian steppe ring a bell?

And today people are talking about getting involved militarily in places like Kiev and Sevastopol? Really?

[Adrahil]

30. Yes, by all means, Russia is so scary they can just do whatever they want.

I don't want war, not by a long shot, but I'm somewhat appalled that so few here haven't learned the lessons of history.

[cosmicone]

39. We have a lot of DUers who are actively deployed

in the 81st chairborne and they suddenly become gung ho.

[Igel]

48. No.

Two other models.

Georgia, 1921. A government without widespread support for an invasion get propped up by the Red Army. In this case, it's not a pure analogy because > 50% of Crimea's population is ethnically Russian (but remember--it's not an interethnic conflict, unless it needs to be).

Abkhazia, early-mid 1990s. Abkhazia didn't like Georgia's independence--better to be equally oppressed by the USSR than to have your enemies the Georgians possibly oppress you. The Abkhazians fought with hired mercenaries and Russian military forces and there followed ethnic cleansing that, inexplicably, escaped the attention of people that really hate ethnic cleansing. Abkhazia is a de facto part of Russia at this point, independence recognized really only by Russia and it's skin-close allies.

The guy in charge of the autonomous republic of Crimea called on Putin, last week, to repeat in the Crimea what Russia did with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It's worth noting that immediately prior to S. Ossetia's separation from Georgia there were military exercises that called for a build-up of Russian forces just across the border; this happened near Ukraine earlier this week. The Russian forces occupied (in a friendly way, of course) S. Ossetia and neutralized Georgia.

During the Georgia war everybody said Russia would pay a high price. It did--it had to replenish its munitions stores and endure the unbearable agony of hearing unpleasant dithering from the west, with the occasional mild condemnation. ("Sticks and stones may break my bones, but if you really want to hurt me to the quick and crush my soul, fail to show proper appreciation for me and thus destroy my self-esteem--after all, hateful words are worse than anything you can do to my body" is nice domestic politicking, but horrible international strategy.)

While Putin made sounds that he was opposed to the partition of Ukraine this was either early in the game when he thought he could get the whole enchilada (instead of just a bite) or was a delaying tactic while he got his trained ducks to quack in three-part harmony.

[riderinthestorm]

16. K&R because this is important news. And to admit to being wrong, dead wrong on this

I really didn't think Putin would do it.

[Adrahil]

19. Props for admitting you were wrong. NT

[Benton D Struckcheon]

42. Neither did I, I have to admit.

But it's like someone making an unexpected aggressive move in a chess game that makes you suddenly realize you have no answer to it. Given where Ukraine is, there's not much anyone can do.

[go west young man]

54. Their navy is stationed there.

Why wouldn't they do it? If the US had it's navy at Guantanamo Bay and Cuba fell apart, would the US take that portion of the country to protect their fleet. Of course they would.

[pscot]

55. I was convinced he would

I think this may end in partition. Russia won't give up it's hold on the Black Sea. They fought for 200 years to acheive it, But the ethnic Ukrainians (Ruthenians?) could get their own state out of it.

[IDemo]

17. Approved

Russia's upper house of parliament voted Saturday to approve the use of military force in Ukraine. The vote was unanimous.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/index.html

[Igel]

51. The approval was pro forma.

To say that one was waiting on tenterhooks to see what would happen would imply that "waiting on tenterhooks" was a synonym for spending a warm, sunny day spent drinking mojitos while lying on the sandy beaches of Cozumel.


Yanukovich had the same system. Strong one party rule is horrible for democracy. It means that the single person in charge has pretty much unconstrained power.

Yanukovich only fled when PR legislators broke ranks, showing that he didn't have power over the legal system through the legislature. Putin faces no such problem. He's convinced most Russians, "apres moi, le deluge". God proposes, Putin disposes.

[TwilightGardener]

34. This will be an issue for NATO--Poland won't like this at all.

[Adrahil]

46. Putin wanted the Cold War back... he might have it. NT

[TwilightGardener]

49. I don't think he wants the Cold War back. I think he is trying to hang on

to whatever he can--and since Ukraine turned to the west, he's going to try to grab up what he can of it. This is a crazy overreach. Ukraine did not attack anyone, has no weapons of mass destruction, has not threatened anyone, has not harmed ethnic Russians in the country, has not denied Putin his military bases. It's hard to see a plausible reason to invade over an internal dispute.

[tavernier]

35. Seven years ago while visiting relatives in Latvia

I heard from many people of the rising fear of Putin. They were convinced that his motivation was to rebuild the former USSR.
The Ukraine isn't an isolated incident. Putin has been stirring the fires in all of the countries formerly occupied by Russia and his intentions have nothing to do with being a good neighbor.

[hrmjustin]

40. This stinks!

No easy answers here.

[reformist2]

47. I actually think the Crimea belongs to Russia.

It was only made part of the Ukraine back during the days of the U.S.S.R., when it didn't really matter which republic "owned" the Crimea, since they were all part of the same union anyway.

[Adrahil]

59. They probably should have dealth with that....

... BEFORE they signed a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's border integrity.

[n2doc]

53. Russian upper house approves use of military force in Ukraine

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

[alarimer]

57. Russia needs to be made a world pariah

It's a no-brainer that they waited until AFTER the Olympics to do this. If it had happened before, the world would have stayed home. Instead Putin got to show off a bit before reverting to the asshole he really is.

No, the world should treat Russia they way they treated South Africa. Complete divestment of all businesses (yeah, I know, in such an interconnected world is that even possible), withdrawal of all diplomatic personnel, etc., cancel meetings, whatever it takes short of actual military intervention.

[reformist2]

63. Why? I have a feeling that we're not being told the whole story.

[chrisa]

72. This is pretty much a EU vs. Russia power struggle.

Ukraine is a buffer zone between Europe and Russia. I think what you're seeing is the culmination of the EU's absorption of countries near Russia, which is making Russia nervous. They already have EU nations on their border and don't want anymore.

Putin at the moment is doing his best to keep Ukraine under Russian influence, but I think part of Ukraine sees the EU as greener pastures. Should be interesting - the country might break up, have a civil war, or just fall back under Russian influence.

[another_liberal]

64. Russia Today News agrees (I know that's just awful for some to hear).

Russian senators vote to use stabilizing military forces on Ukrainian territory.

ussia’s Federation Council has unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to use Russian military forces in Ukraine. The move is aimed to settle the turmoil in the split country. The upper house of the Russian parliament has voted in favor of sending troops to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which would ensure peace and order in the region “until the socio-political situation in the country is stabilized.”

(snip)

The debate in the Federation Council has revealed that Russian MPs are united on the issue, with many of them sharing concerns on the recent events in Ukraine. The common notion was that since the power was seized in Kiev, the situation has only been deteriorating with radical nationalists rapidly coming to power and threatening the lives of those opposing their actions, most notably the Russian citizens living in Ukraine.

Putin on Saturday requested the Federation Council to use the Army for normalizing the socio-political situation in Ukraine in connection with the “extraordinary situation” there. The events in Ukraine indicate there is a “threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation… and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory,” the Russian president said.

According to Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, the president has not yet made a decision on sending the troops to Ukraine. Moreover, taking the decision to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine does not mean that it will be carried out immediately, Grigory Karasin, Putin’s official representative in the Federation Council, has said, “The approval, which the president will receive, does not literally mean that this right will be used promptly.”

Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that Moscow is expecting that the international community will influence the self-proclaimed Kiev regime to normalize the situation in the country.

Read more at: http://rt.com/news/russia-ukraine-approve-miltary-371/

[chrisa]

73. RT is the Fox News of Russia.

[another_liberal]

74. You are no where close to accurate in that assessment.

But you are certainly not alone in holding such a misconception.

[treestar]

65. Does he only need the upper house?

Or does he have to get approval from the lower house too?

Another thing, of Russia's economy - can they afford it?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

68. Yeah, just read on the BBC site that's all he needs. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

67. OK, all, let's hear it for Pooty-Poot

[center]

[/center]